Light PPC over powered?

BattleTech : Board Game Previous Index Next Threaded
Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Dester
08/06/08 03:04 PM
216.57.96.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Light PPC, 3 tons and 2 crit spots for 5 damage, 5 heat and 1-6,7-12,13-18 range with a min of 3.

So lets get this strait... it does 1/2 the damage, 1/2 the heat for the same range as a standard PPC and weights less then 1/2 for 2/3 the crit spots?

This weapon basicly obsoletes the AC-5, seriously beyond "special ammo" the AC-5 would have no use next to this weapon. Same range considerations but for less tonage... lets say you use 4 extra heat sinks(single) to ofset the extra heat you are still 2 tons lighter for 1 extra crit spot.

Am I missing something?

Dester
Lafeel
08/06/08 04:07 PM
157.157.108.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Nope, I think you summed it up quite nicely myself.

And what use is a normal AC-5 in lvl 2 play anyway, apart from the special ammo?

edit: and in character fluffyness, of course.

Edited by Lafeel (08/06/08 04:08 PM)
CrayModerator
08/07/08 07:16 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Gee, and the playtest results were that most people found the light PPC to be an underpowered, unsatisfactory weapon except on light units that didn't have the tonnage for an ER LL or full-sized PPC. It was one of the few new weapons in BT that had to be improved during playtesting because the first drafts stunk. Usually new weapons have to be toned down.

As for the AC/5, that was obsolete long before the light PPC appeared.
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.


Edited by Cray (08/07/08 07:18 AM)
Greyslayer
08/07/08 05:14 PM
216.14.198.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Gee, and the playtest results were that most people found the light PPC to be an underpowered, unsatisfactory weapon except on light units that didn't have the tonnage for an ER LL or full-sized PPC. It was one of the few new weapons in BT that had to be improved during playtesting because the first drafts stunk. Usually new weapons have to be toned down.

As for the AC/5, that was obsolete long before the light PPC appeared.




Oh I don't know a Awesome 9Q variant with 8 of these things would certainly annoy. Plus you have tonnage left over (for what I do not know)
Greyslayer
08/07/08 05:17 PM
216.14.198.61

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Compared to the AC5 it certainly is overpowered but compared to 10 'slab' damage from the standard PPC it probably fits that it would be less than 1/2 the tonnage of the bigger weapon (though ACs certainly do not fit this mould).
Prince_of_Darkness
08/07/08 10:14 PM
71.215.57.179

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Over Powered? Or underpowered? Neither to me- I have found out that the best use for LPPC's is not seperately, as many newer designs do- they are best used in the supporter role, as a kind of supplement to already heavy medium range firepower. The Grigori Luminos (if you have TRO: 3075) is the best example with the HPPC+LPPC combo.

I find that based upon weight designation (Light, medium, heavy, assault) is the best display for the number of LPPC's you should mount:

1 for Light 'mechs (more than enough for most)
2 for mediums (can cover the medium firepower nicely, especially with hunters)
3 for heavies (combo's well with Gauss Rifles, a la' Deva Invictus)
4 for assaults (pretty much can make up the total medium range firepower, if pared with heavy long/short power- look at my posted Ragnarok, for example)
CrayModerator
08/08/08 05:54 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Oh I don't know a Awesome 9Q variant with 8 of these things would certainly annoy. Plus you have tonnage left over (for what I do not know)




Oh, yes, the final configuration of the LPPC that got published is functional and has its niche applications. I was talking about the original draft, which was a stinker.
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.
Bob_Richter
08/08/08 08:43 AM
71.80.156.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
The AC/5 was obsolete when it was published. DHS made it worse. That the LPPC is better is nothing new and (possibly more importantly) nothing special.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Greyslayer
08/09/08 02:27 AM
216.14.198.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Oh, yes, the final configuration of the LPPC that got published is functional and has its niche applications. I was talking about the original draft, which was a stinker.




I very much doubt it is often people design something before playtesting and it ends up right after being playtested (i.e unmodified).
Prince_of_Darkness
08/09/08 05:17 PM
71.215.57.179

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:


Oh, yes, the final configuration of the LPPC that got published is functional and has its niche applications. I was talking about the original draft, which was a stinker.




Why? What did the first look like?
Christopher_Perkins
08/09/08 09:39 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

The AC/5 was obsolete when it was published. DHS made it worse. That the LPPC is better is nothing new and (possibly more importantly) nothing special.




The AC/5 was the only AutoCannon when it was first published in BT 2ed, and it did quite well...

From SL, ML, LL, PPC, LRM 5/10/15/20, SRM 2/4/6 & AC/5... I tended to like the LRM 15 and the AutoCannon/5
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
Bob_Richter
08/11/08 08:29 PM
71.80.156.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

The AC/5 was obsolete when it was published. DHS made it worse. That the LPPC is better is nothing new and (possibly more importantly) nothing special.




The AC/5 was the only AutoCannon when it was first published in BT 2ed,




I knew that, and hardly needed to be reminded of it, especially given that it's irrelevant.

So why bring it up?

Quote:


and it did quite well...





No, it didn't. It sucked, even back in second edition. After that, it only got worse.

Quote:


From SL, ML, LL, PPC, LRM 5/10/15/20, SRM 2/4/6 & AC/5... I tended to like the LRM 15 and the AutoCannon/5




What you preferred is hardly the issue. The AC/5 was pretty much a niche weapon even back then. It was only useful for long (ish) range engagements, and then only if you couldn't spare the heat sinks for a PPC or LRM.
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
CrayModerator
08/12/08 06:31 AM
147.160.136.10

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:


and it did quite well...





No, it didn't. It sucked, even back in second edition. After that, it only got worse.




Bob, stop beating around the bush and tell us what you think of the AC/5.

I agree. When you see an 8-ton, 4-crit weapon and think, "I could replace that with a 2-ton LRM 5 or 5-ton LRM-10 and get better performance," you know it's got issues.

Quote:

The AC/5 was pretty much a niche weapon even back then. It was only useful for long (ish) range engagements, and then only if you couldn't spare the heat sinks for a PPC or LRM.




And what a little niche that was, because the tonnage of an AC/5 gave a lot of room for LRMs and heat sinks.
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.
Bob_Richter
08/12/08 02:40 PM
71.80.156.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Bob, stop beating around the bush and tell us what you think of the AC/5.




Would you believe that was actually my fouth draft and that I toned down the language in every successive draft?

:P
-Bob (The Magnificent) Richter

Assertions made in this post are the humble opinion of Bob.
They are not necessarily statements of fact or decrees from God Himself, unless explicitly and seriously stated to be so.
:)
Lafeel
08/13/08 04:20 PM
157.157.108.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:


Would you believe that was actually my fouth draft and that I toned down the language in every successive draft?

:P



I would, as I feel much the same way. It's always been more of a fluff weapon than a real one, unless you're either using a special ac5 or special ammo, imo.
Christopher_Perkins
08/13/08 05:55 PM
24.125.201.167

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

The AC/5 was the only AutoCannon when it was first published in BT 2ed,




I knew that, and hardly needed to be reminded of it, especially given that it's irrelevant.

So why bring it up?




You brought it up when you stated that the AC/5 was obsolete when it was introduced

Longer ranged than a Medium Laser, Less heat/Damage but the same range in comparison with a PPC, and more steady than LRMs...

It is more of a style preference than being rendered Obsolete.

Quote:


No, it didn't. It sucked, even back in second edition. After that, it only got worse.




Sucks is an opinion... Gustibus Non Disputandum

But you stated that it was Obsolete when it was first introduced... Rendered obsolete by What?

Quote:

What you preferred is hardly the issue. The AC/5 was pretty much a niche weapon even back then. It was only useful for long (ish) range engagements, and then only if you couldn't spare the heat sinks for a PPC or LRM.




They were all Niche Weapons at the time...

ML for the averages, PPC for high heat / High damage and long range...

Missile random and long range, but relatively low heat

AC/5 was a good mix, and even better when you factored in some Game System variations that varied the turn length.
Christopher Robin Perkins

It is my opinion that all statements should be questioned, digested, disected, tasted, and then either spit out or adopted... RHIP is not a god given shield
CrayModerator
08/13/08 07:32 PM
97.97.243.184

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Why? What did the first look like?




Shorter ranged, like an overweight ER ML.
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.
Bob_Richter
08/13/08 08:04 PM
71.80.156.250

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

The AC/5 was the only AutoCannon when it was first published in BT 2ed,




I knew that, and hardly needed to be reminded of it, especially given that it's irrelevant.

So why bring it up?




You brought it up when you stated that the AC/5 was obsolete when it was introduced




No, I actually didn't. I never claimed that the AC/5 was made obsolete by other autocannons when it was first published, which is the claim I would have had to make to make your response relevant.

Quote:


But you stated that it was Obsolete when it was first introduced... Rendered obsolete by What?





In all dual-autocannon applications, by the PPC. In most single-autocannon applications by the LRM-10. In many single-autocannon applications, by the PPC or Large Laser.

No, there were no weapons that exactly matched its role (inasmuch as it can be said to have had one,) but that still made it an insanely niche weapon that was only useful in situations where it wasn't VERY useful. You were always better off mounting something else and playing to your strengths.

Quote:

They were all Niche Weapons at the time...




No they weren't. The PPC, LRMs, and the Medium Laser were all solid general-purpose performers. That's not to say they didn't have a role, but their roles were fairly broad. The Autocannon was the only weapon that did that little damage for that much tonnage. Nothing else came close to that kind of mass inefficiency.

Quote:


AC/5 was a good mix, and even better when you factored in some Game System variations that varied the turn length.




The Autocannon wasn't a "mix" of anything. It was a lame low-heat PPC (or an even lamer long-range Medium Laser.) If you had to change the rules to make it workable, that only demonstrated how bad of a weapon it was in the first place.

In any case, even if it had a purpose at one point, it passed from usefulness long ago with the introduction of things like DHS and Gauss Rifles.


Edited by Bob_Richter (08/13/08 08:06 PM)
Dester
08/14/08 03:05 PM
216.57.96.1

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Funny how i didn't intend this to be an AC-5 bashing post but since the topic has drifted....
lets look at things under level 1 tech rules.

Each of the Autocannons have at least something that makes them more attractive for the extra tonage expect for the AC-5.
AC-20 ... hello puch thru potental, nuff said.
AC-10 ... slightly shorter range then the PPC, same damage, less heat and no min range. Compairs favorably to the large laser, but less heat and slightly more damage.
AC-5 ... only advantage is heat savings and consentrated and consistant fire over LRM-5, LRM-10
AC-2 ... range advantage. Is the longest range weapon in level one outside artilary.

AC-10 is a good infighting weapons for its hard punch but still gives a respectable range. Not sure that it really has that much advantage over a Large laser though.
LL = 5 tons 2 crits + 8 heats sinks/ crits = 13 tons 10 crits for 8 damage 0.8 damage per ton
AC-10 = 12 tons 7 crits + 3 heatsinks/ crits + ammo 1/1(min) = 16 tons, 11 crits for 10 damage 0.625 damage per ton but the advanage of 10 points in one hit instead of 8.

AC-5 just sucks... weights to much for its respectable range/ crit space. But really no mech in level 1 is really hurting for crit space (awesome 9Q and atlas only ones coming close)

AC-2 is just range... pure and simply range, no other use for them.

Really my take on autocannons is that they only really shine when mounted on vehicles or instalations. Then the AC-5 gains a few more advantages, especially if you don't want quite the min range of the LRMs

Back to the light PPC, really as it is, i think its a bit over powered and a serious light mech weapon to give them some good range potential with out having to burn the extra tonage for a full scale version. Suprised there isn't an ER version of this already.. something like same everything but 8 heat. and range = to the ER PPC.

Dester
Greyslayer
08/16/08 05:38 PM
216.14.198.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Autocannons are a vehicle weapon. You see a Hunchback with an AC20 and think that is going hurt if that gets close. You see a Saladin and wonder where you can hide your back armour or if light and most mediums where you can hide full stop.

In level 2 play double heatsinks alone made the autocannon outdated for virtually any mech usage except maybe niche mechs like the updated Annihilator that sandpapered people to death.
Xephan
02/28/11 12:10 PM
97.117.227.53

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
If combined with the PPC capacitor it would be. However in its current state i think its fairly balanced kinda of a scaled down er large laser.

As for the autocannon debate that this has turn into the ac5 base is garbage unless you play with the lv 3 rules for fireing it like a ultra and even then the Light ac5 is the only way i would go with that 5tons +ammo for 2x 5 damage clusters with a chance of blowing its self up. And dont forget the rotary ac/5 which is a gem. I think the autocannons in general need reworking tho.
Pages: 1

Extra information
0 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, mattbuck, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 7659


Contact Admins Sarna.net