A stray thought on the AC/2 and AC/5

[Trace Coburn]

  The AC/2 has ranges of [4] 8/16/24 and deals only 2 damage, meaning that counting ammo, most systems mounting one are basically investing seven tons in the hope of a long-range ‘Golden BB’.  How would people think of the lightest grade of ‘conventional’ autocannon if it was, say, a ‘light-weight AC/5’ that deals the normal 5 damage but has ranges of only [-] 4/8/12?  (Would it make the standard AC/5 look better, for instance?)
  (Heh: imagine how much nastier the JagerMech and Mauler just got in close quarters!)

[Prince of Darkness]

I don't really know what you're trying to get at here, Trace.  If your question is "how would I use a lighter weight AC that trades range for weight?" I would use them like the PAC/4 and LAC/5- support for other guns, equipped with 2 tons of ammo so that specialty rounds can come into play if need be.

[YingJanshi]

Sooo...
You mean trading the AC/2s on a stock JagerMech or Mauler for LAC/5s?  ???

[Trace Coburn]

  ... frankly, I’m not quite sure where this is going, because I’m still fumbling my way through the idea and trying to step back from my own AU’s assumptions so I can look at things through BT eyes again.  I suppose I’m coming at it more as an ‘evolutionary line’ sort of thing, as a step up from Rifle (Cannon)s... but also from the assumption that all weapons have ‘realistic’ ranges in-universe, not the short ranges that are gameplay- and hex-friendly but irk so many people.  (For instance, ACs would get 10x their base range, so the ‘snub-nosed AC/5’ hits out to 120 hexes/3600m or so.  Energy weapons top out at about 10-15km for a variety of reasons, with some damage drop-off at extreme ranges, but that’s still effectively LOS.)
  Say the first autocannon was this six-ton/short-ranged AC/5 — after the Light R(C) and Medium R(C), it looks like a major step up.  Then, say fifty years later or so, the ‘proper’ AC/5 comes along: two more tons of mass and the added bulk is a good trade to make for 50% better effective range, yes?

  @ YingJanshi: ... sort’a-kind’a, yeah, except the LACs are still as heavy as the original Ack-2s.  At least at Tech Level D; at TL-E, the weight and bulk would start dropping again.

[Sockmonkey]

AP ammo makes them decent for getting at the tender meaty bits inside, and of course flak ammo for those pesky flyers.

[FedComGirl]

  ... frankly, I’m not quite sure where this is going, because I’m still fumbling my way through the idea and trying to step back from my own AU’s assumptions so I can look at things through BT eyes again.  I suppose I’m coming at it more as an ‘evolutionary line’ sort of thing, as a step up from Rifle (Cannon)s... but also from the assumption that all weapons have ‘realistic’ ranges in-universe, not the short ranges that are gameplay- and hex-friendly but irk so many people.  (For instance, ACs would get 10x their base range, so the ‘snub-nosed AC/5’ hits out to 120 hexes/3600m or so.  Energy weapons top out at about 10-15km for a variety of reasons, with some damage drop-off at extreme ranges, but that’s still effectively LOS.)
  Say the first autocannon was this six-ton/short-ranged AC/5 — after the Light R(C) and Medium R(C), it looks like a major step up.  Then, say fifty years later or so, the ‘proper’ AC/5 comes along: two more tons of mass and the added bulk is a good trade to make for 50% better effective range, yes?

  @ YingJanshi: ... sort’a-kind’a, yeah, except the LACs are still as heavy as the original Ack-2s.  At least at Tech Level D; at TL-E, the weight and bulk would start dropping again.

Well, when I think of Autocannons as being an evolution of Rifle/Tank Cannons I see their increased weight being the trade off for being able to fire much faster and do more damage. I picture them as the AC/2 being an evolution of the Light Rifle Cannon. The AC/5 an evolution of the Medium Rifle Cannon and the AC/10 the evolution of the Heavy Rifle Cannon.

Another evolution would be to improve Rifle Cannons so they do full damage with increased ammo. Kind of like how the Clans improved their missile launchers. Then your Rifle/Tank Cannons could compete against various Autocannons.

[Erkki]

  The AC/2 has ranges of [4] 8/16/24 and deals only 2 damage, meaning that counting ammo, most systems mounting one are basically investing seven tons in the hope of a long-range ‘Golden BB’.

I think you went wrong there already. To me the very longest range weapons arent about damage or lucky TACs at all - they are simply for just the sake of having the longest range gun. When/if the terrain favors it, an LGR, ExtLRM, AC/2 and LB-2X can create damage(albeit slowly) and score hits with no risk of enemy retaliation. The poor damage/ammo ton nor poor damage/(weapon tonnage + heat sinks required) become all but irrelevant. In a way, they are "disposition weapons" - a force facing them needs to choose if they should stay in their seemingly superior wooded hill or other defensive position and let those very long range weapons plink them for 40 turns and slowly melt them away, or will they leave their cover and charge?

So in a way their use has a lot of the same that artillery has. Horrible guns by every meter, except in the max range, and that range alone can make them useful. Even win battles.

I would not swap the twin LGRs of my RFL-7Ms to quad LAC/5s... Or to anything that trades range for weight so I can cram in more of them. Medium laser does it already. But... for quad LB-2Xs maybe.  ;)

[Sockmonkey]

Yep, it's another case of "crappy on their own, but devastating when part of a group with complimentary abilities."