Register Register

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
I also agree that autocannons should be burst fire weapons to the rifle cannons single shot. At least in general. Fluff can be weird.

Wiki defines Autocannon as an automatic gun 20mm or bigger. So that would include rifle cannons too. I think what we're looking at though is number of rounds fired in a turn. Which, again, autocannons should be a burst weapon. How rapid is rapid though?

Autocannons (rotary or not) and miniguns/gatlings are designed (by definition) for high rates of fire. In verses modern armour, they are really only for relatively small weapons for use against lighter targets. You need a tank gun (which are not capable of automatic fire - maybe arguably semi-automatic in some case, but not automatic) which a kinetic penetrator to defeat armour. (HESH and the like are for use on relatively low-armour target, where an AP round would over-penetrate).

In BT, as has people have noted before, armour is essentially ablative, so that doesn't have the same requirement. (Argueably, the poster-child for single-shot penetrator would be the Guass Rifle, and even that doesn't penetrate armour). So there is a justification for having projectile weapons working on volume of ablative fire over a single-shot penetration.

Modern tank guns are something on the order of 10-12 rounds per minute. I THINK (though please correct me if I'm wrong) a round in BattleTech is ten seconds? So that's, like, effectively two shots per round (though that assumes it's doing nothing else other than standing still and shooting, but it's probably as granular as we can get in BT's rules framework).

Autocannons, wiki tells me, are about 90-650 rounds per minute. Rotary cannons are in the thousands.

So one could make a fair argument, then, that BT Autocannons maybe fire tens to hundreds of rounds per minute, while RACs thousands (or more).

But. I would make an argument that you could have some autocannons that DO have a rotary action, but perhaps only to a FIXED rate of fire. RACs can, of course, increase their rof so may be able to fire even faster (so may be into tens of thousands) and that may be their true defining feature. So one might say that non-RAC rotary autocannons are just part-way along the route to an RAC - they spin the barrels for the same reasons (cool the barrel, higher rate of fire etc), but unlike what the rules class as an RAC, they can't alter their rate of fire; you get that one, default speed and that's it. (This is somewhat born out by in stuff like TRO3025, some machine guns were called miniguns.)

On the other hand, "autocannon" even in-lore has become something of a catch-all category, so likely could also include stuff like chain-guns or the equivalent of tank guns - like the Gauss Rifles, which are akin to penetrators, firing a single, larger slug instead of a multitude, it's just that the rules mechanics don't differentiate between them.

(By this logic, modern rotary guns like the Vulcan would classify as ACs, not RACs, but that sort of makes sense if you think about it, especially with regard to aircraft.)
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Looking to improve the MML
« Last post by Adastra on Today at 06:48:10 »
So, the way I see it, MMLs have the following characteristics:
-Effective across a very wide range
-Able to use a huge variety of ammo
-Significantly more powerful at close range than long range.
-Basically as efficient as SRM launchers (actually better than smaller SRM racks due to less heat and the same weight per missile), though much bulkier
-Somewhat less efficient than LRM racks (in regular rules, including DHS, MML-3s weigh 0.83 tons per missile fired, while LRM-5s weigh 0.6 tons per missile, though the 3 column on the cluster table is marginally better than 5)

The first two characteristics are basically inherent to the concept. The third and forth are ones that I, personally, believe MMLs should have, because SRM racks are pretty lackluster on mechs, and thus a more viable alternative would really not hurt balance (and the extra bulk is a pretty solid counterbalance). Plus the greater damage up close is actually surprisingly hard to get with most setups, so that's a neat niche. The last seems to be more significant than you'd like it to be, and I largely agree.

Easiest way I can think of is to just give MMLs a cluster hit mod when firing LRMs? Might only need a +1 or +2 (mathwise it would seem like each +1 to cluster roles gives you ~9% more damage). Fluff it as the fire control being more advanced to handle the wide variety of missile types, and being able to coordinate LRMs a bit better. That should make them more competitive with LRM racks without outshining them entirely.

To solve the issue of bigger MML racks being underwhelming, probably can just make them a bit lighter. Since the 7 and 9 columns have slightly worse average hits in comparison to 3s, I think shaving them down to 4 and 5.5 tons respectively should work out well.

quick breakdown of weights, including DHS:
MML-3: 2.5 tons, 0.83 tons per missile, 0.67 crits slots per missile (cluster efficiency: 66.7%)
MML-5: 4.5 tons, 0.9 tons per missile, 0.6 crits (cluster efficiency: (cluster efficiency: 63.6%)
MML-7 (default): 6.5 tons, 0.93 tons per missile, 0.57 crits (cluster efficiency: 63.6%)
MML-7 (revised): 6 tons, 0.86 tons per missile, 0.57 crits (cluster efficiency: 63.6%)
MML-9 (default): 8.5 tons, 0.94 tons per missile, 0.56 crits (cluster efficiency: 62.6%)
MML-9 (revised): 8 tons, 0.89 tons per missile, 0.56 crits (cluster efficiency: 62.6%)

As can be seen, revising the MMLs this way, the racks would be much more similar in efficiency. Bigger racks are more crit efficient, but the smaller ones do a touch more damage per ton.
Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is that all current ForcePacks are Alpha Strike-legal units, so that somewhat limits regrouping faction-specific Mechs.
Yeah, sigh. Wish they'd drop that requirement.

Really annoyed due to budget limits. Designed and scrapped a dozen force building plans as it is. (Edit all theoretical, of course, not like stuff is available yet... And when they'll be is another question.)

Of course, having expanded availabilities in MUL and more contemporary (3150+) (WYSIWYG) variants would help considerably. Capellan or Lyran Enforcers and Hunchbacks for example...
I have company and lance rosters and variants picked out already, it is just a matter of deciding paint schemes. These are designed around tech and options circa 3062. These work fine for Dark Age games too (i don't really play anything else), with some variant changes. I don't do smaller units than companies, as that way i have many options for smaller games while keeping units consistent looking.

My biggest issue with the Red Lancers is that i don't like doing three-color schemes beyond camos, on the account of required care. I can do it though.
Primary alternatives are House Imarra, House Lu Sann and Death Commandos.
Still waiting on the DVD release for that tom hanks film Greyhound..
Same here waiting to.
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Rifle Cannons: What have you done?
« Last post by Grand_dm on Today at 05:54:09 »
New question for the group: what balance issues if any are presented by just ditching the -3 damage penalty?

When answering set aside this idea that Rifle Cannons are using hundreds of years old technology. Forget about TRO 1945.

Instead let's just examine their game stats: weight/range/damage/ammo per ton.

Looking purely at that - are they balanced as an alternative to the Autocannon?
Fan Designs and Rules / Re: Rifle Cannons: What have you done?
« Last post by Grand_dm on Today at 05:46:47 »
I would just like to remind everyone that I created this thread to see what others have done. Including some argument to explain your methodology is fine, but let's make sure it does not get past that. Just a friendly reminder.
BattleTech Miniatures / Re: Return to the brushes
« Last post by marauder648 on Today at 05:39:03 »
I'd go with the wolf grey too.
IIRC*, Adrian Gideon mentioned that the B&N Wolf's Dragoons Assault Star was not to be taken as an indication
of further faction-specific ForcePacks, but I wouldn't mind if CGL were to take that route.

This would enable them to combine existing KS Mechs with new redesigns (example : Blackjack and JagerMech for Davions)..

Another point that needs to be taken into consideration is that all current ForcePacks are Alpha Strike-legal units, so that somewhat limits regrouping faction-specific Mechs.

*can't find the post, so caveat IIRC..
 :o ;D 8) Well I just did my Urbie's Beer Run at the Cat store this morning. I got the Storm Crow , all set of stickers , 3 set of the lost dice , GD story and RecGuide the latest one. Now I have all sets of the lost dice. Now I wait for the bit bag of mech parts and the Black Knight. Later
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10