Fixing Autocannon (my take on the issue)

[Terrion]

Pumping out ~15 damage at long range while moving 5/8 isn't easy. The 7K has a good balance of heat management, and under reliance on ammo to make it the only credible AC 5 design compared to other weapon compositions that attempt to fill that damage output with that movement rating.

The Trbuchet -5N already averages 19 damage at range, albeit with a shortage of ammo. The Griffin beats the -7k as well, and does it with more armor and a better movement profile to boot.

[Nahuris]

i like this, mainly because the half-ammo limitation for most specialty munitions has proved to be overkill as a balancing tool. there's just not nearly enough 'mechs able to afford spending a ton on a half-ton of ammo for their guns, so few situations crop up where picking those ammo types doesn't mean you're going to be running dry halfway through a fight. and noone's willing to risk that.
 
i don't like the idea of an universal improved munition myself, mostly because the jamming/circuit failure isn't a result of the ammo itself but the gun pushing what it's capable of to achieve it's firing rate. there's also the fact that your idea turns the AC/10s into headcappers, which is a pretty big change to me.

an improved (production quality) HVAC Ammo with no more fouling rate would be nice though.
yikes. as much as part of me likes the idea of hosing an area with specialty ammo, that would be far too big a buff to be fair in any way. an ultra 10-20 doubletapping on AP is going to tear 'mechs a excessively generous CASE venting and a RAC-5 with precision ammo is frightening to think about pulling on lights/hovers.

HVACs get their extra oomh by using a different propulsion mix, but i'd think that giving them AP and maybe some other types wouldn't be out of place- HV-Flak ammo sounds like it might be nice....

The AC/10 has always been a potential headcapper, same as the PPC.... heads only have 9 points of armor... meaning that any hit that does 10 or more gets a crit roll.......
I've killed more people with cockpit hits than I ever have by using weapons that do 12 or more and just blowing the head off.

Nahuris

[A. Lurker]

I've killed more people with cockpit hits than I ever have by using weapons that do 12 or more and just blowing the head off.

Considering that every headcap automatically includes a cockpit hit but not every cockpit hit results from a headcap, that's kind of an easy claim to make. ;)

[Nahuris]

i really wish people wouldn't uses the AC/5 to exaggerate their complaints about autocannon quality- it's the worst gun in the autocannon lineup, and it's got a massive pile of competing weapons. we know this. it is not indicative of the rest of the guns. it's the old crotchety senile grandma of the autocannon family, please stop mocking it.

My issue with AC's as a whole is that all of them are gimped in such a way, as to keep the AC/5 relevant with the rest.
We know that the AC/5 is outdated ... that's cool, every mech that comes with one has a variant that yanks it, so you can avoid the waste, and still play canon units only games. However, any new AC's or ammor, or anything else that might, even by accident, improve AC's is automatically heavily penalized to make sure that it is never better than the lowly AC/5.

Now that we have Light PPC's.... especially with double heat sinks, there is no reason to bother with the AC/5 at all......
We have new beam weapons, we have ELRM's.... but when it comes to balllistics..... TPTB seem to have the attitude that we should either like it, or learn to like it.....

Don't get me wrong, I like autocannons, but I also recognize that they do nothing that other weapons do not do better

Nahuris

[Nahuris]

Considering that every headcap automatically includes a cockpit hit but not every cockpit hit results from a headcap, that's kind of an easy claim to make. ;)

Yeah....
However, I've done a lot more hits with PPC's, AC/10's, or even paired medium lasers that have resulted in a cockpit hit, without totally destroying the head... than I have totally destroyed the head with Gauss, HPPC's or AC/20's.
I tend to not like clan combat as much, so have even less results from CERPPC's.

Nahuris

[evilauthor]

The AC/10 has always been a potential headcapper, same as the PPC.... heads only have 9 points of armor... meaning that any hit that does 10 or more gets a crit roll.......
I've killed more people with cockpit hits than I ever have by using weapons that do 12 or more and just blowing the head off.

Nahuris

Ah yes thanks. I was wondering why I thought 12 ton weapon that does 10 points of damage was acceptable while an 8 ton weapon that did only 5 was not. I was beginning to think it was pure psych value of doing a two digit number damage over a single digit, but you pretty much laid my concerns there to rest.

Hmm... how about a back handed way to "fix" Autocannons... by doing nothing to the Autocannon, but introduce new technologies that neuter the other weapon types?

Reflec armor is perfected and becomes the new standard. This outright halves the damage from all energy weapon attacks, but is neither extra vulnerable nor extra resistant to other damage types.

Imrpoved AMS does everything AMS does but better. And with more ammo.

A Blue Shield variant that deflects (ie, gives targeting penalties) Gauss fire... and possibly PPC fire too.

But Autocannon? Except for the heaviest, Autocannons weren't considered a big threat, so new technology that works against them specifically. But with the other weapons neutered by newer technology, everyone starts packing Autocannons again...


Oooh, idea!

One of the complaints I've had about ACs is how they don't "share" heat sink capacity, making them grossly overweight for their damage. But what if someone designed a new AC with heat sinks integrated into them? NOT because the ACs actually need additional heat dissipation ability, but because their nice long barrels make for a lovely place to put heat radiators? Would ACs look better if they provided NEGATIVE net heat build up?

Radiator Fins - Coolant lines that run the exterior length of ballistic weapon barrels, these lines use this extensive surface area to aid in dissipating excess heat from a mech. Radiator Fins are an aftermarket addition that can be fitted to any ballistic weapon

Radiator Fins take up 1 ton and 1 crit and must be placed in the same location as the weapon they are attached to. During combat, Radiator Fins adds to the mech's overall heat sink capacity; the added heat sink capacity is equal to the attached weapon's crits. An AC/5 with Radiator Fins would provide -4 heat for only 1 ton and 1 crit spent. When the ballistic weapon is fired, it still generates heat as normal, but this does not disrupt the operation of the Radiator Fins.

If a weapon with attached Radiator Fins suffers a critical hit, that weapon's Radiator Fins ceases provide any cooling benefits in addition to the weapon becoming unusable. OTOH, if the Radiator Fin crit is hit but the weapon is not, the Radiator Fins will still stop providing any benefits, but the weapon it is attached to will continue the function.

[Terrion]

Hmm... how about a back handed way to "fix" Autocannons... by doing nothing to the Autocannon, but introduce new technologies that neuter the other weapon types?

Reflec armor is perfected and becomes the new standard. This outright halves the damage from all energy weapon attacks, but is neither extra vulnerable nor extra resistant to other damage types.

Imrpoved AMS does everything AMS does but better. And with more ammo.

A Blue Shield variant that deflects (ie, gives targeting penalties) Gauss fire... and possibly PPC fire too.

Trying to fix 4 weapons by "neutering" 11 seems backwards. The mere fact that you have to nerf essentially everything else to bring autocannons in line suggests to me that it's the ACs that should be fixed. (AMS actually could use an improvement IMO, but that's a result of it's own questionable merits rather than missile/AC balance.)

RE Ultras: they always semm to fluffed as infighting weapons, but the rules don't really support that in any particular way. What about a bonus to the cluster table at medium/short range? It would make sense in-universe (less distance = lower spread). MCould apply it to LB cluster rounds as well, if you think those need improving.

[Netzilla]

Netzilla made a blanket statement about all ACs which deserved a rebuttal.

I don't know of an AC-based design that can't be improved by switching it to an energy-based load-out.  Now, if energy weapons aren't available due to expense, rarity, etc, then it can probably still be improved by switching to missile weapons as evilauthor has pointed out.

First off by AC-based, I mean that the AC is part of its primary armament, not a backup or secondary weapon.  Secondly, I stated that 'I didn't know of...'  I don't claim to know of every design that exists.  Of the ones you mentioned, the Treb 7K and Devestator I was unfamiliar with and while I've heard of the Turbo Hunchback I don't have the stats for it.

Now, taking each of your counter-examples in turn:

The Treb 7K:  I would argue that the AC5 is actually a secondary weapon, the primary being the PPC.  However, that can be debated as the design has just enough heat sinks to be able to fire both the PPC and AC5 at a standstil for no net heat.  Overall, the design produces 2 excess heat on an alpha.  If I yank out the AC5 and ammo, it's hard to come up with an energy-based design that still maintains the exact same heat curve.  I can switch to a LL to get +3 damage at ranges 0-15 for a cost of -5 damage at ranges 16-18 and +2 excess heat (total of 4 on an alpha).  Combined with the lack of an ammo bomb and being able to make more than 20 shots, it seems like a better than even trade to me.  Another option is go trade in the AC5+Ammo for an LRM10 + 2 Ammo + 2 Heat Sinks.  You lose damage in the 4-6 range but gain at the 7+ as well as being able to hit all the way out to 21.  Your alpha produces 1 more heat than the 7K's alpha and your max damage (with a lucky cluster roll) has the chance to cause a knockdown which the 7K can't do at any range.  Of course, if you really want to cheese the missile design, use 2 LRM5s + 1 ammo + 4 heat sinks.  Now you alpha for only 1 extra heat, which is less than the alpha of the 1K.

The Devastator: I assume you mean the 1D.  As it stands, it alphas for 34 heat with 15 heat sinks, for an excess of 19.  I can yank out the 2 AC10s plus ammo and put in 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  It now alphas for 48 heat with 29 sinks, for an excess of 19.  It does less damage at 1-3 but can reach ranges 16-18 as well as the advantages of longer short and medium ranges.

The Hammerhands: I assume you mean the 3D.  This one alphas for 16 heat vs 13 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Once again, yanking out the ACs and ammo gets me 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  This is an alpha of 30 heat vs 27 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Basically, it's the same analysis as the Devastator, above.

The Clint: The 3T's alpha is 7 heat vs 10 sinks.  Yank the AC5, ammo and 1 ML and replace with a PPC + 3 sinks and you end up with 13 heat vs 13 sinks.  You gain +5 damage at ranges 10-18, have a better chance to hit for the same damage at ranges 6-9, and lose 5 damage at ranges 1-3.  Again, no ammo bomb and unlimited shots.  Seems like a good trade to me.

Ultimately, what is better can be debatable based on what you value in a design (aesthetics vs fluff vs raw performance), what tactics you prefer (long range sniping, short range brawling, hit-and-fade, etc) and if you're talking campaign play or not (cost and rarity vs ammo expenses and shortages).  The alternative designs I give above do all lose out on close-range brawling ability but perform better as long range snipers, which tends to be my own preferred tactic.

[mutantmagnet]

The Trbuchet -5N already averages 19 damage at range, albeit with a shortage of ammo. The Griffin beats the -7k as well, and does it with more armor and a better movement profile to boot.

The Griffin  generates more net-heat which lowers its DPS significantly. The addition of jumpjets and superior armor is a virtue of it being in a heavier chassis that offers an additional 1.5 tons and the sacrifices it makes by not having short ranged weapons.

The 5N as noted lacks longevity at range. It does have better short range offense but that's the trade you make with many designs.

The Devastator: I assume you mean the 1D.  As it stands, it alphas for 34 heat with 15 heat sinks, for an excess of 19.  I can yank out the 2 AC10s plus ammo and put in 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  It now alphas for 48 heat with 29 sinks, for an excess of 19.  It does less damage at 1-3 but can reach ranges 16-18 as well as the advantages of longer short and medium ranges.

The Hammerhands: I assume you mean the 3D.  This one alphas for 16 heat vs 13 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Once again, yanking out the ACs and ammo gets me 2 PPCs and 14 heat sinks.  This is an alpha of 30 heat vs 27 sinks, for an excess of 3.  Basically, it's the same analysis as the Devastator, above.

The Clint: The 3T's alpha is 7 heat vs 10 sinks.  Yank the AC5, ammo and 1 ML and replace with a PPC + 3 sinks and you end up with 13 heat vs 13 sinks.  You gain +5 damage at ranges 10-18, have a better chance to hit for the same damage at ranges 6-9, and lose 5 damage at ranges 1-3.  Again, no ammo bomb and unlimited shots.  Seems like a good trade to me.

I misremembered the design. I was thinking of the Pillager 1N and not the Devastator 1D.


Your hammerhand varient sacrafices short range damage for long range. It's a wash.


You overlooked what I was comparing the Clint to. You can't jump and shoot a large laser let alone a PPC with 3025 mechs unless you like to risk shut down rolls. Regardless I also said the Clint was a poor attempt at being a Wraith. I like it for what it tries to do but I wasn't putting it in the same league as the other autocannon mechs I mentioned.

[Alexander Knight]

You overlooked what I was comparing the Clint to. You can't jump and shoot a large laser let alone a PPC with 3025 mechs unless you like to risk shut down rolls. Regardless I also said the Clint was a poor attempt at being a Wraith. I like it for what it tries to do but I wasn't putting it in the same league as the other autocannon mechs I mentioned.

I'll remember that when using my VND-1R or PNT-9R.  Or the WVR-6M.  Or the PXH, or the Grasshopper.  Or the TDR-5SE.....

[evilauthor]

The Griffin  generates more net-heat which lowers its DPS significantly. The addition of jumpjets and superior armor is a virtue of it being in a heavier chassis that offers an additional 1.5 tons and the sacrifices it makes by not having short ranged weapons.

I'll note this is a problem only if the Griffin decides to stand and slug it out instead of doing such things as jumping behind cover to cool off. DPS only matters when mechs are actually shooting at each other. If line of sight gets broken on a regular basis like when the Griffin overheats, then DPS for both is exactly zero. The only DPS that really matters is when the two mechs have line of sight on each other.

Of course, jumping makes targeting more difficult for both sides, but the energy armed Griffin doesn't really care about wasting ammo now.

[Cowdragon]

It's notable that the only straight-up-better-in-all-things LB-X autocannon is...the LB-10X.  Smaller, lighter, better range, less heat AND it gets the wonders of cluster munitions without any specialty ammo "penalty".

All the other ones are at least modestly bulkier (though except for the IS -20X this usually isn't a huge problem), but apparently the /10 was the one they could really do better with in every way....oh, and then they made a heat-up version of the AC/10 and called it "Plasma Rifle". :P

really good points on that. Why can they do better with that one and not the rest of the LB/Ultra seriies? Why, when they had the chance to make Light AC's better... didn't they? I mean, that could have been one really cool way the Inner Sphere had a slight edge on the Clans! Lighter-standard AC's that could use all the cool ammunition that the clans didn't have access to. Instead, we got smaller and lighter piles of crap. Oh sure, the minimum ranges are gone... but what happened at the other end? "Oh. Prison rules buddy. You brought an AC to a Laser/Missile/PPC fight. Bight the pillow."  :'(

[Sabelkatten]

I misremembered the design. I was thinking of the Pillager 1N and not the Devastator 1D.


Your hammerhand varient sacrafices short range damage for long range. It's a wash.

In both those cases switching to PPCs also:

- Reduce/remove the risk of ammo explosions.

- Increase endurance.

- Increase staying power by better crit packing.

- Reduce vulnerability to external heat effects and engine crits.

You overlooked what I was comparing the Clint to. You can't jump and shoot a large laser let alone a PPC with 3025 mechs unless you like to risk shut down rolls. Regardless I also said the Clint was a poor attempt at being a Wraith. I like it for what it tries to do but I wasn't putting it in the same league as the other autocannon mechs I mentioned.

With 13 SHS the PPC Clint would only have to drop its PPC every 3rd turn when jumping, which still gives it a better average damage than the standard Clint's AC. If it stays on the ground most of the time it could fire every turn for twice the damage.

The only place it fails is a jumping fight at close range where the AC Clint comes out ahead.

[Hptm. Streiger]

really good points on that. Why can they do better with that one and not the rest of the LB/Ultra seriies? Why, when they had the chance to make Light AC's better... didn't they? I mean, that could have been one really cool way the Inner Sphere had a slight edge on the Clans! Lighter-standard AC's that could use all the cool ammunition that the clans didn't have access to. Instead, we got smaller and lighter piles of crap. Oh sure, the minimum ranges are gone... but what happened at the other end? "Oh. Prison rules buddy. You brought an AC to a Laser/Missile/PPC fight. Bight the pillow."  :'(

The Axeman 4D? with its 4 LAC 5 linked to a target computer is a average capable light mech bruiser - but thats it. Seldom saw a usefull design with Light ACs

However when ever i see some designs with AC 5 class cannons i start to wonder if the AC had once different rules.
The Shadow Hawk has toy guns only
The CTF-3D is a real curious one... a Ultra 5 instead of a PPC and because of the additional weight a XL-Fusion? I don't get it -> for normal TT it wont work.
Considering other rule sets where the RoF is used the conversation however seems to be useable

[mutantmagnet]

In both those cases switching to PPCs also:

- Reduce/remove the risk of ammo explosions.

- Increase endurance.

- Increase staying power by better crit packing.

- Reduce vulnerability to external heat effects and engine crits.

One can move around the ammo in the first place and minimize the risk the explosions chance which is the primary reason you want to critpack when you can.

An energy weapon design is going to have serious issues with external heat as well since the number of usable weapons without overheating will limit you.

In this case the PPC version is still going to be better since it has reached that tonnage where it can carry enough heatsinks to absorb external heat which just highlights a complaint I've had when people say Autocannons run cooler when in reality they are just as susceptible to effects of overheating when you look at all the circumstances. This is partly why I thought of that idea that energy weapons needed to overheat if the mech wasn't heat neutral.


Engine crits are definitely a bigger threat for the AC Hammerhand because with the crit packing of the PPC version there is much less chance a crit will carry through from the side and once one side torso is removed the weapons on that side aren't usable.

Keep in mind the Pillager uses twin AC 20s so PPCs don't cover the same type of space control. You have to use medium laser spam.

With 13 SHS the PPC Clint would only have to drop its PPC every 3rd turn when jumping, which still gives it a better average damage than the standard Clint's AC. If it stays on the ground most of the time it could fire every turn for twice the damage.

The only place it fails is a jumping fight at close range where the AC Clint comes out ahead.

I would do it every 4th turn with that setup. Otehr than that point conceded.

[CloaknDagger]

What about this:

Autocannons can fire as many times in a turn as you want. Every second shot and above gets a stacking targeting modifier from the previous shots. 

AC20, +4
AC10, +3
AC5, +2
AC2, +1

UACs don't get the firing modifier until the SECOND shot.

I think this is self-balancing. Accuracy puts hard limits on damage, Ammo consumption puts hard limits on how much you can fire/oh god your entire mech is explosive! Accuracy modifiers make targeting computers useful. Heat makes heat sinks important and bracketing possible.

[Cowdragon]

soooo what makes things useful?

Range, damage, ammunition efficiency, heat efficiency, accuracy, unique abilities (like flak etc).

what if we did something like; a standard AC deals its standard damage plus heat damage equal to the heat it inflicts on the firer? Would this be overpowered? Understandable if "yes". However it gives us a simple baseline to work from. What if, instead of dealing heat damage, they did as some have already suggested, and added impact. Or the ability to knock over opponents? Cool verses mechs and VTOLs, but not very effective against a tank. Definitely good against ASFs. Again. Too powerful? Not enough? What if it was kept even simpler? What if damage was increased across the board? There isn't enough return on the weight used until you get to the 20 Class. On that note, does the 20 Class even need improvement? Personally I say "yes". At least ammunition-wise. More specifically, shots per ton. But am I wrong?

[Charlie Tango]

Aw, just upgrade everything to Gauss Cannons and it will all be fine...   ;D

[Sandslice]

The Axeman 4D? with its 4 LAC 5 linked to a target computer is a average capable light mech bruiser - but thats it. Seldom saw a usefull design with Light ACs

However when ever i see some designs with AC 5 class cannons i start to wonder if the AC had once different rules.

The Solaris VII boxed set had different rules for duelling.  In short, a turn was 2,5 seconds instead of 10, which led to several changes.  Among these were greatly increased heat for all weapons (4x, in fact,) and recharge time on weapons.  The heat scale also compensated for the massive heat spikes.

What made the ACs competitive in S7 was the reload advantage.  The AC/2 could fire every Solaris turn vs. the every third turn of the ER Large Laser - a definite advantage, especially given the ammo bin on the AC.  The AC/5 was twice as fast as the PPC, making the two quite competitive.

[Cowdragon]

The Solaris VII boxed set had different rules for duelling.  In short, a turn was 2,5 seconds instead of 10, which led to several changes.  Among these were greatly increased heat for all weapons (4x, in fact,) and recharge time on weapons.  The heat scale also compensated for the massive heat spikes.

What made the ACs competitive in S7 was the reload advantage.  The AC/2 could fire every Solaris turn vs. the every third turn of the ER Large Laser - a definite advantage, especially given the ammo bin on the AC.  The AC/5 was twice as fast as the PPC, making the two quite competitive.

I miss those rules. :(

[evilauthor]

I miss those rules. :(

The Solaris 7 rules are IMO the BEST way to fix Autocannons. By implementing some version of the S7's rate of fire rules (like saying weapon X can make Y number of independent attacks per turn in standard play), the standard lighter ACs become very competitive with energy weapons.

At the very least, if Rate of Fire is not made a standard rule, they should be made an optional one.

Also IMO, the S7 rules probably more closely model what actual mech combat like in-universe. What would be a heat neutral design under standard play would be a heat hog under S7 rules, which would probably require radical rethinking of mech designs and load outs on what makes a good mech. Which is probably why they're not even an optional rule.

[va_wanderer]

You could "fix" AC's by giving them the equivalent ROF to their Solaris VII rules, and a fire penalty for each shot past the first one (say, +1). Of course, then you'd have to be fair and give that ROF option to everything else that earned it, too. A lot of weapons end up a lot less derpy- even the Charger with it's rack of small lasers!

[Sabelkatten]

The problem with the old S7 rules compared to the standard CBT rules (a problem that also exists with AT2 and BF2) is that you're using the same design rules but, essentially, different equipment.

That is, for practical purposes, an AC/5 under S7 rules isn't the same weapon as a standard CBT AC/5!

Of course if you're planning to rework the entire weapon list and changing things completely that's no problem... ::)

But I'm still voting for limited changes to damage, heat and range (plus ammo/ton in some cases).

[evilauthor]

The problem with the old S7 rules compared to the standard CBT rules (a problem that also exists with AT2 and BF2) is that you're using the same design rules but, essentially, different equipment.

That is, for practical purposes, an AC/5 under S7 rules isn't the same weapon as a standard CBT AC/5!

Of course if you're planning to rework the entire weapon list and changing things completely that's no problem... ::)

But I'm still voting for limited changes to damage, heat and range (plus ammo/ton in some cases).

At a minimum, you'd be adding one more column to all the weapon stats: a Rate of Fire stat that tells you how often you can use your weapon. Everything else are changes to the combat rules which don't show up on mech or weapon stats.

[mutantmagnet]

The minimum would be more involved than that. There already exists a Tacops rule that allows you to fire multiple times but you can jam. Under Solaris you can't jam and the underlying reason for that is the sequence of events.

In S7 turns are 2.5 seconds. In TW turns are ten seconds. To reflect what Solaris did you would have to create and insert multiple attack sequences in the movement phase.

Simply tally up the total number of units for all players and divide by four and round up. That is the number of units that can be moved before you fire a weapon with a certain speed.

After 25% of all units have been moved you can fire Speed 1 weapons and apply damage and heat effects immediately.
After 50% of units have moved you can fire Speed 1 and 2 weapons.
After 75% of units you can choose to use Speed 1 and 3 weapons.
After all units have moved Speed 1, 2 and 4 weapons can be used.

Speed 1
AC2, Machine gun, AMS

Speed 2
Flamer, Medium Laser, SMall laser,small pulse laser,AC 5, AC 10, UAC 5, LBX 10, NArc, SRM 2-6, Streak 2


Speed 3
Large laser, Medium pulse laser, AC 20, Gauss Rifle,LRM 5-20

Speed 4
ER Large laser, ER PPC, PPC, Large pulse laser

[evilauthor]

Yeah, ballistic weapons look like they have alot more utility when they can fire twice as fast as energy weapons over a 10 second period but STILL generate less heat. But their damage over time is now on par with energy weapons on a per tonnage basis. The Mauler with is quad mounted AC/2s? Very very scary.

The only problem I see is that if you still use TW's 10 second rounds, Speed 3 weapons do not splice cleanly into them. Speed 1 weapons can shoot 4 times a round. Speed 2 weapons can fire twice. Speed 4 weapons fire once. But Speed 3 weapons would have to alternate firing twice and once between rounds to properly represent their rate of fire which is going to increase book keeping. If you use a Speed 3 weapon, everyone needs some means of remembering whether or not they double tapped their Speed 3 weapon last round after doing a bunch of other dice rolls, movement actions, and so on.

Edit: If I were to implement a Rate of Fire system with standard 10 second rounds, I'd likely do away with Speed 3 as a category and move the weapons in there to either Speed 2 or Speed 4 as seems appropriate. Most of the heavy hitters like the Gauss and AC/20 can be moved to Speed 4, but the Medium Pulse Laser would be moved to Speed 2; it's already gimped enough without being slower firing too!

I'd also add a Rate of Fire to each weapon. The RoF would be a number representing how many times per 10 second round a weapon can be fired. It would effectively flip the values of S7's Speed ratings. It also would avoid using any partial values that would require extra book keeping like what I said about Speed 3 weapons.

[Sandslice]

The minimum would be more involved than that. There already exists a Tacops rule that allows you to fire multiple times but you can jam. Under Solaris you can't jam and the underlying reason for that is the sequence of events.

In S7 turns are 2.5 seconds. In TW turns are ten seconds. To reflect what Solaris did you would have to create and insert multiple attack sequences in the movement phase.

To reflect what Solaris did, you'd also insert "partial movement" phases, each 1/4 of the actual movement, between the attack sequences; at that point, however, you're pretty much playing Solaris rules.

Adding S7's rates of fire (at least at the fast speeds) is easy enough for TW's "all of this movement and attacking occurs some time throughout the 10-second turn, and is being abstracted to a move then attack timing for ease of play."  In other words, it's possible for TW to incorporate the idea that jumping 'Mechs are shooting (and being shot at) while airborne, rather than landing first; but the latter is easier to play.  :)

@evilauthor: I'd just say that the 7,5s / 3 turn weapons are 10s / 4 turn weapons.  Given what those weapons are, it doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

[evilauthor]

Hey, Mutantmagnet, I'm going to make a Design Challenge in the Mech design thread with the assumption that S7 rules are in full effect. Rather than retyping everything, I'm just going to quote your post on the S7 rules in full.

[mutantmagnet]

It wouldn't be hard to keep track of S3 weapons. All you need to do is use a check box and pencil or erasable ink.

@Sandslice S3 shouldn't be lumped in with S4. Even if you don't use the checkbox you still are giving certain weapons an advantage in performing damage and generating various effects before S4.

You are right about the quarter speeds and I ignored it for three reasons:

1. Faster weapons will have better targeting modifiers because units haven't fully spent their movement points as intended. This skews weapon balance in a ridiculous and unwanted fashion.

2. You already know the obvious reason that it will dramatically slow down the game. Even megamek would be intolerable with this, I would guess.

3. Solaris was movement was built with arena in mind. A normal btech map is four times the size of a solaris map when you convert it. There seems to be a lot less benefit to bringing in this level of nuance.

[evilauthor]

It wouldn't be hard to keep track of S3 weapons. All you need to do is use a check box and pencil or erasable ink.

Hmm... might work. It may have to go something like this though:

During Fire Declaration Phase
Box Checked - single attack can be declared only.
Box Unchecked - double attacks are allowed to be declared.

During Fire Resolution Phase
Box Checked - Erase Check
Box Unchecked - Check box only when resolving the second attack.

If followed rigorously, this SHOULD avoid any confusion about whether a weapon is allowed two attacks for a given turn or not. But I still don't like it. While I'd trust a computer program to adhere to these rules, would you trust players to do so in a pencil and paper game?