That's the thing though. I'm not sure it's implied or not. We know they found chemical lasers in their archives and decided to try them. But did they go with the plans from the archives or did they reinvent them? I would have thought that if they'd reinvented them they'd be lighter.
As the words (that I wrote) put it: "Seeking a more weight-economical alternative to vehicle-mounted lasers (which often require power amplifiers on non-fusion units), Clan Hell's Horses recently returned to the chemical laser concept. Though reliance on chemical "ammunition" (which remains as energetic and highly toxic as the early laser versions) promises to reduce their endurance in combat, the resulting weapons may be mounted on non-fusion vehicles without requiring power packs or heat sinks." (p. 320, TO).
The Horses returned to the
concept of these weapons, not the actual lasers themselves, dusted off. A paragraph before, those lasers were classified as "the first effective energy weapons able to physically damage robust targets, like solid-fueled missiles and unarmored military vehicles," and were a reference weapons to basically the present state of laser weaponry today in 21st century. Even then, such weapons are useful only as anti-missile and anti-light vehicle weapons...things with a fairly thin skin of aluminum or sheet metal. In BT terms, we're talking maybe BAR 3-4, or maybe 5 if lucky...over the course of a second or three. That's early Tech C stuff, at best. What the Horses developed, at a tech rating of E, is powerful enough to slice into BAR 10 armor in a fraction of a second. It's not the same gear at all; it's an old idea that was reworked to 31st-century standards.
So the Primitive Prototype Rules? The ones where energy weapons generate 50% more heat and ballistic weapons jam on a 2 and have 3/4s the ammo?
... Have the Inner Sphere Recovered Tech Prototype rules been dropped? pp. 102-104, original IO? Where energy weapons had +1D6 heat and a +1 to-hit modifier (reducing pulse lasers to only a -1 bonus, and saddling ERs with a +1), Ultras jammed on 4 while LBs jammed on 2, cluster hit tables for LBs were -1, but most other range, damage, mass, ammo counts, and crit space stats (with a few minor exceptions) were as they were in their perfected form.
But still, if you already have the production models of all those SL weapons and their most logical updates available at my 3060 cut-off, what are you asking for that's worth it with such handicaps?
The ones for the Nirasaki Combat Computer on the Fury Tank? Yeah, that was me.
Yup. Not crazy with how light they are, and would likely have to indicate why they can't be used with just any old unit for our Syberians (maybe the networks are hard-wired and require extended reprogramming to link with other "combiners"), but you did the research, and found a way to justify it being "available" to our Syberian settlers, so it comes into the realm of the possible.
Oooh 1945 BA weapons! ;D IS is good. I'm going to guess IS Infantry weapons too.
Of course! (Also: Damn you for making me think up rules for building 1945 battle armor....)
I don't think the AC/15 would be pointless. Sure the Gauss Rifle is better but not every unit has an extra 2 tons to mount it. It'd also be easier to build for those who's lost the ability to make Gauss Rifles. The AC also has alternative munitions so that's another plus in the AC/15's favor.
IF your force commonly uses alternate munitions, which most don't.
Here are the only advantages over the Gauss Rifle I found with my AC/15 idea: 2 tons lighter. No Minimum Range. Weapon does not explode on a critical.
Here's where the GR outperforms it: 4 points less heat. 10 hexes greater Long range. 2 crits smaller. GR is already proven; AC/15 hasn't even been prototyped yet. (Unlike Daryk's version, I came to an ammo count equal to that of the GR, by splitting the difference between the AC/10 & AC/20, then rounding up instead of down.)
If you DO drag C-bill cost into this, BTW, the AC/15 comes in at 25K, which is 5K cheaper than the GR, but again, the Syberians don't have a money-driven economy.
So, you would really only be picking your AC/15 if you were tons-poor, crit-rich, had the heat sinks to spare, AND you were more confident than not that the weapon would take a hit. (Or you were just a cheap bastard in a C-bill economy.) Is that all worth the R&D costs?
A Small Blazer I can see being pointless. Just go with a Medium and get better range. A Blazer that fits in between the Medium and Large Lasers though. That I can see.
Something like
Light Blazer Cannon
Heat 6
Damage 7
Range 0/4/8/12
Weight 3 tons
How did your range go up? The Blazer uses the standard LL's range. A Medium Blazer would have the ML's range.
That's not a Blazer, though... to make one, you take two existing laser cores, get all the heat, the same range, and 1.5 x the damage...
And, what Daryk said...
I think so. :) I think if the AC/15 had been available, a lot of units would have downgraded from the Gauss Rifle to it rather than the AC/10.
Shame the IS factions decided it wasn't worth the R&D costs. ;) Or maybe the Blazer just won the generals over and took all the AC/15's funding...because if ANYONE was gonna throw money at a lower-tech answer to the GR, it WOULD be Steiner.
- Herb
