Changes to Autocannon

[Jackmc]

Like how the Solaris rules gives you different rates fire for each auto cannon, gives the AC 2 and AC 5 more bite.

I think this may actually be the most ideal option for the Original Poster since he's already playing it as the RPG which has the shorter time scale anyway.

-Jackmc

[Medron Pryde]

Agreed.

The Solaris VII "reload times" would probably be a good idea.

I've often toyed with the idea of bringing them into small scale lance-play by saying that certain weapons can fire twice per round.

The trick when doing anything like that is that then the players always want to tweak their designs to use those modded rules.  They want to win after all.  ;)  So how does the GM handle that?  Many ways.  Some work.  Some don't.

But it is a fun idea, and one that can bring many interesting twists into games.  :)

[Redman]

If you aren't using the AC/10 or AC/20, you're missing out on some of the best weapons in 3025. I can understand people's frustration with the AC/5 & AC/2 - they're really specialist plinking weapons that are best used for sniping at a distance, and don't really grant you a lot of power in the close-to-mid range most Introtech engagements take place at.  The AC/10, however, is easily comparable to the PPC in 3025, as it deals the same damage for a fraction of the heat and doesn't suffer from minimum range penalties. Where most energy boats have to drop their PPC at close-range to fire medium lasers, the design with the AC/10 fires the autocannon and the medium lasers, which makes for a significant benefit.

The AC/20 doesn't really need me to sell it.  It shatters limbs, crumples torsos, and basically will kill most 'Mechs in 3 hits or less.

I somewhat disagree on the idea of the AC10 being cooler-running than the PPC. If you install enough single heat sinks to keep them both heat neutral and factor in weapon tonnage the PPC and the AC10 are pretty much equal. Let's look at the math:

PPC + 10 SHS = 17 tons, 13 crits, 0 net heat
AC10 + 1 or 2 tons of ammo + 3 SHS = 16 or 17 tons, 11 or 12 crits, 0 net heat

If so many PPC equipped mechs seem to be heat hogs the problem rather is that the designers succumbed to the temptation to invest some of the heat sink tonnage in additional weapons. The PPC of course is more tempting than the AC since the heat sink portion of the total weight is higher.

The ACs advantage of having no minimum range is compensated IMO by the PPC's longer range. The AC has better target number on hexes 1 to 3, the PPC comes out front at hexes 6, 11, 12 and can shot at targets in the 16 to 18 hexes band which the AC cannot. All-in-all it is equal or slightly in favour of the PPC.

So all in all the PPC and the AC10 are pretty much equal in 3025 except for the 10 free heat sinks every mech gets and the risk of ammo explosions.  The former might be somewhat of a problem on medium mechs but heavies and assaults are less affected.

A simple boost to ACs in 3025 is to allow them special ammo types.  Precision or armour-piercing ammo have already been mentioned but tracer and flak ammo might come handy as well. Tracer is practically a free targeting computer in low-light situations and flak ammo with its -2 TM against airborne units is a good way of getting rid of those pesky ASFs and VTOLs.

[martian]

Well in all the designs we made over the years, we never used ACs...
Their ONLY advantage is their low heat generation - while they take up lots of tonnage, and, as a bonus, have a possibility of Ammunition Explosion, which (without CASE), will destroy the Mech in a single shot...

It does not seem worth it...
RiTz21

1) I don't know if you are using Inferno missiles in your games. If your energy boat is hit with 5 or 6 Infernos, then you won't be too happy.

2) Some planets are know to be "hot". For example Quentin. The environment adds +2 heat to your 'Mech and doubles or triples heat costs for your 'Mechs.

3) Let's check some well-known canon 'Mechs.
Sometimes, take the old HMH-3D Hammerhands instead of your WHM-6R Warhammer or MAD-3R Marauder.
You will see that even those old AC-10s perform well.

The Warhammer and Marauder overheat everytime they fire both PPC, and more so, if they walk or run. Now hit them with some Infernos and their effectiveness will be seriously hampered, with resulting loss of firepower from one (or both) PPCs.
On the other hand, the Hammerhands can fire both of its Autocannons for 2*10 damage all day long reliably, because they produce 2*3=6 heat points and the Hammerhands has 13 heat sinks. Not even Infernos are big problem, as the heat reserve is pretty big.

I am trying to say that with some thinking, it is possible to build an effective 'Mech with Autocannons as is primary armament.

[SCC]

I somewhat disagree on the idea of the AC10 being cooler-running than the PPC. If you install enough single heat sinks to keep them both heat neutral and factor in weapon tonnage the PPC and the AC10 are pretty much equal. Let's look at the math:

PPC + 10 SHS = 17 tons, 13 crits, 0 net heat
AC10 + 1 or 2 tons of ammo + 3 SHS = 16 or 17 tons, 11 or 12 crits, 0 net heat

If so many PPC equipped mechs seem to be heat hogs the problem rather is that the designers succumbed to the temptation to invest some of the heat sink tonnage in additional weapons. The PPC of course is more tempting than the AC since the heat sink portion of the total weight is higher.

The ACs advantage of having no minimum range is compensated IMO by the PPC's longer range. The AC has better target number on hexes 1 to 3, the PPC comes out front at hexes 6, 11, 12 and can shot at targets in the 16 to 18 hexes band which the AC cannot. All-in-all it is equal or slightly in favour of the PPC.

So all in all the PPC and the AC10 are pretty much equal in 3025 except for the 10 free heat sinks every mech gets and the risk of ammo explosions.  The former might be somewhat of a problem on medium mechs but heavies and assaults are less affected.

A simple boost to ACs in 3025 is to allow them special ammo types.  Precision or armour-piercing ammo have already been mentioned but tracer and flak ammo might come handy as well. Tracer is practically a free targeting computer in low-light situations and flak ammo with its -2 TM against airborne units is a good way of getting rid of those pesky ASFs and VTOLs.

You also need back-up weapons to go with the primaries, for the PPC that's 3 ML's, for the AC10 it's a SRM-4 and ammo

And if PPC 'Mechs are having heat build-up issues it's caused by the designer failing to take proper advantage of a 'Mechs primary advantage over vehicles: The ability to for weapons to share Heat Sinks

[Marwynn]

And there's nothing I can see that says AC's are easier to maintain. And you still have to pay for the ammoDepending upon how many inferno's actually hit energy weapons may not be affected, if there's only a 2 or 4 point heat spike you would favor weapons that build up that much heat and AC's favor those low heat values. Plus there's the issue of ammo explosions caused by heat spikes.

And playing in 3025 will make them seem better

Quite right, some can shrug it off. But the threat of Infernos is far different than their actual danger (to 'Mechs).

It may help people choose less optimal weapons or gain some appreciation for them. But it still won't totally dissuade energy weapon use.

[evilauthor]

And if PPC 'Mechs are having heat build-up issues it's caused by the designer failing to take proper advantage of a 'Mechs primary advantage over vehicles: The ability to for weapons to share Heat Sinks

Yeah, this is THE primary reason the lighter ACs are so overweight. ACs are only "balanced" if you're alpha striking everything every round, and even then only in the pre-DHS era. But precious few mechs are actually designed with adequate heat sinks to begin with so they have to moderate their fire. If your mech is running hot, you're likely better off getting rid of your AC/5 or AC/2 in favor of carrying more heat sinks and thus use the rest of your weapons suite more often.

Frankly IMO, there's nothing the lighter ACs do in 3025 play that can't be done better by a combination of lighter weapons with heat sinks of the same tonnage. My favorite example is an LRM-10 (another weapon I consider to be sub par), 1 ton of ammo, 1 Medium Laser, and 2 or 3 heat sinks; this combination has nearly the same net heat output if you don't use the LRM-10 and Medium Laser together, and has the same hitting power as the AC/5 at short range and averages more damage at medium and long range. But only 12 shots for the LRM you say? Not a problem given the LRM's large minimum range; you're unlikely to use it all before the other guy gets inside it.

[O5P_Ghost]

A long time ago we tried (and we were young then) to change the AC damage brackets to 4/7/12/20. We kept ranges and the other stats the same. IT made the lower ones more effective but it gave the ENF and Clint mods a head capper in 3025 play. Sometimes I wonder if I shouldn't revisit that. maybe a 3/6/10/20 system.

It never made sense to me that the AC was the long range machine gun.

[Col Toda]

The Autocannon in 3025 is just the most damage for the least heat in a single heat sink environment.  When double heat sinks show up the use of them go down .  The light AC 5 and 2 brought new life to Autocannons in later years .  Also having gun emplacement that shoot at close range with precision ammo and a targeting computer when the enemy has to go to short range to go over the  hill to see it . It is still pretty good.

[evilauthor]

The Autocannon in 3025 is just the most damage for the least heat in a single heat sink environment.  When double heat sinks show up the use of them go down .  The light AC 5 and 2 brought new life to Autocannons in later years .  Also having gun emplacement that shoot at close range with precision ammo and a targeting computer when the enemy has to go to short range to go over the  hill to see it . It is still pretty good.

The Light ACs are still a bit on the heavy side for my tastes, but I'll admit the inclusion of Precision ammo may just well make them worth it.

Speaking of Light ACs, I once made a thread  hypothesizing what ACs would be like if they were the same tonnage (minus ammo) as their energy weapon counterparts but otherwise had no stat changes. The AC/5 wound up being 3 tons (same as the Light PPC), and the AC/2 was 2 tons. The only reason they weren't flat out better than energy weapons was because they were still needed to carry around explosive ammo bins that could cripple or even kill the mech carrying it if they exploded.

Yeah, when originally balancing ACs against other weapons, the devs seemed to have missed the fact that exploding ammo was just a bit more disadvantageous than merely overheating, especially in the pre-CASE days. Heck, overheating can CAUSE ammo to explode which is bad on designs that routinely overheat!

[Maverick__]

To give ACs a little more advantage without completely rewriting rules, a simple fix is that the AC has 1 ton of ammo included with the gun. (1 ton and 1 crit from the AC is ammo)  This makes the designs that had very little ammo not run out so fast, allows for the optional rule of double firing and specialty ammo becomes more viable.  The only drawback is there's more ammo to go BOOM!  However, ammo can be dumped, if needed.

[Legion]

Another quick fix with minimal repercussions that I'm playing around with is to have the AC5 and AC2 generate 0 heat, instead of 1.  AFAIK this does not affect the BV of the weapon itself, doesn't require any changes to existing designs (like changing tonnage would), reinforces the low-heat usefulness of AC's, and actually makes the whole damage-per-ton argument come out pretty much equal for the AC5 and PPC.  The AC2 still sucks, though.  Unless you have the map to exploit the fact that no other 3025 weapon can touch you at max range, you're better off with LRMs at the least.

[Getz]

It's already been suggested, but I'll repeat it anyway because I think it's a good idea.  Give the AC5 and 2 the same ranges as the LBX 5 and 2.

If the AC 5 can shoot 21 hexs it competes less with the PPC and becomes more of a direct fire alternative to LRMs.  Compared to an LRM rack, an AC 5 has some geniuine advangates (lower heat, more ammo per ton, smaller minimum range) at the cost of being heavier than the racks that do comparable damage.

An AC 2 with a 27 hex range still does sod all damage, but it's range advantage over LRMs moves from "marginal" to "significant."

[Nebfer]

Well with out changing damage and or weight, What I would do...

For falling check at 20 damage, ACs (all ballistic sans MGs and possibly rifle cannons) have a 1 + 1 per every 5 damage bonus when dealing damage for this check (round normally to a min of 0), For example three AC-5s hit the target only 15 damage is done to the armor but for calculating for the chance of falling over, each AC-5 gets a +2 bonus to it's damage so in effect the mech is assumed to have gotten hit by 21 points of damage and not the 15 it actually got hit by.
Dmg Bonus
AC-2 = 1
AC-5 = 2
AC-10 = 3
AC-20 = 5
Gauss Rifle = 4
Hvy Gauss = 6/5/3
Lt Gauss = 3
Improved Hvy Gauss = 5

Also AC-2 is dropped to zero heat (Ultra-2s firing 2 shots have 1 heat, RAC-2s gain a heat on every even round fired (3 max)), AC-5 has 1, AC-10 gets 2, and the AC-20 has 4 heat.

Drops the heat a bit and gives them a nice role for them, for example a Large laser and a AC-10 will now cause a falling check.

Further rules
Ultras can unjam like RACs and personally I would drop the use of the clusters table and have the second shot at a +1 to hit (for RACs shot 1 at +0, shots 2 & 3 at +1 & 4 - 6 +2 to hit)
Make alternative ammo available earlier (time line wise)
Make specially ammo shots per to be 80% of standard ammo and not 50%
And theirs other good ideas, like increasing their range a bit.

[FedComGirl]

Like others I don't see what's wrong with Autocannons. I think they're good for what they do. On ground units they offer more for sure damage than LRMs with more ammo and are lower heat than energy weapons. They're also a lot better for lower tech units. Not all mechs get 10 free heat sinks after all. They're also good in high heat environments, as well as Infernos, as has been pointed out already. And while ammo explosions are a concern so is losing heat sinks. Some of that can be mitigated by quirks and the rerouting heat sink coolant rule. But not every mech has a combat computer - They shouldn't anyway. - and rerouting takes coolant away from other places. Good if you have extra heat sinks. Bad if you don't.  The heat sink coolant failure rule helps balance out any advantages energy weapons have. Energy boats may not have to worry about ammo but do they have enough coolant? That could be a factor in a campaign.

If you still think Autocannons are lacking give them all the accurate weapon quirk. They get better and the stats don't have to change at all.

[Jackmc]

Another move that can increase their versatility without altering the game engine is to ignore the limited availability of the 3025-era specialty ammo (flak, incendiary, anti-personnel, ect.) and assume that it is freely available.

-Jackmc

[Akalabeth]

Ultras can unjam like RACs and personally I would drop the use of the clusters table and have the second shot at a +1 to hit (for RACs shot 1 at +0, shots 2 & 3 at +1 & 4 - 6 +2 to hit)

Ultras don't jam. They break. (Firing circuity damaged or somesuch).

I would agree that the cluster tables are sort of rubbish. I  know they're made on some sort of mathematical forumla but's always bugged me that the 2-cluster table seems to have much worse odds for getting the majority of the shots than other tables.

[RunandFindOut]

I always thought outside tournaments everybody did that anyway.  Because if you look at it aside from precision ammo things like flack/incendiary/a-pers/flare/etc are all things that were mass produced for WW2 and I refuse to accept that a humanity capable of spaceflight can't manufacture HE-Frag or proximity fuses.

[Jackmc]

Ultras don't jam. They break. (Firing circuity damaged or somesuch).

I would agree that the cluster tables are sort of rubbish. I  know they're made on some sort of mathematical forumla but's always bugged me that the 2-cluster table seems to have much worse odds for getting the majority of the shots than other tables.

No.  All Cluster Weapons need to roll an 8 or better in order to score more than 50% damage.

-Jackmc

[Akalabeth]

No.  All Cluster Weapons need to roll an 8 or better in order to score more than 50% damage.

A result of 5-8 for nearly all tables will result in greater than 50 percent damage if I'm not mistaken, by example:

SRM6 - 4 missiles
LRM10 - 6 missiles
LRM15 - 9 missiles
LRM20 - 12 missiles

I believe from the LRM-5 onwards ( 3 missiles ) it's greater than 50 percent.

SRM4 I'm not sure offhand.

[SteelRaven]

Concerning the AC/2; I use to really hate the gun, couldn't rap my head around the logic on such a weak range weapon until I realized that 1*AC2 shell does the same damage as 2*LRM warheads and with more reach. Still not as practical as other lighter weapons but the weapon makes more sense with that in mind.

[ehlijen]

The 2 column is the only one where rolling a 7 does not result in >50% damage. It is the only table where the average is less than half the launcher's maximum.

Even a 6 will only not result in >50% on the 2 and 4 tables (where it scores exactly 50%).

The 7 result on the 2 column should really be 2, not 1. (Of course that'd need a rejigging of the AMS vs Streak rules, or else the Streak 2 becomes immune to AMS but still triggers it.)

[Redman]

If you are going into the realm of house rules a simple fix for the AC2 and AC5 would be ignore their minimum ranges. Another easy house rule (that's even coded into MegaMek as an optional rule!) would be to give them a +1 damage bonus so that effectively the AC2 becomes an AC3 and the AC5 an AC6. You might or might not adjust the ammo per ton to 30 or 16 shots respectively to keep the overall damage potential per ton in line with other ACs. 

Of course all this does not mitigate the issue of ammo explosions. If that is a deal-breaker you might implement a house rule that upon critting an ammo bin you roll 2d6 and on a roll of 8+ you treat the unit as if it had CASE. This can be fluffed as the unit having primitive blow-out panels that are not as reliable as real CASE.

A result of 5-8 for nearly all tables will result in greater than 50 percent damage if I'm not mistaken, by example:

SRM6 - 4 missiles
LRM10 - 6 missiles
LRM15 - 9 missiles
LRM20 - 12 missiles

I believe from the LRM-5 onwards ( 3 missiles ) it's greater than 50 percent.

SRM4 I'm not sure offhand.

You are not mistaken but the statistics are a little more complicated. If you calculate the average number of hitting missiles the size 2 racks actually provide the highest average output with 70,8% of them being on target. The other rack sizes you mentioned provide only averages of between 63.1% and 66,7%. This is because the 2 column has at least half of all missiles hitting whereas other racksizes have lower minimum scores. If you wanted to make the size 2 racks statistically identical to the others you would even have to either restrict full damage to rolls of 9+ or use a table in which a higher roll will not be automatically equal or better to a lower one.

Of course statistics being statistics all this does not say anything about the psychological impact. Havin a less than 50% chance of hitting with the second shot of my beloved UltraACs is a very sad thing indeed.  :'(

The 2 column is the only one where rolling a 7 does not result in >50% damage. It is the only table where the average is less than half the launcher's maximum.

Even a 6 will only not result in >50% on the 2 and 4 tables (where it scores exactly 50%).

The 7 result on the 2 column should really be 2, not 1. (Of course that'd need a rejigging of the AMS vs Streak rules, or else the Streak 2 becomes immune to AMS but still triggers it.)

You have to look at the average number of missiles that hit and not at individual table entries. So while it's true that the 2 column is the only one which doesn't produce >50% damage on a table roll of 7 it is also the only one which never produces <50% damage no matter what you rolled even on a roll of 2. Compare that to the 5 column which has a 20% minimum rating. An average roll on the table is not equal to the average damage.

[ehlijen]

Ah, yes. I see my mistake now.

It still doesn't work well for Ultra cannon. With SRM2s you just fire and trust that the specifics of the 2 column are somehow included in the weapon balance (insert obligatory 'why not use a ML instead?').
With Ultras you must decide between the 2 and the 1 column. The one column always gives you 100% hits (assuming you make the to hit roll, of course). The 2 column only has a 40% chance to give you more, but costs 100% more heat and ammo and has a permanent jamming risk. It's just a bad choice.

It shouldn't be a no brainer to double tap, of course. But right now, the option doesn't seem worth the extra ton of weight and possibly heat per single shot. The UACs have better range than ACs, sure, but the LBXs offer more for the same (or less) weight in that regard.
Only the excessive brutality and headshot potential of the UAC20 seem worth the drawbacks.

[evilauthor]

Concerning the AC/2; I use to really hate the gun, couldn't rap my head around the logic on such a weak range weapon until I realized that 1*AC2 shell does the same damage as 2*LRM warheads and with more reach. Still not as practical as other lighter weapons but the weapon makes more sense with that in mind.

The problem is the AC/2 weighs SIX tons (seven with ammo). That's not enough to prevent someone from charging all the way into short range barring a lucky crit. Anything fast enough to actually hold the range open is unlikely to have the spare tonnage for something as weak as an AC/2. For that same tonnage, you can get significantly more throw weight from LRMs and sand off some serious armor before the other guys gets close.

[Nebfer]

Ultras don't jam. They break. (Firing circuity damaged or somesuch).

I would agree that the cluster tables are sort of rubbish. I  know they're made on some sort of mathematical forumla but's always bugged me that the 2-cluster table seems to have much worse odds for getting the majority of the shots than other tables.

Sigh, I was stating to make them like RACs, in that instead of permanently braking (until the end of the game that is) they just "jam up" and can be unjammed like a RAC.

Or if you want when they "jam" role a 1D6 results of 1-3 they can be unjammed, 4-6 they "brake".

[SteveRestless]

yeah, I've always thought that the UAC Breaking issue was hokey.

The way I play it (mostly due to megamek not supporting anything more permissive)

Standard AC: Can Doubletap, Jams on 4, cannot be unjammed due to the fact they weren't designed to be unjammed. gets AC Special Ammos.
LBX AC: Can't doubletap, doesn't worry about jams, gets choice of LBX Ammos instead.
Ultra AC: Can Doubletap, Can Unjam.
Rotary AC: Fire Fire Fire Fire Fire Fire! Can Unjam.

[Akalabeth]

Sigh, I was stating to make them like RACs, in that instead of permanently braking (until the end of the game that is) they just "jam up" and can be unjammed like a RAC.

Or if you want when they "jam" role a 1D6 results of 1-3 they can be unjammed, 4-6 they "brake".

Cool. Yeah I know some people don't know the fact that UACs break not jam, just clarifying.

Either way I suspect such a change would come up against opposition because it's contrary to the original fluff and some fans are generally oppose to any such change. The game is very inelegant, and a lot of fans like it that way, because it's what they know. But new fans find it a barrier I suspect.

I think that if this was to be changed, it should have been changed in Total Warfare. Total Warfare tried to make things more elegant by putting weapons into a class (ie cluster) and unifying them which is great. But in some ways it didn't go far enough and you still have weapons with a lot of exceptions, like UACs vs RACs

As to the utility, I don't find the ability to unjam RACs that useful to be honest. For one it's not a sure thing. For another it requires you to not fire any other weaponry. If I have a heavy mech with a RAC 5 and a slew of other weapons, any turn I try to unjam the weapon is a turn where that mech is contributing absolutely nothing. Personally I don't think the trade off is worth it.

[SubtleAsAHammer]

In the Old game which I started with 3025 Tech A/C weapons weren't bad for reasons previously outlined but when ER Large lasers became available I used them when ever possible even over PPCs.

Yes sometimes I got my Mechs shot up by guys running cooler running Ballistic weapons.

Like real life everything has a trade off.

[Papabees]

Something you could do without changing any BV or the record sheets in any way would be to let the AC2 and AC5 (maybe the 10) fire at "high velocity". The idea being I spray an area with the home of being more likely to hit. Leave the damage alone but give a -1 to the to hit number to reflect the volume of fire in the air. When someone chooses to fire in this mode it counts as two shots from their ammo stores instead of one.