some SW era homebrew weapon questions.

[Izzy193]

Now this is something I want to know is for improvements to existing introtech weapons within SW era.

Would it be better to go for enhanced damage or weight reduction for energy weapons?

Would it be better to go for either 50% or 75% weight reduction for ballistics and missiles?

[Daryk]

What does "better" mean to you?  The Medium Laser is the most efficient energy weapon and has been for a long time.  The Blazer Cannon shows the way to increase damage, and the LACs from later eras show how to reduce weight.

[Izzy193]

the goal of this project is to decrease the time to kill. to clarify.

[DevianID]

If you are trying to kill stuff faster from a meta/real world time goal, the best way is more accuracy.  More accuracy means less missed shots and thus less rolls needed.  Also it smooths out the higher end curve, meaning the near impossible long range shots now start to matter much faster.  Weight reductions are the worst option, as it means more total rolls will be needed, so you didnt actually speed up time to kill, you effectively just made 10 turns worth of attacks happen in 7 turns, but those 7 turns are 50% longer, so the game finished in the same amount of real world time.

Adding more damage to weapons, or cutting armor/structure down by a %, speeds the game up, but by a linear amount.  Say you double all damage.  Well, now to deal 100 damage hitting on 9s, you need to make 36 'heavy' medium laser attacks instead of 72 regular medium laser attacks.  Conversely, instead by adding a -2 bonus to hit, well now you need 35 standard medium laser hits, so the -2 to hit with stock weapons is FASTER then doubling all weapon damage, even more so if your games see shots being taken on 10s or worse.  It has the added advantages of not needing to modify any existing sheets or creating lots of headcappers; just up the gunnery on everyone by 2.  Can fluff it saying they have star league quality sensors and weapons if you dont want the pilots to be 'good' but still want the games to play faster.

[Izzy193]

so If I combined a damage increase with more accuracy, it would close the gap with the clans a lot more?

Also I have the idea of these weapons being an innovation from the 3030s by the NAIS.

[idea weenie]

Now this is something I want to know is for improvements to existing introtech weapons within SW era.

Would it be better to go for enhanced damage or weight reduction for energy weapons?

Would it be better to go for either 50% or 75% weight reduction for ballistics and missiles?

I'd go for enhanced damage and maybe reduced heat, so it is easier to swap existing weapons to replace them with the better weapons.  Much easier to replace a 7-ton PPC with a 7-ton EDPPC, than remove a 7-ton PPC and replace it with a 5-ton XLPPC (plus 2 more tons of stuff).

It also allows you to have the weapons get a steady degradation, removing 1 pt of damage or adding 1 pt of heat at a time until they do the same heat and damage as a regular weapon.

[DevianID]

so If I combined a damage increase with more accuracy, it would close the gap with the clans a lot more?

Also I have the idea of these weapons being an innovation from the 3030s by the NAIS.

A split of damage increase and accuracy, with the same tonange/heat, would speed games up yes.  If they weigh more, or do more heat, then they wont speed gameplay up as much because you will have less of them.  IE, if you make an improved large laser that is 10 damage and -1 to hit, but it weighs 7 tons, well you will have less total weapons/HS on your mech.  You will speed gameplay up, but not by as large of an amount as just making the base 5 ton large laser strictly better.

From a lore POV, straight weapon upgrades are not really a battletech identity by the way.  They always have an exception/tradeoff besides IS to clan identical named things like ER large laser or Gauss Rifle.  So if you are just trying to speed games up, pilot upgrades and special pilot abilities are the best option from a lore POV.  Weapon specialist PPCs for -2 to hit, or combat computer quirks taken from stalkers for 4 extra heat sinking, are campaign operations level stuff you can do for an 'RPG' force of specialists using non-standard equipment.  That lets you make some pretty amazing elite forces that cant just be replicated by anyone who salvages their mech.

[Mechanis]

Now this is something I want to know is for improvements to existing introtech weapons within SW era.

Would it be better to go for enhanced damage or weight reduction for energy weapons?

Would it be better to go for either 50% or 75% weight reduction for ballistics and missiles?

I am inclined to say that you really shouldn't touch energy weapons at all; Instead, bring Autocannons down to 3/5/8/12 tons for the 2/5/10/20 respectively, yank the lead weights out of the LRM 10 and larger so they aren't objectively inferior to stacks of 5s, and bring in a few "could have been invented sooner" techs like MMLs, Thunderbolts, Hyper-Velocity Autocannons (appropriately weight adjusted and sans random explosions), maybe throw ELRMs (after giving the launchers a diet, because *damn* are those impractically heavy) in, and bring in some of the more "fun" ammo types like Tandems.

The biggest culprit is honestly Autocannons, they're way, way, way too heavy for what they bring. Lopping two crits off the 10 and 20 is also not the worst idea.


As for increased lethality, my usual suggestion is "House rules Indirect Fire to not be so terrible, bring pilots with 3 Gunnery, and use Special Pilot Abilities and Design Quirks."

[DevianID]

In introtech only, the larger LRM launchers have inbuilt heat reduction, so only the 10 and 15 would need to get just 1 ton lighter to match the 5s + equal heat dissipation.  20s are already in line with 5s, until you are out of introtech and using double sinks.  And indirect fire is super OP as it is, if you know how to use it.  I would not buff indirect at all, and think that SPAs for indirect should be outright banned if you want to have a balanced time, as indirect SPAs are hella broken because they remove player interaction.  If your opponent isnt able to interact with the board state cause of improved IDF, why even play together.  That said, lowering gunnery is just the best advice in general to reduce game time, but it applies to every unit, not just LRMs at skill 3.

ACs are too heavy for tonnage balanced games, not counting the advanced ammo that makes them amazing in their counter-role.  But if Izzy is playing BV balancing, AC's weight and damage is not the problem.  Unlike LRMs, they dont need to be internally consistent for things to make sense as each type of autocannon has its own range profile and job to do, unlike LRMs that are all identical. 

Now, if you dont play with other unit types AND dont balance by BV AND play pre 3062, then yeah ACs are weaker as there is nothing to FLAK and precision isnt until 3062, so I would suggest allowing precision if you play mech only games and want to buff ACs instead of adding vehicles and flyers that slow the game down with more rules.  Precision solves every problem and makes ACs top tier, so finding a different solution that changes record sheets when a solution already exists doesn't seem productive; just allow precision in your mech only games earlier then the lore states to account for not having combined arms for the ACs to shoot at.

[Mechanis]

In introtech only, the larger LRM launchers have inbuilt heat reduction, so only the 10 and 15 would need to get just 1 ton lighter to match the 5s + equal heat dissipation. 

 20s are already in line with 5s, until you are out of introtech and using double sinks.  And indirect fire is super OP as it is, if you know how to use it.  I would not buff indirect at all, and think that SPAs for indirect should be outright banned if you want to have a balanced time, as indirect SPAs are hella broken because they remove player interaction.  If your opponent isnt able to interact with the board state cause of improved IDF, why even play together.  That said, lowering gunnery is just the best advice in general to reduce game time, but it applies to every unit, not just LRMs at skill 3.

ACs are too heavy for tonnage balanced games, not counting the advanced ammo that makes them amazing in their counter-role.  But if Izzy is playing BV balancing, AC's weight and damage is not the problem.  Unlike LRMs, they dont need to be internally consistent for things to make sense as each type of autocannon has its own range profile and job to do, unlike LRMs that are all identical. 

Now, if you dont play with other unit types AND dont balance by BV AND play pre 3062, then yeah ACs are weaker as there is nothing to FLAK and precision isnt until 3062, so I would suggest allowing precision if you play mech only games and want to buff ACs instead of adding vehicles and flyers that slow the game down with more rules.  Precision solves every problem and makes ACs top tier, so finding a different solution that changes record sheets when a solution already exists doesn't seem productive; just allow precision in your mech only games earlier then the lore states to account for not having combined arms for the ACs to shoot at.

The problem with LRMs is that the larger launchers are all disadvantages for losing some heat (and making less rolls) that you could handle with additional sinks, if you even need to, with the saved mass. Making them a flat equivalent in mass-to-tube removes that problem and provides incentive to bring larger launchers over stacks of smaller ones, thereby aligning the game rules with the demonstrated in universe design preference.


On the subject of Autocannon: you are correct in that their performance statistics (range, heat, damage, ammunition) are fine as is. The problem is "design cost." Because they are so ****** heavy, there are available superior options for everything an Autocannon can do in either missiles (mainly LRMs) or energy weapons which can trivially be mounted in their place without making any sacrifices. that's the important part.
Especially in the Succession Wars where CASE is not a thing, the combination of very high mass (cutting into total payload out of proportion to their performance), very large size (making them, especially the 20, far too easily disabled by a lucky crit), and the ammo volatility on top of that, and the Autocannon just can't keep up.
Dropping the AC 2 to 3 tons means it can no longer be replaced by an LRM 5 for long range (higher damage on average, basically the same effective range, indirect fire, loads of support ammos even in the Succession Wars), ammo for that, a Medium Laser for close combat, and 1-2 sinks for the additional heat burden (if you even need that.)

Dropping the AC 5 to 5 tons now makes replacing it with a Large Laser actually cost you consideray, rather than being a no-brainer 90% of the time.

Dropping the AC 10 to 8 tons means that it is no longer mathematically identical to a PPC; if you yank an 8-ton AC 10 for a PPC you now actually have to make a sacrifice somewhere to keep the same heat curve.

Dropping the AC 20 to 12 tons keeps it a Big Heavy Gun, but means you can't simply replace it with a half dozen MLs (for brawling), two Larges (for midrange) or a Blazer (to maintain head deletion threat) essentially for free.

Similarly, cutting two crits off the 10 and 20 reduces how often the are disabled by a critical hit... and also, as a pet peeve, allows the King Crab to actually have its guns in the arms (by official lore on how split crits work, the King Crab 's AC 20s are in the torsos, not the arms.)

edit: and before anybody goes "but Gauss Rifles-", Gauss are 1 heat. AC 20s are *7*. If you can't find three tons by pulling a few sinks out, your design was probably hideously undersinked anyway.

[DevianID]

The problem of changing AC mass is now all your existing designs are invalid and you have to make custom designs.  But if you are making custom designs then AC balance doesnt matter, cause your custom can be as efficient as you want it.

If you havent seen it in action, like I mention above Precision really is the golden ticket for making ACs great, if you dont use combined arms and need more raw damage on target versus mech to mech fights.  If you use combined arms, flak is so strong versus air that you always want some AA flak to sweep the skys, as flak is good regardless of damage, so the reduced damage per ton that ACs deliver doesnt matter versus the combined arms enemy types at range.  I have found its only when you dont play any combined arms that ACs fail to impress, and that is solved in 3062 with Precision making ACs top tier.  So, instead of making the 3025 AC 10 lighter, and forcing custom designs on the 30%+ of 3025 mechs with AC weapons, just allow precision earlier to account for their not being combined arms special enemies for your FLAK to shoot.

[idea weenie]

How about an option for 'sustained' beam fire for non-Pulse laser weapons?

Basic rules:
* Triple the heat generation
* If you roll at least 2 pts higher than the to-hit number, both shots will hit.

I.e. a Phoenix Hawk with DHS wants to do a little extra damage to an enemy Mech, and decides to hold down the trigger for the Large Laser.  This will produce 24 pts of heat instead of 8, and the target number is 7.  If the player rolls a 7 or 8, only one beam hits doing 8 pts of damage.  But if the player rolls a 9+, then the character is able to keep the beam on target long enough to do both shots worth of damage, or 16 pts.

This is very nasty against immobile targets.

[Daryk]

If the second shot hits the same location, that's WAY too much.

[RifleMech]

How about an option for 'sustained' beam fire for non-Pulse laser weapons?

Basic rules:
* Triple the heat generation
* If you roll at least 2 pts higher than the to-hit number, both shots will hit.

I.e. a Phoenix Hawk with DHS wants to do a little extra damage to an enemy Mech, and decides to hold down the trigger for the Large Laser.  This will produce 24 pts of heat instead of 8, and the target number is 7.  If the player rolls a 7 or 8, only one beam hits doing 8 pts of damage.  But if the player rolls a 9+, then the character is able to keep the beam on target long enough to do both shots worth of damage, or 16 pts.

This is very nasty against immobile targets.

It sounds like you're trying to replicate the Override Delay rules from Solaris VII. Solaris VII had 2.5 second turns and weapons had to reload/cool off so many turns (The delay number) before they could fire safely again but that could be overridden. It's risky as it generates even more heat and risks destroying the weapon and possibly causing an ammo explosion. Between the 2.5 second turns and the override delay rule you get really fast games.

Newer weapons would need to have their delay number assigned but that shouldn't be too difficult. The higher the heat or bigger the gun the longer the delay. It also balances out Energy and Ballistic weapons as ballistic weapons tend to fire more often than energy weapons. The AC/5 (delay 1) can fire safely every 5 seconds vs the PPC (delay 3) which can only fire safely once every 10. The AC/2 can fire every 2.5 seconds without problem. 

Then add accurate weapon and positive targeting quirks and the games should go really fast.