Karagin
10/30/04 11:38 PM
82.214.192.138
|
Well in my last offical BT game in Iraq, yes that's right we are soon to be out of here, one of the guys who is really getting into the game, noted that there is no AC15.
I tried explaining that the range and weight of the AC10 kind of made an AC15 pointless but he countered with the LRM15 point and so it got me to thinking...
Should there have been an AC15 way back when the game started or was it not needed thus as the rules relfect?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Iceman
10/31/04 09:15 AM
213.13.239.128
|
Back when the game started there was actually only one AutoCannon, which later became the AC5 as other calibers became available.
|
Nightward
10/31/04 06:08 PM
203.214.146.136
|
If it did exist, it woud probably create 7 Heat and have a 4/8/12 range bracket. And weight somewhere around 14 tons.
I think there is no A/C-15 because an A/C-10 weighs 11 tons and an A/C-20 weighs 15. Four tons of difference between weapon sizes means that plunking anything in the middle means it probably is not going to be used. Sort of like the way everyone uses SRM-2 or SRM-6s, except on FASA/FanPro designs. It would just be too inefficient.
Then again, anything built with "Efficiency" in mind is pretty much a mobile Medium Laser delivery vehicle, so...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Karagin
11/01/04 05:32 AM
62.128.182.99
|
I know that. Back when the game was simply Battledroids...
That wasn't what I was getting at, I am only teching the guys level 1 tech and thus the question came up.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
phoenix
11/02/04 02:00 AM
12.221.81.134
|
Quote:
Then again, anything built with "Efficiency" in mind is pretty much a mobile Medium Laser delivery vehicle, so...
You got that right, everytime I look back on custom designs I created a few years ago, the one thing they all have in common is way too many medium lasers.
Phoenix
|
Cray
11/02/04 08:18 AM
147.160.136.10
|
Quote:
I think there is no A/C-15 because an A/C-10 weighs 11 tons and an A/C-20 weighs 15.
12 and 14 tons, actually.  (The IS LB10X is 11 tons and the IS UAC/20 is 15 tons.) As Karagin and Nightward noted, there's not a lot of room for an AC/15 in that gap. However, that's viewing things in hindsight. Let's take another approach: viewing things from the perspective of the writer.
In Battledroids and 2nd Ed. BT, there was a single AC: the autocannon, later renamed the AC/5. In (1st Ed.) Citytech, ACs diversified into the modern range of AC/2s, AC/5s, AC/10s, and AC/20s.
When the writer sat down to sketch out the alternate ACs, they didn't have the tonnages for the weapons to decide whether or not to keep the AC/15. They were making up tonnages for alternate ACs then. But...I'm not sure why they decided to avoid the AC/15.
Maybe it was the tonnages. The writers obviously kept the AC/5 unchanged and used it as a baseline. They wanted a smaller AC; an AC/4 wasn't different enough from the AC/5, and an AC/1 would be sort of goofy. That left an AC/2 or /3. For larger ACs...well, a weapon can only get so heavy and still be viable on a level-1 battlemech or vehicle. That probably set the tonnage cap of about 14-16 tons, and 14 tons for an AC/20.
With only 6 tons between the AC/5 and AC/20, there's not a lot of room for medium-heavy ACs. If you picked 9 or 10 tons for an AC/10, it's still pretty close to the AC/5...why take an AC/5 when you can double the firepower for 1 or 2 more tons? That kind of sets of minimum for the AC/10 and squeezes out remaining room for the AC/15.
I'm babbling. Maybe the writers just settled on the geometric progression of AC sizes from the beginning and never considered the AC/15.
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.
|
Devlin
11/04/04 10:33 PM
216.114.96.206
|
Actually, the following was an idea we cooked up in a munchkin set-up we use for the Alternate Battletech Universe that tried to spawn when Sarna died:
(IR) Ultra A/C 15-
The techs on Corsin could not find a way to reverse engineer the Rotary Assault Cannon 20, but did some amazing and yet simple work trying, and discovered a weapon platform either overlooked or undiscovered by any of the other Battlemech producing factions- the class 15 Auto Cannon. This development was so simple that many in the Imperial Republic wondered why the others hadn’t produced it. Nonetheless, development went forwards, and the new class of Auto Cannon was born.
Designation: Ultra A/C 15
Tech Base: Imperial Republic
Tech Level: 4
Type: Ballistic
Critical Spaces: 6
Weight: 11 Tons
Damage: 15
Cost: 400,000 C-bills
Battle Value: 274
Range: MIN- SHORT- 5 MEDIUM- 10 LONG- 15 EXT- 20
Heat: 5
Shots per ton/Ammo: 7
Can Spread Crits: No
That is based on the fact that the IR techs had access to Clan and IS weapons. The Clan Ultra A/C 10 is able to shoot 12 hexes, the Ultra A/C 5 shoots 18 hexes. A mix would therefore be between them. It is not an effective weapon if you assume the stats we did, and I could see why it was not made in CBT. A regular A/C 10 or A/C 5 would be better for it, and the Ultra version is only a slight improvement. Hope this helps explain why I could see that the A/C 15 wasn't made.
It's only impossible until you do it, then it was easy
|
chez
11/13/04 09:45 AM
62.173.81.122
|
At lvl1 there was only one weapon that could 'head chop' (AC 20) and this had a limited range. Maybe the designers felt that a head chopping weapon with a range greater than 9 hexes would unbalance the game. However they seem to forget (ignore?) this principle when lvl2 was developed...
We have all seen battles turn out to be severely one-sided due to an early GR\Cl PPC to the head of a major mech on the battlefield (at lvl2) but this was avoided at lvl1 making for greater playability
"In order to stab someone in the back it is first necessary to get right behind them" Sir Humphrey Appleby
|
Nightward
11/13/04 05:46 PM
203.214.145.132
|
Gah. So tired of this argument. Level 1 vs Level 2 is not a matter of head-chopping.
Actually, PPCs and A/C-10s could head chop back in the day- full head armour wasn't all the common.
One tournament I played in, my Archer head-capped a Banshee 3S on the other side of the map, leaving me at +95 tons in the first turn. I still lost that game because of some truly stupid decisions later on.
Luck plays a factor, but there are plenty of things you do not use dice for- movement and weapon selection spring to mind. A poor player will loose even if they are not head shot; a good player will be able to win even if they are.
That said, in a one-on-one fight- or if they burned most of their BVs or tonnage into a single 'Mech- can be ended this way. But then, in a one-on-one fight, head-choppers are the order of the day- and if they've spent so much of their resources on a single unit for any other reason, the player should be ready to loose it and plan accordingly.
PPCs and Gauss Rifles are (at least in the circles I play) more feared for the 15 damage at the ranges they can hit at (and they hit fairly often, thanks to said range brackets) than the fact that they can take your head off.
Level 1 games usually end in attempts at head kills, any way. Just about every game I play winds up with both sides trying to close so they can actually hit, which is when people go physical and try for head punches...
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
chez
11/16/04 04:48 PM
62.173.81.122
|
Quote " Gah. So tired of this argument. Level 1 versus level 2 is not a matter of head chopping"
I know , I was using it as an illustration as to "why there is no AC15" which I believe was the original thread posted.
Quote " "
This is what you had to say about the actual thread. 
However that said I do agree with what you said about there being more than headchopping being the difference between lvl1 and lvl2
And when I mount long range headchoppers I'm not just looking for a headshot, 15 points of damage to 1 location will be just peachy 
The original question could be phrased better, not "why no AC15?" but "why AC10 at all?"
Bear with me...
I believe most mechs were designed during the star league era and as such the GR was available to mech designers. So why put an AC10 on a design when a GR would do more damage at greater range for less heat?
The AC10 seems to be a substitute weapon that mech designers used to fill out the mech when GR technology disappeared due to the odd succession war here and there.
I'm sure there are 1 or 2 exceptions but I think that will hold true in most cases
Just my 2 penny worth
chez
"In order to stab someone in the back it is first necessary to get right behind them" Sir Humphrey Appleby
|
Silenced_Sonix
11/29/04 04:41 PM
168.209.97.34
|
Well, think of the limitations of the Gauss rifle: it can only be mounted on a 'Mech/vehicle that uses a fusion engine, weighs 15 tons and takes up 7 crits. That said, it means that ICE vehicles cannot mount the Gauss as a main weapon in their turrets, while the larger AC/20 cannot be turret-mounted, only to the front. Damage-wise, this makes the strongest weapon available to an ICE vehicle an AC/10 - which is fair damage, sure, but seems lacking compared to the Gauss and C/ ER PPC's 15 points and the AC/20's 20 points. Putting in an AC/15 would be perfect for vehicles, as it would allow a larger, more potent weapon with a 360-degree arc of fire and allow them to stand their own on the field.
For the standard IS AC/15, I thought something like this would be possible:
Heat: 5
Damage: 15
Range: 4/ 8/ 12
Tons: 13
Crits: 8
Ammo: 8/ ton
Compared now to the Gauss, the AC/15 might be 1 crit bigger and have a shorter range set, but has the advantage of being two tons lighter (balanced out by the need for more heatsinks) and the ability to be fitted to a vehicle's turret, and not need an fusion plant either. It's lack of a minimum rnage would also be a big plus.
Crudstunk. This is just off the top of my head - comments, anyone?
Evolve or Die
|
davion76
11/30/04 08:04 PM
138.163.0.44
|
"while the larger AC/20 cannot be turret-mounted"
Since when? The Demolisher (80 ton lvl 1 tracked - 3026) has 2 of them in 1 turret! Not to mention the Von Luckner, Rommell, Monitor(boat), or the Uriel (cannon I believe).
And I don't think I've even seen a Cannon rule for requiring a fusion engine for a Gauss Rifle, though I could be wrong.
|
Nightward
12/01/04 04:26 AM
203.214.147.58
|
IIRC, Heavy Gauss Cannon require Fusion Engines. Nothing else does.
Yea, verily. Let it be known far and wide that Nightward loathes MW: DA. Indeed, it is with the BURNING ANIMUS OF A THOUSAND SUNS that he doth rage against it with.
|
Silenced_Sonix
12/01/04 02:20 PM
168.209.97.34
|
I could have sworn... *goes hunting through BMR-R*
Sorry, my bad - but I could have sworn I read something along those lines somewhere, especially about the AC/20 not being turret-mounted. Then again, I could be mistaken - I have read a lot of the material, and some of it has unfortunately gone fuzzy over time. I apologise for any confusion.
Evolve or Die
|
Karagin
12/07/04 05:18 PM
65.132.126.179
|
I think you are confusing the Hvy Gauss Rifle here...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Toontje
12/14/04 10:36 AM
84.24.165.226
|
Why no, is due to the only reason that would exist is due to the headcap capacity. An AC/20 has one advantage a GR doesn't have; a single hit WILL force a PS roll.
Rather to blow up, then.
|
The_Gangster_of_Boats
03/03/05 01:11 AM
64.57.228.57
|
I hammered out an LB-30X for grins.
It is Heavier, and only cluster round capable. The number of pellets that hit are reduced by the range.
Haven't tested it yet, I'm thinking anti-personnel use. That would wreck some infantry.
Don't run, you'll just die tired.
|
Karagin
03/03/05 10:53 AM
65.129.165.226
|
Did you do one up for the normal ACs?
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
The_Gangster_of_Boats
03/03/05 11:02 AM
64.57.227.41
|
Not yet, but the AC15 would be best as caseless or (insert evil chuckle here) an HV-AC15.
Don't run, you'll just die tired.
|
Karagin
03/03/05 04:25 PM
65.129.223.50
|
Maybe but those ACs variants have some of the silliest rules working agianst them so most folks won't use them. Kind of like the Acid and Axe warheads.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
The_Gangster_of_Boats
03/03/05 10:10 PM
64.57.227.41
|
I know, the HV shouldn't blow up on a roll of 2. Jamming on 2 with hopelessly jammed if you are firing in rapid fire mode should be fine. In all reality, I view that AC as just having a slightly longer barrel, and the propellant load is higher per round. It is kind of like the difference between the artillery cannon and regular version of the piece.
Anyway-
HV AC/15
Wt. 16 Tons
Crit. 8
Heat 9
Range Sh-5 Med-10 Lng-18
6 Shots per ton
Jams on 2
Don't run, you'll just die tired.
|
Karagin
03/03/05 11:44 PM
65.129.164.68
|
It's a start...
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|