Karagin
09/07/05 12:09 AM
65.140.156.105
|
Okay what helps you pick which AC goes on the mech or vehicle or aerofighter you are building?
Is it the range versus damage? The overall damage? The weight? The need to have a balance weapon system?
Looking for what drives you guys one this area of weapon picking.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
09/07/05 07:56 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Okay what helps you pick which AC goes on the mech or vehicle or aerofighter you are building?
Is it the range versus damage? The overall damage? The weight? The need to have a balance weapon system?
"Yes."
Speaking of Inner Sphere technology:
*I won't touch AC/2s - insufficient damage-to-weight ratio. I'll take LRMs instead.
*I rarely touch AC/5s - same problem as /2s, so I'll take a PPC or LRMs instead. I will sometimes consider RAC/5, but personal aesthetics holds me back from using it more.
*I rarely touch AC/20s - insufficient range. I'll take a gauss rifle instead. Sometimes I can find uses for an LB20X or UAC/20 on vehicles or units likely to get close to a target (e.g., aerospace fighters).
*I like the AC/10s, especially the UAC/10. IMO, the UAC/10 balances heat, damage, and range very well. However, I tend to end up using a pair of PPCs instead.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Grizzly
09/07/05 09:05 AM
64.9.50.200
|
It really just depends on what type of mech I am creating. Do I want it to be an in close brawler or a medium range fighter (for example). In the case of a brawler, one of the AC/20s (UAC, LBX, or standard, depending on tech level). In the case of a medium range fighter, one of the AC/10 variants, preferably LBX, again dependent upon tech level.
Also it would depend on what weight class I am looking at or if I am pairing two weapons together or if it is a stand alone weapon system. For paired weapons I am fond of RAC5s but I did put together a medium fire support mech with paired RAC2s (not very fond of them) for something completely different (insert favorite Monty Python line here).
I typically try to decide before pen meets paper what type of design I want so that I don't try to make it a jack of all trades, master of none mech. That way I can narrow my focus as to what weapons, armor, speed I am looking for. Is it to be a 2nd line militia mech like the Watchman that uses older systems that are in surplus? Is it to be a cutting edge guerilla raider that has to be independent of supply?
Lastly, there are times when I just want to use weapons that I don't normally use (ie. RAC2 example) just to have fun.
"I am but mad north-northwest, when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw" Hamlet
|
Silenced_Sonix
09/07/05 04:28 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Same as they said: it depends on what you are looking for in the design. I am not favourably dispositioned to mounting AC's on aerofighters, while mounting them on vehicles (especially tracked) seems only natural. With 'Mechs, I guess it depends on what my conecept is. Am I designing for the Marian Hegemony? Yes, then autocannons, especially in the -5 and -10 range are firm favourites for alternating between range (the -5) and damage (the -10). Am I designing a Capellan stealth 'Mech? Yes, then autocannons, with their low heat-signature, will be a must (compared to other weaponry that could tax the heat-capabilities of the design). Am I designing a Davion anti-air 'Mech from the Third Succession war? Yes, then autocannons fit in perfectly.
Am I designing something for practical use in a match? NO! Weight and ammo - the two big negatives against autocannons, in my opinion. Rather a PPC or larger laser, with their accompanying heatsinks, than autocannons. Heatsinks are less inclined to explode when hit, and lasers and PPC's take up less space than bulky autocannons. Autocannons have their advantages - the LB-X for taking on infantry platoons, power armour or air - but a pulse laser can do just as well in most of those cases.
Ach, in the end it just depends on personal preference, I guess.
Evolve or Die
|
Greyslayer
09/07/05 07:19 PM
216.14.198.54
|
I'm not so negatively inclined when it is perhaps for a BV situation. AC/2s are very cheap and combine them with the FedCom's stabilised ammo (-2 to hit) and you have a cheap but annoying damage unit. The Partisan AC/2 variant is what about 320 BV for 5 AC/2s and okay armour?
Yes I know a LRM 5 essentially outperforms it, but I haven't done the same scenario with a tank with similar armour/speed/turret qualities with 5 x LRM 5s for a bv comparison.
|
religon
09/08/05 01:10 PM
192.58.204.226
|
Playing strictly Level 1, I will only pick an AC/10. Not quite as good as a PPC, but it has a charm lacking in the PPC.
Playing house rules with Medium-Short and Medium-Long ranges available to Autocannons, I will choose an AC/5 and AC/20 also.
(-1 to-hit bonus if in the lower half of the medium or long ranges while using an autocannon slightly improving the to-hit chances)
|
Cray
09/08/05 02:44 PM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
Playing strictly Level 1, I will only pick an AC/10. Not quite as good as a PPC, but it has a charm lacking in the PPC.
I loved AC/10s in L1 play. When DHS appeared, I switched to PPCs, but I still think well of AC/10s.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Toontje
09/08/05 02:50 PM
84.24.165.226
|
AC/2-5 for MBTs (range), 10-20 for 'mechs or assault-type vehicles (not weight, use), and possibly any for aerofighters although I'd prefer lasers for those.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
NileIngrams
11/06/05 02:33 AM
139.168.171.127
|
I think people have a poor understanding of the use of AC/2s and AC/5s - they do have their uses.
AC/2s are great as vehicle ticklers. Great if you want to slowly degrade the Movement Systems of a Tank until it becomes
immobile and the turret locked. AC/2s can sometimes be loaded with those magical bullets that triple-engine-tac kill an enemy
from afar - nothing like reaching out and touching someone. BJ-1s and VL-2Ts are pretty good at their duties, if used properly.
AC/5s seem like a waste of space, but the weapon itself is a "chasing" weapon. Great for chasing light units, and for pressuring
fire-support units who have decided to stand still. With little heat signature, this weapon will not affect your movement modifiers if
fired repeatedly. Fire a PPC enough times on some units, such as SCP-1Ns and CDA-3Cs and your MP will drop the hotter you
get. PPC's are decent enough weapons, but not the choice for a unit that wants to keep moving around yet still want to maintain
a continual rate of fire.
Some people will howl and scream and say "why not just design a better unit that has the HS to use a PPC" - but again you
have to factor in the material availablity of components, the rareness of units, and the fact that not every joe-shmoe in the
InnerSphere has his own Mech Design and Construction Facilities - time to grow up from your 1337N355 and join a more realistic
view of the IS!
NileIngrams NI! - The Killer of Threads!
In the time before the return of the heirs of Kerensky,
when the Successor Lords had tired of bathing worlds in Nuclear Madness,
there was an age of High Adventure!
|
KamikazeJohnson
11/06/05 07:15 PM
205.200.6.170
|
Editor's Note: The following post is by the founder and lead creative mind of the notorious Johnson 'Mechworks Inc. so please, PLEASE take his opinions with several grains of salt. And do NOT try this at home... Thank you.
First thing, when designing L2 or higher I tend to favour UACs, possible LB-X on the 10s or 20s, rather than standard ACs DHS really made conventional ACs obsolete because oif the ease in using larger numbers of the higher-heat weapons.
For L1, I have been known to use ACs of all sizes on 'Mechs of all sizes. Since the main advantage of Autocannons has always been the damage/heat ratio, I usually load on enough energy weapons to get the 'Mech running hot, then tack on an AC or 2 for supplemental firepower in the overheating range bracket. Since my designs typically overheat by 2-8 points at long- or short-range in order to maximize firepower and versatility, a couple low-heat alternativesmake it much easier to maintain that critical balance.
AC/2s and AC/5s often appear on my heavies when heat balance is reached with several tons still to burn, AC/10s for overall versatility, and AC/20s (rarely) to "round out" a largely long-range design.
AC/5s and AC/10s will appear on my mediums to assist a PPC for range or heavy punch...on a hot 'Mech, an AC/5 will outperform a PPC ton-for-ton. I find AC/2s can be a useful addition to long-range support 'Mechs due to the extreme long range and large ammo stock/crit location. Of course, JMInc. oftem uses the light ACs simply to be contrary 
Also, since many of my L2 designs begin as L1 concepts, I will usually keep the ACs for aesthetic reasons when designing the L2 "upgrade." Makes it more of a refit then a replacement model.
I'll throw up a couple of my older designs to illustrate my use of the smaller cannons...should be good for a laugh at least 
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 71 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 7384
|
|
|
|
|
|
|