That doesn't work for every unit. And the rule change is what turned a primary weapon into a secondary one. Remember all heat sinks used to take crits. So every heat sink destroyed the worse things got for energy weapons. The AC on the other hand wasn't effected by the loss of a few heat sinks.
Autocannons produce heat, and are most certainly effected by a lost heat sink or damaged engine, especially AC/20s and UAC/20s. If you go full AC and somehow manage to use all your heat sinks effectively (which would be impressive given how heavy bloody ACs are, but possible on AC/20 boats with SHS), you will be
more effected by heat sink losses, engine crits, and inferno rounds.
An Extreme case: The Hellstar that loses several DHS and gets an engine crit would simply have to either bracket fire with 4/3/4/3 ERPPCs and keeps most of its firepower. A King Crab that loses several HS and gets an engine crit has to completely withhold an entire AC/20 at short range.
I had iATM and SRM boats that made very good use of this, engulfing other 'Mechs with Infernos. Ballistic boats and LRM boats with minimal Heat Sinks (like 10 DHS) would have to withhold most or all their firepower to avoid frying. A 3025 era mech with only a few SHS could feasibly be fried out of the cockpit by Inferno fire alone (and the iATM boat was fluffed to have done so to a poor pirate on one occasion). Energy boats like Hellstars would only have to withhold 1 or 2 primary weapons.
That would depend on the unit, the engine, the amount of heat sinks, and the range you want to hit it at.
It really doesn't. At 1 ton for the SRM-2 and 2 tons for the LRM-5, there's always a missile solution that ends up lighter than the Autocannon solution. The edge cases ("Oh, I absolutely
need to hit that target at exactly 24 hexes and not 22 that an ER PPC or Gauss Rifle can reach!) really don't matter.
I was talking the Scorpion not the Partisan. Although I did just see where you did. A PPC Scorpion is more expensive as it has to have a fusion engine.
Why are you talking about the Scorpion being more expensive when I'm talking about the Partisan?
And sorry that doesn't work. 2 AC/5s and 1 ton of ammo is 17 tons. 1 PPC, 10 heat sinks and a Power Amplifier is 18 tons. The PPC doesn't fit. You need to remove more ammo or something. Also the Power Amplifier costs 20,000. That's on top of the 20,000 for Heat sinks. That's only a difference of 20,000 if you remove 2 tons of ammo. A little more expensive but not that much.
Incorrect. You didn't account for turret weight.
4 AC/5s is 32 tons, mounted on a turret increases the mechanism weight by +3.5 tons. Add 2 tons of ammo (which is rather limited) for a total weapon system weight of 37.5 tons.
2 PPCs is 14 tons, mounted on a turret increases the mechanism weight by +1.5 tons. Requires an additional +1.5 tons for Power Amps (10% of 14 tons of energy weapons rounded up) and +20 tons worth of Heat Sinks. Net weapon system weight is 37.0 tons,
.5 tons lighter than the AC/5 system.
The PPC array is lighter than the AC/5 array on a Partisan.The cost for the PPC option is [400,000(PPCs)+30,000(Amps)+40,000(HS)+7,500(turret)]*1.8(Vehicle Weight Multiplier)=859,500 C-Bills.
The cost for the AC/5 option is [500,000(AC5)+17,500(turret)]*1.8(Vehicle Weight Multiplier)=931,500 C-Bills. The difference in cost, before considering ammo, is 72k in the PPC configuration's favour.
The PPC array is cheaper than the AC/5 array on a Partisan.I have a (legal) design in Customs posted very recently that showcases this. I have done it. It's verified as legal through TechManual. When you actually get into the nitty-gritty of calculating everything, the numbers line up.
It is exactly as I said.
The PPC array is as light or lighter than arrays of AC/5s while remaining a cheaper option, even on an ICE vehicle.
Page 214. It's in the section Weapons.
There's no "weapons" section in my copy. The Magi is on my Pg.214.
True the PPC doesn't have ammo requirements. It does however have Power and Heat Sink requirements far in excess of the AC/5. And if going with a ICE the PPC, weighs only 1 ton less than 2 AC/5s, 2 heat sinks, and ammo.
You do realize that "only" being lighter and cheaper while also not having any of the big disadvantages associated with ammo weapons even in the worst-case scenario of running an ICE (the whole "needing a logistical trail for ammo" thing, plus the "running out of ammo in the middle of the battlefield" issue, and the "explodium trap in a torso" problem) is
kind of a big deal?Autocannons: Are very low heat for their damage.
You mis-spelled Gauss Rifles.
The AC/2 requires 1 hit, giving it a heat/damage ratio of .5. A "hot" Medium Laser is only .6. A LRM-20 is around .47, and a SRM-6 is .5. Missiles become further heat efficient if they mount Artemis or Streak. The AC/2 is rather "middling" than low heat for its damage.
Only the AC/5 is impressively cool for its heat at a ratio of .2. AC/10s and AC/20s are somewhere in between the other autocannons at .3 and .35, respectively. Colder than a Large Laser or a PPC, certainly, but they don't have a huge edge over missiles or the regular medium laser. The heat-to-damage ratio of ACs become worse when double-tapping an ultra-autocannon as well.
If you want
very low heat for the damage you have to look for the Autocannon's buffer brothers: the Gauss Rifles. The LGR manages a good .125 and the regular Gauss Rifle boasts a truly impressive .067.
Not all unit gets "free" heat sinks. They weigh less than energy weapons for those units.
Despite your first statement being technically true, your second statement is not. In practice, even ICE designs can trade in Autocannons for energy weapons for a similar, even
lighter weight, without sacrificing effectiveness. Depending on the energy weapon and the AC being traded, the energy replacement often ends up costing less.
The (PPC) Partisan is one example of a design replacing an energy weapon to get better results for less cost. The Demolisher is another. Simply swapping the two AC/20s for 8 Medium Lasers (Baby Ontos) results in equivalent damage and range brackets
for nearly 400,000 less C-Bills. That swap gives you an extra ton to boot for more armor or a MG.
The total weight of some energy weapons preclude their installation on some units.
The total weight of
Autocannons preclude their installation on some units. Then you either make a bigger unit or change up your armament. So what?
Alternate ammo make the AC/s more effective against a variety of targets.
Your suggested loadouts haven't had enough space to make good use of alternate ammo loadouts. SRM Ammo and LRM Ammo has more generally useful alternative options.
(autocannons) weigh less (than missiles) if going by average damage (except for Clan systems) again with less heat.
The heat is only extrinsically relevant (It only really matters in the design phase in such a sense that you have to spend crits and weight in order to accommodate the heat production. Weight would be the intrinsically relevant metric.
As for the autocannons weighing less than missiles by average damage, that's wrong. Blatantly wrong.
Going with heat sink adjusted weights (weapon system with heat sinks all added to completely cover the heat production), we get the following weights for the LRM-5 and SRM-6:
LRM-5: 4 tons
SRM-6: 7 tons
Average damage can be computed from the Cluster Hits Table as the following:
LRM-5: ~3.167 damage
SRM-6: 8 damage
Hence, the average damage per unit weight for these systems can be computed simply by dividing damage by weight:
LRM-5: .792 Damage/ton
SRM-6: 1.143 Damage/ton
The average damage per unit weight for standard ACs can be computed in a similar way very easily:
AC2: .286
AC5: .555
AC10: .667
AC20: .952
(Damage is computed pre-ammo in all cases. Obviously, allocating for ammo will reduce the damage per ton.)
Both missile systems beat the AC/2 quite handily. The LRM-5 beats the AC/5 and AC/10 convincingly. The AC/20 does beat the LRM, but at that point we're in the SRM's territory, which beats all four autocannons
So yeah, that's false. By the numbers, the Missile systems weigh less than autocannons when going by average damage,
not the other way around.
Really. This is pretty common knowledge as far as BT goes. Have you actually done any number crunching on this before making your claims?
The first 3 probably wouldn't change things at all. The fourth eliminates the reason for the Ultra so you'd need to improve it. And no I don't believe they would dominate. Although I can see complaints about the Ultra and Rotary ACs in comparison to the "improved" AC.
The Ultra is more accurate when double-tapping. So no, they're not pointless (though I did change how they work in my AC rework anyways).
So you don't think getting rid of their individual maluses (min range, AC/2 heat) and allowing them to act as miniature UACs at the same time is going overboard? And you still defend ACs as-is as if they're competitive? That's rather telling.
The PPC Blackjack needs DHS to be workable. Even if it has DHS the energy boat Rifleman would still be a failure do to overheating. The LRM Jagermech is a maybe, however it can overheat easier than the AC variant. And again, random missile hits. I wouldn't call it better, just alternative. The medium laser Swayback is ammo independent but lacks the solid punch of the AC/20 that makes the Hunchback scary.
I'm not really talking canon designs. Those hit so many dumb pitfalls anyways it's not even funny.
I really don't care if a Swayback's 8 medium lasers isn't as "scary" as an AC/20. It does the job. If an opponent ignores the swayback because it's not as "scary" as an AC/20 he's going to get blown to bits by a backside shot. If anything, not being "scary" is an advantage in that sense.
Of course there will be. Those complaining generally, only see just the damage, range, and tonnage. When you factor in everything else Autocannons are not lemons. In fact they're far from it when you look at how they were originally. And there's a good deal of threads for complaints about the Clan Missiles being broken.
I have factored everything (as have others) and we are telling you they're lemons. You really need to look at the things again. There have been several obvious flaws in your arguments that are easily disproved by simple algebra.
Don't bring the Clans into this. We're not talking about the Clans.
I don't think some of the "crutches" would be noticed if they went away.
I did. I noticed right away.
When I house-ruled away the AC/2 and AC/5 minimum range brackets, and the heat of the AC/2, they felt significantly better than they used to be. They still weren't good, but being able to plink something close range with an AC/2 without the heat or accuracy penalty (from minimum range) without any real penalty felt nice. My 'mech paid 7+ tons for such a weak weapon, at least let me use the bloody thing!
House-ruling the "Mini Ultra" things finally got them to feel competitive in 3025, and unique as a weapon system in general. But the crutch-removal was still nice.
Start playing with the other things and they'll be arguments. Like why not use the MoS to increase the number of missiles that hit? Having an additional missile or two hitting is always a good thing.
FF has already made his reasoning clear as to "why not". I won't repeat it.
Probably the easiest thing would be to make the optional rules standard. It still wouldn't change things to much but does make the AC/s a little more different.
Easy, sure. Good, no. There's been much better ideas on improving the Autocannon, some of which have been tested on the Tabletop already.
Is this the fusion powered Scorpion? Sure. Of course its no longer a cheap light tank. You also make all the tanks the same. And since money is no longer a factor I'm gonna go with reflective armor to counter your PPCs.
"Cheap" is relative. An "expensive" Fusion Scorpion can still be built cheaper than the Hetzer.
It's kind of noteworthy that using Reflective to "counter" the PPC just makes it a lighter AC/5 in this case. But since we're playing that game: I bid 2 Boeing Jump Bombers with HE bombs against your Reflective Armor Scorpion! ;)
Thinking about it, I don't think the solution is to tweak autocannons but to have more of them. I know they're put in classes to simplify the game but reading the fluff there's a wide degree of sizes just in one class of Autocannon. What if the game reflected that? What if, there was an optional way for the Marauder's 120mm AC/5 to do more damage with less range than the Rifleman's 80mm? AC/5s? Or the Hetzer's 150mm AC/20 has a greater range than the Demolisher's 185mm AC/20?
There's the Quirk system. Presumably you could do the same for other weapons. There's plenty of brands for SRMs and lasers.
I provided a link to my Scorpion up thread, and it's 3025 tech. Does Reflective Armor actually work against particle cannons? I thought it was only lasers... ???
Reflective works against all energy weapons, basically. It even reduces heat from Flamers and Plasma weapons, curiously enough.