ammo weapons survey

Pages: 1
ghostrider
03/24/16 12:42 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Would people be more willing to use ballistic weapons if there was no ammo limits on them?
Lasers are preferred as they never deal with running out of ammo.
It seems like that is one of the biggest issues with using the heavier ballistic weapons more then anything else.

The cost seems to come up with peoples designs, but yet it isn't a big deal when using certain items which jumps the cost dramatically.

And I should put this separate, but with all the tsm being used, why isn't there the counter to it, like the original gas? I know it would have to be altered since the tsm was, but I don't see why there would not be that defensive measure. Even if it is nothing more then used for smoke screens and such.
TigerShark
03/24/16 02:54 PM
12.130.166.32

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I've heard of 'cost savings' being a reason for installing an auto cannon, but according to TechManual, that's nonsense. Storing 100 tons of ammunition on a Dropship + the ACs > the laser itself. Unless you're counting the hidden cost of highly refined mirrors as cargo. O.o
Akalabeth
03/24/16 03:56 PM
64.251.81.66

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Autocannons should have less maintenance that lasers one would think. And be more rugged. Which should reason enough to use them. Though I don't think that's canon.
Karagin
03/24/16 05:40 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I think a mix of weapons is the key, since more canon, note for those who seem to not catch things I said most, mechs have that mix.

As for no ammo limits for the ammo weapons aka the AC, Gauss, LRMs etc...I would say no, since you still have the issue of BOOM dead mech if the ammo bin is it, unless you are suggesting the bin would be gone as well.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
ghostrider
03/24/16 07:27 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If we really want to discuss dealing with this, the bin would stay, but have a set amount of damage done if it explodes.

But this was more to see if the ammo limits is why people use the lasers more.
I was thinking if it was, then the balance of the game isn't what the developers were thinking it would be.
And yes, there should be some limits on how much you can fire. I just find some of those limits push most towards energy weapons. The less heat seems to be left in the dust from the weight and lack of supplies that the weapons require.

So I got curious and asked.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
03/24/16 07:42 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
To make lasers not the ultra weapon they are would be eliminate all heat from ballistic and missile systems and take away the internal heat sinks that fusion engines come with. If a medium laser cost 4 tons of weight instead of one would people like it so much?
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.

I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
Akirapryde2006
03/24/16 07:48 PM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Speaking from our gaming group only, which took part in large scale battles that lasted months. During these battles supplies and ammo were carefully monitored by the two sides as well as the narrators of the game.

On a strategic level energy based weapons were favored because a scout group didn't require as much supplies while on deep patrols behind enemy lines. On lighter faster units, energy weapons always capped out their damage at 10 (for the ER PPC, as we were an Inner Sphere unit). We experimented with mixing up the two style of weapons but found that when supply drops were few and far between, ballistic weapons were not worth the weight. And yes we could steal ammo from fallen enemy mechs but that was given we had to the time to do this. This wasn't always the case as enemy reinforcements were only minutes away.

However the big punch of the AC and other Ballistic Weapons were desired during key points of the battle. Nothing says make way like a pair of Atlases and their massive AC20's. Or a line of Long Bows with warhammers in front. Once the battle is over and the lines are formed, these mechs can fall back and reload while other units take up positions.

Both have their strategic advantages. I can't imagine a change that would not upset this balance between the two style of fighting.

However with that said, the identity crisis of the AC keeps coming to mind. I have mentioned it before and have been given the same party line answer. This answer makes zero sense to me.

The claim that the AC is a rapid fire weapon that shots multiple rounds at one pull of the trigger yet still only does one base damage makes zero sense. Anyone who has fired a machine gun or has military experience knows how foolish this sounds. Each bullet does its damage. More bullets hit, the greater the damage. Thus it is nearly impossible for a machine gun to do set damage each time the trigger is pulled, given that it is mathematically impossible to get the same number of rounds on the target each time.

A more realistic view of the AC (which is the canon concept in our group) that the AC is an auto loading cannon that fires one round doing set damage each time the round hits. It is this concept/view of the AC that allows for the Ultra and LBX's to have the advantages that are written in to the rules.

Okay so that is my two cents.

Akira
Pages: 1
Extra information
1 registered and 32 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: 4279


Contact Admins Sarna.net