Akalabeth
02/19/15 02:16 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Aside from the clan improvements, most weapons introduced in Battletech tend to be roughly on par with weapons of old. An ER ML is superior to the ML but causes more heat. An UAC/20 can deliver twice as much damage, but is heavier and can break during combat. Personally I'd prefer that new tech and machines were altogether better but this is not the route they've taken.
Yesterday I sought to create some out of date units to represent crappy periphery powers. I decided to downgrade a Shadowhawk, giving it a Heavy Rifle instead of an AC/5. To my surprise it wasn't much of a downgrade at all.
The Heavy Rifle, pre-space flight precursor to the Autocannon, is superior in nearly every way to the AC/5.
Same Tonnage, Less Criticals
Same Range, Less Minimum
More Heat, But More damage even against "modern" armours. Does 20% more damage against mechs and 80% more damage against battlearmour, buildings and lower-grade armoured units.
Only significant drawback is less ammunition with 6 shots per ton instead of 20 and inability to use specialty ammunition.
All told it's 91 BV compared to 70 for the AC/5.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it, having a weapon replaced by something that is ultimately inferior.
Think TPTB dropped the ball on this Age of War tech big time.
|
Retry
02/19/15 07:42 PM
76.7.225.145
|
I mostly agree with you, except for the "absolute superiority" route (There is often a tradeoff in weapons development when some less necessary traits are sacrificed for more needed traits, such as turning ability for speed in WWII fighters and a poor fuel efficiency on the Abrams for high performance in weapons, armor, and speed while it does have fuel) as an effectively superior route would be good enough, such as LB-X Autocanons to the standard variety. New technology like the clan heavy lasers and IS light autocannons ended up being sidegrades, often being completely bested in most situations by existing weapons (Re-Engineered Lasers anyone?)
I absolutely disagree with your assessment with the Heavy Rifle, though. With some experience in actually wielding the gun, it's absolutely terrible even in comparison to the sub-par AC/5.
Same Tonnage, Less Criticals
To sink the Heavy Rifle's heat on a battlemech, you'll need some heat sinks. If you're going to have additional armaments, which you probably will/should have, this has to be taken into consideration. Fully single-sinked equivalents for the AC/5 is 9 tons and 5 crits, while it's 12 tons and 7 crits for the Heavy Rifle. On a vehicle, they're equal in both characteristics.
Same Range, Less Minimum
You gain one point in minimum range for an overall superior weapon. On a Mech, an AC/5 can be paired with medium lasers to cover point blank ranges more easily than a Heavy Rifle, due to the before mentioned heat issue. The range probably won't make or break you, and specialty ammunition for the AC/5 could reduce the disadvantage further with precision ammo to reduce movement target modifiers.
More Heat, But More damage even against "modern" armours.
Yes, 300% more heat, which is devastating. The gun also only deals more damage against "modern" armors before you take into account alternative ammunition. Flechettes for PBIs, flak for aircraft, AP ammo for hardened armor(effectively doubling damage), precision for just about everything that moves. Precision ammo, reducing the to-hit modifier on moving targets, pushes the average damage/turn advantage to the AC/5.
Then we get to the much more solid advantage of potential damage per ammo ton. The AC/5 has 20 turns of ammunition with 5 damage per shot, or 10 turns of ammo for AP or precision ammo. Compare to the Heavy Rifle's 6 turns of ammunition at 9 or 6 damage per shot. The AC/5 has either 50 or 100 potential damage per ton of ammo versus the 36 or 54 potential damage of the Heavy Rifle. AC/5s with standard ammo has almost 3x the potential damage of the Heavy Rifle with almost identical range brackets and so needs to dedicate 3x less the tonnage and crits to ammo to achieve a very similar effect.
Against a battlemech at a to-hit modifier of 9, you'll deal an average of 15 damage. At such accuracy levels which aren't exactly uncommon in Lv1 tech, you won't even deal enough damage per ton to take off a ton of standard armor! To retain a respectable punch for your main gun, you'll need to invest an incredible amount of tonnage just for the ammunition bay.
Only significant drawback is less ammunition with 6 shots per ton instead of 20 and inability to use specialty ammunition.
This significant drawback is far more than enough to propel the AC/5 to the top.
----
Try making a good mech with dual AC/5s as at least one of it's armaments. Now try making a good mech with dual Heavy Rifles as at least one of it's armaments.
|
Akalabeth
02/19/15 08:13 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Well I think your argument is a bit inconsistent to say the least.
Can you deride the Heavy Rifle for higher heat and at the same time praise the AC/5 for precision ammunition? Either the environment the two weapons are being compared is old tech, or it is not.
In an old tech environment on a battlemech platform with different weapons competing for heat sink dissipation, the Heavy Rifle is at a disadvantage. On a vehicle or on a mech which cannot exceed its 10 heat sinks the heat is not a factor.
In old tech, AC/5s can get Fletchette ammunition or Flak. Is this useful? Flak increases the odds to hit but only deals sandpaper type damage. It can never get a threshold crit whereas a heavy rifle dealing 6 damage will get thresholds on fightercraft more often than a weapon dealing 5 damage. Flak is good for VTOLs but inferior for inflicting critical hits. Machine guns are more prevalent on older machines, particularly vehicles, where the lack of fletchette will not be missed. Most units also carry a single ton of ammunition which means that if it carries specialty ammunition it will be pigeon-holed in a given role for an entire scenario.
The lower ammunition is still a factor but its mitigated by the fact that 20 shots for an AC/5 is excessive. In practice this amount is not 3 times as good, but a Heavy Rifle would need at least 12 shots for an average game.
In newer tech, the heat is less of a factor and the smaller amount of criticals is more of a benefit for ferro or other bulky components. It lacks the specialty ammunition but it gains 50% damage against Battlearmour which is huge in my opinion as battlearmour is particularly troublesome to kill.
AC/5 AP has very high odds to inflict criticals and hardened armour is not widespread. Precision is more useful.
Incidentally in Level 1 there are really no good mechs with dual AC/5s. The Jagermech is chronically under armoured, the Rifleman is poorly armoured and under sinked, most or all other mechs only carry a single cannon.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/19/15 08:14 PM)
|
Retry
02/19/15 09:11 PM
76.7.225.145
|
My arguement is not inconsistent, it covers as many bases as I can think of at the time.
In an old tech environment, the AC/5 still has an advantage, and it only gets better with alternative ammunition.
If a mech can mount an AC/5, it has enough slots and tonnage to have an armament which exceeds the ten sink limit.
What rule says that Flak ammo can't get threshold crits? I've not heard of it once. Either way, you have to hit the target first before you even dream of causing thresholds.
You should deal with infantry more often. Lower-tech IS infantry with infantry-grade SRMs or LRMs handily outrange the machinegun, and your anti-flesh weapons need to actually be in the range of the flesh to work. A good player with anything other than infantry auto rifles will be able to maneuver around outside the range of anti-infantry weapons to constantly harass your own units. Flechette rounds are one of the few low-tech counters for long-ranged infantry.
If you are talking about more than one ton of Heavy Rifle ammunition, you've already kissed your advantage of critical space goodbye. Heat is also still very much a factor and you've downplayed it too much. Changing an AC/5 on a newer tech design for a heavy rifle may cause heat issues that simply were not present before. That or you will have to dedicate more crits to DHS which will take even more tonnage and crits. Unless you plan to add only one ton of ammo, effectively wasting nine tons for a paltry 36 damage potential weapon, your critical space advantage isn't.
Actually utilize the Heavy Rifle a few times, you'll end up missing the AC/5. And you won't be saying that many times in your life.
|
Akalabeth
02/19/15 09:35 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Flak ammunition does 1 point hits. The minimum threshold to EXCEED is always 1. Therefore threshold crits are impossible. All that flak ammunition or LB-X cluster ammunition is good for against Aerospace is forcing a piloting roll and getting the occasion crit 2% of the time.
The GM in our campaign pulls out conventional infantry all the time. They do a smattering of damage until a flamer or MG gets a hold of them and then they get cut to pieces. Frag LRM and Fletchette ammunition has been by and large a waste of time in my experience due to lack of ammunition bins. Infernos are better because many older machines have multiple bins of SRM ammunition.
Heat is irrelevant on vehicles. And in a DHS world the difference of 3 heat is not much of a concern. In either old or new tech it can be an issue or it can be a non-factor depending on the context.
You call it a "36 damage potential weapon", which is a misrepresentation. As I said before the biggest advantage in contemporary battletech is its effectiveness against Battlearmour. I don't worry about how much damage potential is in a bin of ammunition unless that bin is exploding. I worry about how much damage my weapon does per turn and how many turns of fire a given design has.
|
Retry
02/19/15 10:24 PM
76.7.225.145
|
Flak ammunition and LB-X cluster ammunition is not one and the same. Only LB-X cluster ammunition hits in 1 point clusters. Flak doesn't even have to roll on the cluster hits table.
Game Rules:
Flak ammunition provides an autocannon with the same number of shots per ton as an equivalent standard ammo bin. When fired, flak ammo generates the same heat and reaches the same ranges as a standard AC round, but only inflicts full damage when used to deliver a flak attack against airborne VTOLs and aerospace units (using the rules on p. 114, TW), or when fired against conventional infantry. Against all other units— including battle armored infantry and grounded aerospace units—flak AC ammo inflicts half its normal rated damage
Not once are one point clusters mentioned.
Again, in order to get use out of a flamer or MG, you have to actually be in range to hit the infantry. Jump, motorized, or mechanized infantry with 3/6/9 or even 2/4/6 ranged weapons are simply difficult to get the short ranged 1/2/3 MGs and flamers into range. Lacking sufficient ammunition bins can be a design flaw in such events as campaigns. So much for the "excessive" single ton of ammo.
36 damage potential isn't a misrepresentation, if anything it's a generous estimate of a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammo, as you won't hit with all of them. Against lighter targets such as battle armor, there's better options available, such as the Plasma Rifle, Large Pulse Lasers, LB-X autocannons, and so on. One ton of Heavy Rifle can kill, at most, three elementals by itself, or two fully-armored assault battle armors, assuming EVERY round hits.
You say you care about how much damage your weapon does per turn and how many rounds of fire a given design has, yet you somehow find the heavy rifle to be on par with, even superior to the AC/5. The rifle's damage is poor. It's firing time is poor. The damage potential/density is basically the combination of these two factors. It's rather important, and low damage density is part of the reason why autocannons are not as good compared to other weapons.
Anyways, did you actually use your periphery mod more than once or did you just look at a couple stats and assume the Heavy Rifle was better than the AC/5.
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 01:52 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
36 damage potential isn't a misrepresentation, if anything it's a generous estimate of a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammo, as you won't hit with all of them.
Yeah, I'm finished with this discussion.
Please look up what "potential" means and then realize how absurd your above statement is. I'm interested in facts, not spin doctoring and misrepresentation. And more and more your representation of things is moving away from reality. The damage potential for a ton of Heavy Rifle ammo is 54. PERIOD. This is not debatable, not subjective, not open to analysis, it's a irrefutable FACT. Whether or not the weapon is able to live up to this potential is like all other weaponry, dependent upon innumerable battlefield variables.
So, I'll leave you with this:
BV 2.0 Values
AC/5 - 70
Heavy Rifle - 91
Figure it out.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/20/15 02:51 AM)
|
ghostrider
02/20/15 02:50 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Ok. First thing to address is the heat issue. You have range brackets so you can use the weapons most efficient to that range. If you are covering say the ppcs minimum range, that does not mean fire the ppc with the other weapons and over heat. You are supposed to swap out firing the ppcs with the other weapons. I know it isn't fun to do that, but the warhammer would be a good point for this.
Next is specialty ammo. In the original box set, there WAS no alternative ammo. Some I agree with, but sounds stupid that they didn't use it for the entire history of the wars. Others just don't sound realistic to me. Now sure if science backs them up, like the gyroscopic munitions.
It is kinda funny that retry is explaining why infantry is so out of whack anymore. I know he isn't trying to, but is.
Now if you are going to argue old tech, then keep it old tech. Simple rounds for the ac 5. No fancy crap with it.
I agree the ac 5 isn't the weapon it should be, but without major revamp, it will remain overweight, under powered in my opinion.
|
Retry
02/20/15 03:25 AM
76.7.225.145
|
All you had to say was "No, I have not actually used the modified shadowhawk in a battle."
po·ten·tial
pəˈten(t)SHəl/
adjective
adjective: potential
1.
having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
"a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers"
synonyms: possible, likely, prospective, future, probable; More
noun
noun: potential; plural noun: potentials
1.
latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
"a young broadcaster with great potential"
synonyms: possibilities, potentiality, prospects; More
the possibility of something happening or of someone doing something in the future.
"the crane operator's clear view reduces the potential for accidents"
Fact:The Heavy Rifle deals 6 damage a shot to heavy(Battlemech, Combat Vehicle) targets
Fact:The Heavy Rifle can be allotted 6 turns of firing time per ton dedicated
Fact: 6 D/S * 6 S = 36 D
Fact:It is physically impossible for the Heavy Rifle to deal more than 36 damage to hardened targets such as battlemechs per ton of ammo added to the weapon system.
Fact:The AC/5 deals 5 damage a shot to heavy targets
Fact:The Heavy Rifle can be allocated 20 turns of firing time per ton dedicated
Fact: 5 D/S * 20 S = 100 D
Fact:It is physically impossible for the AC/5 to deal more than 100 damage to hardened targets such as battlemechs per ton of ammo added to the weapon system.
This "potential damage" thing isn't some made up crap, it's extrapolated extremely easily through a simple single-step mathematical calculation. There is no spin doctoring, no misrepresentation, introduced anywhere within the calculation. The calculation of potential damage per ton is fact. What kind of mind bending logic you used to think otherwise is simply baffling.
And if you want to pull out BRs, an artificial balancing implement, and say "take that", then...
The Light Rifle and AP Gauss Rifle have the same BR values of 21. They both have 3 damage per shot, the AP Gauss Rifle has 3/6/9 range versus the Light Rifle's 4/8/12 range. But the AP gauss rifle is a half ton to the Light Rifle's three tons, and the AP Gauss Rifle can actually damage heavy targets. The Light Rifle has 18 shots a ton, and the AP Gauss Rifle has... 40 shots a ton. But their BRs are equal so they must be equivalents, right?
The Flamer and the Vehicle Flamer are essentially the same thing with the vee flamer requiring ammunition to function. A Vee Flamer with one ton of ammunition(10 rounds) has a BR of 6, same as the normal Flamer. The only differences are that the Vee Flamer arrangement weighs a half ton more, takes up one more crit slot, and has ammunition that can be exhausted. But BV2 knows all, so they must be basically equal. I'll leave you to figure out how so.
An unarmed tracked 100 ton tank with a 400XL engine and 45 tons hardened armor has a battle value of nearly 2100.
----
It's extremely hypocritical to say you are only interested in facts, but then ignore all of the numbers I presented and instead pushed their arbitrary BV values to make your point.
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 04:08 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
This "potential damage" thing isn't some made up crap, it's extrapolated extremely easily through a simple single-step mathematical calculation. There is no spin doctoring, no misrepresentation, introduced anywhere within the calculation. The calculation of potential damage per ton is fact. What kind of mind bending logic you used to think otherwise is simply baffling.
Yes it's so extremely easy and yet you still manage to get it wrong. Try again.
The damage potential of a ton of ammo is 36 correct? That's what you're claiming. 6 shots at 6 damage each. So you're saying that it is impossible for a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammunition to completely destroy a 6-man squad of Trinity Battle armor correct? After all, Trinity Medium Armour has 8 armour + 1 for the man so . . . 6 shots at 6 damage each can only kill 3 troopers at most not all six.
No, in fact a Heavy Rifle can wipe the entire squad because the POTENTIAL DAMAGE of each shot is 9 damage which will kill one trooper.
54 is the potential damage. Period.
You can put all the conditions you want into a situation to try and rig a discussion in your favor but when both weapons are examined free of presumptions the winner is clear cut and the battle value is an indication of this. Battle value is not arbitrary.
And also, the Large Pulse Laser as an anti-BA weapon is objectively inferior to the Heavy Rifle. The heavy rifle has as good odds to hit BA at all ranges except 1-3. It has less heat, greater range, etcetera and is less bv to boot. Similarly the Medium Rifle is only 3 BV more than a Medium Pulse yet can inflict the same damage on BA per shot at 250% of the range.
|
ghostrider
02/20/15 09:48 AM
76.89.120.217
|
There is one problem with potential damage when using dice. Luck.
A potential damage of 40 from an ultra 20 is less likely, then firing 2 ac 20's. First you need to hit, then you need to see if the second shot hits after the first one. That is using 7 as a base to hit. You need 8+ to hit with second shot.
Now in your calculations, does that include the chance that some of that damage will not be used as combat is likely to render the weapons or ammunition obsolete? Yes the same can happen to the rifle, but going 20 rounds is not usually done.
But then playing experience has show that somewhere before round 10 there is at least one shot that removes some weapon or limb, or gets into a unit to stop some fire. Now unless you are lucky, I doubt you have fired off all 20 shots with the unit before something removes the ability to use it all. And yes, this statement does have the added idea that you can do it, but it isn't the norm.
|
GiovanniBlasini
02/20/15 02:08 PM
172.56.33.197
|
A heavy rifle will never, ever potentially do 54 points of damage to a BattleMech. Ever. That was what Retry was getting at. It's potential damage per ton of ammo against such targets is not 54 points. It's 36.
Also, know what a heavy rifle's potential damage is in space? Zero. The muzzle velocity is too low there. The AC/5, meanwhile, works in space.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
Edited by GiovanniBlasini (02/20/15 02:11 PM)
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 02:30 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:
A heavy rifle will never, ever potentially do 54 points of damage to a BattleMech. Ever. That was what Retry was getting at. It's potential damage per ton of ammo against such targets is not 54 points. It's 36.
No. It's potential damage is ALWAYS 54. That's what potential is, the maximum that it can do. If you say that the potential damage of a weapon is anything less than its maximum you're misrepresenting the facts. This game has more than Battlemechs. The heavy rifle behaves differently against different types of units.
When fighting battlemechs, the potential damage is not reduced, the ACTUAL damage is.
Ie "My weapon can potentially do 9 damage per shot, but because I am fighting Battlemechs the ACTUAL damage is reduced to 6 points".
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:
Also, know what a heavy rifle's potential damage is in space? Zero. The muzzle velocity is too low there. The AC/5, meanwhile, works in space.
Then don't use the heavy rifle on spaceships.
On vehicles however, the heat is not a factor, its the same weight, better damage per shot but would require a second ton of ammunition.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
There is one problem with potential damage when using dice. Luck.
Potential damage never changes. That's why its called potential.
"I can potentially fire my AC/10 ten times in a battle"
"I will potentially be destroyed as soon as my LT is breached as I only have one location and it's ammunition"
"I can potentially take 319 points of armour damage before suffering internals, though in practice this never happens and I can be killed by as little as one point of damage though it is very unlikely."
Things like predicted actual damage does change depending on the situation.
"The UAC/20 can potentially do 40 points of damage per turn, but in practice the second slug will hit only 41.6% of the time so the average damage per hit will only be 28."
|
GiovanniBlasini
02/20/15 02:54 PM
12.20.180.82
|
Yeah, I think this thread is dead.
Member of the Pundit Caste
"Which side are we on? We're on the side of the demons, Chief. We're evil men in the gardens of paradise, sent by the forces of death to spread devastation and destruction wherever we go. I'm surprised you didn't know that." -- Col. Saul Tigh, BSG2003
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 03:09 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Fact of the matter is that when examining one weapon compared to another, you need to examine them in all situations not simply the one that is most favourable to your own argument. I don't base the overall potential of a piece of equipment on described scenarios because the fact is I can just as easily come up with my own scenario to defeat the one presented, and then it becomes not an examination of the weapon's potential but rather whose scenario or set of scenarios is biggest.
For example,
The potential of one ton of Heavy Rifle ammunition is 54 damage.
The potential of one ton of AC/5 ammunition is 100
In practice however, the actual damage inflicted in a game will be less for both weapons because the average game will not be 20 turns so the full amount of ammunition for the AC/5 is less important and at the same time, a Heavy Rifle may be fighting against a lot of armored opponents so the actual damage per turn will be reduced although still superior to the AC/5.
In another scenario, the enemy may present a lot of battle armour or perhaps less armoured opponents. In this scenario the Heavy Rifle can potentially do more damage while the AC/5 remains the same. The AC/5 has access to specialty ammunition, the scenario then becomes geographical. Does every faction have access to the desired ammunition? Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
In another scenario, the Heavy Rifle can allegedly not be used in space but a the same time its use on a vehicle mitigates some of its disadvantages so retain Heavy Rifles on combat vehicles is more appealing whereas use of the AC/5 in aerospace is required by the rules. Heavy Rifles however still could be used in planetbound conventional aircraft.
The potential is stated, an average scenario is presented, and the effects on both weapons are accordingly examined. The difference is I don't assume just one scenario. And I don't wave off scenarios with a flick of the wrist and introduce outside elements to support what I'm saying. There are innumerable scenarios and the examination of each will reveal strengths and weaknesses of a given design in different situations, and only after all of those scenarios are examined will a winner be revealed. And even then, the result may be a draw with certain situations better suited to one weapon or another.
|
Maurer
02/21/15 05:14 AM
75.85.84.93
|
Quote:
Tactical Operations, p. 337. "All rifles subtract 3 from their damage points when attacking any battlefield unit except conventional infantry, battle armor, 'Mechs with commercial armor, and support vehicles with a BAR less than 8. This can mean that the rifle inflicts no damage." - Sarna source
The fine print is confusing. The Heavy Rifle does 6 points of damage is most situations (max potentional damage of 36 per ton), unless the target is conventional infantry, battle armor, or an armed Industrial Mechs and Vehicles with a BAR of 8 (54 per ton).
The Heavy Rifle is a periphery weapon and won't fair very well if there is a Battlemech or non-low tech military vehicle on the field. A standard A/C-5 is a better choice if available, given that is has far more ammo per ton and less forgiving if you miss a shot one turn, while working on most targets fairly equally.
I say keep it real: For infantry, use MGs/Flamers/Missiles. For mechs/vehicles/aerofighters, use lasers, autocannons, ppcs, gauss rifles. For everything in one package, use orbital bombardment.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
Retry
02/22/15 12:41 AM
76.7.225.145
|
"My weapon can potentially do 9 damage per shot, but because I am fighting Battlemechs the ACTUAL damage is reduced to 6 points"
No modern purpose-built battlemech still in production has less than BAR 10 armor. Against such targets, the Heavy Rifle deals 6 damage to a Battlemech's armor. Actually read my post, not a cursory glance, you'll find I was specifically speaking about battlemechs. Hence, the potential damage of a Heavy Rifle against hardened(BAR 10) targets is 36.(Or less, in the case of advanced armors such as ballistic reinforced or ferro-lamellor) Do you need me to italicize it? Bold it? Capslock? I don't think so, as the others understood it right off the bat.
The damage potential of a ton of ammo is 36 correct? That's what you're claiming. 6 shots at 6 damage each. So you're saying that it is impossible for a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammunition to completely destroy a 6-man squad of Trinity Battle armor correct? After all, Trinity Medium Armour has 8 armour + 1 for the man so . . . 6 shots at 6 damage each can only kill 3 troopers at most not all six.
Is the Trinity Medium Armour a battlemech or equipped with mech-scale armor that will reduce the damage by 3 to 6? No? Well then, we have ourselves a strawman. My claim was clearly that the potential damage of a ton of ammo against MECH ARMOR GRADE TARGETS was 36. What you're saying I've said, I've never said.
Anyways, 6 dead battle armor, maximum, per ton of ammunition dedicated is an extremely poor payload. It's even less the heavier you go, with Elemental Battle Armor requiring two solid hits with the Heavy Rifle(3 for an AC/5) and 3 solid hits with any fully-decked Assault armor(18 points + 1 man, requires 4 hits with an AC/5). Taking into account the lack of 100% accuracy, you'll expend more than one ton of ammunition to take out a single squad on average. In which case you should look elsewhere.
Weapons like the AC/5, SRMs, LRMs all have a good chance to wipe out an entire battle armor squad, even with some misses or partial hits in the case of cluster weapons, while still having additional ammunition from a one ton bay to expend on other targets, maybe even another battle armor squad. Often you can make them work with one ton of ammo, maybe two. Frequently, the Heavy Rifle is simply insufficient with two tons of ammo and three tons barely works.
Battle value is not arbitrary.
To an extent it is arbitrary. Or would you like to explain how we could have a weapon that can't even damage armored targets and has limited value against anything it can damage (Light Rifle) rated the same as a multipurpose weapon that is useful against far more targets and only very slightly inferior range brackets (Clan AP Gauss Rifle) or an unarmed speedy box apparently having a similar battlefield value as a clan Mad Dog?
And also, the Large Pulse Laser as an anti-BA weapon is objectively inferior to the Heavy Rifle. The heavy rifle has as good odds to hit BA at all ranges except 1-3. It has less heat, greater range, etcetera and is less bv to boot.
The LPL has an equal chance to hit between ranges 1-10, with the exceptions of 1, 2, 3, and 7 where the laser then has an advantage. Even if the to-hit numbers are poor, a LPL doesn't consume ammo and can take advantage of "potshots" while the HR is even more impacted by a miss than normal thanks to piss-poor ammo load and damage. Outside of LPL range where the HR can still hit, 11-18, the HR has either a medium (11-12 range) or long (13-18 range) range penalty.
Firing further than 13 range is impractical, again due to the really poor damage potential and ammo load of a HR. Firing on a jumping elemental squad at medium range (+2 3 hex movement and jumping +1 BA target +2 medium range) creates a large to hit modifier of +5, and that's before intervening terrain and movement from the firing mech. A regular 4 gunnery IS Mech pilot will end up with a to-hit of 9, in which case you'll be lucky to hit with 2 HR shells with a single ton of ammo. To ensure adequate BA killing power at long range, and avoid negating the HR's practically only advantage over the LPL, you'd have to sink a whole lot of ammo into the HR weapon system so you don't run out of ammo trying to kill anything from far away, which begins to become impractical, even for a weapon that's supposed to be dedicated for anti-BA duty.
Meanwhile, we have the IS LPL which can hit closing at point blank more easily, which may be desired in case the opposition has short-ranged battle armor or wants to board your mech. Between ranges 1 and 10, it's either better than or equal to hitting compared to the HR, and doesn't have poor damage density ammunition to lose. It requires few crit spots and can be easily attached to small mechs to make use of it's beginning 10 tonnage-free double heat sinks, far more so than a HR. You don't have to be extremely frugal with your ammunition. You don't have to worry about running out of ammunition. You can fire most whenever you want if the mech is designed decently, allowing lucky rare hits on a 9 thru 12. Not only is it just as good(and I do argue better) as an anti-BA weapon than the Heavy Rifle itself, it retains usefulness against armored targets such as Mechs, so it's not a one-trick pony weapon and retains value in far more situations than a HR. And if you want something on a heavier mech that is already using a bunch of it's heat sinks? It's heavy guns probably already do the trick, adding an 8 ton sub-par "Anti-BA weapon" won't help you a whole lot more than whatever you already have, which is likely LB-X 10s, PPCs, Gauss Rifles, and similar equipment.
And BV? Even that "advantage" is flimsy. 91 BV for the HR is before ammo, which is 11 additional BV points. At a bare minimum the HR system will cost 102 BV. I don't think anyone will argue that a single ton for a HR is sufficient, so we go to 2 tons which is 113 BV. At this point we're still a little on the low side just because of the horrid damage potential per ton of ammo, and the difference between BVs for the system and a LPL (BV 119) is simply trivial. If you went for plenty of ammo that'll actually last you long enough to get considerable use from the system, giving a third ton, you actually exceed the BV of a weapon system that really isn't inferior in the niche you're trying to fill. Said weapon system that you exceeded is also better at just being generally useful...
Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
The Rifles are superior only in regions where you can't supply autocannon ammunition, and that's only because an unloaded weapon deals zero damage per turn. Otherwise, the Autocannons by and large make for superior armaments for anyone who can get their hands on them. Like it or not, the reasons that the Autocannon replaced the Rifle are more numerous than an AC/2's ammo belt.
Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
It appears you've moved your position from "The AC/5 is ultimately inferior to the Heavy Rifle" to "Well, I guess it could be a situational ordeal".
----
I challenge you to take any canon unit and improve it by switching from AC/5s to HRs. See how that works out for you.
|
ghostrider
02/22/15 12:42 PM
76.89.120.217
|
Speaking of the lpl being better since it doesn't require ammo is why energy weapons have an advantage over ammo weapons. Potshots is the name of the game in a lot of games I have played. The charges to physical range comes when you get bored of the 20 minute turns.
I would think using a different long range weapons would have made the point then using the one that has a -2 to hit. Standard large laser, erll, ppc and such. Even an ac 10, though some may not have the range though they would have standard to hits.
And I can see where retry is correct. If a weapon does only x points against a mech, then the potential against a mech is x. Doesn't matter if against infantry it does y damage. Against mechs it is only x damage. So the potential changes with the target. It is interesting that they don't have a special note on the bv of the heavy rifle.
As a side note, it would be interesting to know which damage value they based the bv off of. I would assume the 6 points since it seems they figure bv against normal mechs.
|
TigerShark
02/22/15 11:03 PM
104.49.175.97
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
Quote:
Retry writes:
This "potential damage" thing isn't some made up crap, it's extrapolated extremely easily through a simple single-step mathematical calculation. There is no spin doctoring, no misrepresentation, introduced anywhere within the calculation. The calculation of potential damage per ton is fact. What kind of mind bending logic you used to think otherwise is simply baffling.
Yes it's so extremely easy and yet you still manage to get it wrong. Try again.
The damage potential of a ton of ammo is 36 correct? That's what you're claiming. 6 shots at 6 damage each. So you're saying that it is impossible for a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammunition to completely destroy a 6-man squad of Trinity Battle armor correct? After all, Trinity Medium Armour has 8 armour + 1 for the man so . . . 6 shots at 6 damage each can only kill 3 troopers at most not all six.
No, in fact a Heavy Rifle can wipe the entire squad because the POTENTIAL DAMAGE of each shot is 9 damage which will kill one trooper.
54 is the potential damage. Period.
You can put all the conditions you want into a situation to try and rig a discussion in your favor but when both weapons are examined free of presumptions the winner is clear cut and the battle value is an indication of this. Battle value is not arbitrary.
And also, the Large Pulse Laser as an anti-BA weapon is objectively inferior to the Heavy Rifle. The heavy rifle has as good odds to hit BA at all ranges except 1-3. It has less heat, greater range, etcetera and is less bv to boot. Similarly the Medium Rifle is only 3 BV more than a Medium Pulse yet can inflict the same damage on BA per shot at 250% of the range.
What BattleArmor? The Heavy and Medium Rifles were antiquated military arms which did not exist in any time when BA were around (Age of War/Star League). That they've been resurrected in a tiny amount of modern designs doesn't mean this is a metric worth using.
It would be like saying the LPL is inferior to a machine gun because it doesn't have burst fire. O.o As it wasn't designed to be used against Infantry, that wouldn't be a metric for its usefulness. Just as a Heavy Rifle was designed to be used against targets with a BAR, not 'Mech-grade armor.
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 03:27 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
What BattleArmor? The Heavy and Medium Rifles were antiquated military arms which did not exist in any time when BA were around (Age of War/Star League). That they've been resurrected in a tiny amount of modern designs doesn't mean this is a metric worth using.
It would be like saying the LPL is inferior to a machine gun because it doesn't have burst fire. O.o As it wasn't designed to be used against Infantry, that wouldn't be a metric for its usefulness. Just as a Heavy Rifle was designed to be used against targets with a BAR, not 'Mech-grade armor.
And what was the AC/5 designed to be used against?
AC/5 was introduced in 2250, the mech was introduced in 2439ish. The Estevez MBT with BAR(8) armour came out in 3310 and was one of the best armoured vehicles in existence so in 2250 why did they introduced the AC/5? What value did the weapon have?
At the time there were no mechs, so the heat difference between the two weapons didn't matter
The Heavy Rifle did 80% more damage. Only downside was less ammunition per ton.
If you look at the Marsden I it has BAR(7) armour and is introduced in 2396 with an AC/5 when a Heavy Rifle would do much superior damage.
Why would the AC/5 gain any sort of traction on a BAR(7) or less battlefield where the Heavy Rifle would be superior? From 2250-2310 the only rounds the AC/5 could fire were standard rounds. Tracer rounds and Flak came out around 2300.
So a military is going to introduce a weapon which does 55% of the damage of its predecessor just so they can fire a few more rounds? Doesn't make much sense.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/23/15 03:28 AM)
|
ghostrider
02/23/15 03:47 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Hate to say it, but that thought might be solved by modern day fighter jets.
Why would you not use 50 cal or 30 mm guns in all jets to make sure you take down a target when you hit it?
Also, the titanium bath tub of the a10. Why not protect all pilots with one?
Now shift to police weapons and why they are switching to the 9mm from the old 38's. The 9mm holds more rounds, and before they switched to semi automatic pistols, reloading was a real pain with revolvers.
The same could be said of the mgs in the world wars. firing more shots was better. since you were missing more then enough as you sprayed anything that moved.
And when it comes to military, they don't always do what they should, especially when lobbyist are involved. The people making the ac might have greased enough palms to get them to use their weapons.
Plus if you sold the ac for less then the rifle system, it would look great to people looking to save money.
I would think the ac 5 came from the main guns of normal tanks. Or at least that would be my thoughts.
One last thought, in the world wars, more assaults failed because soldiers had to run back to their depots for more ammunition. So you fire 2 times to do the same damage. But you have more then 3 times the load.
Though I would like to know why your percentage of damage changed in your post. Is it 80% more or 45% more damage?
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 04:02 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
"My weapon can potentially do 9 damage per shot, but because I am fighting Battlemechs the ACTUAL damage is reduced to 6 points"
No modern purpose-built battlemech still in production has less than BAR 10 armor. Against such targets, the Heavy Rifle deals 6 damage to a Battlemech's armor. Actually read my post, not a cursory glance, you'll find I was specifically speaking about battlemechs. Hence, the potential damage of a Heavy Rifle against hardened(BAR 10) targets is 36.(Or less, in the case of advanced armors such as ballistic reinforced or ferro-lamellor) Do you need me to italicize it? Bold it? Capslock? I don't think so, as the others understood it right off the bat.
The potential damage for a Heavy Rifle per ton is 54.
Learn the fact that not every opponent on the field is a Battlemech.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Is the Trinity Medium Armour a battlemech or equipped with mech-scale armor that will reduce the damage by 3 to 6? No? Well then, we have ourselves a strawman. My claim was clearly that the potential damage of a ton of ammo against MECH ARMOR GRADE TARGETS was 36. What you're saying I've said, I've never said.
I don't care about mech grade targets. I care about ALL targets in the game.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Anyways, 6 dead battle armor, maximum, per ton of ammunition dedicated is an extremely poor payload. It's even less the heavier you go, with Elemental Battle Armor requiring two solid hits with the Heavy Rifle(3 for an AC/5) and 3 solid hits with any fully-decked Assault armor(18 points + 1 man, requires 4 hits with an AC/5). Taking into account the lack of 100% accuracy, you'll expend more than one ton of ammunition to take out a single squad on average. In which case you should look elsewhere.
The AC/20 has 5 dead battle armour, maximum, per ton of ammuntion.
So you're saying the AC/20 has an extremely poor payload?
The Heavy Gauss must have an extremely poor payload as well.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Weapons like the AC/5, SRMs, LRMs all have a good chance to wipe out an entire battle armor squad, even with some misses or partial hits in the case of cluster weapons, while still having additional ammunition from a one ton bay to expend on other targets, maybe even another battle armor squad. Often you can make them work with one ton of ammo, maybe two. Frequently, the Heavy Rifle is simply insufficient with two tons of ammo and three tons barely works.
Frequently based on what exactly? Most games do not last 20 turns. Most units in combat would not last 20 turns. Therefore the more important goal is to do more damage faster than to do less damage per turn over time.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Battle value is not arbitrary.
To an extent it is arbitrary. Or would you like to explain how we could have a weapon that can't even damage armored targets and has limited value against anything it can damage (Light Rifle) rated the same as a multipurpose weapon that is useful against far more targets and only very slightly inferior range brackets (Clan AP Gauss Rifle) or an unarmed speedy box apparently having a similar battlefield value as a clan Mad Dog?
Oh, to an extent? So first it was arbitrary. And now, "to an extent" it is arbitrary.
Changing your tune huh.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Firing further than 13 range is impractical, again due to the really poor damage potential and ammo load of a HR.
Says who? Kanazuchi is a 9 to hit at Long range. 7 to hit at medium range. At ranges 11-12 the LPL cannot even fire at it. Not all battle armour jumps 3 hexes. You cannot discount the long range "because you say so". Need more ammunition? then put on another ton. Big deal.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Firing on a jumping elemental squad at medium range (+2 3 hex movement and jumping +1 BA target +2 medium range) creates a large to hit modifier of +5, and that's before intervening terrain and movement from the firing mech. A regular 4 gunnery IS Mech pilot will end up with a to-hit of 9, in which case you'll be lucky to hit with 2 HR shells with a single ton of ammo. To ensure adequate BA killing power at long range, and avoid negating the HR's practically only advantage over the LPL, you'd have to sink a whole lot of ammo into the HR weapon system so you don't run out of ammo trying to kill anything from far away, which begins to become impractical, even for a weapon that's supposed to be dedicated for anti-BA duty.
By your own reasoning when you compared the AC/5 and Heavy Rifle, a comparison of the Heavy Rifle and Large Pulse Laser
The Heavy Rifle is 8 tons + 4 tons heatsinks + 1 ton of ammunition = 13 tons
The Large Pulse is 7 tons + 9 tons heatsinks = 16 tons.
So a Heavy Rifle could have 3 tons of ammunition and still weigh less than the Large Pulse Laser and be able to hit targets at 80% more range.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Meanwhile, we have the IS LPL which can hit closing at point blank more easily, which may be desired in case the opposition has short-ranged battle armor or wants to board your mech.
Um. No. You don't want to get close to battlearmour.
If you're at range 3 or less to battlearmour you're doing it wrong already.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Between ranges 1 and 10, it's either better than or equal to hitting compared to the HR, and doesn't have poor damage density ammunition to lose. It requires few crit spots and can be easily attached to small mechs to make use of it's beginning 10 tonnage-free double heat sinks, far more so than a HR. You don't have to be extremely frugal with your ammunition. You don't have to worry about running out of ammunition.
Yes and you can put Heavy Rifles in ICE tanks with no heat sinks.
Quote:
Retry writes:
You can fire most whenever you want if the mech is designed decently, allowing lucky rare hits on a 9 thru 12. Not only is it just as good(and I do argue better) as an anti-BA weapon than the Heavy Rifle itself, it retains usefulness against armored targets such as Mechs, so it's not a one-trick pony weapon and retains value in far more situations than a HR.
6 damage is useful. Especially when it outranges the Large Pulse by 80% at less Battle value.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
The Rifles are superior only in regions where you can't supply autocannon ammunition, and that's only because an unloaded weapon deals zero damage per turn. Otherwise, the Autocannons by and large make for superior armaments for anyone who can get their hands on them. Like it or not, the reasons that the Autocannon replaced the Rifle are more numerous than an AC/2's ammo belt.
History disagrees. Because at the time of their introduced the only thing the AC/5 had going for it was its ammunition load and that remained true for the first 50 years of its operational life. So, that's just flat out wrong.
Quote:
Retry writes:
I challenge you to take any canon unit and improve it by switching from AC/5s to HRs. See how that works out for you.
Dragon 1N
Sentinel 3K
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 04:12 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Hate to say it, but that thought might be solved by modern day fighter jets.
Why would you not use 50 cal or 30 mm guns in all jets to make sure you take down a target when you hit it?
Also, the titanium bath tub of the a10. Why not protect all pilots with one?
Now shift to police weapons and why they are switching to the 9mm from the old 38's. The 9mm holds more rounds, and before they switched to semi automatic pistols, reloading was a real pain with revolvers.
The same could be said of the mgs in the world wars. firing more shots was better. since you were missing more then enough as you sprayed anything that moved.
And when it comes to military, they don't always do what they should, especially when lobbyist are involved. The people making the ac might have greased enough palms to get them to use their weapons.
Plus if you sold the ac for less then the rifle system, it would look great to people looking to save money.
I would think the ac 5 came from the main guns of normal tanks. Or at least that would be my thoughts.
One last thought, in the world wars, more assaults failed because soldiers had to run back to their depots for more ammunition. So you fire 2 times to do the same damage. But you have more then 3 times the load.
Though I would like to know why your percentage of damage changed in your post. Is it 80% more or 45% more damage?
The AC/5 is 35,000 more cbills than the Heavy Rifle. Ammunition is 1,500 more per ton as well.
9 compared to 5 is 80% more damage (or 180% if you will).
5 compared to 9 is 55% percent of the damage.
So when the AC/5 was introduced, it was a gun that did almost half the damage of its predecessor for the same tonnage. Like if someone introduced a Coilgun, let's say or a Railgun, some equivalent of the gauss rifle and this weapon did only 8 damage and had 16 rounds but was STILL 15 tons would anyone use it? Sounds a lot like the Light Gauss doesn't it? But that weapon is 3 tons lighter than the Gauss Rifle.
When the AC/5 was introduced it's only benefit was more ammunition but for some reason it was adopted despite no pressing need for either its development or deployment. It had no special munitions, not heat benefit, no decreased costs or size, simply more shots and much less damage. Even against BAR(8) armour it did less damage.
|
wolf_lord_30
02/23/15 10:58 AM
166.216.165.26
|
Whatever books you've been reading that come out with the dates are all well and good, but trying to argue that the ac5 came out first doesn't fly with me. Game wise, 2nd edition battletech had the ac5. No heavy rifle. So the new designers allowed you to go back in time to pre-mech status and make a weapon that you are arguing is better than the ac5. I don't care one way or the other. But saying that it doesn't make sense that they use the ac5 instead of the heavy rifle, well the ac5 has been around for the duration of battletech. The heavy rifle has not. That is obviously a newer game design with the attempt to seem older. So why even argue that it makes sense or not when the ac5 was here first. And for diehards like me, it'll stay.
|
wolf_lord_30
02/23/15 11:00 AM
166.216.165.26
|
Sorry, correction to first sentence should read ,but trying to argue that the heavy rifle came out first doesn't fly with me.
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 02:23 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:
Whatever books you've been reading that come out with the dates are all well and good, but trying to argue that the ac5 came out first doesn't fly with me. Game wise, 2nd edition battletech had the ac5. No heavy rifle. So the new designers allowed you to go back in time to pre-mech status and make a weapon that you are arguing is better than the ac5. I don't care one way or the other. But saying that it doesn't make sense that they use the ac5 instead of the heavy rifle, well the ac5 has been around for the duration of battletech. The heavy rifle has not. That is obviously a newer game design with the attempt to seem older. So why even argue that it makes sense or not when the ac5 was here first. And for diehards like me, it'll stay.
.
Why argue? Because in my opinion, Battletech's desire to keep everything roughly on par with everything that came before leads to a stagnate universe where technology doesn't so much advance as it spread out. Superior weapons are introduced but always have trade-offs which makes older weapons like the Medium Laser still very desirable.The Heavy Rifle is simply one example of that, being a weapon which predates the AC/5 yet at the time of the AC/5s introduction was largely superior.
The rules for the Heavy Rifle themselves don't make sense for that matter either. Doing less damage against armour is fine, but when the rifle does less damage against a mech's structure as well then it doesn't make a huge amount of sense. Is structure made from the same material as armour? BAR(7) armour yields BAR(7) structure and BAR(10) yields BAR(10)?
But back to stagnation, the most interesting time to me is still the Clan Invasion when a hostile force fielded flat-out superior machines to those they were facing. But that's a situation that I don't think will be repeated in battletech. When TPTB tried to introduce a new era in 3250 with new machines that would render everything before them obsolete the outcry from the fanbase seemed to scare them into rethinking the product.
As for "diehards", well as a diehard myself, 3025 is becoming awfully boring. There really is not enough diversity in weapons to keep it interesting after playing for 20 years. Older weapons like the Rifles or Fission engines breath new life into a relative sterile era and allow for more granularity across the inner sphere.
Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:
Sorry, correction to first sentence should read ,but trying to argue that the heavy rifle came out first doesn't fly with me.
In the timeline of Battletech, the Heavy Rifle came out hundreds of years before the AC/5. In the history of the production of the game itself, the AC/5 is of course the original Autocannon.
Quote:
Retry writes:
I challenge you to take any canon unit and improve it by switching from AC/5s to HRs. See how that works out for you.
By the way, another mech would the Marauder 3R. Despite the impact on its heat curve, the Heavy Rifle with its limited supply of ammunition would increase the survivability of this machine by probably 20% through mitigating the vulnerability of its left torso.
|
TigerShark
02/23/15 04:14 PM
104.49.175.97
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
By the way, another mech would the Marauder 3R. Despite the impact on its heat curve, the Heavy Rifle with its limited supply of ammunition would increase the survivability of this machine by probably 20% through mitigating the vulnerability of its left torso.
How do you figure? The heat curve dictates when and how often something can be fired.
(2) PPC = 20 heat (+4)
(1) PPC + Heavy Rifle = 14 (-2 + 4 = +2)
...And that's without moving. So you've essentially taken the smooth transition from (2) PPC -> PPC/AC5 to (2) PPC, PPC/Heavy Rifle, PPC/Heavy Rifle just to get back to +0. And it's done with only 6 shots. The AC/5 is a terrible weapon, but it can be useful after you've taken some engine hits. Use this on the MAD-1R instead of the horrible -3R and it makes more sense.
Oh, and this also nudges the BV up by about 10, for having a worse heat curve and less ammo... O.o
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 04:28 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
By the way, another mech would the Marauder 3R. Despite the impact on its heat curve, the Heavy Rifle with its limited supply of ammunition would increase the survivability of this machine by probably 20% through mitigating the vulnerability of its left torso.
How do you figure? The heat curve dictates when and how often something can be fired.
(2) PPC = 20 heat (+4)
(1) PPC + Heavy Rifle = 14 (-2 + 4 = +2)
...And that's without moving. So you've essentially taken the smooth transition from (2) PPC -> PPC/AC5 to (2) PPC, PPC/Heavy Rifle, PPC/Heavy Rifle just to get back to +0. And it's done with only 6 shots. The AC/5 is a terrible weapon, but it can be useful after you've taken some engine hits. Use this on the MAD-1R instead of the horrible -3R and it makes more sense.
Oh, and this also nudges the BV up by about 10, for having a worse heat curve and less ammo... O.o
Because the Left Torso has nothing but ammunition for the AC/5 so the sooner that bin is emptied the better. A mech like the Crusader 3R or Zeus can sort of get away with only ammo bins in the torsos because they only have 8 rounds each for their LRM-15s and the longer range allows them to operate in a support role before moving in. But the Marauder has 20 rounds for the AC/5 which for the average game it will never exhaust. That combined with the lower range for the weapons (compared to LRMs) will encourage it to fight at medium-long range and be subjected to more fire. As the game goes on, any crit in that torso will outright destroy the mech.
Having more ammunition is often a liability, particularly in introductory tech. Thus there are cases where I would glad take a weapon with less ammunition if it means my mech will retreat from lack of ammo rather than getting blown apart by a ruptured ammunition bin.
|
ghostrider
02/23/15 04:58 PM
76.89.120.217
|
thinking about it a little more, the rifle may do 5 points to armor, but what does it do to the internal structure of a mech?
Does it go back to the 9 points?
Time line arguments are not really a good thing. All the weapons used in the original boxed set as weaker then the later ones, that the games fictional time line said came first. Star league era weapons. Up until that point, you NEVER found in canon material something that was left from the star league that had the 'upgraded' weapons. Finding a cache of ancient units always had the standard weapons for 3025 until they came out with the helm memory core. So this is will be hard to agree on.
Sorry. the last paragraph was written as I was reading the posts. It basically repeats what was said, but wanted to keep it in here.
The marauder is how you use it. Most people I know fire off the ppcs until the can get into range of the mls then swap one out for them. Rarely do I see people fire the ac 5 unless desperate, or overheating that badly. But that might just be the people I game with.
|
Cray
02/23/15 05:54 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
When the AC/5 was introduced it's only benefit was more ammunition but for some reason it was adopted despite no pressing need for either its development or deployment. It had no special munitions, not heat benefit, no decreased costs or size, simply more shots and much less damage. Even against BAR(8) armour it did less damage.
The AC/5 also works great in space-to-space combat since it fires ultra-velocity projectiles able to cross tens of kilometers in one-minute combat turns. Rifle (Cannons) cannot be used in space-to-space engagements since they lack the muzzle velocity to get shells out of their own hex in one minute.
Conventional autocannons were a leap forward in technology. While the first models didn't outperform the largest rifles, they had a lot more potential as universal weapons.
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.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 161 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 enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 25238
|
|
|
|
|
|
|