l0rDn0o8sKiLlZ
12/12/17 01:06 AM
73.251.251.247
|
Would dropping the AC/2 from 6-tons to 4-tons make it more balanced / viable?
Since it would mean a pair of AC/2s would almost make the same damage as an AC/5, but with extra range for the same tonnage before ammo.
Likewise would dropping the AC/5 from 8-tons to either 6 or 7 tons make it more balanced / viable?
Maybe a 3.5 ton AC/2?
Any thoughts on this? I'd assume keeping the crits the same.
"Woad Raider, kill things today."
|
ghostrider
12/12/17 05:07 PM
66.74.61.223
|
I am not the numbers person that would go thru and evaluate this, I have always thought the weights of the cannons were a bit much, when compared to how much ammo they need, and that explodes while energy weapons don't when hit.
The heat from the energy weapons is a pain, but when you look at it compared to the explosiveness of the ammo, I would think leaving the ammo behind is best.
I do agree that the issues of vehicles not building up heat from ballistic weapons means they can use them without any such issues of heat worries. So most suggest that is why the cannons are so heavy. Not sure about Battledroids, but the original btech didn't have tanks in them.
It was all mechs.
Now dropping the heat for mechs, such as ac 2/5 do none, while the 10 might put 1 heat out and the 20 do like 3 might counter the weight issues some. We had a discussion dealing with this in another thread.
Until the gauss rifle changed the heat/range/weight issues most cannons were pretty well useless on mech, in my opinion. Even the gauss rifle has issues. The light gauss rifle seems more along a decent line.
A thought about tanks, would be have them build heat from the ac/missiles like a mech.
The argument against lowering the weight is, it makes a vehicle more powerful then mechs of similar weight.
|
Cray
12/12/17 05:39 PM
50.88.162.46
|
I'd be tempted to go even lighter than your suggestions (or the existing Light ACs). Consider the competitors:
The AC/2 is easily rivaled by the 2-ton LRM 5. The AC/2 has a small range advantage, but the LRM 5 has better peak damage, indirect fire capability, and useful alternate munitions. Some perks that might help the AC/2:
1) Lighter and smaller. Say, 2-3 tons and 1 crit.
2) Behaves like MG with respect to infantry, like 1d6 or 2d6 damage
3) And give it 50 shots per ton. Really, 45? When every other AC does 100pts per ton of ammo? 
The AC/5 has a similar competitor in the LRM 10, but also butts into the large laser, PPC, etc. Heck, considering it's only 2 tons, the LRM 5 still stands up well against the AC/5. The 3-ton, 18-range, 5-point Light PPC is doom for the AC/5. Similar improvements come to mind:
1) Lighter and smaller, say 4-5 tons and 2 crits
2) Behaves like an MG with respect to infantry, like 2d6 damage
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.
|
Karagin
12/12/17 10:16 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Does not the AC2 have alternate ammo to draw on as well?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
12/13/17 06:01 PM
50.88.162.46
|
Quote:
Does not the AC2 have alternate ammo to draw on as well?
Yep, but not fun stuff like Thunder mines.
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.
|
Karagin
12/13/17 06:27 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Quote:
Quote:
Does not the AC2 have alternate ammo to draw on as well?
Yep, but not fun stuff like Thunder mines.
But it has the stuff, so it's damage can be more or less depending on the type, with things like AP rounds etc...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
12/14/17 12:09 AM
66.74.61.223
|
If the wiki entry is right, the streak lrm 5 is only 2 tons with 24 shots per ton. I would think the ac 2 is history with that in play. And that is not including the 28 extended range of it.
Granted the ammo is limited to just the normal shots, but it is better to have all ordinance hit, ie 5 points. And you can put in 3 launchers for the weight of one normal ac 2.
I guess when we discussed this before, it was not house rules, so the ideas were not put up.
So any suggestions on the 10 and 20 for a house rule?
|
Karagin
12/14/17 01:24 AM
72.176.187.91
|
The ammo isn't limited for the AC2, you can have the alternate ammo load outs for it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Rajaat99
12/18/17 01:44 PM
76.27.89.112
|
I've never actually had a player want to take an AC/2, because of its low damage and high tonnage requirement. I think Cray has the right idea, if you want to house rule it.
However, I'm currently running a game during the succession war era, so I don't play with the fancy AC ammunition.
"You are not alone among strangers, a way has been chosen."
|
ghostrider
12/18/17 07:34 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The 3025 era on up to the helm core release had only one ammo in the original box set. The rest were introduced in the updates and upgrades.
And the weight issues is a big problem with them. They just weighed too much compared to most other weapons. The low heat was supposed to make them better, but running out of ammo kind of killed that idea. Energy weapons was so much easier to deal with as running out of ammo in the middle of a battle just plain stunk.
|
Karagin
12/18/17 09:08 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Yes those were just as all the extra ammo types for the LRM and SRM were as well.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
ghostrider
12/19/17 05:28 PM
66.74.61.223
|
The ac 2 seems to shine when going against weapon towers in open terrain, and the enemy does not have artillery.
You sit back out of lrm range and pepper the installations until you get a good crit or finally bring them down. Otherwise, the damage and range isn't enough to do more then make the enemy laugh as they rush under the minimum range of the weapon and pound you to death with their mls.
On a side note, the ac 2 is good for lots of ammo to crit vehicles with when they can't get near you, such as on a ridge that they can't get up, or across a river that you just took out their bridge.
But I have experienced the same thing. Most players will not take a mech with ac 2's on them.
|
csadn
12/22/17 02:09 AM
50.53.22.4
|
http://www.heavymetalpro.com/bv_calc.htm is the only weapon-BV calculator I can find -- and it doesn't include a weapons mass or size. I can't find an "official" weapon-BV formula out there (and given what CGL's done with the game, I'm not surprised).
CF
Oregon: The "Outworlds Alliance" of the United States of America
|
TigerShark
01/04/18 02:47 PM
12.130.166.32
|
That's because tonnage, critical slots, and heat do not factor into weapon BV. A PPC that gives off 10 heat or 15 heat are the same BV, using the current calculation.
|
ghostrider
01/05/18 05:29 AM
66.74.61.223
|
How is that possible?
I thought bv changed as ranges changed on weapons.
The IS ERPPC has more range then the standard ppc. So it should be slightly more value. Also no minimum.
But I guess that is why people think the bv system is broken.
|
Karagin
01/05/18 05:22 PM
72.176.187.91
|
Congratulations ghostrider you have taken your first step into understanding why folks are not always happy with BT and it's mechanics when it comes to BV and how silly it is.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
BootDisk
01/10/18 11:55 AM
71.14.85.117
|
Here is the formula I am currently using to compare weapons:
(adjusted Damage x Number of Hexes it can operate in)/heat/tons/crit size
Short range does “full damage”. I account for medium and long range by reducing medium range damage by 1/3, and long range damage by 2/3. This is incredibly complicated because each weapon has its own ranges that it considers short/med/long, so I have to painstakingly enter every weapon. BUT it is fun. Having said that:
They are not even in the same league. The AC/2 wins on taking up less crit spaces, while the AC/5 wins on damage and tonnage. The AC/2 can attack 3 hex longer at an expense of losing two hex at short range. Considering it is impossible to keep your enemy precisely at your maximum range, this is more in favor of the AC/5. Elsewhere in the ranges, the hit modifiers are within 1-2 hex of each other for both weapons.
First, equal tonnage of both types:
AC/2 (x4) = 8 damage, 4 heat, 24 tons, 4 crits (my rating for this is 0.9)
AC/5 (x3) = 15 damage, 3 heat, 24 tons, 12 crits (my rating for this is 5.6)
If you try to match the damage of both, you take 13 AC/2s and 5 AC/5s
AC/2 (x13) = 26 damage, 13 heat, 78 tons, 13 crits (my rating for this is 3.0)
AC/5 (x5) = 25 damage, 5 heat, 40 tons, 20 crits (my rating for this is 9.3)
Trying to match critical slots doesn’t work either:
AC/2 (x4) = 8 damage, 4 heat, 24 tons, 4 crits (my rating for this is 0.9)
AC/5 (x1) = 5 damage, 1 heat, 8 tons, 4 crits (my rating for this is 1.9)
The main problem with these two weapons is that they both generate the same heat. There is just no getting around that.
If you want to try reducing the weight of the AC/2 until it has a similar rating as an AC/5, the AC/2 would have to weigh 0.7 tons. This is accounting for the factors of damage, heat, range, weight, and critical slots.
|
ghostrider
03/02/18 02:24 PM
66.74.61.223
|
Opposed to starting a new thread, I figured this might fit into here.
The idea of allowing autocannons to fire twice in a round came up. That means all acs, and ultra would fire 4 shots.
But to keep it a little toned down, it was suggested that the second volley come after everyone else moved, and had to be at the same target.
This would only apply to autocannons, not gauss rifles mgs, or anything else.
We haven't figured out if the rotary ones would benefit from this.
Also as a negative factor, it was suggested that a roll of 2 would lock it like the ultras do. The ultras would need two roles if it fired the second volley with just the 2 locking it. No additional penalties would be added.
|
ghostrider
03/19/18 04:21 AM
66.74.61.223
|
Had a radical idea come up.
The ac using more crits in a mech to lighten the cannon itself.
So instead of being 8 tons and 3 crits, you could go 7 tons with 4 crits.
The reasoning behind this is, the more the cannon is inside a mech, they less armor, support structures, servo motors and such are needed.
It was suggest no more then 1/3rd of the weight be changed to crits.
We are still trying to find out if there should be a penalty once you get so many crits, as it would limit the range of motion after a while.
This will make custom parts a must, as a normal cannon would not work with this.
We were debating on weither or not to do just the torso, or allow the arms to be part of it. The arms is a major problem as any omni mech with an ac in it screws with the idea, as well as normal mechs like the Zeus.
This could also apply to the Gauss rifle, but it may make them too powerful as a lighter mech could have one.
Any comment or tweaks would be nice.
|
l0rDn0o8sKiLlZ
03/19/18 10:23 PM
73.251.251.247
|
what about Autocannon's having their Heat Sinks built in?
Effectively giving them all no heat to fire.
a PPC + 2 Single Heat Sinks is lighter in mass and takes up less criticals than an AC10 with 2 tons of ammo and with greater range. Plus no ammo needed.
Giving that AC10 no heat by saying it's 12 tons incorporates 'proprietary cooling mechanisms' AKA 'AC-Only Heatsinks' means it does the same damage, but is only restricted by ammo, and weight / space available to the 'Mech.
This would make them more comparable to energy weapons.
Making the tonnage of the AC/2 , AC/5 and AC/10 identical to the Light, Medium and Heavy Rifles [respectively] would make them much more viable as well.
Combining these changes while leaving the AC/20 UAC 20 and LBX AC-20 alone; alongside retaining the heat of Light, Medium and Heavy Rifles on the grounds that they dont have the 'AC-Only Heat Sinks' of their more modern cousins, would go a long way to making Energy and Ballistic Weapons more balanced.
Especially since all missiles sans the T-Bolt series do cluster damage only and can't benefit from a Targeting Computer.
Not sure about AES though; Artemis can also be fouled by ECM, and the ARROW IV is useless without TAG afaik.
"Woad Raider, kill things today."
|
ghostrider
03/20/18 11:03 PM
66.74.61.223
|
That was a thought when the first books came out. Well sorry, Citytech came out. The tanks not building heat from ballistics or missiles. The idea of adding a heat sink directly into the ac's was pondered by the unofficial players of our group. Even just adding weight of the sink to the weapon would have worked.
The fact that double sinks in an engine would not limit the engine further then the size kind of confirms this should be a step in weapons evolutions.
The arrow iv can use the c3 master for tag, and I think they are normal artillery if no tag units are available. They just hit alot better with the tag.
As a side note, the demolishers original publication suggests it expels the heat from the 20's out of the barrel. But then suggest the crew needs special suits to survive using the guns. Which seems counter to each other. Granted rules take priority over fluff in the tro's.
|