UAC/5 vs LB 10-X AC, Part 2: Meet the Ugluk

Pages: 1
KamikazeJohnson
09/17/17 07:12 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Some time ago, I posted a thread analyzing the comparative worth of the Ultra AC/5 and the LB 10-X AC as potential upgrades for an AC/5-toting design. While the numbers showed than the LB 10-X was clearly the better weapon overall, the 2-ton size difference is what really determines which is the best option.

So to illustrate the difference those 2 tons make (and because I felt like designing something), I present the UGL-4K Ugluk: a multi-purpose Heavy 'Mech courtesy of the JMInc. design team.

Ugluk UGL-4K

Code:
Mass: 70 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Succession Wars
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-X-E-A
Production Year: 3050
Cost: 9,086,273 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,875

Chassis: Unknown Endo-Steel
Power Plant: Unknown 280 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h (54.0 km/h)
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h (86.4 km/h)
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Standard Armor w/ CASE
Armament:
1 ER PPC
1 Ultra AC/5
1 SRM-6 w/ Artemis IV FCS
3 Medium Pulse Lasers
1 Anti-Missile System
1 Guardian ECM Suite
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Endo-Steel 107 points 3.50
Internal Locations: 2 LT, 1 RT, 5 LA, 6 RA
Engine: Fusion Engine 280 16.00
Walking MP: 4 (5)
Running MP: 6 (8)
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Double Heat Sink 10(20) 0.00
Gyro: Standard 3.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA+H R: SH+UA+LA+H
TSM Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT, 2 LL, 2 RL
Armor: Standard Armor AV - 184 11.50
CASE Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT 1.00

Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 22 28
Center Torso (rear) 7
L/R Torso 15 24
L/R Torso (rear) 6
L/R Arm 11 17
L/R Leg 15 23

================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Medium Pulse Lasers RA 8 2 4.00
ER PPC LA 15 3 7.00
Ultra AC/5 RT 1 5 9.00
SRM-6 LT 4 2 3.00
Artemis IV FCS LT - 1 1.00
Anti-Missile System LT 1 1 0.50
Guardian ECM Suite CT 0 2 1.50
Medium Pulse Laser HD 4 1 2.00
@Ultra AC/5 (40) RT - 2 2.00
@SRM-6 (Artemis) (15) LT - 1 1.00
@Anti-Missile System (12) LT - 1 1.00
Free Critical Slots: 4

BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 6 Points: 19
4 3 4 2 0 3 1 Structure: 6
Special Abilities: TSM, AMS, ECM, CASE, SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
09/17/17 07:16 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
And for my next trick, the UGL-5L variant, trading the UAC for a LB 10-X, and downgrading the ERPPC to an ER Large Laser to save the required 2 tons.

Ugluk UGL-5L

Code:
Mass: 70 tons
Tech Base: Inner Sphere
Chassis Config: Biped
Rules Level: Tournament Legal
Era: Succession Wars
Tech Rating/Era Availability: E/X-X-E-A
Production Year: 3050
Cost: 9,256,273 C-Bills
Battle Value: 1,880

Chassis: Unknown Endo-Steel
Power Plant: Unknown 280 Fusion Engine
Walking Speed: 43.2 km/h (54.0 km/h)
Maximum Speed: 64.8 km/h (86.4 km/h)
Jump Jets: None
Jump Capacity: 0 meters
Armor: Unknown Standard Armor w/ CASE
Armament:
1 ER Large Laser
1 LB 10-X AC
1 SRM-6 w/ Artemis IV FCS
3 Medium Pulse Lasers
1 Anti-Missile System
1 Guardian ECM Suite
Manufacturer: Unknown
Primary Factory: Unknown
Communications System: Unknown
Targeting and Tracking System: Unknown

================================================================================
Equipment Type Rating Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internal Structure: Endo-Steel 107 points 3.50
Internal Locations: 2 LT, 1 RT, 5 LA, 6 RA
Engine: Fusion Engine 280 16.00
Walking MP: 4 (5)
Running MP: 6 (8)
Jumping MP: 0
Heat Sinks: Double Heat Sink 10(20) 0.00
Gyro: Standard 3.00
Cockpit: Standard 3.00
Actuators: L: SH+UA+LA+H R: SH+UA+LA+H
TSM Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT, 2 LL, 2 RL
Armor: Standard Armor AV - 184 11.50
CASE Locations: 1 LT, 1 RT 1.00

Internal Armor
Structure Factor
Head 3 9
Center Torso 22 28
Center Torso (rear) 7
L/R Torso 15 24
L/R Torso (rear) 6
L/R Arm 11 17
L/R Leg 15 23

================================================================================
Equipment Location Heat Critical Mass
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Medium Pulse Lasers RA 8 2 4.00
ER Large Laser LA 12 2 5.00
LB 10-X AC RT 2 6 11.00
SRM-6 LT 4 2 3.00
Artemis IV FCS LT - 1 1.00
Anti-Missile System LT 1 1 0.50
Guardian ECM Suite CT 0 2 1.50
Medium Pulse Laser HD 4 1 2.00
@LB 10-X (Cluster) (10) RT - 1 1.00
@LB 10-X (Slug) (10) RT - 1 1.00
@SRM-6 (Artemis) (15) LT - 1 1.00
@Anti-Missile System (12) LT - 1 1.00
Free Critical Slots: 4

BattleForce Statistics
MV S (+0) M (+2) L (+4) E (+6) Wt. Ov Armor: 6 Points: 19
4 4 4 1 0 3 1 Structure: 6
Special Abilities: TSM, AMS, ECM, CASE, SRCH, ES, SEAL, SOA, FLK 1/1/1
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Retry
09/17/17 10:08 PM
64.189.132.158

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I don't think this is a good example of the difference the 2 tons can make, since you can snag those 2 tons by switching out the MPL array with quad medium lasers for similar secondary damage and identical heat production.
KamikazeJohnson
09/21/17 01:53 AM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I don't think this is a good example of the difference the 2 tons can make, since you can snag those 2 tons by switching out the MPL array with quad medium lasers for similar secondary damage and identical heat production.



Well, that modification can still be made on either design. What I was trying to demonstrate was one possible Autocannon trade-off making use of the extra 2 tons while keeping the rest of the 'Mech the same.

I think in this case, the LB 10-X still has the edge; more raw damage, plus the added versatility of the Cluster ammo. However, the UAC/5 variant has better range, plus a clearer Long Range/Short Range split, so Heat is a bit more manageable, as long as you don't try to use the ERPPC in close.

Just one of many uses for the 2 tons. I could also drop the Artemis IV from the SRM (maybe trade the SRM for a pair of Streak SRM 2s) and add a LRM 5, making the UAC/5 variant clearly superior at long range.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
09/21/17 03:35 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I will have to point out the ultra 5 has a big problem as the second shot is not guaranteed. That can really make a difference in the way both are figured out, as well as the jamming issues.
Also, the ultra can get a third ton of ammo for the same weight if the lbx only has one ton of ammo. Which affects the use in the game as well.

If you remove the missing shots and jamming, then it would be a more accurate evaluation.
And thinking about it, 10 points for the slug for the lbx is better then 2 spots with 5 points. Punching thru armor concept here.
The crit issues for the cluster round changes things greatly as well.
But I will assume you are not forgetting this, but are trying to keep the oddities from the equation.

The idea of using a light unit or even a tank with just the weapons on it would remove some of the issues with other weapons being a factor.
Just the lbx or ultra on the unit.
Remove terrain cover, which tends to favor no minimum, and limits maximum ranges, as well as pulling out movement factors. That gives a much better perameter set for evaluations.
KamikazeJohnson
10/01/17 08:58 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
I will have to point out the ultra 5 has a big problem as the second shot is not guaranteed. That can really make a difference in the way both are figured out, as well as the jamming issues.
Also, the ultra can get a third ton of ammo for the same weight if the lbx only has one ton of ammo. Which affects the use in the game as well.

If you remove the missing shots and jamming, then it would be a more accurate evaluation.
And thinking about it, 10 points for the slug for the lbx is better then 2 spots with 5 points. Punching thru armor concept here.
The crit issues for the cluster round changes things greatly as well.
But I will assume you are not forgetting this, but are trying to keep the oddities from the equation.

The idea of using a light unit or even a tank with just the weapons on it would remove some of the issues with other weapons being a factor.
Just the lbx or ultra on the unit.
Remove terrain cover, which tends to favor no minimum, and limits maximum ranges, as well as pulling out movement factors. That gives a much better perameter set for evaluations.



In the original thread I included a bunch of numerical analysis to compare the two weapons.

1) In Ultra mode, the UAC hits with both shots about 41.6% of the time, resulting in an average damage/round of 7.08, compared to 10 for the LB Slug and 6.48 for the LB Cluster (I didn't attempt to calculate the effect of the -1 targeting bonus for the cluster; beyond my statistical ability)
2) To account for the effect of the Ultra Jamming rule, I worked out the average chance of a jam across any given number of rounds, and applied that as a multiplier to the average damage/round. Since the cumulative chance of a jam increases with the number of shots, the relative effectiveness of the UAC decreases as the length of the comparison (i.e. turns fought) increases. With 1 ton ammo (10 rounds in Ultra mode), that multiplier is 88.38%, for a final average damage/turn of 6.26. With 2 tons ammo, that average drops to 7.08 * 77.53% or 5.49.
3) Situationals are, of course, nearly impossible to calculate. About the only thing you can do is to run a pair of competent AIs through a couple thousand trials and see which turns out higher numbers, but that still leaves doubt as to whether a skilled human player could have done better.

Looking at the 'Mechs posted above, if we assume that a) the Ugluk survives and b) the fight lasts long enough to exhaust ammo stocks, and if we assume that the average damage output of Cluster vs Slug is roughly even (the targeting bonus counteracts the reduced damage/hit), we're looking at about a 20% damage advantage for the LB 10-X, but that margin decreases significantly in shorter battles (difference is almost negligible in a 10-round fight). LB 10-X gets better damage and the utility of the 10-point single hit Slug or the crit-seeking of the Cluster, but the UAC/5 gets a slight advantage in range brackets and 2 extra tons for the 'Mech. In the case of the Ugluk designs posted, the added range and damage off the ERPPC vs the ER Large Laser puts the average damage solidly in favour of the Ultra, but that's a bit of a cheat/situational advantage, since the higher Heat output of the ERPPC is swallowed up by the surplus heat dissipation of the default 10 DHS, making the UAC/ERPPC combo probably more effective on this design, but possibly not on a 'Mech that needs to add Heat Sinks.

The point of my ramblings here is that, contrary to popular opinion (including mine until I started running the numbers), the UAC/5 is not nearly as bad a White Elephant as it appears, at least relative to the LB 10-X. The Ugluk is simply one example of the UAC being possibly the more effective choice in combination with the rest of the equipment package.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
KamikazeJohnson
10/01/17 09:03 PM
72.143.216.135

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Incidentally, at somewhere around 26-28 rounds, the average damage for the UAC/5 drops below 5 (due to the Jam chance), making it more effective in the ling run in single-shot more. Or better off using the lighter LB 5-X with better range, Cluster versatility, and no chance of a jam.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
Karagin
10/01/17 10:58 PM
72.176.187.91

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
What about going with a UAC10?
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
KamikazeJohnson
10/02/17 11:39 AM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
What about going with a UAC10?



Numerically a much harder comparison to analyze. UAC/5 vs LB 10-X is relatively easy as Heat and Ammo are equal (assuming firing in Ultra mode), leaving only weapin tonnage to account for.

UAC/10 is 2 tons heavier, uses twice as much ammo, and 6 additional heat, so it compares at 18 tons vs 11 for the LB 10-X, putting it in a totally different weapon class IMO.

Anyway...the damage numbers for the UAC/10 are exactly double the UAC/5 numbers, so 14.16 average damage/hit, reduced to about 11 over a 20-round fight due to jam probability. Same range as the LB 10-X, increase in average damage doesn't seem to justify the increased tonnage, unless you're still within the default heat dissipation. So I might recommend the UAC/10 on a Medium or a lighter Heavy, most likely not on an Assault.

UAC/10 vs LB 20-X is interesting though. Same ammo, heat is close, tonnage is close, biggest difference is range and situational capabilities.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
10/02/17 12:48 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Ok. Need some clarification on the additional heat of the ultra 10. Is the 6 additional heat a typo, or did you figure it as 3 for single, and 9 for ultra?
I am assuming it is a typo and you meant 6 heat total in double rate mode.

It is odd that increasing the average damage does not justify the increased tonnage.
Is that because of the jamming issue might leave you without the weapon?
Or is there something else I am missing?
Well besides needing an extra ton of ammo to keep the same number of shots.

Without the worries of missing in ultra mode or the lbx getting their crits, the extra 2 tons for the ultra 10 sounds much better then the lbx as you are more likely to take out the target faster. That means less chance of them taking you out.
But then this is just efficiency verse each other. I do understand that.
KamikazeJohnson
10/02/17 01:18 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Ok. Need some clarification on the additional heat of the ultra 10. Is the 6 additional heat a typo, or did you figure it as 3 for single, and 9 for ultra?
I am assuming it is a typo and you meant 6 heat total in double rate mode.


The UAC/10 is 4 heat/shot, 8 heat total, which is 6 more that the LB 10-X's 2 heat.

Quote:
It is odd that increasing the average damage does not justify the increased tonnage.
Is that because of the jamming issue might leave you without the weapon?
Or is there something else I am missing?
Well besides needing an extra ton of ammo to keep the same number of shots.

Without the worries of missing in ultra mode or the lbx getting their crits, the extra 2 tons for the ultra 10 sounds much better then the lbx as you are more likely to take out the target faster. That means less chance of them taking you out.
But then this is just efficiency verse each other. I do understand that.



It's mainly a matter of degree; a UAC/10 does more damage than a LB 10-X AC. However, if you want to keep the same heat scale, and want to supply enough ammo for 20 rounds of combat, you need 2 extra tons if ammo and 3 additional DHS. So you have 13 tons for the LB 10-X and ammo, or 20 tons for tbe UAC/10 plus ammo and Heat Sinks. And once you factor in the opportunity cost due to weapon jams, the difference in average damage over 20 rounds is not that great. Much better to design a UAC/10 'Mech for a short fight; 10 rounds' worth of ammo. Now you're comparing 18 tons for UAC to 12 tons of LB 10-X, and getting a more significant difference in average damage.

I know it seems counterintuitive that the UAC/10 is less effective with more ammo, but that's due to the fact that the longer you use the Ultra, the greater the chance that it will jam at some point. In actual experience, I find it rare for a 'Mech to expend more than 10 rounds of ammo; more than that often ends up being wasted as either the fight ends before the ammo is gone, or the 'Mech dies before getting a chance to use it.

Basically, Ultras can be highly effective in short fights, but lose out to the reliability of other weapons in the long run.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
10/03/17 02:00 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Might have read the clan table for heat on the 10. So that is my mistake.

The idea of needing more sinks only comes into play when you are using other weapons on the mech, or not using a tank. So that information isn't really as important as it seems. Maybe an urbanmech would be a good base for this.

The fight length is something that does come into play with this. If you can hit with both shots of the ultra, the game is normally over quicker barring crits. Yeah, that does weigh the data towards the ultra. Adding in the crit issue, then the lbx cluster rounds can quickly change it towards the other way.
But as you said. The longer it goes on, the more likely of losing the weapon.
The jam is the big problem. There is no argument there.
Might be the way I think. The faster you get it over with, the less likely you are to lose to some good(bad) dice rolls.
I have found some battles going past 10 rounds, but they tend to all be long range, big mechs. Some shots were just plain risky to begin with, like 10+. LOS was a big part of that. You fired when you could sort of thing.
Granted, as you get into the 18 ton range, the idea of using Gauss rifles comes to mind, but that was not part of the experiment.
KamikazeJohnson
10/03/17 03:14 PM
72.143.216.49

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Might have read the clan table for heat on the 10. So that is my mistake.

The idea of needing more sinks only comes into play when you are using other weapons on the mech, or not using a tank. So that information isn't really as important as it seems. Maybe an urbanmech would be a good base for this.

The fight length is something that does come into play with this. If you can hit with both shots of the ultra, the game is normally over quicker barring crits. Yeah, that does weigh the data towards the ultra. Adding in the crit issue, then the lbx cluster rounds can quickly change it towards the other way.
But as you said. The longer it goes on, the more likely of losing the weapon.
The jam is the big problem. There is no argument there.
Might be the way I think. The faster you get it over with, the less likely you are to lose to some good(bad) dice rolls.
I have found some battles going past 10 rounds, but they tend to all be long range, big mechs. Some shots were just plain risky to begin with, like 10+. LOS was a big part of that. You fired when you could sort of thing.
Granted, as you get into the 18 ton range, the idea of using Gauss rifles comes to mind, but that was not part of the experiment.



Going over the numbers like this really drives home how much of a monster weapon the AC/10 is; it's very difficult to justify it vs a Gauss Rifle. It also shows how much of a detriment the Jamming rule actually is. 1/36 chance doesn't sound like much, but it adds up over several rounds. I have a few thoughts on how to addresd this in my modified system, although with d8 rather than d6s, the jam probability drops to 1/64, which is much less significant.

UAC/10 would definitely be a terrifying weapon on a tank though. Thinking a Demolisher mod or a Behemoth mod with 2 of them. Or a Saladin; a gun lime that with 8/12 movement, allowing it to withdraw easily in the event of a misfire.

The Heat aspect, oddly enough, tends to suggest the UAC/10 for a Medium or low-end Heavy rather than an Assault; pair it with an ER Large Laser or a Snub-Nose PPC and get by with only the default Heat Sinks. Enforcer mod?
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
10/03/17 05:13 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Suggested the Urbanmech as it was the primary weapon, so the other weapons did not influence the outcome.
An Enforcer mod could very well work.

Maybe finding a way to put it on a tank like the Po, would cause some mech pilots to clean their drawers more often.
But I could see the other two being just as bad to send the laundry bill up.

The range for the uac10 would actually allow a slower vehicle to become just as nasty as the ac 20 carrying ones. Granted, both shots have to hit, but the fact you have a longer range helps keep you out of range of the srm/mls. Granted, the speed does help keep your butt out of trouble as well.

I wonder if the Zukov would be even scarier with dual ultra 10s?
KamikazeJohnson
10/06/17 03:30 AM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Dammit...so now I'm going to have to do a whole analysis for the UAC/10. Keep your eyes peeled for a fresh thread in the next few days.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
10/06/17 11:27 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Did you really think you were going to get off easy?
MWAHHAHAHHHAHAHA!

It does make me have to ask why you didn't have this all done before putting this up?
Best guess would be not thinking anyone ask about options with the original analysis. Or just not wanting to get into it.

Eventually, it all comes down to personal preference. I like the ppc/ac20 set up.
Since the gauss rifle came out, the ac 20 has been even more shoved to the way side, as the range vs damage aspect is hard to argue with. Both will take the head off most mechs without much of an issue. The increase in ammo a the advantage of range and heat for the gauss is what almost all who play want. I got used to the physical players when I started, so that could very well be why. The lack of ammo for the lrms, or maybe the excess with the lighter packs when ammo crits started becoming nasty could lend to why that was not a big want. Might be the never ending ammo with the ppc and the lack of the longer ranges with alot of the maps to waste with potshots might have done that.

Anyways. I guess we can look forward to a new thread with the uac10.
KamikazeJohnson
10/07/17 06:11 PM
142.160.216.118

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Did you really think you were going to get off easy?
MWAHHAHAHHHAHAHA!

It does make me have to ask why you didn't have this all done before putting this up?
Best guess would be not thinking anyone ask about options with the original analysis. Or just not wanting to get into it.



The comparison originated with my take on the TRO:3050, where the UAC/5 and LB 10-X AC were the only Autocannon upgrades available for IS. UAC/10 wasn't introduced until 3058, IIRC.

Average Damage nunbers for the UAC/10 are easy to calculate; exactly double the UAC/5 numbers. Just need to account for Tonnage, Heat, and Range.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
ghostrider
10/08/17 03:31 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Just curious, but did you do this with the clan versions?
I know you like IS stuff, so I can see that being the focus of alot of this information.
Pages: 1
Extra information
0 registered and 118 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: 3744


Contact Admins Sarna.net