Why Tweak the Autocannon?

[Fear Factory]

almost like your 2-3 round burst all nailed the target you were aiming at.

It's a way to track it without requiring a look at the cluster chart or rolling for both shots. It also gives them a damage value unique from the other weapons, so you lose the "why take an AC/5 over an LRM-15" argument. The missile launcher might win in damage, but the Autocannon wins in penetrating a single location.

[Hptm. Streiger]

As long as we talk about intro tech ACs are solid balanced considering weight heat and range.
The free engine heatsinks are the issue. Instead of tweaking those consider to drop every of those 10 that is not mounted in the fusion.
Suddenly the PPC on Clint doesn't sound that good and the Vindicator is not oversinked and you really should drop that second large of the rifleman.
For the MAD there would still be the 3D as obvious "best" MAD unless you really consider 2 ACs and a PPC without overheating at all you deal as much damage as the 3D with the same margin of overheating you have 2 additional tons of armor.

[Talen5000]

There is a lot to be said to be making ACs more "viable" in the context of the game. It has long been a complaint that ACs are too heavy and lack that special"something"

I'd suggest, rather, that energy weapons are too light but that is another argument.

If you want to change or tweak ACs, the first question is how.
As I said elsewhere, unless you want to make changes to the record sheets - which isn't viable - then changes must come via rules and not new stats. As mass is invisible on the sheet, there is some limited scope to change - just not much. CGL/FASA/FP already tried this with their ideas on Walking fire and rapid fire and so on.

But more could certainly be done

(The following is essentially a repost)

I am going to suggest that aspects such as heat and minimum ranges be left untouched. This is about "tweaks", and not a new weapon system. Small changes to mass and even ammo count might be doable, but not the basic stats that are on the record sheet.

First step - define the weapon. We have that. A rapid fire ballistic weapons that fires projectiles at high speed.I'll go one step further and suggest the concept of an autocannon should preclude the idea that an autocannon can have a "slow" rate of fire. You want that type of weapon, there is the Gauss, and we could create a new modern Rifle but Autocannons should be just what they are stated to be - rapid fire weapons that fire a burst of shells. That way, the existing mass can be explained away as the mounting, feed mechanism, cooling systems and anti recoil measures designed to keep the weapon on target during the burst. You'd probably want to specify something akin to an AC/2 firing a ten round burst and that the To Hit Roll represents not only hitting the target, but the ability to group the burst to the degree needed to cause damage.

So yes - the AC/20 CAN indeed hit a target at 10km...unfortunately, the shells scattered all over the target so all it did was scuff paint.


So - if we can't/shouldn't change most of the basic stats, what can we tweak?

The rules on how to use ACs.

So - let's embrace some modern/future tech and make it standard in the BTU.

All ammo is caseless.
All ammo (post-3025 era) is ADL enabled. In short, the weapon can choose between flak, standard and flechette rounds at will.
All ammo is a form of precision - all ACs get a ToHit bonus. Probably -1.

So, this alone makes ACs more accurate, and more flexible.

What else?

All ACs use the same ammo. An AC/20 can share the bin assigned to an AC/2. This requires a small change to ammo count as now you need a system that can track ammo usage across different weapons. So, we assume that an ammo bin counts "damage potential" rather than physical rounds. Do we also try to account for "reality"? Modern day ammo is heavy and, more importantly, big. Lets say we give each ton of ammo a damage potential of 15 points...that'd be 75 rounds. So, the ammo has to be smaller than modern day tanks rounds to fit. Smaller, but denser. But also means that record sheets need to be reworked. Viable for a tweak?

Maybe. maybe not.

OK - so the shared ammo is probably a little too complex for a tweak.

How about this...ACs can fire as any smaller class AC. An AC/5 can act as an AC2/ and AC/20 can act as an AC/2, AC/5 or an AC/10.

So yes - the AC/20 can fire as an AC/2. This might be too complex for a tweak as you'd need to keep track of fractional ammo values. or move over to the shared ammo system. Too complex for a tweak? Perhaps.

So - rules changes. What else can be suggested?
What if different weapons had favoured targets? So let us say ACs deal triple damage vs buildings, half damage vs Mechs and modern combat vehicles, full damage vs support vehicles and conventional infantry. We could have lasers do half damage vs buildings for even more differentiation.

The rapid fire option in the books is a good idea. It should probably be made standard. Maybe just add a ROF column to the record sheet and have the same rules cover Rotaries? Perhaps - but for just ACs, not necessary.  You'd want a targeting modifier though to avoid it being a standard feature, with a jam chance and you'd need to remove the jam from ultras.

And the last rules option that strikes me as viable is to allow the use of different fusing and spread options to allow for indirect fire and AOE effects - miniature on board artillery.

These suggestions make ACs more flexible, but keep the existing size, mass, range and heat. Depending on how these were added, then the counter of a shorter battlefield life via altering the ammo count as suggested would probably need to be considered.You'd posisbly want to set the Damage Value of a ton of ammo at 20 to allow the AC/20 to get 1 shot per ton of ammo, but for some reason I like the idea of 15

[Hptm. Streiger]

The ChemSet of the Demolisher is already mentioned as a binary propellant (that's why the tank has "heat" issues in lore) so with non-explosive rounds (frangible) its not possible that a Demo can cook-off.

However, I totally would drop the idea that an AC can use the ammunition of another AC unless you have the same manufacturer (Mydron C and Mydron D of the JaegerMech).
Also, the burst is hard rigged on most ACs, you might not be able to shoot less than the 3 rounds for the GM-Whirlwind, or for the Demolisher - 3 rounds try to split that into 4 parts. Yes I know its lore. But any tweaking here might need a completely different system.

About Margin of Success:
You might be able to fire a normal AC 20 round... say at a range of 9 - target number is 10. You roll a 8. Considering that 8 would be the number for a AC10- your shot deals 10damage (but the whole shot is spent)
Similar you can try to shot at a target at ranges up to extreme range and reduce the damage right from the start. For example again the AC20 you can roll against unmodified 10 for AC20, unmodified 8 as AC10 or unmodified 6 as AC 5 (simulating that the shooter sweeps an area to hit anything) however you can not increase the damage afterwards (for example you roll a 11 that would have been enough for a AC20 although you said you aim for the target number of the AC5) 

[Talen5000]

The ChemSet of the Demolisher is already mentioned as a binary propellant (that's why the tank has "heat" issues in lore) so with non-explosive rounds (frangible) its not possible that a Demo can cook-off.

However, I totally would drop the idea that an AC can use the ammunition of another AC unless you have the same manufacturer (Mydron C and Mydron D of the JaegerMech).
Also, the burst is hard rigged on most ACs, you might not be able to shoot less than the 3 rounds for the GM-Whirlwind, or for the Demolisher - 3 rounds try to split that into 4 parts. Yes I know its lore. But any tweaking here might need a completely different system.

That is the point-it is lore and therefore not rules. There was a time when standrad ACs weren't able to walk fire either or fire twice -and still aren't going by the lore. If you're going to stick with the lore an fluff, then the number of tweaks you can accept are zero.

The only aspect that is truly off limits in an exercise like this are the basic stats on the record sheets. Anything else can either be changed via the rules or doesn't have an impact. For instance, I like the idea of variable damage for ACs, and think it would work very well - maybe a D6 per class so an AC/20 would be 4D6 damage, or integrating the Margin of Success and Failure concepts into the rules but again, that would be too complex a change for the record sheet. Changes to the ammunition amounts might be doable because the ammo is supposed to change but even that might be a step too far.

There are other aspects - cost, maintenance and upkeep, and so on that aren't replicated well either. For example - what if ACs could ignore the first one or two critical hits?

[RifleMech]

As I have already stated several times in this thread, the cost for Autocannons is not significantly cheaper.

The cost for an AC/10 is only about 8k lower than a PPC+10 heat sinks.  In all the rules for maintenance, there is no cost for coolant.  It is either already accounted for in the general maintenance costs or so cheap that it is effectively negligible.  The 8k difference in price is about 6 months worth of live ammo training in order to maintain skills.  After 6 months, the ongoing costs for the AC/10 make it more expensive.  That is what I mean about the rules not reflecting this supposed idea of autocannons being cheaper.

I was comparing the AC/5 to the PPC. It's 75,000 less than the PPC, not including heat sinks. That would be another 16,000. We do know that coolant ammo costs 3,000 per ton and its the same stuff coolant trucks use when cooling overheating mechs. So the routine maintenance cost is probably figured in for heat neutral units. When a unit isn't heat neutral though the unit risks overheating and needing to replace the coolant. That's where there's going to be a hidden cost. Unfortunately we don't know the cost to replace coolant. A coolant truck does need 5 tons though so that's 15,000 plus the cost of the truck. It can be spread over several mechs but its still a cost.



When it comes to missiles, they're not cheaper either. You have to go larger to get average to the AC. The LRM-10 is closest to the AC/5 in terms of total weight. For Aero it does 6 damage. That's 4 missiles wasted with every shot. That's money lost and damage lost. Artemis systems improve that but add cost, weight and crits. There's streak but it weights even more and wasn't always available. Now it is possible for all 10 LRMs to hit with each shot but if the Dice gods are favoring you like that there's no reason not to double tap the AC each turn either.

Going back to what I said earlier about engines coming with heat sinks hurting AC/s, besides energy weapons getting a lot of weight back, they've also gained back crits. Heat sinks didn't used to be in the engines. That means no torso bomb in the Marauder as it has 16 heat sinks providing padding. Damaged Heat sinks could also generate heat. (Not that most would keep their mech fighting that long.) Still the older rules made the lower heat AC look good. Of course we only had the one Autocannon back then but I think people could see how it would be a good main weapon.  It's after the rule changes and expanding the number of autocannons, the AC/5 doesn't look as good.  I still think it's a good weapon though. The rule just make the others look better.

[Retry]

I was comparing the AC/5 to the PPC. It's 75,000 less than the PPC, not including heat sinks. That would be another 16,000. We do know that coolant ammo costs 3,000 per ton and its the same stuff coolant trucks use when cooling overheating mechs. So the routine maintenance cost is probably figured in for heat neutral units. When a unit isn't heat neutral though the unit risks overheating and needing to replace the coolant. That's where there's going to be a hidden cost. Unfortunately we don't know the cost to replace coolant. A coolant truck does need 5 tons though so that's 15,000 plus the cost of the truck. It can be spread over several mechs but its still a cost.

The AC/5 has half the firepower of the PPC.  If you adjust for damage parity, you need 2 AC/5s, which is 50,000 more than a PPC.  Including heat sinks that does fall to only 34,000 more, but the AC/5 needs ammo.

[Kovax]

, OR giving them a simple mechanic that makes them operate different than lasers and LRM's (+2 damage when you roll above the to-hit/target number), is IMO the best.

If you make that +1 damage if you exceed the target number by 2, and +2 if you exceed it by 4 or more, then that follows the fluff about ACs firing a several-round burst.  A high enough roll against an easy target and more of your "bracketing" fire actually hits.  It keeps the damage and everything else about the weapons consistent with current rules against most targets, particularly against light, fast targets, but makes those weapons more powerful against slow or immobile targets (buildings), ESPECIALLY useful for the less-effective AC/2 and AC/5.  Percentage-wise, it's a bigger improvement for them, while the extra 2 points for an AC/20 isn't a game-changer.  It would give the AC/10 head-capping potential, but generally only against slow or immobile targets where it can get a roll 4 points above the THN.

The other option would be to add a new firing mode, where instead of concentrating your fluffed 3-round burst's damage on a single location (as the damage is currently resolved), you can "bracket" a target with a more scattered 3-round burst to increase your odds of doing SOME damage, but with reduced damage if you hit.  For example, -2 to-hit at the cost of half damage, rounded up.  That allows the AC to deliver light damage at better odds against difficult targets, or do standard damage to easier targets.  No record sheet changes needed, just a single firing mode rule that covers all standard ACs and UACs firing standard ammo.  It gives the Rifleman a reason to exist, with the ACs being ideal for hitting ASFs with much better odds, at the cost of doing significantly less damage with each successful hit.

[TigerShark]

Suggestion 1: Reduce the cost of the ACs dramatically, as well as their ammo supply. Autocannons are described as being "cheaper" than energy weapons, but I don't see this. Anywhere. Once you account for all of the stockpiled ammunition, as well as the cost of actually transporting huge cubes of explosive material, you've passed the expense of a simple Large Laser thousands of C-bills ago.

Suggestion 2: Give ACs the benefit of rapid fire by default, counting the jamming chance as the "balance mechanism" which offsets their damage advantage. Since jamming has no affect on BV (which it should), this is the perfect opportunity to give it some kind of numerical value. All ACs (excluding LB-X) can rapid fire, but jam on an unmodified roll of 2. Ultra ACs no longer jam, since their BV calculation does not account for it.

Suggestion 3: Alter the weather and gravity rules so that projectile weapons have no penalty to-hit in different gravity, and only incur a +0 when standing still, +1 when walking, and  +2 for running when in extreme weather.

As it is, energy weapons are already dramatically superior to most ballistics. Weather and gravity flat-out make them useless, while still charging for the full BV of the unit. You can have a +4 to-hit with an AC/5 and a +0 for a PPC, simply for being on a high-gravity world. That's ridiculous. If a regiment is permanently stationed on that world, don't you think they've altered their targeting systems to account for the gravity they experience every day? And the same with an invader. They know they're hitting Mars. Pretty sure you can change the targeting to account for this. :)

[RifleMech]

The AC/5 has half the firepower of the PPC.  If you adjust for damage parity, you need 2 AC/5s, which is 50,000 more than a PPC.  Including heat sinks that does fall to only 34,000 more, but the AC/5 needs ammo.

Actually, the AC/5 is capable of doing 10 points of damage. The PPC on the other hand generates far more heat, 5-10 times as much, Depending on the unit, the PPC can't be fired every turn without overheating the unit. That means the PPC isn't doing the damage it could be. The AC/5 on the other hand can pretty much be fired until the ammo runs out.

If you make that +1 damage if you exceed the target number by 2, and +2 if you exceed it by 4 or more, then that follows the fluff about ACs firing a several-round burst.  A high enough roll against an easy target and more of your "bracketing" fire actually hits.  It keeps the damage and everything else about the weapons consistent with current rules against most targets, particularly against light, fast targets, but makes those weapons more powerful against slow or immobile targets (buildings), ESPECIALLY useful for the less-effective AC/2 and AC/5.  Percentage-wise, it's a bigger improvement for them, while the extra 2 points for an AC/20 isn't a game-changer.  It would give the AC/10 head-capping potential, but generally only against slow or immobile targets where it can get a roll 4 points above the THN.

The other option would be to add a new firing mode, where instead of concentrating your fluffed 3-round burst's damage on a single location (as the damage is currently resolved), you can "bracket" a target with a more scattered 3-round burst to increase your odds of doing SOME damage, but with reduced damage if you hit.  For example, -2 to-hit at the cost of half damage, rounded up.  That allows the AC to deliver light damage at better odds against difficult targets, or do standard damage to easier targets.  No record sheet changes needed, just a single firing mode rule that covers all standard ACs and UACs firing standard ammo.  It gives the Rifleman a reason to exist, with the ACs being ideal for hitting ASFs with much better odds, at the cost of doing significantly less damage with each successful hit.

How would that effect Flak and other ammo types?

[Apocal]

When it comes to missiles, they're not cheaper either. You have to go larger to get average to the AC. The LRM-10 is closest to the AC/5 in terms of total weight. For Aero it does 6 damage. That's 4 missiles wasted with every shot. That's money lost and damage lost. Artemis systems improve that but add cost, weight and crits. There's streak but it weights even more and wasn't always available. Now it is possible for all 10 LRMs to hit with each shot but if the Dice gods are favoring you like that there's no reason not to double tap the AC each turn either.

These risks are not comparable. Rolling poorly on the cluster table for weapons means I do a lot less damage to the enemy. Rolling poorly on a double-tap means I do no more at all damage to the enemy and rolling especially poorly means taking pilot hits, and an internal crit roll on top of the destroyed weapon. But I also account for the cluster table when rapid-firing autocannons (under TO rules; I'm aware a great many people house-rule this) and the 2 column on the cluster table is not a kind and forgiving mistress. Better than half the time that I actually do hit, that shot goes nowhere, which means I've gained nothing for the one-in-six chance to lose my AC/5.

Meanwhile, if I want to play with optional rules, there are rules for dialing back energy weapons for lower heat generation. Those rules do not require that I expose myself to a jam or internal explosion chance.

Actually, the AC/5 is capable of doing 10 points of damage. The PPC on the other hand generates far more heat, 5-10 times as much, Depending on the unit, the PPC can't be fired every turn without overheating the unit. That means the PPC isn't doing the damage it could be. The AC/5 on the other hand can pretty much be fired until the ammo runs out.

I disagree; using rapid fire rules from TacOps, you stand a one-in-six chance of a jam every time you try to get that 10 damage. For purposes of comparison, ultra autocannons are 1-in-36 per double-tap. The limiting factor isn't heat, that is true, but you can ride the heat scale intelligently with a PPC-equipped, undersinked mech. The intelligent way to run rapid fire autocannons is only to do so sparingly.

[Retry]

Actually, the AC/5 is capable of doing 10 points of damage.

Not in Vanilla CBT.  Rapid-fire autocannons are a Tac Ops optional rule.

The PPC on the other hand generates far more heat, 5-10 times as much

If we're including the extra heat sinks as part of the cost for the PPC (which we both did), then it's fair to include them in the net heat production.

[Fear Factory]

If you make that +1 damage if you exceed the target number by 2, and +2 if you exceed it by 4 or more, then that follows the fluff about ACs firing a several-round burst.  A high enough roll against an easy target and more of your "bracketing" fire actually hits.  It keeps the damage and everything else about the weapons consistent with current rules against most targets, particularly against light, fast targets, but makes those weapons more powerful against slow or immobile targets (buildings), ESPECIALLY useful for the less-effective AC/2 and AC/5.  Percentage-wise, it's a bigger improvement for them, while the extra 2 points for an AC/20 isn't a game-changer.  It would give the AC/10 head-capping potential, but generally only against slow or immobile targets where it can get a roll 4 points above the THN.

It's just easier to remember if you stick with one bonus. With max damage at 4/7/12/22 it's hardly game breaking, especially if you consider most to-hit numbers at intro tech levels stick around 8 or 9 if you stay mobile.

How would that effect Flak and other ammo types?

Mind you, I would only apply this to standard ammo on all autocannons. This is something we have tried in home games and it works, so you don't get extra clusters or anything. Also, to keep it fair when using Rotary AC's, anything past the double-tap mode loses the bonus (not tested, but Rotary's are pretty damn neat on their own).

Going back to what I said earlier about engines coming with heat sinks hurting AC/s, besides energy weapons getting a lot of weight back, they've also gained back crits. Heat sinks didn't used to be in the engines. That means no torso bomb in the Marauder as it has 16 heat sinks providing padding. Damaged Heat sinks could also generate heat. (Not that most would keep their mech fighting that long.) Still the older rules made the lower heat AC look good. Of course we only had the one Autocannon back then but I think people could see how it would be a good main weapon.  It's after the rule changes and expanding the number of autocannons, the AC/5 doesn't look as good.  I still think it's a good weapon though. The rule just make the others look better.

See, this is something I didn't know and now the Autocannon makes sense. It's amazing how attaching heat sinks to the engine kind of ruined them. I say they all deserve a slight damage boost (I don't care if I'm tooting my own horn I think the +2 bonus above TN is the way to go). It seems to be a common opinion too.

[Kovax]

It's amazing how attaching heat sinks to the engine kind of ruined them. I say they all deserve a slight damage boost (I don't care if I'm tooting my own horn I think the +2 bonus above TN is the way to go). It seems to be a common opinion too.

I don't think a boost at only 1 point above the needed number is right, but maybe +2 damage at +2 or +3 over the requirement would do.  It's so rare that you get EXACTLY the number you need that getting the rated damage would seem like the oddity, rather than being "normal".  Having the AC do higher damage against targets that are easy to hit (allowing tighter shot grouping) at least makes some sense.

It's not that putting the heat sinks in the engine ruined ACs in particular, it's that it made ammo weapons of ALL types more dangerous to the user by removing "padding", while also making energy weapons significantly more desirable by freeing up a lot of critical slots.  Crusaders and a lot of other 'Mechs with LRMs, SRMs, MGs, and ACs all became a lot more hazardous to pilot, while Assault 'Mechs suddenly had room for a ship-load* (*or something like that) of energy weapons and additional heatsinks, instead of being pressed for room.

[Fear Factory]

I don't think a boost at only 1 point above the needed number is right, but maybe +2 damage at +2 or +3 over the requirement would do.  It's so rare that you get EXACTLY the number you need that getting the rated damage would seem like the oddity, rather than being "normal".  Having the AC do higher damage against targets that are easy to hit (allowing tighter shot grouping) at least makes some sense.

Eh, I like the rated damage being the oddity, it's the whole reason we're all here having this conversation in the first place. If the TN's stay around 7,8,9, you'll see it enough. Think of the TN hit as something like a "glancing blow" or a lower damage hit because of "recoil." It's a quirk that supports how they work in the novels/fluff and it's super easy without having to remember different MoS brackets. No math required, no extra strain on the brain.

[CrossfirePilot]

You know its threads like this that once I can get that time machine working to go back to 1984 say the second thing I will do is go visit the budding FASA headquarters. (first will be visiting my parents and tell them to put the money from my passbook college savings account into Microsoft).

"Look JW, the internet isnt going to be kind to you in about 30 years"

"Whats the internet?!?!"

"pay no mind to that, first you are going to want to drop the AC tonnage in half..."

four hours later

"but that will make my game unplayable!"

"I know, but the internet has spoken"

"again? What is the internet?"

[Retry]

Suggestion 1: Reduce the cost of the ACs dramatically, as well as their ammo supply. Autocannons are described as being "cheaper" than energy weapons, but I don't see this. Anywhere. Once you account for all of the stockpiled ammunition, as well as the cost of actually transporting huge cubes of explosive material, you've passed the expense of a simple Large Laser thousands of C-bills ago.

Oh yeah, the C-bills.  Forgot about that for a minute.

Just to support your point: Swapping the quad AC/5s for 2 PPCs on the Partisan Heavy Tank results in identical firepower for a lower C-Bill cost by about 90k C-Bills, before ammo is accounted for, with an additional bonus of a half-ton of armor to spend.

Edit: Looks like my original thread got nuked...

[RifleMech]

These risks are not comparable. Rolling poorly on the cluster table for weapons means I do a lot less damage to the enemy. Rolling poorly on a double-tap means I do no more at all damage to the enemy and rolling especially poorly means taking pilot hits, and an internal crit roll on top of the destroyed weapon. But I also account for the cluster table when rapid-firing autocannons (under TO rules; I'm aware a great many people house-rule this) and the 2 column on the cluster table is not a kind and forgiving mistress. Better than half the time that I actually do hit, that shot goes nowhere, which means I've gained nothing for the one-in-six chance to lose my AC/5.

Rolling poorly on the missile table results in a waste of ammunition. And if I were rolling that poorly I wouldn't be double tapping. If on the other hand I'm constantly getting the max number of missiles hitting the target, the dice gods must be favoring me so I'd double tap the AC.

Meanwhile, if I want to play with optional rules, there are rules for dialing back energy weapons for lower heat generation. Those rules do not require that I expose myself to a jam or internal explosion chance.

True those rules exist. But the complaint is that AC/5s do so poorly in damage compared to the PPC. Dialing back the damage and heat sinks would makes the PPC a closer fit in terms of weight for the AC/5. Slightly heavier but with ammo independence.  However, I don't think there's any rule allowing a permanently dialed down PPC to be installed with just 5 heat sinks into unit.

For the sake of completeness the PPC is capable of doing more damage only it takes an automatic crit doing so. Not something I'd want to do if I didn't have to.

I disagree; using rapid fire rules from TacOps, you stand a one-in-six chance of a jam every time you try to get that 10 damage. For purposes of comparison, ultra autocannons are 1-in-36 per double-tap. The limiting factor isn't heat, that is true, but you can ride the heat scale intelligently with a PPC-equipped, undersinked mech. The intelligent way to run rapid fire autocannons is only to do so sparingly.

That's if you're double tapping. If you're not the AC/5 can fire as long as it has ammo and generate 1 point of heat. Riding the heat often means not firing a turn or two for heat levels to go down. That means no damage being done to the enemy.

Not in Vanilla CBT.  Rapid-fire autocannons are a Tac Ops optional rule.

If we're including the extra heat sinks as part of the cost for the PPC (which we both did), then it's fair to include them in the net heat production.

True. And the LRM-10 is also capable of doing 10 point of damage. How often does it do so?

I believe I've been doing so.

Mind you, I would only apply this to standard ammo on all autocannons. This is something we have tried in home games and it works, so you don't get extra clusters or anything. Also, to keep it fair when using Rotary AC's, anything past the double-tap mode loses the bonus (not tested, but Rotary's are pretty damn neat on their own).

I want to say that that's cool but why shouldn't the other ammo types get the bonus? In fact it kind of negates some of the alternative ammo such as Flak. An AC/2 under those rules could do 4 point of damage with standard ammo while flak ammo only do 2 points of damage.

I would think that it'd have to apply to all ammo types and Autocannons, even Rotaries.

See, this is something I didn't know and now the Autocannon makes sense. It's amazing how attaching heat sinks to the engine kind of ruined them. I say they all deserve a slight damage boost (I don't care if I'm tooting my own horn I think the +2 bonus above TN is the way to go). It seems to be a common opinion too.

I don't think most people do. I had to go look to be sure. We did get more AC sizes but the standard AC/5 really got nerfed.

[Daryk]

*snip*
Edit: Looks like my original thread got nuked...

If you're talking about the AC tweak thread up in General Discussion, it was moved down here to the fan rules section where it belongs, and may have been merged with this one.

[TigerShark]

Idea for a replacement:

AUTOCANNON
8 tons
6 critical slots
2 heat
8/16/24 range
10/5/2 damage
16 shots per ton of ammunition
131 BV (16 BV per ton of ammo)

[Fear Factory]

I want to say that that's cool but why shouldn't the other ammo types get the bonus? In fact it kind of negates some of the alternative ammo such as Flak. An AC/2 under those rules could do 4 point of damage with standard ammo while flak ammo only do 2 points of damage.

I would think that it'd have to apply to all ammo types and Autocannons, even Rotaries.

Meh. I would rather add the +2 bonus to the cluster chart. Cluster rounds are really made for plinking airborne units (lb. 2 and 5) or crit seeking (10 and 20). They already get the -1 to hit too.

Gives more of an incentive to pick between cluster and standard depending on what you have and it even has them working better together.

[Apocal]

Rolling poorly on the missile table results in a waste of ammunition. And if I were rolling that poorly I wouldn't be double tapping. If on the other hand I'm constantly getting the max number of missiles hitting the target, the dice gods must be favoring me so I'd double tap the AC.

My point is that the chance of ammunition being wasted is not comparable to a jammed or exploded weapon. The latter is worse, for no appreciable gain over an LRM because the 2 column of the cluster table is far more likely to produce a 1 than a 2, meaning its actual average damage (even w/o a jam result) isn't 10, but around the same as an LRM.

At the same time a single bad to-hit roll can not cripple an LRM under normal circumstances. It leans hard into risk for a very limited reward.

True those rules exist. But the complaint is that AC/5s do so poorly in damage compared to the PPC. Dialing back the damage and heat sinks would makes the PPC a closer fit in terms of weight for the AC/5. Slightly heavier but with ammo independence.  However, I don't think there's any rule allowing a permanently dialed down PPC to be installed with just 5 heat sinks into unit.

For the sake of completeness the PPC is capable of doing more damage only it takes an automatic crit doing so. Not something I'd want to do if I didn't have to.

There are no rules that disallow PPCs from being installed w/o heat sinks on mechs, only vehicles. Vees pay for their energy weapons, mechs have the option not to. Nothing stopping anyone from running around in a goofy triple PPC Awesome-lite with only my base engine sinks and declaring them to be dialed back to 5 dmg/5 heat every single turn. I wouldn't do it, because that's 21 tons for the world's worst LRM20, but it doesn't violate any rule known to me. Obviously, this makes it much easier to ride a heat curve, as you can more easily keep your mech balanced on the edge of penalties when you're not choosing between 0 or 10 heat.

Also, the PPC, as a practical matter, does more damage simply by 1) not rolling on the cluster table and 2) planting all ten points onto a single location. You would need exceptional luck to match a PPC with a rapid-fired AC/5 across a typical 8-12 rounds of Battletech. You'd be lucky just to get through that many rounds without your AC/5 jamming up.

That's if you're double tapping. If you're not the AC/5 can fire as long as it has ammo and generate 1 point of heat. Riding the heat often means not firing a turn or two for heat levels to go down. That means no damage being done to the enemy.

If you aren't double tapping, we go right back to the AC/5's atrocious damage/tonnage ratio, feeding into the reasons why myself and others are saying that rapid-fire rules are not a fix for the AC/5's issues. I don't think that is really all that important though; it is a single bad weapon in one era of the game that is ultimately obsoleted across the board in later eras. The only people who should feel very strongly about the AC/5's place in the weapon hierarchy are people who limit themselves to Introtech/4SW games.

[Retry]

True. And the LRM-10 is also capable of doing 10 point of damage. How often does it do so?

I believe I've been doing so.

...What has the LRM-10 got to do with a comparison between the AC/5 and PPC?

If you're talking about the AC tweak thread up in General Discussion, it was moved down here to the fan rules section where it belongs, and may have been merged with this one.

Ah, yes, apparently it was merged...

It definitely did not belong merged to this one, and I had made that abundantly clear in my OP before it got merged anyways.  (This one asks why tweak, and that one presupposed the AC needed tweaking and made suggestions on how to tweak it.)

[Daryk]

I think the topics are similar enough that keeping them separate (once the other one was moved down here) wouldn't have made much sense.

[RifleMech]

Meh. I would rather add the +2 bonus to the cluster chart. Cluster rounds are really made for plinking airborne units (lb. 2 and 5) or crit seeking (10 and 20). They already get the -1 to hit too.

Gives more of an incentive to pick between cluster and standard depending on what you have and it even has them working better together.

You're having ACs change how they operate depending on the round fired. Why not have everything get a +on the cluster chart with that number varying on ammo type?

My point is that the chance of ammunition being wasted is not comparable to a jammed or exploded weapon. The latter is worse, for no appreciable gain over an LRM because the 2 column of the cluster table is far more likely to produce a 1 than a 2, meaning its actual average damage (even w/o a jam result) isn't 10, but around the same as an LRM.

At the same time a single bad to-hit roll can not cripple an LRM under normal circumstances. It leans hard into risk for a very limited reward.

Missed my points.

First, if the dice gods are allowing max numbers on the cluster chart with every firing, they would likely be allowing Autocannons to repair fire repeatedly with no jamming. (The dice gods have never favored me in that way but they might some one.)

Second, unless the missile system rolls the max the result wastes ammo. It might only be one missile wasted but its still a waste.

There are no rules that disallow PPCs from being installed w/o heat sinks on mechs, only vehicles. Vees pay for their energy weapons, mechs have the option not to. Nothing stopping anyone from running around in a goofy triple PPC Awesome-lite with only my base engine sinks and declaring them to be dialed back to 5 dmg/5 heat every single turn. I wouldn't do it, because that's 21 tons for the world's worst LRM20, but it doesn't violate any rule known to me. Obviously, this makes it much easier to ride a heat curve, as you can more easily keep your mech balanced on the edge of penalties when you're not choosing between 0 or 10 heat.

That is true but again misses my point. Vehicles have to pay the full heat sink/power amplifier price for a PPC dialed down or not. That's 18 tons. A vehicle could mount 2 AC/5s with a ton of ammo each for that or a mix of AC and missiles.

The big exception of course is when the vehicle mounts a combat fusion engine. Then the heat sinks are weight free and power amplifier free.

Also, the PPC, as a practical matter, does more damage simply by 1) not rolling on the cluster table and 2) planting all ten points onto a single location. You would need exceptional luck to match a PPC with a rapid-fired AC/5 across a typical 8-12 rounds of Battletech. You'd be lucky just to get through that many rounds without your AC/5 jamming up.   

I agree. Although alternate ammo types can benefit the autocanno.

 
If you aren't double tapping, we go right back to the AC/5's atrocious damage/tonnage ratio, feeding into the reasons why myself and others are saying that rapid-fire rules are not a fix for the AC/5's issues. I don't think that is really all that important though; it is a single bad weapon in one era of the game that is ultimately obsoleted across the board in later eras. The only people who should feel very strongly about the AC/5's place in the weapon hierarchy are people who limit themselves to Introtech/4SW games.

I don't limit myself to introtech games but I also don't feel the AC/5 is a terrible weapon. True its a less attractive option when you have free weight heat sinks but it still has uses. I also think, the AC/5 can be a better choice for units that don't come with 5-10 free heat sinks.

[RifleMech]

...What has the LRM-10 got to do with a comparison between the AC/5 and PPC?

Its also capable of doing 10 points of damage, yet rarely does so. Also if heat sinks are needed they're the only IS LRM closest in total weight to the AC/5 that can do 10 points of damage. Unless your using Dead-fire missiles the maybe the LRM5 is better. Acually getting that many missiles to hit though... :-\

[Retry]

Missed my points.

First, if the dice gods are allowing max numbers on the cluster chart with every firing, they would likely be allowing Autocannons to repair fire repeatedly with no jamming. (The dice gods have never favored me in that way but they might some one.)

Second, unless the missile system rolls the max the result wastes ammo. It might only be one missile wasted but its still a waste.

Neither of these points have much practical purpose.  If the "dice gods" favour you so much, you might as well operate a RISC Hyper Laser or a RAC.  But it's a game of chance so short of seeing into the future that 1-in-12 chance of crippling yourself is always relevant.

A LRM hitting with a typical 65% of their payload on average deals ~80 points of damage per ton, while a SRM-2 that only rolls a 2 on the cluster table forever and ever still deals 100 damage per ton of ammo, same as an Autocannon (in practice it's much more than that).  That issue of "wasted ammo" is academic at best.

You could argue logistics and C-Bill cost, but I guarantee you it's more expensive to replace an entire 'Mech that got blown up since it mounted a far inferior weapon set than it is to replace a few tons of ammunition.

That is true but again misses my point. Vehicles have to pay the full heat sink/power amplifier price for a PPC dialed down or not. That's 18 tons. A vehicle could mount 2 AC/5s with a ton of ammo each for that or a mix of AC and missiles.

That's kind of the point.  In the PPC's worst-case scenario, mounted on an ICE vee that has to fully pay for heat sinks and power amps, the twin AC/5s are still an inferior weapon package to the lone PPC.  If the weapon are turret-mounted, the weight difference between the two is zero, and the PPC actually ends up being slightly cheaper.  (Replacing the Partisan's quad AC/5s and its anemic ammo bay with 2 PPCs is around 100k C-Bills cheaper and has a spare half-ton to spend).

Then in later eras there's the Light PPC and the Thunderbolt 5, giving similar damage performance to the AC/5 for way less weight.  Even on ICEs and FCEs...

True its a less attractive option when you have free weight heat sinks but it still has uses.

I use it on Scorpions and Vedettes to throw nameless mooks at the PCs because it's a terrible weapon.  That's its use.

Its also capable of doing 10 points of damage, yet rarely does so. Also if heat sinks are needed they're the only IS LRM closest in total weight to the AC/5 that can do 10 points of damage. Unless your using Dead-fire missiles the maybe the LRM5 is better. Acually getting that many missiles to hit though... :-\

Let's try this again...
Put away Tac Ops for a second, since Rapid-fire Autocannons is an optional rule that players have to agree to use...
..What has the LRM-10 got to do with a comparison between the AC/5 and the PPC?

[Daemion]

I think the topics are similar enough that keeping them separate (once the other one was moved down here) wouldn't have made much sense.

Sort, of, but I step away for a few days, and I can't figure out why my comment is mixed in where it is.  I almost prefer that the two had been separated. One is still 'why', versus the other's 'how'.

[Daryk]

Except "how" was already mixed into the "why" thread (which I explicitly commented on in that thread), that's why it migrated down here.

[RifleMech]

Neither of these points have much practical purpose.  If the "dice gods" favour you so much, you might as well operate a RISC Hyper Laser or a RAC.  But it's a game of chance so short of seeing into the future that 1-in-12 chance of crippling yourself is always relevant.

How the dice gods favor you effects how you game though. Those favored can do those things more often than those who aren't.

 
A LRM hitting with a typical 65% of their payload on average deals ~80 points of damage per ton, while a SRM-2 that only rolls a 2 on the cluster table forever and ever still deals 100 damage per ton of ammo, same as an Autocannon (in practice it's much more than that).  That issue of "wasted ammo" is academic at best.

You could argue logistics and C-Bill cost, but I guarantee you it's more expensive to replace an entire 'Mech that got blown up since it mounted a far inferior weapon set than it is to replace a few tons of ammunition.

True. Which is why the bean counters don't like it when those who ride the heat blow their mechs up. And inferior depends on the circumstances.

That's kind of the point.  In the PPC's worst-case scenario, mounted on an ICE vee that has to fully pay for heat sinks and power amps, the twin AC/5s are still an inferior weapon package to the lone PPC.  If the weapon are turret-mounted, the weight difference between the two is zero, and the PPC actually ends up being slightly cheaper.  (Replacing the Partisan's quad AC/5s and its anemic ammo bay with 2 PPCs is around 100k C-Bills cheaper and has a spare half-ton to spend).

In the Partisan case you can do that but then you change it from an AA tank into a cheaper Shrek PPC Carrier. It also doesn't work for every tank. It wouldn't work on the Scorpion. Doing so also reduces the potential damage by half. Yes, its risky to double tap but its still possible.

Then in later eras there's the Light PPC and the Thunderbolt 5, giving similar damage performance to the AC/5 for way less weight.

.5-1 tons isn't way less.

Even on ICEs and FCEs...I use it on Scorpions and Vedettes to throw nameless mooks at the PCs because it's a terrible weapon.  That's its use.

I don't see it as a terrible weapon. And if we go with alternate eras, Missiles can be shot down. They can be by aero's point defense anyway.  PPCs can be countered with shields and armor. It's only the Dark Ages where there's an armor that can counter cannon fire and it doesn't stop all ammo.

Let's try this again...
Put away Tac Ops for a second, since Rapid-fire Autocannons is an optional rule that players have to agree to use...
..What has the LRM-10 got to do with a comparison between the AC/5 and the PPC?

Again its the closest in terms of weight, heat and damage.