Akalabeth
02/23/15 06:04 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
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?
6 points to armour. Not 5.
It should really do 9 points to internal structure but there's no specification in the rules to support that nor is there any errata to that effect. It simply says that units with BAR(8) or higher armour reduce the damage by 3 regardless of what is getting hit and where.
One has to wonder though.
If a unit has patchwork armour and say some of it has BAR(10) armour but other parts of the mech has BAR(6) armour then what is the interaction? Does the rifle still do 3 less damage regardless of where it hits? Or does it do more damage to the areas with BAR(6) armour. And after the armour is defeated then what? Do the sections with lower armor rating take more internal structure damage from a hit or are all internal hits reduced by 3?
That's illustrates another problem with battletech. It's a inelegant set of rules built around exceptions rather than core mechanics. The more exceptions they add, the more case-specific interactions need to be addressed. These questions could be asked on the rules forum and yield a page worth of errata potentially, or at minimum some brute force handwavium which compounds the lack the consistency.
Quote:
Cray writes:
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.
True they're suited space combat. Though - in my opinion all ammunition firing weapons are second-rate when it comes to aerotech because they're incapable of making strafing attacks on ground targets. Maybe if heat dissipation problems were compounded in space (due to a lack of medium to dissipate the heat into) then ammunition weapons would be more appealing.
Do note however that the current gun on the Abrams MBT has a muzzle velocity of 1,580 m/s or around 94.8 kilometres per minute. And if Aerotech 2 hexes are 18,000 metres per hex then the Heavy Rifle would still have a range of 5 hexes. Not sure about the hex size that's what I found in a search and don't currently have the rules with me. I don't know what the muzzle velocity of an AC/5 is supposed to be
EDIT - Interestingly enough does any Aerospace fighter even use the AC/5? At cursory glance, none of the base models from succession wars or earlier seem to. Dropships like the Union use them certainly but (circa 2705), didn't see any fighters. Most fighters have AC/20s or 10s. With one early CCAF having an AC/2
So if that's the main benefit of the AC/5 at the time of its introduction, where is it used?
Edited by Akalabeth (02/23/15 07:34 PM)
|
ghostrider
02/23/15 09:30 PM
76.89.120.217
|
Can I use the ultra velocity as an argument as to why cannons have such a short range?
With this, would that mean the ac 2 has a higher muzzle velocity then a 5? With the 20 being the slowest?
|
Retry
02/24/15 12:10 AM
76.7.225.145
|
No, high muzzle velocity benefits maximum range.
I'll concede that the AC/5's introduction doesn't make a whole lot of sense when the armored targets it's supposed to be better against only started churning up a century later. A much greater amount of potential damage, however, is still arguably a good enough reason to produce the AC/5 even while the Heavy Rifle still had it's heyday.
The potential damage for a Heavy Rifle per ton is 54.
Learn the fact that not every opponent on the field is a Battlemech.
The potential damage for a Heavy Rifle versus armored forces(BMs, CVs, etc) is NOT 54 per ton. Battlemechs and Tanks are an EXTREMELY common sight on the battlefield, so a very significant chunk of their forces will almost certainly be such armored targets, same as your own. That or I am very confused on the meta of the "Board Game of Armored Combat."
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.
Any AC/20 or heavy gauss shell that contacts battle armor, kills battle armor(exception of long ranged HGauss hits). The heaviest armored Assault suit cannot shrug off an AC/20; it can shrug off two Heavy Rifle hits without dying. Against most types of BA, neither are ideal and are better utilized against tanks or mechs.
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.
When I've used mechs, 20 turns is about how long an average match takes. The only times it's ever gone below 15 rounds was if the mechs were toting really BFGs and really wanted to annihilate each other. In the case of Double-Blind rules, I've gone over 10 rounds more than once before firing a shot.
Oh, to an extent? So first it was arbitrary. And now, "to an extent" it is arbitrary.
Changing your tune huh.
Only unarbitrary to the extent that it's competent enough to not rate a machinegun and a nuke to be at the same level.
I still eagerly await your explanation to why the AP Gauss and Light Rifle is BR'd the same, or an armored ungunned 100 ton 4/6 box has a higher BR than most clan medium mechs.
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.
A good chunk of the good BA either jumps 3 hexes, runs 3 hexes, has some kind of fancy gizmo to aid survivability otherwise(Camo System, Stealth Armor), or simply have sheer armor to deal with a Heavy Rifle hit. Your Kanazuchi falls into the latter category, and a HR can only kill 3 per ammo ton if every shell hits. Try managing that at medium or long ranges.
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.
It's *able* to hit, but it doesn't make it less of a crapshoot at long ranges. Even with numerous tons of ammunition, pot shots are not something you want to make with a Heavy Rifle.
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.
Some designs of battlearmor are actually long-range oriented. Some mount LRMs which outranges the Heavy Rifle. More notably, a newer technology equipped on the Centaur carries the BA Tube Artillery, which similarly outranges the HR. Either can play the same game and batter your mech from a distance, possibly entrenched in a heavy forest which makes it even more of a pain to dispatch at long range with a weapon that has an extremely poor ammo load to begin with. Or there's always the very popular ambush situation, especially within a city environment. Not an ideal situation to find yourself in, but very possible and it should be planned for.
Just one of countless advantages of the LPL vs. the HR.
Come to think of it, another thing that would prompt you to close in with battlearmor is running out of ammunition of what you're trying to push as a BA killing weapon long before you deal any real casualties to the BA platoon. That's never a great situation to find yourself in.
Yes and you can put Heavy Rifles in ICE tanks with no heat sinks.
Few modern MBTs use HRs in even ICE tanks because they're so useless. Even the corner-cutting Quickcell doesn't stoop so low as to arm their light Scorpions with a HR, using the slightly more technologically advanced and useful AC/5 instead.
6 damage is useful. Especially when it outranges the Large Pulse by 80% at less Battle value.
9 damage is more so, especially when it doesn't run out of ammunition taking pot shots and long ranges it could theoretically fire at when it can't afford to do so like the HR. (Don't worry, if you're keeping the HR at a significantly smaller battle value then with the ammo you're packing you WILL run out, fast. At LR on average you'll have troubles breaking double didgets of damage with a ton of ammo against a battlemech.)
Of the canon mechs you mentioned, If I had to make a battlefield modification I'd rather change the location of the ammo bay instead of the entire weapon. Maybe I'd install some special ammo like Precision, especially for the ones with two tons of ammo.
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.
Historically the introduction of the AC/5 is pretty odd, coming before what it basically "counters".
Yet the deployers of autocannons clearly have seen something redeeming that you have not.
And yet again the investment paid off a century later with the introduction of high-BAR vehicles and battlemechs.
|
ghostrider
02/24/15 02:16 AM
76.89.120.217
|
From what it looks like, battle armor was not around when the heavy rifle fell out of favor. I understand using it as an example of how ammunition weapons aren't good against multiple units of them, but that can be said about energy weapons as well, if the armor can close on the unit firing. This could be said about the gauss rifle with a single ton of ammo. Hell ALL ammunition weapons.
Now as for getting close to battle armor, there are times when you don't have the option to stay away from it. Simply moving into an area that has it and they hit at point blank ranges do happen.
Since I haven't read the time line for weapons, I can only go by the game updates, and special ammo didn't seem to be out at the time of the heavy rifle. If it was, there could very well be special munitions for it that the developers never put out.
This reminds me of the talk of the srm 2. It is basically useless now, but when infernos and such were infantry killers without an issue, they were useful. Now they seem to have fallen into the afterthought or have some extra space and don't want mgs.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 07:29 AM
96.49.50.102
|
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.
Marauder 3R
Dragon 1N
Sentinel 3K
Quote:
Retry writes:
Of the canon mechs you mentioned, If I had to make a battlefield modification I'd rather change the location of the ammo bay instead of the entire weapon. Maybe I'd install some special ammo like Precision, especially for the ones with two tons of ammo.
Seriously? You challenged me, rather sarcastically, to improve a canon design by switching from an AC/5 to a Heavy Rifle. I gave you not one, not two but three legitimate examples of a unit that would benefit. And now rather than owning up to the fact that I passed the challenge you're moving the goal posts? Holy crap dude give it up.
Like, chassis modifications? If I wanted to improve the Marauder 3R through a chassis modification I wouldn't move the ammo bin, I'd tear out the crappy ballistic weapon and turn it into a Marauder 3D. Similarly I'd turn the Dragon 1N into a Grand Dragon and the Sentinel 3K into a 3KA (Large Laser) or 3KB (PPC). The AC/5 is a terrible weapon in the SW-era except on ICE vehicles or as infantry guns. If I'm playing with it, it's for flavour not for effectiveness.
Also the Heavy Rifle is non-existent in the clan invasion era. And since all the designs I chose were in the succession wars era (and likely extinct by the jihad) there's guess what, no precision ammo. There's no armour piercing, caseless or flechette ammo either. Only very rare, limited amounts of flak and tracer rounds. So, specialty ammunition is largely a non-factor.
And even with non-existent specialty ammunition rounds, the Sentinel 3K would STILL be better with the Heavy Rifle because the Dracs relegated the design to a periphery garrison mech where both ammunition supply would not be a factor and the Heavy Rifle would likely face opponents with substandard armour that it would not only cause more damage to but would also cause through-armour critical hits even without special rounds.
Thus three designs, improved with the Heavy Rifle.
|
TigerShark
02/24/15 12:19 PM
12.130.166.32
|
The "improvements" are a matter of taste. It also depends HEAVILY upon which type of game you're playing.
- Having the DRG-1N 'improved' by removing its ammo selection means I have nothing with which to shoot down aircraft. No precision ammo, no armor piercing, nothing. 12 shots of 6 damage (there were no Support-quality vees being fielded by the Houses during the Star League / SW period).
- Already discussed the MAD-3R.
- STN-3K, same as the Dragon. You have 12 shots and no real backup weapon of any quality.
Some of these would be fine, if you're only playing 1-on-1 or Lance-sized games. But for anything larger, they'd turn the unit into a giant, iron door stop. The Dragon's charm is that it's a versatile line 'Mech with multiple roles. The Heavy Rifle robs it of this utility, at least in part.
|
CarcerKango
02/24/15 02:31 PM
64.251.51.246
|
And it can brawl, don't forget that :P
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 03:46 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
The "improvements" are a matter of taste. It also depends HEAVILY upon which type of game you're playing.
- Having the DRG-1N 'improved' by removing its ammo selection means I have nothing with which to shoot down aircraft. No precision ammo, no armor piercing, nothing. 12 shots of 6 damage (there were no Support-quality vees being fielded by the Houses during the Star League / SW period).
In the same breath you're praising the AC for its use of clan invasion era ammunition and at the same time condemning the Heavy Rifle for a lack of BAR(7) or below targets. What era are you actually arguing for? You're also the same individual who said it was inappropriate to judge the Heavy Rifle against Battlearmour yet you're judging the HR against an Autocannon with specialty rounds in an era where those specialty rounds don't exist. Only flak and tracer rounds are available in the SW and Flak is rated F for rarity. Even tracers are rated E. Thus to depend on "specialty ammo" to boost the utility of the autocannon during the Succession Wars is unsupported by the fiction. Most units would have regular ammunition ALL the time.
In the Jihad era, when the Heavy Rifle has returned so are many support-level vehicles against which the Heavy Rifle would inflict more damage. Which is not to say that any Dragon 1N would even exist in the Jihad era as I suspect they would have all been refitted or lost.
The Dragon is also described as a unit which is held in reserve until an appropriate weak point in the enemy line is determined at which point they are dispatched to exploit. Under this role, the ability to deliver more damage per shot with its main gun is arguably more important than battlefield endurance. That and the desire to close in and bring its Medium Laser to bear (where the Heavy Rifle has a better minimum)
And in fact there are support-quality vees in the Succession Wars:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Buffalo
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Meabh
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Dromedary
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Brunel
I suspect there are other support transports still not published, or do Regiments of battlemechs rely on the 11 ton cargo of J27 trucks for hundreds of years? There aren't really proper logistics transport available to forces during the SW.
And you're all forgetting another role the Heavy Rifle is better at than the AC/5: Demolition. In a raid where the objective is causing damage to buildings or facilities while under pressure, then the Heavy Rifle will cause more damage quicker. It's use against fixed defences, buildings, turrets, etcetera is superior to the AC/5. Though if you have all day to damage the building then you don't need ammunition at all, just a mech with two functioning hip actuators.
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
- STN-3K, same as the Dragon. You have 12 shots and no real backup weapon of any quality.
Some of these would be fine, if you're only playing 1-on-1 or Lance-sized games. But for anything larger, they'd turn the unit into a giant, iron door stop. The Dragon's charm is that it's a versatile line 'Mech with multiple roles. The Heavy Rifle robs it of this utility, at least in part.
Don't really understand that logic.
Larger games take longer which means less turns which means less ammunition required. Our Battletech group playing 8-16 units a side with four players for 6-7 hours pretty much never go past 10 turns of combat despite employing house rules to speed up movement.
Duels on the other hand can get lots of turns in and because the players themselves aren't actually trying to accomplish any objectives they can play around at long range trying to snipe the enemy for turn after turn.
The only charm the Dragon loses in the SW with a Heavy Rifle is long campaigns wherein the mech for some reason has access to armour and component repairs but not ammunition reloads. Either way those sorts of raids would be better performed by an energy weapon-armed mech not one that is ammunition dependent.
If for some reason it's the SW and you actually have Flak ammunition and you actually want to equip it on a Dragon, instead of a dedicated AA mech like a Rifleman, then it has some added utility assuming you'll be fighting either VTOLs or aircraft. If you equip the more common tracer rounds then the amount of damage you're doing decreases compared to the Heavy Rifle even more.
Either way, all three of the designs are arguably improved which is the only thing that need to be accomplished. Any change can be argued over, because the only flat out, indisputable improvements you can make in battletech are sweeping upgrades like Inner Sphere machines to clan technology or I.C.E. vehicles to Fusion. Twelve rounds for a gun is more than enough for most games.
|
TigerShark
02/24/15 04:30 PM
104.49.175.97
|
Like I said, your mileage may vary. No offense, but our group probably just plays with more consideration to claiming the win. If you have 16 units and need 10 rounds to complete a game, you're doing nothing but charging into the middle and firing/kicking. And I won't judge a unit based on that type of game, since we don't play that way.
Hell, we had a 6-to-10 per side game (6 one side, 10 the other) which lasted 3+ hours on MM and took 18 turns before getting down to the last few units. In that game, I almost ran out of LB-10X ammo and I had two tons of it.
Also, the equipment ratings as far as rarity aren't describing rarity of manufacture, but of use. The TECH LEVEL is still within the reach of any planetary militia and capable of manufacture. Also, if tracer rounds are an E, then that's flat-out wrong. Tracer rounds are mid-20th-century tech (B at best, C at worst) and are the least complex of any ammo type, short of a friggin' slug. If you're going to try to argue that Heavy Rifle should do different damage to IS than to Armor, that should be a no-brainer then, since it's obviously wrong.
Unless you think Comstar was running the US government in the 1950s.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 04:52 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Like I said, your mileage may vary. No offense, but our group probably just plays with more consideration to claiming the win. If you have 16 units and need 10 rounds to complete a game, you're doing nothing but charging into the middle and firing/kicking. And I won't judge a unit based on that type of game, since we don't play that way.
Hell, we had a 6-to-10 per side game (6 one side, 10 the other) which lasted 3+ hours on MM and took 18 turns before getting down to the last few units. In that game, I almost ran out of LB-10X ammo and I had two tons of it.
More consideration? All you're playing is a straight up battle to the death.
Our group has RPG characters leading the lances/companies, we have forced withdrawl for crippled units, we have specific military objectives to attain beyond kill the enemy. Capturing bunkers, killing/capturing specific units, breakthroughs, base defense, ambushes, combat drops, flanking movements, units and forces which carry over from scenario to scenario, etcetera.
If all you're going to do is play some unrealistic scenario where evenly matched forces fight to the bitter end and where the only victory is a pyrrhic one then good luck to you. That scenario can be fun on occasion but gets tiresome very quickly.
Further, despite the liberating nature of Megamek for isolated or hard core players, the core game is still played on the tabletop with maps and the time limits imposed upon such games should be the default standard by which ammunition stowage is judged.
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Also, the equipment ratings as far as rarity aren't describing rarity of manufacture, but of use. The TECH LEVEL is still within the reach of any planetary militia and capable of manufacture. Also, if tracer rounds are an E, then that's flat-out wrong. Tracer rounds are mid-20th-century tech (B at best, C at worst) and are the least complex of any ammo type, short of a friggin' slug.
Again you have paradoxical arguments. Your claiming that specialty ammunition should be more common because a lower technology base requires it, but hey guess what else is lower technology, BAR-rated support vehicles. So your previous argument that the SW armies don't or wouldn't use BAR-rated support vehicles goes out the window and the Heavy Rifle and all rifles for that matter comes into a new renaissance as a dedicated raiders against poorly armoured enemy logistics. Throw a Rifle on a cheap ICE hovertank and let it loose to wreak havoc.
You can't have it both ways. It's as simple as that.
And if you want to bring reality into this equation, then the Heavy Rifle should have HE rounds to decimate enemy infantry along with demolition rounds for buildings. Both available on the modern battlefield to a tank like the Abrams.
|
wolf_lord_30
02/24/15 07:12 PM
166.216.165.82
|
MM is not just a fight to the death. There are campaigns going on with them.some rpg elements are added in such as pilot leveling and repairing mechs, salvaging enemy mechs if you attack, and you can retreat/withdraw. There are more objectives than just straight up victory points. They have assassinations and you try to conquer worlds. Mechs you lose completely do not come back. You must repurchase mechs and have the space in your hangar for the mechs. Not trying to thread jack, but your perception of what MM is, is a little distorted. Of course there are one off battles, but you can play those too. And maybe it can't do all sorts of objectives due to coding, but there is a lot more to it than you are giving it credit for.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 07:23 PM
64.251.81.66
|
I'm not passing judgement on Megamek, but rather interpreting a description of a game in MM wherein forces are whittled down to only a couple of units:
Tigershark says:
"Hell, we had a 6-to-10 per side game (6 one side, 10 the other) which lasted 3+ hours on MM and took 18 turns before getting down to the last few units."
No mention of objectives, victory points, whatever else, just what seems to be a straight-up fight with few survivors.
|
TigerShark
02/24/15 07:53 PM
12.130.166.32
|
I can clearly see where the gulf is. If your scenarios are capped at small objectives, it gives a skewed view of equipment. A bit like saying "pulse is overpowered" if you only play in wooded maps against jumpers. Highly dependent upon scenario.
Also, none of the missions you describe should be over in a few turns. 8-16 units per side, capturing/killing specific units... and it only took 10 turns? Was this on a flat, 16x17 map? I'm just so puzzled how that can occur on a map of any decent dimension. Or if it even occurred at all. Short of running at someone and firing until an objective is achieved, I don't think I've played a game in under 8 rounds without some seriously messed up dice.
I'm claiming specialty ammo should be available because the TIME PERIOD <---emphasis has it available. In the SL and SW periods, the Heavy Rifle was all but extinct. Nobody was mass-producing it for any purpose. So you're talking Age of War and Jihad. So it can only be judged according to the other equipment in that era. Unless you want to compare C3i and Nova CEWS to Star League gear and say it's "under-BVed". It wasn't designed for that time period in mind and the "value" attached to it is misplaced otherwise.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 08:34 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Do you even read your own posts?
Quote:
Tigershark writes:
Also, the equipment ratings as far as rarity aren't describing rarity of manufacture, but of use. The TECH LEVEL is still within the reach of any planetary militia and capable of manufacture
Quote:
Tigershark writes:
I'm claiming specialty ammo should be available because the TIME PERIOD <---emphasis has it available. In the SL and SW periods, the Heavy Rifle was all but extinct. Nobody was mass-producing it for any purpose
Here's the jist of this discussion.
Both you and Retry create a magical fantasy scenario where:
1. Autocannons have available to them every advantage
2. Heavy Rifles are restricted to every disadvantage.
And then try to explain how this clearly rigged scenario proves that one weapon is better than the other.
For example, you say that Clan Invasion-era munitions are available to make the AC more potent, but Battlearmor or lightly armoured units are not valid targets for the Heavy Rifle.
Or canonically RARE ammunition is readily available for the AC in the succession wars by virtue of its ease of manufacturing, and yet equally easily manufactured vehicles with substandard armor or antiquated weapons (again, Heavy Rifle) are non-existent.
Or the latest farce, specialty ammo is no longer available because of ease of manufacture, but instead because of the time period contrary rarity. Despite the fact that the rarity rating in the books say the Heavy Rifle is available and that ammunition is rare. The only time the Heavy Rifle has an extinct rating is the clan invasion.
http://youtu.be/rEN_o3xYfEE?t=15s
Why don't you actually check the Tech Manual and the Tactical Operations book before arguing about rarity and tech level values you obviously have not looked at.
Quote:
Tigershark Says:
Also, none of the missions you describe should be over in a few turns. 8-16 units per side, capturing/killing specific units... and it only took 10 turns? Was this on a flat, 16x17 map? I'm just so puzzled how that can occur on a map of any decent dimension. Or if it even occurred at all. Short of running at someone and firing until an objective is achieved, I don't think I've played a game in under 8 rounds without some seriously messed up dice.
Games are played on a 100" by 50" mat with 2" scaling, thus roughly a 50 by 25 sized mapsheet.
Last game had 5 Clan mechs, 2 vehicles and 4-6 points of Elementals/Salamanders on one side against 6 mechs, 10 infantry and 4 vehicles and one conventional plane on the other plus three fortress-class bunkers and three turrets with two hardened walls across protecting the force.
By the end of the day and about 8-9 turns including closing rounds, the latter side lost 5 mechs, 1 vehicle, 2 bunkers and a turret plus six infantry squads and the fighter. The clan force had a mech legged and down, another destroyed. Battlevalue per side was about 18K and the time we called it was a clear clan victory. The clans used artillery to soften up the defences while busting a whole through the wall and jumping over the second to deploy their troops. The defenders engaged in long range an indirect fire before being overwhelmed at closer range but not before causing some havoc themselves.
Though given they were assaulting a wall, the defenders had far less forces than they normally would given the clan opponents. Most of our battles are 15-20K+ and are pretty much decided by the end of the day.
|
TigerShark
02/24/15 09:06 PM
12.130.166.32
|
You're smug without having a reason to be so. Talk about goal post moving; you're not even in the stadium.
Quote:
"Why don't you actually check the Tech Manual and the Tactical Operations book before arguing about rarity and tech level values you obviously have not looked at. "
I have. Perhaps you'd like to explain how Clan technology is at an E and F on a consistent basis. Do they have... what... 1 Mech between an entire Touman? Go ahead and explain how the Clans conducted an invasion with E and F rated equipment, but you can't find E rated AMMUNITION during the Succession Wars. Indulge us.
So let's go back to your argument. Apparently, Heavy Rifles are facing off against BA. So what era are you comparing here? BA didn't exist for battles against Battle Armor until the mid-3050s. So... do you want a comparison during Age of War? Succession Wars? What? Pick an era and stick with it. No need for a smug retort: Just tell me what time period we're using for this discussion.
And yes, that's a tiny mapsheet. 50 x 25? That means that a Clan ER Laser can swipe the entire width (24-hex range + the hex you're standing in) of the map, no place to hide. Even if a unit were against the MAP EDGE, I could run 8 and be within my firing range for the Heavy Rifle. No wonder these things end so quickly. Even the HBK-5M would be a "good unit" on a 16x17 sheets small enough to stay within its reach...
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 09:25 PM
64.251.81.66
|
There are plenty of places to hide. Or do you think we don't use terrain?
We also employ a house rule where units block line of sight in the same manner as terrain (except infantry). In Battletech terms it's roughly a 3x1.5 mapsheets which is either typical or exceeding the map size of 99% of scenarios found in battletech sourcebooks and appropriate given the map sheet per lance suggestion from the game. And we play with opposing forces starting on either side of the short end (ie 100" or 50 hexes apart in typical engagements) not on the long end. Which means two to three turns of closing before the ER Clan Large is even in range let alone able to hit accurately.
The only instances we continually don't have enough time to finish a game are when we use adverse weather effects with firing penalties.
As for the rest, need my books and won't have them until tomorrow.
|
Retry
02/24/15 09:42 PM
76.7.225.145
|
Here's the jist of this discussion.
Both you and Retry create a magical fantasy scenario where:
1. Autocannons have available to them every advantage
2. Heavy Rifles are restricted to every disadvantage.
And then try to explain how this clearly rigged scenario proves that one weapon is better than the other.
After the introduction of the Battlemech, Autocannons have had the edge by far. In-universe powers realized this, and so would you if you actually used the HR a few times as I have.
Honestly, if ammo explosions are such a huge issue, then don't send your mech out with a full ton of ammunition. Drop off 10 shots or so if you are really worried about it. Your "ammunition disadvantage" isn't.
For example, you say that Clan Invasion-era munitions are available to make the AC more potent, but Battlearmor or lightly armoured units are not valid targets for the Heavy Rifle.
Or canonically RARE ammunition is readily available for the AC in the succession wars by virtue of its ease of manufacturing, and yet equally easily manufactured vehicles with substandard armor or antiquated weapons (again, Heavy Rifle) are non-existent.
All factors need to be taken into account. This includes ammunition selection for the AC, and the extremely poor payload of the HR against all targets, including BA.
If flak was necessary, it could be created quickly to be available to whatever forces needed it most. ASFs are extremely rare in universe, even compared to the battlemech, especially because a crashed fighter is almost always a complete writeoff while a cored or decapitated mech can usually be salvaged in some way. Conventional aircraft aren't exactly extremely common either and VTOLs aren't scary like bomb-laden versions of the formers. Most likely, the availability of Flak ammunition is proportionate to whatever air threat was present, which was almost never.
Three of the four support vehicles are not meant for combat at all. Obviously such equipment won't still be toting mech-grade armor, as they shouldn't be in the line of fire anyways. You won't find Ferro-Fibrous on every single personal transit vehicle either. As for the Meabh, it's designed for a destroyer-esque "tin can" escort role, probably used those rules because there's no actual rules for large seafaring combat craft like Battleships, and the fluff doesn't make it sound like a real attempt at all.
----
The HR was still pretty common in the SL period with an availability rating of C. Only in the SW era does it hit an F availability rating, before finally dying out by the CL period.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 10:13 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
Here's the jist of this discussion.
Both you and Retry create a magical fantasy scenario where:
1. Autocannons have available to them every advantage
2. Heavy Rifles are restricted to every disadvantage.
And then try to explain how this clearly rigged scenario proves that one weapon is better than the other.
Case in point:
Quote:
Retry writes:
All factors need to be taken into account. This includes ammunition selection for the AC, and the extremely poor payload of the HR against all targets, including BA.
Typical Retry discussion:
Extolls virtues of the Autocannon by:
1. Talking about its ammunition selection
2. While neglecting to mention that many such ammo types reduces its payload to 50 damage
3. Also Neglects to mention that many such ammo types are not available at certain eras or to certain factions
And conversely, with the Heavy Rifle
1. Misrepresent reality by suggesting that its performance against BA is the same as other targets
2. Neglect to mention that the damage potential per ton vs BA is superior to that of the AC/5 with the much lauded specialty munitions
3. Neglect to mention that the damage per shot vs BA is far greater than the AC/5, allowing it to more efficiently kill more battle armour outright.
So when you say take all factors into account you're talking a bunch of nonsense because you've failed to do that at every turn. Even your supporting statement cherry picks and misrepresents the reality of the two weaponry. That's also why when I chose three succession wars-era mechs to refit, your response was to bring in clan invasion munitions, because the implicit restrictions on era in my selections were simply not considered despite your claim that "all factors" need be considered.
You don't consider all factors. You consider factors which fit into your discussion and flat out ignore or dismiss those which do not.
What about the factor of cost?
What about the factor of ease of manufacture?
Quote:
Retry writes:
After the introduction of the Battlemech, Autocannons have had the edge by far. In-universe powers realized this, and so would you if you actually used the HR a few times as I have.
Who said I never used the Heavy Rifle? I've used it numerous times on custom designs. It works just fine.
|
TigerShark
02/24/15 10:48 PM
104.49.175.97
|
So, according to Akalabeth logic, burst fire weapons like Machine Guns should have higher BV. Since they do 2D6 damage against unarmored infantry, that means their max damage potential is 12.
No, no. Doesn't matter that they do 2 against Mechs, Vees, Aero and Protos. They do 2D6 damage to infantry and THAT's how their BV should be rated.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 10:50 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Speaking of cost -----
1. Cost of one AC/5 with 3 tons of Precision Ammunition: 206K
2. Cost of two Heavy Rifles with 9 tons of ammunition: 207K
Versus Battle armor + BAR(7) and below:
Potential 18 damage per turn for 27 turns vs 5 damage per turn for 30 at up to -2 to hit*
Versus BAR(8) + above units:
Potential 12 damage per turn for 27 turns vs 5 damage per turn for 30 at up to -2 to hit*
* - Against battlearmour with lower movement profiles, it will have less or no bonus. The AC/5 is also unable to effectively damage battle armor in almost any sort of building.
If I had that amount of money to spend and had already considered other factors like weight and tonnage I know which option I'd take.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 11:23 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
So, according to Akalabeth logic, burst fire weapons like Machine Guns should have higher BV. Since they do 2D6 damage against unarmored infantry, that means their max damage potential is 12.
No, no. Doesn't matter that they do 2 against Mechs, Vees, Aero and Protos. They do 2D6 damage to infantry and THAT's how their BV should be rated.
If we were actually talking about battle value your post may have merit, as it happens, we're not and it consequently doesn't.
In fact I don't believe that effectiveness against infantry is even considered for weapons. The flamer does 2 damage to units, 4d6 damage to infantry and has the added ability heat up an enemy mech and yet has the same battle value as a machine gun which does the same 2 damage, but only 2d6 to infantry and has the same battle value (with ammunition). Though it can save Battle value when feeding multiple machine guns with the same bin of ammo.
Even so, a vehicle flamer can do the same as a machine gun and retain its special abilities and yet have the same Battlevalue.
But let's humour the tangent and consider BV for a moment (even though I'm aware that's not the point of your post):
The Heavy Rifle is 91 BV plus 11 for 6 shots with min2 6/12/18 (total 102)
The Light PPC is 88 BV with unlimited shots with min3 6/12/18 (total 88)
The AC/5 is 70 BV + 9 with same range as LPPC (total 79)
So is a weapon with 6 shots and one extra damage worth 14 more BV than a Light PPC? Worth 23 more than the AC/5?
Alternative we also have
Large Laser - 123
AC/10 - 123 + 15 for the ammo.
So a ballistic weapon which has identical range and does 2 more damage is worth 12% more with one ton of ammo.
But for the Heavy Rifle the BV for a gun + 1 ton of ammo is:
15% more relative BV than the Light PPC's
29% more relative BV than the AC/5
If the Heavy Rifle only does one more point of damage, why then does it cost so much more than comparable weapons than an AC/10 over a large laser? Because of one less minimum? Don't think so. The damage increase is less vs mechs yet the BV increase is more?
Further also consider the Clan ER ML is 108 and the Large Laser (IS) is 123 so the increase in cost is 13% for the Large laser for on additional point of damage. If the Heavy Rifle's damage was compared to the AC/5 as 6 v 5 then shouldn't it be around 79 BV not 91? Let's say its 81 with the minimum range difference.
Clearly the increased cost is because they're considering 9 damage to the maximum potential per shot. They're probably not rating it at 9 damage, but somewhere inbetween because the obvious utility is there. 7.5 or 8 damage per shot maybe
Why the Flamer and MG don't consider anti-infantry ability, who knows. It's catalyst.
Evidently your strawman example is considered a case exception by Catalyst whereas the Heavy Rifle's 9 damage potential is considered with more much merit and utility.
Also note that the Heavy Rifle doesn't get a BV2 discount on its ammunition. Because hey, evidently Catalyst don't really care about total payload in game balance. Maybe it's not as important as people present it to be
===========================================
EDIT - Furthermore. On Battle value in general:
AC special munitions should really have an adjusted BV cost.
All precision ammo for example should have a 30% increase battle value cost compared to regular AC ammo.
AC/5 precision should be 12 BV not 9
AC/20 should be 29 BV not 22
etcetera
Fact that special munitions all come without an adjusted BV cost is one of the loopholes in Battletech that should some day be closed.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/24/15 11:41 PM)
|
Retry
02/24/15 11:46 PM
76.7.225.145
|
1. Talking about its ammunition selection
2. While neglecting to mention that many such ammo types reduces its payload to 50 damage
3. Also Neglects to mention that many such ammo types are not available at certain eras or to certain factions
1.Should I not?
2.Exactly *2* ammo types do that, one of which isn't worth it against most targets, the other provides a max of -2 to-hit bonus against enemy targets, so it's actual damage percentage will be much closer to it's potential damage. Meanwhile, I recall you calling lots of ammunition to be a disadvantage, so that's another "advantage".
3.The Heavy Rifle is rated as extinct in the Clan Invasion era.
1. Misrepresent reality by suggesting that its performance against BA is the same as other targets
2. Neglect to mention that the damage potential per ton vs BA is superior to that of the AC/5 with the much lauded specialty munitions
3. Neglect to mention that the damage per shot vs BA is far greater than the AC/5
1.Not once did I suggest that it's damage versus BA was the same as armored targets. That's a concoction of your strawman you cooked up earlier.
2.
Flak Ammo-Yes, considerably, but why would you ever use flak versus BA?
AP Ammo-+1 to hit against everything, but potential damage remains only 4 points lower than a HR which is kind of sad considering the Autocannon has had it's damage potential halved. Why would you ever use AP ammo versus BA?
Flechette-...Again, why?
Precision-If the BA moves fast enough to create a target movement problem, the to-hit bonus of the AC/5 will probably be able to be more consistent enough to overcome those massive 4 points in potential damage advantage of the HR.
Tracer-Still has a solid, nearly 30 points potential damage advantage vs. BA.
The alternative ammo types that have less potential damage than the HR either are specialized for a different type of target (AP, Flak, Flechette) or has some additional quirk that makes it more than possible that real damage will end up being considerably higher. (Precision)
3.
"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."
It deals almost 100% more damage than the AC/5 against BA, but it's still poor thanks to ammo considerations.
0-4 armor, both onehit the BA.
5-8 armor, HR oneshots and AC5 requires doubletap
9 armor, both doubletap
10-14 armor, AC5 tripletap HR doubletap
15-17 armor, AC5 quadrupletap HR doubletap
18 armor, AC5 quadrupletap HR tripletap
Compare the shots to kill to the number of shots per ton. A HR, at best, has the potential to kill 60% the maximum BA as the AC/5.
Many factors end up getting negated by other factors(Range by extremely poor damage potential, crits by heat requirements and slots needed for the extremely energy sparse ammunition). It's not that I'm not taking into account these factors, but not all factors are equal. Sometimes obviously so, but apparently not for everybody.
|
Akalabeth
02/24/15 11:57 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Incidentally, regarding Battle Value.
If you valued the AC/5 with precision ammunition in the cost of the gun its BV would be the same as the Heavy Rifle, 91. Same BV. Virtually same range. But the Heavy Rifle would still have an advantage vs BA because its BV has evidently been calculated at less than maximum damage.
If the Heavy Rifle was valued at full damage, it's BV would not be 91 but instead would be 136.
Hmmmn - oh wait.
Actually just doing the math, The Heavy Rifle's BV IS valued at 6 damage, despite the 9 potential damage, like the special abiltiies for AI weapons they'v completely ignored that.
So - against Battle armour they're basically worth 50% more BV than they cost. You're right about the arbitrary BV on this point.
Sweet, Sign me up for a dozen.
He says it best:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgv7U3GYlDY
Edited by Akalabeth (02/25/15 12:29 AM)
|
TigerShark
02/25/15 01:49 AM
104.49.175.97
|
Yes, it was sarcasm. To illustrate that the Heavy Rifle is not worth what the AC/5 is, in the end.
Talk about "goal posts?" Fine, I'll lay it out here. Feel free to quote in future posts.
My argument is that the Heavy Rifle is not, in any case, an improvement over the AC/5. It has more BV, requires more ammunition to operate, cannot be fired in space, cannot use special munitions and requires four times as much heat. All to deliver 1 extra point of damage against any target it's likely to face on the battlefield. Nothing you've said, in all of your ranting, has dis-proven any of that.
STAR LEAUGE, EARLY SUCCESSION WARS, LATE SUCCESSION WARS
You keep asserting that the Heavy Rifle does 9 damage. Except it doesn't do 9 against any in-game targets from the 2500s until the 3050s. Support Vees with a BAR are not common at this time. So I'm not sure WHO it does 9 damage against during the Star League era or Early Succession Wars, but you keep asserting it.
CLAN INVASION, JIHAD
If we're talking 3050+, the Heavy Rifle isn't just up against the AC/5 anymore. There are Ultra AC/5s, LB-5X, Light AC/5, Rotary AC/2, etc. So if you're going to keep quoting this thing in post-3050 use against Battle Armor, when new units are actually utilizing it in the Jihad, then why are you circling back to a weapon (AC/5) which has been effectively phased out? Talk about the other ACs of similar size and tonnage and see how it stacks up.
|
ghostrider
02/25/15 03:52 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Ok. Map size and how many are in use does change the scope of how long a game can be. If you are stuck with 4 maps and using spiders and such, then it is kinda quick. Also if you do nothing but hide until you have initiative and a shot, then it will be a looong game. Granted you die faster when in kicking range.
I will agree that having death matches all the time is not for everyone. If you have a character from the rpg or just doing the quick skills, then when they die, or get hurt, people want to use another character with the same skill levels, so they don't have to go thru the whole process of starting over at something like 8/8 skills. This is adequate when you have around 5/5, but most want to keep the 3/3 or 2/2 skills. This runs into issues as you create another death match and use the excuse the enemy has the good skills.
Next issue. I thought the rating system was based on innersphere availability. So clan equipment should be rare here, but not in clan space. Plus the it was my understanding the rating was to buy supplies. The houses just order what they want and hopefully it all arrives where it's supposed to. Think more like mercs for ratings...
From what is appears the heavy rifle might be better on vehicles then the ac 5 with standard rounds. Space battles the ac 5 is better.
It also appears the hr is good against structures that don't use mech armor, such as the normal walls.
Standard rounds, the ac has better ammo stores.
This seems to mean the hr has it's uses. Now if you have non standard ammo for both, then it may swing the favor to one of them.
|
TigerShark
02/25/15 02:11 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Next issue. I thought the rating system was based on innersphere availability. So clan equipment should be rare here, but not in clan space. Plus the it was my understanding the rating was to buy supplies. The houses just order what they want and hopefully it all arrives where it's supposed
Couldn't be. Otherwise there would be no rating for some Clan equipment which never reaches the Inner Sphere and/or is never sold. i.e.: salvage. It would be an X, same as Star League salvage during the Late SW.
|
Akalabeth
02/25/15 02:45 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Talk about "goal posts?" Fine, I'll lay it out here. Feel free to quote in future posts.
My argument is that the Heavy Rifle is not, in any case, an improvement over the AC/5. It has more BV, requires more ammunition to operate, cannot be fired in space, cannot use special munitions and requires four times as much heat. All to deliver 1 extra point of damage against any target it's likely to face on the battlefield. Nothing you've said, in all of your ranting, has dis-proven any of that.
Define "in any case"?
If the Heavy Rifle has better damage per shot and better range, that is a case in which it is superior to the AC/5
If the Heavy Rifle is cheaper and can be built easier, that is a case in which it is likewise superior
If the Heavy Rifle takes up less criticals, that is a case where it is superior.
If you define case by "an example on a specific unit where the Heavy Rifle is better than the AC/5" then that's a case that is unprovable because no matter what I say, you can bring any nebulous reason you want to say "I disagree". You're in essence asking for an unprovable proof.
For example. Let's say I decide to swap out the AC/5 for a Heavy Rifle on the Shadowhawk 2D. After all, the thing has the life expectancy of a paper bag on the battlefield. If I leave it with one ton of ammunition you'll say it doesn't have enough ammo. If I replace one of the SRM bins with a second ton of Heavy Rifle rounds, you'll complain you can't fire infernos. There will always be a reason for you to complain or say it's not true no matter what is said. And these reasons depend upon any straw you can grasp at, no matter how uncommon or unlikely, and at the same time rely upon every counter example being ignored.
So then two possibilities:
In the former, the case is already made by the stats that the Heavy Rifle is superior in some ways to the AC/5
In the latter, the case is unprovable because changing your opinion (which is already made up by the way) is not proof
Quote:
TigerShark writes
STAR LEAUGE, EARLY SUCCESSION WARS, LATE SUCCESSION WARS
You keep asserting that the Heavy Rifle does 9 damage. Except it doesn't do 9 against any in-game targets from the 2500s until the 3050s. Support Vees with a BAR are not common at this time. So I'm not sure WHO it does 9 damage against during the Star League era or Early Succession Wars, but you keep asserting it.
Are buildings targets? Are they in-game? Did the 3rd Succession War focus on raids? What were the targets of those raids? Were they buildings and supplies?
Quote:
TigerShark writes
CLAN INVASION, JIHAD
If we're talking 3050+, the Heavy Rifle isn't just up against the AC/5 anymore. There are Ultra AC/5s, LB-5X, Light AC/5, Rotary AC/2, etc. So if you're going to keep quoting this thing in post-3050 use against Battle Armor, when new units are actually utilizing it in the Jihad, then why are you circling back to a weapon (AC/5) which has been effectively phased out? Talk about the other ACs of similar size and tonnage and see how it stacks up.
I'm comparing it to the AC/5 because its the same weight.
Even if you compare it to any of the other weapons the Heavy Rifle is still superior against Battlearmour because its BV is undervalued. It's pointed based on delivering 6 damage, not 9 damage. Against any 9 damage opponent its getting a bonus, a bonus which is not matched by any of the examples you give.
As I said before the BV for the Heavy Rifle is really 137 against Battlearmour. Not 91. So you get 46 BV for free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
From what is appears the heavy rifle might be better on vehicles then the ac 5 with standard rounds. Space battles the ac 5 is better.
It also appears the hr is good against structures that don't use mech armor, such as the normal walls.
Standard rounds, the ac has better ammo stores.
"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."
Is a building considered a unit? If not, it would take the full 9 damage regardless of what armour it used.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/25/15 03:48 PM)
|
GiovanniBlasini
02/25/15 04:00 PM
172.56.16.101
|
I am astounded that this thread has not yet been locked.
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
|
ghostrider
02/25/15 04:44 PM
76.89.120.217
|
That would depend on if the building is a pillbox/turret or not. Also normal walls used to block movement would be another example of something that doesn't use military grade armor. It is my understanding that the sides of the building is not armored, just the turret is. So full damage for walls, no/less damage for turret.
Now tigershark. I would say that isn't quite true. People fleeing a battle field or just salvaging it while the forces have moved on would indeed get some of the spoils and sell them on the black market.
Also, I thought the rarity of clan tech became less when some of the clans started selling to the innersphere. Although it was never put down in writting, it is possible that deep space surveyors could have come across a clan stash that was thought to be well hidden from the barbarians of the innersphere, they didn't garrison it. The novels have some heros finding something like this like ghost of winter, I believe the book was. There is no reason others did not do so as well. That remember, in that book their were mechs, not just spare ammo/weapons.
And gio.. Where I have not seen anything that would be considered offensive enough to call, you are making a statement that you may not have all the facts. It is possible some of the participants have been warned away from certain phrases. I don't know it all myself, but mods are not allowed to release that information. If the recipient of one does, well, that is a touchy subject that the mods have to deal with.
|
Akalabeth
02/25/15 04:50 PM
64.251.81.66
|
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."
It deals almost 100% more damage than the AC/5 against BA, but it's still poor thanks to ammo considerations.
0-4 armor, both onehit the BA.
5-8 armor, HR oneshots and AC5 requires doubletap
9 armor, both doubletap
10-14 armor, AC5 tripletap HR doubletap
15-17 armor, AC5 quadrupletap HR doubletap
18 armor, AC5 quadrupletap HR tripletap
Compare the shots to kill to the number of shots per ton. A HR, at best, has the potential to kill 60% the maximum BA as the AC/5.
Many factors end up getting negated by other factors(Range by extremely poor damage potential, crits by heat requirements and slots needed for the extremely energy sparse ammunition). It's not that I'm not taking into account these factors, but not all factors are equal. Sometimes obviously so, but apparently not for everybody.
You're ignoring the most important factor of all. Dead Battlearmour don't fire back.
Let's take an example where you're facing battle armour which dies from 1 Heavy Rifle hit but takes 2 AC/5 hits to kill. Let's say it the odds to hit it for whatever reason is an 8+ and let's say it's a squad of four troopers.
Over 6 turns, a Heavy Rifle will kill 2.5 troopers on average. Thus, 2-3 troops.
Over 6 turns, an AC/5 will likewise hit 2.5 times.
If it hits twice, it will have a 25% chance of killing one trooper.
If it hits three times, it will have I BELIEVE a 62.5% chance of killing one trooper. (My probablity skills might be a bit off here)
So over the course of 6 turns, what is the effect? The heavy rifle will reduce the battle armour squad to 25 or 50% of its stating potential. Killing each trooper also allows prevents those troops from firing any missiles they may have on subsequent turns.
Over the course of 6 turns of fire from an AC/5, the battlarmour squad has lost one man or is still at full strength.
Let's compare it to an AC/5 with Precision rounds. The AC/5 now needs a 6 to hit. On average, the AC/5 will now hit 4.3 times over the course of 6 turns. If it hits 5 times, it is guaranteed to kill one trooper and has the potential to kill two. If it hits 4 times, it is not guaranteed to kill any troops but still has the potential to kill 2.
Again not 100% sure about my math, but I believe:
The odds of 4 hits killing two troops is only around 13.5% ; odds of killing one are 91%
And this is by the way in favourable conditions.
Against Clan Troops (5 per squad), the odds of the AC/5 killing troopers goes down
Against WoB/Comstar (6 per squad), the odds are even worse
For the Heavy Rifle, its the same odds to kill the same number of troops regardless because every hit kills.
If the troops take 2 heavy rifle shots and 3 AC/5 hits, both suffer but the Heavy Rifle still has better odds to kill more troops quicker.
------------------------------------
Let's for a moment assume that in the first example, where both weapons need 8+ to hit that each scores 3 hits over 6 turns with one hit every 2nd turn. Let's assume the battlearmour has small lasers.
For the Heavy Rifle, the damage output for the squad is such:
Turn 1: 7.41 damage
Turn 2: 7.41 damage
Turn 3: 6 damage
Turn 4: 6 damage
Turn 5: 4.25 damage
Turn 6: 4.25 damage
Turn 7: 3 damage
Average potential damage after 7 turns, 38.32
For the AC/5, there's a chance that no troops will be killed at all, the resulting damage after 7 turns would be:
51.87. At most, it will reduce the average damage of the squad to 47.65
So average damage potential after 7 turns: 51.87 or 47.65
In terms of denuding this one battle armour squad of its ability to damage your units, the Heavy Rifle will degrade its performance of potential average damage over 7 turns by 26% whereas the AC/5 at worst will degrade it by 0% and at best by 8.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 105 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: 25328
|
|
|
|
|
|
|