Akalabeth
02/19/15 02:16 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Aside from the clan improvements, most weapons introduced in Battletech tend to be roughly on par with weapons of old. An ER ML is superior to the ML but causes more heat. An UAC/20 can deliver twice as much damage, but is heavier and can break during combat. Personally I'd prefer that new tech and machines were altogether better but this is not the route they've taken.
Yesterday I sought to create some out of date units to represent crappy periphery powers. I decided to downgrade a Shadowhawk, giving it a Heavy Rifle instead of an AC/5. To my surprise it wasn't much of a downgrade at all.
The Heavy Rifle, pre-space flight precursor to the Autocannon, is superior in nearly every way to the AC/5.
Same Tonnage, Less Criticals
Same Range, Less Minimum
More Heat, But More damage even against "modern" armours. Does 20% more damage against mechs and 80% more damage against battlearmour, buildings and lower-grade armoured units.
Only significant drawback is less ammunition with 6 shots per ton instead of 20 and inability to use specialty ammunition.
All told it's 91 BV compared to 70 for the AC/5.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it, having a weapon replaced by something that is ultimately inferior.
Think TPTB dropped the ball on this Age of War tech big time.
|
Retry
02/19/15 07:42 PM
76.7.225.145
|
I mostly agree with you, except for the "absolute superiority" route (There is often a tradeoff in weapons development when some less necessary traits are sacrificed for more needed traits, such as turning ability for speed in WWII fighters and a poor fuel efficiency on the Abrams for high performance in weapons, armor, and speed while it does have fuel) as an effectively superior route would be good enough, such as LB-X Autocanons to the standard variety. New technology like the clan heavy lasers and IS light autocannons ended up being sidegrades, often being completely bested in most situations by existing weapons (Re-Engineered Lasers anyone?)
I absolutely disagree with your assessment with the Heavy Rifle, though. With some experience in actually wielding the gun, it's absolutely terrible even in comparison to the sub-par AC/5.
Same Tonnage, Less Criticals
To sink the Heavy Rifle's heat on a battlemech, you'll need some heat sinks. If you're going to have additional armaments, which you probably will/should have, this has to be taken into consideration. Fully single-sinked equivalents for the AC/5 is 9 tons and 5 crits, while it's 12 tons and 7 crits for the Heavy Rifle. On a vehicle, they're equal in both characteristics.
Same Range, Less Minimum
You gain one point in minimum range for an overall superior weapon. On a Mech, an AC/5 can be paired with medium lasers to cover point blank ranges more easily than a Heavy Rifle, due to the before mentioned heat issue. The range probably won't make or break you, and specialty ammunition for the AC/5 could reduce the disadvantage further with precision ammo to reduce movement target modifiers.
More Heat, But More damage even against "modern" armours.
Yes, 300% more heat, which is devastating. The gun also only deals more damage against "modern" armors before you take into account alternative ammunition. Flechettes for PBIs, flak for aircraft, AP ammo for hardened armor(effectively doubling damage), precision for just about everything that moves. Precision ammo, reducing the to-hit modifier on moving targets, pushes the average damage/turn advantage to the AC/5.
Then we get to the much more solid advantage of potential damage per ammo ton. The AC/5 has 20 turns of ammunition with 5 damage per shot, or 10 turns of ammo for AP or precision ammo. Compare to the Heavy Rifle's 6 turns of ammunition at 9 or 6 damage per shot. The AC/5 has either 50 or 100 potential damage per ton of ammo versus the 36 or 54 potential damage of the Heavy Rifle. AC/5s with standard ammo has almost 3x the potential damage of the Heavy Rifle with almost identical range brackets and so needs to dedicate 3x less the tonnage and crits to ammo to achieve a very similar effect.
Against a battlemech at a to-hit modifier of 9, you'll deal an average of 15 damage. At such accuracy levels which aren't exactly uncommon in Lv1 tech, you won't even deal enough damage per ton to take off a ton of standard armor! To retain a respectable punch for your main gun, you'll need to invest an incredible amount of tonnage just for the ammunition bay.
Only significant drawback is less ammunition with 6 shots per ton instead of 20 and inability to use specialty ammunition.
This significant drawback is far more than enough to propel the AC/5 to the top.
----
Try making a good mech with dual AC/5s as at least one of it's armaments. Now try making a good mech with dual Heavy Rifles as at least one of it's armaments.
|
Akalabeth
02/19/15 08:13 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Well I think your argument is a bit inconsistent to say the least.
Can you deride the Heavy Rifle for higher heat and at the same time praise the AC/5 for precision ammunition? Either the environment the two weapons are being compared is old tech, or it is not.
In an old tech environment on a battlemech platform with different weapons competing for heat sink dissipation, the Heavy Rifle is at a disadvantage. On a vehicle or on a mech which cannot exceed its 10 heat sinks the heat is not a factor.
In old tech, AC/5s can get Fletchette ammunition or Flak. Is this useful? Flak increases the odds to hit but only deals sandpaper type damage. It can never get a threshold crit whereas a heavy rifle dealing 6 damage will get thresholds on fightercraft more often than a weapon dealing 5 damage. Flak is good for VTOLs but inferior for inflicting critical hits. Machine guns are more prevalent on older machines, particularly vehicles, where the lack of fletchette will not be missed. Most units also carry a single ton of ammunition which means that if it carries specialty ammunition it will be pigeon-holed in a given role for an entire scenario.
The lower ammunition is still a factor but its mitigated by the fact that 20 shots for an AC/5 is excessive. In practice this amount is not 3 times as good, but a Heavy Rifle would need at least 12 shots for an average game.
In newer tech, the heat is less of a factor and the smaller amount of criticals is more of a benefit for ferro or other bulky components. It lacks the specialty ammunition but it gains 50% damage against Battlearmour which is huge in my opinion as battlearmour is particularly troublesome to kill.
AC/5 AP has very high odds to inflict criticals and hardened armour is not widespread. Precision is more useful.
Incidentally in Level 1 there are really no good mechs with dual AC/5s. The Jagermech is chronically under armoured, the Rifleman is poorly armoured and under sinked, most or all other mechs only carry a single cannon.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/19/15 08:14 PM)
|
Retry
02/19/15 09:11 PM
76.7.225.145
|
My arguement is not inconsistent, it covers as many bases as I can think of at the time.
In an old tech environment, the AC/5 still has an advantage, and it only gets better with alternative ammunition.
If a mech can mount an AC/5, it has enough slots and tonnage to have an armament which exceeds the ten sink limit.
What rule says that Flak ammo can't get threshold crits? I've not heard of it once. Either way, you have to hit the target first before you even dream of causing thresholds.
You should deal with infantry more often. Lower-tech IS infantry with infantry-grade SRMs or LRMs handily outrange the machinegun, and your anti-flesh weapons need to actually be in the range of the flesh to work. A good player with anything other than infantry auto rifles will be able to maneuver around outside the range of anti-infantry weapons to constantly harass your own units. Flechette rounds are one of the few low-tech counters for long-ranged infantry.
If you are talking about more than one ton of Heavy Rifle ammunition, you've already kissed your advantage of critical space goodbye. Heat is also still very much a factor and you've downplayed it too much. Changing an AC/5 on a newer tech design for a heavy rifle may cause heat issues that simply were not present before. That or you will have to dedicate more crits to DHS which will take even more tonnage and crits. Unless you plan to add only one ton of ammo, effectively wasting nine tons for a paltry 36 damage potential weapon, your critical space advantage isn't.
Actually utilize the Heavy Rifle a few times, you'll end up missing the AC/5. And you won't be saying that many times in your life.
|
Akalabeth
02/19/15 09:35 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Flak ammunition does 1 point hits. The minimum threshold to EXCEED is always 1. Therefore threshold crits are impossible. All that flak ammunition or LB-X cluster ammunition is good for against Aerospace is forcing a piloting roll and getting the occasion crit 2% of the time.
The GM in our campaign pulls out conventional infantry all the time. They do a smattering of damage until a flamer or MG gets a hold of them and then they get cut to pieces. Frag LRM and Fletchette ammunition has been by and large a waste of time in my experience due to lack of ammunition bins. Infernos are better because many older machines have multiple bins of SRM ammunition.
Heat is irrelevant on vehicles. And in a DHS world the difference of 3 heat is not much of a concern. In either old or new tech it can be an issue or it can be a non-factor depending on the context.
You call it a "36 damage potential weapon", which is a misrepresentation. As I said before the biggest advantage in contemporary battletech is its effectiveness against Battlearmour. I don't worry about how much damage potential is in a bin of ammunition unless that bin is exploding. I worry about how much damage my weapon does per turn and how many turns of fire a given design has.
|
Retry
02/19/15 10:24 PM
76.7.225.145
|
Flak ammunition and LB-X cluster ammunition is not one and the same. Only LB-X cluster ammunition hits in 1 point clusters. Flak doesn't even have to roll on the cluster hits table.
Game Rules:
Flak ammunition provides an autocannon with the same number of shots per ton as an equivalent standard ammo bin. When fired, flak ammo generates the same heat and reaches the same ranges as a standard AC round, but only inflicts full damage when used to deliver a flak attack against airborne VTOLs and aerospace units (using the rules on p. 114, TW), or when fired against conventional infantry. Against all other units— including battle armored infantry and grounded aerospace units—flak AC ammo inflicts half its normal rated damage
Not once are one point clusters mentioned.
Again, in order to get use out of a flamer or MG, you have to actually be in range to hit the infantry. Jump, motorized, or mechanized infantry with 3/6/9 or even 2/4/6 ranged weapons are simply difficult to get the short ranged 1/2/3 MGs and flamers into range. Lacking sufficient ammunition bins can be a design flaw in such events as campaigns. So much for the "excessive" single ton of ammo.
36 damage potential isn't a misrepresentation, if anything it's a generous estimate of a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammo, as you won't hit with all of them. Against lighter targets such as battle armor, there's better options available, such as the Plasma Rifle, Large Pulse Lasers, LB-X autocannons, and so on. One ton of Heavy Rifle can kill, at most, three elementals by itself, or two fully-armored assault battle armors, assuming EVERY round hits.
You say you care about how much damage your weapon does per turn and how many rounds of fire a given design has, yet you somehow find the heavy rifle to be on par with, even superior to the AC/5. The rifle's damage is poor. It's firing time is poor. The damage potential/density is basically the combination of these two factors. It's rather important, and low damage density is part of the reason why autocannons are not as good compared to other weapons.
Anyways, did you actually use your periphery mod more than once or did you just look at a couple stats and assume the Heavy Rifle was better than the AC/5.
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 01:52 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
36 damage potential isn't a misrepresentation, if anything it's a generous estimate of a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammo, as you won't hit with all of them.
Yeah, I'm finished with this discussion.
Please look up what "potential" means and then realize how absurd your above statement is. I'm interested in facts, not spin doctoring and misrepresentation. And more and more your representation of things is moving away from reality. The damage potential for a ton of Heavy Rifle ammo is 54. PERIOD. This is not debatable, not subjective, not open to analysis, it's a irrefutable FACT. Whether or not the weapon is able to live up to this potential is like all other weaponry, dependent upon innumerable battlefield variables.
So, I'll leave you with this:
BV 2.0 Values
AC/5 - 70
Heavy Rifle - 91
Figure it out.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/20/15 02:51 AM)
|
ghostrider
02/20/15 02:50 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Ok. First thing to address is the heat issue. You have range brackets so you can use the weapons most efficient to that range. If you are covering say the ppcs minimum range, that does not mean fire the ppc with the other weapons and over heat. You are supposed to swap out firing the ppcs with the other weapons. I know it isn't fun to do that, but the warhammer would be a good point for this.
Next is specialty ammo. In the original box set, there WAS no alternative ammo. Some I agree with, but sounds stupid that they didn't use it for the entire history of the wars. Others just don't sound realistic to me. Now sure if science backs them up, like the gyroscopic munitions.
It is kinda funny that retry is explaining why infantry is so out of whack anymore. I know he isn't trying to, but is.
Now if you are going to argue old tech, then keep it old tech. Simple rounds for the ac 5. No fancy crap with it.
I agree the ac 5 isn't the weapon it should be, but without major revamp, it will remain overweight, under powered in my opinion.
|
Retry
02/20/15 03:25 AM
76.7.225.145
|
All you had to say was "No, I have not actually used the modified shadowhawk in a battle."
po·ten·tial
pəˈten(t)SHəl/
adjective
adjective: potential
1.
having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.
"a two-pronged campaign to woo potential customers"
synonyms: possible, likely, prospective, future, probable; More
noun
noun: potential; plural noun: potentials
1.
latent qualities or abilities that may be developed and lead to future success or usefulness.
"a young broadcaster with great potential"
synonyms: possibilities, potentiality, prospects; More
the possibility of something happening or of someone doing something in the future.
"the crane operator's clear view reduces the potential for accidents"
Fact:The Heavy Rifle deals 6 damage a shot to heavy(Battlemech, Combat Vehicle) targets
Fact:The Heavy Rifle can be allotted 6 turns of firing time per ton dedicated
Fact: 6 D/S * 6 S = 36 D
Fact:It is physically impossible for the Heavy Rifle to deal more than 36 damage to hardened targets such as battlemechs per ton of ammo added to the weapon system.
Fact:The AC/5 deals 5 damage a shot to heavy targets
Fact:The Heavy Rifle can be allocated 20 turns of firing time per ton dedicated
Fact: 5 D/S * 20 S = 100 D
Fact:It is physically impossible for the AC/5 to deal more than 100 damage to hardened targets such as battlemechs per ton of ammo added to the weapon system.
This "potential damage" thing isn't some made up crap, it's extrapolated extremely easily through a simple single-step mathematical calculation. There is no spin doctoring, no misrepresentation, introduced anywhere within the calculation. The calculation of potential damage per ton is fact. What kind of mind bending logic you used to think otherwise is simply baffling.
And if you want to pull out BRs, an artificial balancing implement, and say "take that", then...
The Light Rifle and AP Gauss Rifle have the same BR values of 21. They both have 3 damage per shot, the AP Gauss Rifle has 3/6/9 range versus the Light Rifle's 4/8/12 range. But the AP gauss rifle is a half ton to the Light Rifle's three tons, and the AP Gauss Rifle can actually damage heavy targets. The Light Rifle has 18 shots a ton, and the AP Gauss Rifle has... 40 shots a ton. But their BRs are equal so they must be equivalents, right?
The Flamer and the Vehicle Flamer are essentially the same thing with the vee flamer requiring ammunition to function. A Vee Flamer with one ton of ammunition(10 rounds) has a BR of 6, same as the normal Flamer. The only differences are that the Vee Flamer arrangement weighs a half ton more, takes up one more crit slot, and has ammunition that can be exhausted. But BV2 knows all, so they must be basically equal. I'll leave you to figure out how so.
An unarmed tracked 100 ton tank with a 400XL engine and 45 tons hardened armor has a battle value of nearly 2100.
----
It's extremely hypocritical to say you are only interested in facts, but then ignore all of the numbers I presented and instead pushed their arbitrary BV values to make your point.
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 04:08 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
This "potential damage" thing isn't some made up crap, it's extrapolated extremely easily through a simple single-step mathematical calculation. There is no spin doctoring, no misrepresentation, introduced anywhere within the calculation. The calculation of potential damage per ton is fact. What kind of mind bending logic you used to think otherwise is simply baffling.
Yes it's so extremely easy and yet you still manage to get it wrong. Try again.
The damage potential of a ton of ammo is 36 correct? That's what you're claiming. 6 shots at 6 damage each. So you're saying that it is impossible for a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammunition to completely destroy a 6-man squad of Trinity Battle armor correct? After all, Trinity Medium Armour has 8 armour + 1 for the man so . . . 6 shots at 6 damage each can only kill 3 troopers at most not all six.
No, in fact a Heavy Rifle can wipe the entire squad because the POTENTIAL DAMAGE of each shot is 9 damage which will kill one trooper.
54 is the potential damage. Period.
You can put all the conditions you want into a situation to try and rig a discussion in your favor but when both weapons are examined free of presumptions the winner is clear cut and the battle value is an indication of this. Battle value is not arbitrary.
And also, the Large Pulse Laser as an anti-BA weapon is objectively inferior to the Heavy Rifle. The heavy rifle has as good odds to hit BA at all ranges except 1-3. It has less heat, greater range, etcetera and is less bv to boot. Similarly the Medium Rifle is only 3 BV more than a Medium Pulse yet can inflict the same damage on BA per shot at 250% of the range.
|
ghostrider
02/20/15 09:48 AM
76.89.120.217
|
There is one problem with potential damage when using dice. Luck.
A potential damage of 40 from an ultra 20 is less likely, then firing 2 ac 20's. First you need to hit, then you need to see if the second shot hits after the first one. That is using 7 as a base to hit. You need 8+ to hit with second shot.
Now in your calculations, does that include the chance that some of that damage will not be used as combat is likely to render the weapons or ammunition obsolete? Yes the same can happen to the rifle, but going 20 rounds is not usually done.
But then playing experience has show that somewhere before round 10 there is at least one shot that removes some weapon or limb, or gets into a unit to stop some fire. Now unless you are lucky, I doubt you have fired off all 20 shots with the unit before something removes the ability to use it all. And yes, this statement does have the added idea that you can do it, but it isn't the norm.
|
GiovanniBlasini
02/20/15 02:08 PM
172.56.33.197
|
A heavy rifle will never, ever potentially do 54 points of damage to a BattleMech. Ever. That was what Retry was getting at. It's potential damage per ton of ammo against such targets is not 54 points. It's 36.
Also, know what a heavy rifle's potential damage is in space? Zero. The muzzle velocity is too low there. The AC/5, meanwhile, works in space.
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
Edited by GiovanniBlasini (02/20/15 02:11 PM)
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 02:30 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:
A heavy rifle will never, ever potentially do 54 points of damage to a BattleMech. Ever. That was what Retry was getting at. It's potential damage per ton of ammo against such targets is not 54 points. It's 36.
No. It's potential damage is ALWAYS 54. That's what potential is, the maximum that it can do. If you say that the potential damage of a weapon is anything less than its maximum you're misrepresenting the facts. This game has more than Battlemechs. The heavy rifle behaves differently against different types of units.
When fighting battlemechs, the potential damage is not reduced, the ACTUAL damage is.
Ie "My weapon can potentially do 9 damage per shot, but because I am fighting Battlemechs the ACTUAL damage is reduced to 6 points".
Quote:
GiovanniBlasini writes:
Also, know what a heavy rifle's potential damage is in space? Zero. The muzzle velocity is too low there. The AC/5, meanwhile, works in space.
Then don't use the heavy rifle on spaceships.
On vehicles however, the heat is not a factor, its the same weight, better damage per shot but would require a second ton of ammunition.
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
There is one problem with potential damage when using dice. Luck.
Potential damage never changes. That's why its called potential.
"I can potentially fire my AC/10 ten times in a battle"
"I will potentially be destroyed as soon as my LT is breached as I only have one location and it's ammunition"
"I can potentially take 319 points of armour damage before suffering internals, though in practice this never happens and I can be killed by as little as one point of damage though it is very unlikely."
Things like predicted actual damage does change depending on the situation.
"The UAC/20 can potentially do 40 points of damage per turn, but in practice the second slug will hit only 41.6% of the time so the average damage per hit will only be 28."
|
GiovanniBlasini
02/20/15 02:54 PM
12.20.180.82
|
Yeah, I think this thread is dead.
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
|
Akalabeth
02/20/15 03:09 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Fact of the matter is that when examining one weapon compared to another, you need to examine them in all situations not simply the one that is most favourable to your own argument. I don't base the overall potential of a piece of equipment on described scenarios because the fact is I can just as easily come up with my own scenario to defeat the one presented, and then it becomes not an examination of the weapon's potential but rather whose scenario or set of scenarios is biggest.
For example,
The potential of one ton of Heavy Rifle ammunition is 54 damage.
The potential of one ton of AC/5 ammunition is 100
In practice however, the actual damage inflicted in a game will be less for both weapons because the average game will not be 20 turns so the full amount of ammunition for the AC/5 is less important and at the same time, a Heavy Rifle may be fighting against a lot of armored opponents so the actual damage per turn will be reduced although still superior to the AC/5.
In another scenario, the enemy may present a lot of battle armour or perhaps less armoured opponents. In this scenario the Heavy Rifle can potentially do more damage while the AC/5 remains the same. The AC/5 has access to specialty ammunition, the scenario then becomes geographical. Does every faction have access to the desired ammunition? Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
In another scenario, the Heavy Rifle can allegedly not be used in space but a the same time its use on a vehicle mitigates some of its disadvantages so retain Heavy Rifles on combat vehicles is more appealing whereas use of the AC/5 in aerospace is required by the rules. Heavy Rifles however still could be used in planetbound conventional aircraft.
The potential is stated, an average scenario is presented, and the effects on both weapons are accordingly examined. The difference is I don't assume just one scenario. And I don't wave off scenarios with a flick of the wrist and introduce outside elements to support what I'm saying. There are innumerable scenarios and the examination of each will reveal strengths and weaknesses of a given design in different situations, and only after all of those scenarios are examined will a winner be revealed. And even then, the result may be a draw with certain situations better suited to one weapon or another.
|
Maurer
02/21/15 05:14 AM
75.85.84.93
|
Quote:
Tactical Operations, p. 337. "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." - Sarna source
The fine print is confusing. The Heavy Rifle does 6 points of damage is most situations (max potentional damage of 36 per ton), unless the target is conventional infantry, battle armor, or an armed Industrial Mechs and Vehicles with a BAR of 8 (54 per ton).
The Heavy Rifle is a periphery weapon and won't fair very well if there is a Battlemech or non-low tech military vehicle on the field. A standard A/C-5 is a better choice if available, given that is has far more ammo per ton and less forgiving if you miss a shot one turn, while working on most targets fairly equally.
I say keep it real: For infantry, use MGs/Flamers/Missiles. For mechs/vehicles/aerofighters, use lasers, autocannons, ppcs, gauss rifles. For everything in one package, use orbital bombardment.
"Captain! We're completely surrounded on all sides." - Kiff, Futurama
..."Excellent, then we may attack in any direction." - Zapp Brannigan, Futurama
"A fool fights a war on two fronts; only an idiot defends on one." - Fusilier
|
Retry
02/22/15 12:41 AM
76.7.225.145
|
"My weapon can potentially do 9 damage per shot, but because I am fighting Battlemechs the ACTUAL damage is reduced to 6 points"
No modern purpose-built battlemech still in production has less than BAR 10 armor. Against such targets, the Heavy Rifle deals 6 damage to a Battlemech's armor. Actually read my post, not a cursory glance, you'll find I was specifically speaking about battlemechs. Hence, the potential damage of a Heavy Rifle against hardened(BAR 10) targets is 36.(Or less, in the case of advanced armors such as ballistic reinforced or ferro-lamellor) Do you need me to italicize it? Bold it? Capslock? I don't think so, as the others understood it right off the bat.
The damage potential of a ton of ammo is 36 correct? That's what you're claiming. 6 shots at 6 damage each. So you're saying that it is impossible for a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammunition to completely destroy a 6-man squad of Trinity Battle armor correct? After all, Trinity Medium Armour has 8 armour + 1 for the man so . . . 6 shots at 6 damage each can only kill 3 troopers at most not all six.
Is the Trinity Medium Armour a battlemech or equipped with mech-scale armor that will reduce the damage by 3 to 6? No? Well then, we have ourselves a strawman. My claim was clearly that the potential damage of a ton of ammo against MECH ARMOR GRADE TARGETS was 36. What you're saying I've said, I've never said.
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.
Weapons like the AC/5, SRMs, LRMs all have a good chance to wipe out an entire battle armor squad, even with some misses or partial hits in the case of cluster weapons, while still having additional ammunition from a one ton bay to expend on other targets, maybe even another battle armor squad. Often you can make them work with one ton of ammo, maybe two. Frequently, the Heavy Rifle is simply insufficient with two tons of ammo and three tons barely works.
Battle value is not arbitrary.
To an extent it is arbitrary. Or would you like to explain how we could have a weapon that can't even damage armored targets and has limited value against anything it can damage (Light Rifle) rated the same as a multipurpose weapon that is useful against far more targets and only very slightly inferior range brackets (Clan AP Gauss Rifle) or an unarmed speedy box apparently having a similar battlefield value as a clan Mad Dog?
And also, the Large Pulse Laser as an anti-BA weapon is objectively inferior to the Heavy Rifle. The heavy rifle has as good odds to hit BA at all ranges except 1-3. It has less heat, greater range, etcetera and is less bv to boot.
The LPL has an equal chance to hit between ranges 1-10, with the exceptions of 1, 2, 3, and 7 where the laser then has an advantage. Even if the to-hit numbers are poor, a LPL doesn't consume ammo and can take advantage of "potshots" while the HR is even more impacted by a miss than normal thanks to piss-poor ammo load and damage. Outside of LPL range where the HR can still hit, 11-18, the HR has either a medium (11-12 range) or long (13-18 range) range penalty.
Firing further than 13 range is impractical, again due to the really poor damage potential and ammo load of a HR. Firing on a jumping elemental squad at medium range (+2 3 hex movement and jumping +1 BA target +2 medium range) creates a large to hit modifier of +5, and that's before intervening terrain and movement from the firing mech. A regular 4 gunnery IS Mech pilot will end up with a to-hit of 9, in which case you'll be lucky to hit with 2 HR shells with a single ton of ammo. To ensure adequate BA killing power at long range, and avoid negating the HR's practically only advantage over the LPL, you'd have to sink a whole lot of ammo into the HR weapon system so you don't run out of ammo trying to kill anything from far away, which begins to become impractical, even for a weapon that's supposed to be dedicated for anti-BA duty.
Meanwhile, we have the IS LPL which can hit closing at point blank more easily, which may be desired in case the opposition has short-ranged battle armor or wants to board your mech. Between ranges 1 and 10, it's either better than or equal to hitting compared to the HR, and doesn't have poor damage density ammunition to lose. It requires few crit spots and can be easily attached to small mechs to make use of it's beginning 10 tonnage-free double heat sinks, far more so than a HR. You don't have to be extremely frugal with your ammunition. You don't have to worry about running out of ammunition. You can fire most whenever you want if the mech is designed decently, allowing lucky rare hits on a 9 thru 12. Not only is it just as good(and I do argue better) as an anti-BA weapon than the Heavy Rifle itself, it retains usefulness against armored targets such as Mechs, so it's not a one-trick pony weapon and retains value in far more situations than a HR. And if you want something on a heavier mech that is already using a bunch of it's heat sinks? It's heavy guns probably already do the trick, adding an 8 ton sub-par "Anti-BA weapon" won't help you a whole lot more than whatever you already have, which is likely LB-X 10s, PPCs, Gauss Rifles, and similar equipment.
And BV? Even that "advantage" is flimsy. 91 BV for the HR is before ammo, which is 11 additional BV points. At a bare minimum the HR system will cost 102 BV. I don't think anyone will argue that a single ton for a HR is sufficient, so we go to 2 tons which is 113 BV. At this point we're still a little on the low side just because of the horrid damage potential per ton of ammo, and the difference between BVs for the system and a LPL (BV 119) is simply trivial. If you went for plenty of ammo that'll actually last you long enough to get considerable use from the system, giving a third ton, you actually exceed the BV of a weapon system that really isn't inferior in the niche you're trying to fill. Said weapon system that you exceeded is also better at just being generally useful...
Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
The Rifles are superior only in regions where you can't supply autocannon ammunition, and that's only because an unloaded weapon deals zero damage per turn. Otherwise, the Autocannons by and large make for superior armaments for anyone who can get their hands on them. Like it or not, the reasons that the Autocannon replaced the Rifle are more numerous than an AC/2's ammo belt.
Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
It appears you've moved your position from "The AC/5 is ultimately inferior to the Heavy Rifle" to "Well, I guess it could be a situational ordeal".
----
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.
|
ghostrider
02/22/15 12:42 PM
76.89.120.217
|
Speaking of the lpl being better since it doesn't require ammo is why energy weapons have an advantage over ammo weapons. Potshots is the name of the game in a lot of games I have played. The charges to physical range comes when you get bored of the 20 minute turns.
I would think using a different long range weapons would have made the point then using the one that has a -2 to hit. Standard large laser, erll, ppc and such. Even an ac 10, though some may not have the range though they would have standard to hits.
And I can see where retry is correct. If a weapon does only x points against a mech, then the potential against a mech is x. Doesn't matter if against infantry it does y damage. Against mechs it is only x damage. So the potential changes with the target. It is interesting that they don't have a special note on the bv of the heavy rifle.
As a side note, it would be interesting to know which damage value they based the bv off of. I would assume the 6 points since it seems they figure bv against normal mechs.
|
TigerShark
02/22/15 11:03 PM
104.49.175.97
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
Quote:
Retry writes:
This "potential damage" thing isn't some made up crap, it's extrapolated extremely easily through a simple single-step mathematical calculation. There is no spin doctoring, no misrepresentation, introduced anywhere within the calculation. The calculation of potential damage per ton is fact. What kind of mind bending logic you used to think otherwise is simply baffling.
Yes it's so extremely easy and yet you still manage to get it wrong. Try again.
The damage potential of a ton of ammo is 36 correct? That's what you're claiming. 6 shots at 6 damage each. So you're saying that it is impossible for a Heavy Rifle with one ton of ammunition to completely destroy a 6-man squad of Trinity Battle armor correct? After all, Trinity Medium Armour has 8 armour + 1 for the man so . . . 6 shots at 6 damage each can only kill 3 troopers at most not all six.
No, in fact a Heavy Rifle can wipe the entire squad because the POTENTIAL DAMAGE of each shot is 9 damage which will kill one trooper.
54 is the potential damage. Period.
You can put all the conditions you want into a situation to try and rig a discussion in your favor but when both weapons are examined free of presumptions the winner is clear cut and the battle value is an indication of this. Battle value is not arbitrary.
And also, the Large Pulse Laser as an anti-BA weapon is objectively inferior to the Heavy Rifle. The heavy rifle has as good odds to hit BA at all ranges except 1-3. It has less heat, greater range, etcetera and is less bv to boot. Similarly the Medium Rifle is only 3 BV more than a Medium Pulse yet can inflict the same damage on BA per shot at 250% of the range.
What BattleArmor? The Heavy and Medium Rifles were antiquated military arms which did not exist in any time when BA were around (Age of War/Star League). That they've been resurrected in a tiny amount of modern designs doesn't mean this is a metric worth using.
It would be like saying the LPL is inferior to a machine gun because it doesn't have burst fire. O.o As it wasn't designed to be used against Infantry, that wouldn't be a metric for its usefulness. Just as a Heavy Rifle was designed to be used against targets with a BAR, not 'Mech-grade armor.
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 03:27 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
What BattleArmor? The Heavy and Medium Rifles were antiquated military arms which did not exist in any time when BA were around (Age of War/Star League). That they've been resurrected in a tiny amount of modern designs doesn't mean this is a metric worth using.
It would be like saying the LPL is inferior to a machine gun because it doesn't have burst fire. O.o As it wasn't designed to be used against Infantry, that wouldn't be a metric for its usefulness. Just as a Heavy Rifle was designed to be used against targets with a BAR, not 'Mech-grade armor.
And what was the AC/5 designed to be used against?
AC/5 was introduced in 2250, the mech was introduced in 2439ish. The Estevez MBT with BAR(8) armour came out in 3310 and was one of the best armoured vehicles in existence so in 2250 why did they introduced the AC/5? What value did the weapon have?
At the time there were no mechs, so the heat difference between the two weapons didn't matter
The Heavy Rifle did 80% more damage. Only downside was less ammunition per ton.
If you look at the Marsden I it has BAR(7) armour and is introduced in 2396 with an AC/5 when a Heavy Rifle would do much superior damage.
Why would the AC/5 gain any sort of traction on a BAR(7) or less battlefield where the Heavy Rifle would be superior? From 2250-2310 the only rounds the AC/5 could fire were standard rounds. Tracer rounds and Flak came out around 2300.
So a military is going to introduce a weapon which does 55% of the damage of its predecessor just so they can fire a few more rounds? Doesn't make much sense.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/23/15 03:28 AM)
|
ghostrider
02/23/15 03:47 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Hate to say it, but that thought might be solved by modern day fighter jets.
Why would you not use 50 cal or 30 mm guns in all jets to make sure you take down a target when you hit it?
Also, the titanium bath tub of the a10. Why not protect all pilots with one?
Now shift to police weapons and why they are switching to the 9mm from the old 38's. The 9mm holds more rounds, and before they switched to semi automatic pistols, reloading was a real pain with revolvers.
The same could be said of the mgs in the world wars. firing more shots was better. since you were missing more then enough as you sprayed anything that moved.
And when it comes to military, they don't always do what they should, especially when lobbyist are involved. The people making the ac might have greased enough palms to get them to use their weapons.
Plus if you sold the ac for less then the rifle system, it would look great to people looking to save money.
I would think the ac 5 came from the main guns of normal tanks. Or at least that would be my thoughts.
One last thought, in the world wars, more assaults failed because soldiers had to run back to their depots for more ammunition. So you fire 2 times to do the same damage. But you have more then 3 times the load.
Though I would like to know why your percentage of damage changed in your post. Is it 80% more or 45% more damage?
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 04:02 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
Retry writes:
"My weapon can potentially do 9 damage per shot, but because I am fighting Battlemechs the ACTUAL damage is reduced to 6 points"
No modern purpose-built battlemech still in production has less than BAR 10 armor. Against such targets, the Heavy Rifle deals 6 damage to a Battlemech's armor. Actually read my post, not a cursory glance, you'll find I was specifically speaking about battlemechs. Hence, the potential damage of a Heavy Rifle against hardened(BAR 10) targets is 36.(Or less, in the case of advanced armors such as ballistic reinforced or ferro-lamellor) Do you need me to italicize it? Bold it? Capslock? I don't think so, as the others understood it right off the bat.
The potential damage for a Heavy Rifle per ton is 54.
Learn the fact that not every opponent on the field is a Battlemech.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Is the Trinity Medium Armour a battlemech or equipped with mech-scale armor that will reduce the damage by 3 to 6? No? Well then, we have ourselves a strawman. My claim was clearly that the potential damage of a ton of ammo against MECH ARMOR GRADE TARGETS was 36. What you're saying I've said, I've never said.
I don't care about mech grade targets. I care about ALL targets in the game.
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.
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.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Weapons like the AC/5, SRMs, LRMs all have a good chance to wipe out an entire battle armor squad, even with some misses or partial hits in the case of cluster weapons, while still having additional ammunition from a one ton bay to expend on other targets, maybe even another battle armor squad. Often you can make them work with one ton of ammo, maybe two. Frequently, the Heavy Rifle is simply insufficient with two tons of ammo and three tons barely works.
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.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Battle value is not arbitrary.
To an extent it is arbitrary. Or would you like to explain how we could have a weapon that can't even damage armored targets and has limited value against anything it can damage (Light Rifle) rated the same as a multipurpose weapon that is useful against far more targets and only very slightly inferior range brackets (Clan AP Gauss Rifle) or an unarmed speedy box apparently having a similar battlefield value as a clan Mad Dog?
Oh, to an extent? So first it was arbitrary. And now, "to an extent" it is arbitrary.
Changing your tune huh.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Firing further than 13 range is impractical, again due to the really poor damage potential and ammo load of a HR.
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.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Firing on a jumping elemental squad at medium range (+2 3 hex movement and jumping +1 BA target +2 medium range) creates a large to hit modifier of +5, and that's before intervening terrain and movement from the firing mech. A regular 4 gunnery IS Mech pilot will end up with a to-hit of 9, in which case you'll be lucky to hit with 2 HR shells with a single ton of ammo. To ensure adequate BA killing power at long range, and avoid negating the HR's practically only advantage over the LPL, you'd have to sink a whole lot of ammo into the HR weapon system so you don't run out of ammo trying to kill anything from far away, which begins to become impractical, even for a weapon that's supposed to be dedicated for anti-BA duty.
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.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Meanwhile, we have the IS LPL which can hit closing at point blank more easily, which may be desired in case the opposition has short-ranged battle armor or wants to board your mech.
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.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Between ranges 1 and 10, it's either better than or equal to hitting compared to the HR, and doesn't have poor damage density ammunition to lose. It requires few crit spots and can be easily attached to small mechs to make use of it's beginning 10 tonnage-free double heat sinks, far more so than a HR. You don't have to be extremely frugal with your ammunition. You don't have to worry about running out of ammunition.
Yes and you can put Heavy Rifles in ICE tanks with no heat sinks.
Quote:
Retry writes:
You can fire most whenever you want if the mech is designed decently, allowing lucky rare hits on a 9 thru 12. Not only is it just as good(and I do argue better) as an anti-BA weapon than the Heavy Rifle itself, it retains usefulness against armored targets such as Mechs, so it's not a one-trick pony weapon and retains value in far more situations than a HR.
6 damage is useful. Especially when it outranges the Large Pulse by 80% at less Battle value.
Quote:
Retry writes:
Maybe the AC/5 has more usefulness in one region and the Rifle is superior in another.
The Rifles are superior only in regions where you can't supply autocannon ammunition, and that's only because an unloaded weapon deals zero damage per turn. Otherwise, the Autocannons by and large make for superior armaments for anyone who can get their hands on them. Like it or not, the reasons that the Autocannon replaced the Rifle are more numerous than an AC/2's ammo belt.
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.
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.
Dragon 1N
Sentinel 3K
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 04:12 AM
96.49.50.102
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Hate to say it, but that thought might be solved by modern day fighter jets.
Why would you not use 50 cal or 30 mm guns in all jets to make sure you take down a target when you hit it?
Also, the titanium bath tub of the a10. Why not protect all pilots with one?
Now shift to police weapons and why they are switching to the 9mm from the old 38's. The 9mm holds more rounds, and before they switched to semi automatic pistols, reloading was a real pain with revolvers.
The same could be said of the mgs in the world wars. firing more shots was better. since you were missing more then enough as you sprayed anything that moved.
And when it comes to military, they don't always do what they should, especially when lobbyist are involved. The people making the ac might have greased enough palms to get them to use their weapons.
Plus if you sold the ac for less then the rifle system, it would look great to people looking to save money.
I would think the ac 5 came from the main guns of normal tanks. Or at least that would be my thoughts.
One last thought, in the world wars, more assaults failed because soldiers had to run back to their depots for more ammunition. So you fire 2 times to do the same damage. But you have more then 3 times the load.
Though I would like to know why your percentage of damage changed in your post. Is it 80% more or 45% more damage?
The AC/5 is 35,000 more cbills than the Heavy Rifle. Ammunition is 1,500 more per ton as well.
9 compared to 5 is 80% more damage (or 180% if you will).
5 compared to 9 is 55% percent of the damage.
So when the AC/5 was introduced, it was a gun that did almost half the damage of its predecessor for the same tonnage. Like if someone introduced a Coilgun, let's say or a Railgun, some equivalent of the gauss rifle and this weapon did only 8 damage and had 16 rounds but was STILL 15 tons would anyone use it? Sounds a lot like the Light Gauss doesn't it? But that weapon is 3 tons lighter than the Gauss Rifle.
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.
|
wolf_lord_30
02/23/15 10:58 AM
166.216.165.26
|
Whatever books you've been reading that come out with the dates are all well and good, but trying to argue that the ac5 came out first doesn't fly with me. Game wise, 2nd edition battletech had the ac5. No heavy rifle. So the new designers allowed you to go back in time to pre-mech status and make a weapon that you are arguing is better than the ac5. I don't care one way or the other. But saying that it doesn't make sense that they use the ac5 instead of the heavy rifle, well the ac5 has been around for the duration of battletech. The heavy rifle has not. That is obviously a newer game design with the attempt to seem older. So why even argue that it makes sense or not when the ac5 was here first. And for diehards like me, it'll stay.
|
wolf_lord_30
02/23/15 11:00 AM
166.216.165.26
|
Sorry, correction to first sentence should read ,but trying to argue that the heavy rifle came out first doesn't fly with me.
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 02:23 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:
Whatever books you've been reading that come out with the dates are all well and good, but trying to argue that the ac5 came out first doesn't fly with me. Game wise, 2nd edition battletech had the ac5. No heavy rifle. So the new designers allowed you to go back in time to pre-mech status and make a weapon that you are arguing is better than the ac5. I don't care one way or the other. But saying that it doesn't make sense that they use the ac5 instead of the heavy rifle, well the ac5 has been around for the duration of battletech. The heavy rifle has not. That is obviously a newer game design with the attempt to seem older. So why even argue that it makes sense or not when the ac5 was here first. And for diehards like me, it'll stay.
.
Why argue? Because in my opinion, Battletech's desire to keep everything roughly on par with everything that came before leads to a stagnate universe where technology doesn't so much advance as it spread out. Superior weapons are introduced but always have trade-offs which makes older weapons like the Medium Laser still very desirable.The Heavy Rifle is simply one example of that, being a weapon which predates the AC/5 yet at the time of the AC/5s introduction was largely superior.
The rules for the Heavy Rifle themselves don't make sense for that matter either. Doing less damage against armour is fine, but when the rifle does less damage against a mech's structure as well then it doesn't make a huge amount of sense. Is structure made from the same material as armour? BAR(7) armour yields BAR(7) structure and BAR(10) yields BAR(10)?
But back to stagnation, the most interesting time to me is still the Clan Invasion when a hostile force fielded flat-out superior machines to those they were facing. But that's a situation that I don't think will be repeated in battletech. When TPTB tried to introduce a new era in 3250 with new machines that would render everything before them obsolete the outcry from the fanbase seemed to scare them into rethinking the product.
As for "diehards", well as a diehard myself, 3025 is becoming awfully boring. There really is not enough diversity in weapons to keep it interesting after playing for 20 years. Older weapons like the Rifles or Fission engines breath new life into a relative sterile era and allow for more granularity across the inner sphere.
Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:
Sorry, correction to first sentence should read ,but trying to argue that the heavy rifle came out first doesn't fly with me.
In the timeline of Battletech, the Heavy Rifle came out hundreds of years before the AC/5. In the history of the production of the game itself, the AC/5 is of course the original Autocannon.
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.
By the way, another mech would the Marauder 3R. Despite the impact on its heat curve, the Heavy Rifle with its limited supply of ammunition would increase the survivability of this machine by probably 20% through mitigating the vulnerability of its left torso.
|
TigerShark
02/23/15 04:14 PM
104.49.175.97
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
By the way, another mech would the Marauder 3R. Despite the impact on its heat curve, the Heavy Rifle with its limited supply of ammunition would increase the survivability of this machine by probably 20% through mitigating the vulnerability of its left torso.
How do you figure? The heat curve dictates when and how often something can be fired.
(2) PPC = 20 heat (+4)
(1) PPC + Heavy Rifle = 14 (-2 + 4 = +2)
...And that's without moving. So you've essentially taken the smooth transition from (2) PPC -> PPC/AC5 to (2) PPC, PPC/Heavy Rifle, PPC/Heavy Rifle just to get back to +0. And it's done with only 6 shots. The AC/5 is a terrible weapon, but it can be useful after you've taken some engine hits. Use this on the MAD-1R instead of the horrible -3R and it makes more sense.
Oh, and this also nudges the BV up by about 10, for having a worse heat curve and less ammo... O.o
|
Akalabeth
02/23/15 04:28 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
By the way, another mech would the Marauder 3R. Despite the impact on its heat curve, the Heavy Rifle with its limited supply of ammunition would increase the survivability of this machine by probably 20% through mitigating the vulnerability of its left torso.
How do you figure? The heat curve dictates when and how often something can be fired.
(2) PPC = 20 heat (+4)
(1) PPC + Heavy Rifle = 14 (-2 + 4 = +2)
...And that's without moving. So you've essentially taken the smooth transition from (2) PPC -> PPC/AC5 to (2) PPC, PPC/Heavy Rifle, PPC/Heavy Rifle just to get back to +0. And it's done with only 6 shots. The AC/5 is a terrible weapon, but it can be useful after you've taken some engine hits. Use this on the MAD-1R instead of the horrible -3R and it makes more sense.
Oh, and this also nudges the BV up by about 10, for having a worse heat curve and less ammo... O.o
Because the Left Torso has nothing but ammunition for the AC/5 so the sooner that bin is emptied the better. A mech like the Crusader 3R or Zeus can sort of get away with only ammo bins in the torsos because they only have 8 rounds each for their LRM-15s and the longer range allows them to operate in a support role before moving in. But the Marauder has 20 rounds for the AC/5 which for the average game it will never exhaust. That combined with the lower range for the weapons (compared to LRMs) will encourage it to fight at medium-long range and be subjected to more fire. As the game goes on, any crit in that torso will outright destroy the mech.
Having more ammunition is often a liability, particularly in introductory tech. Thus there are cases where I would glad take a weapon with less ammunition if it means my mech will retreat from lack of ammo rather than getting blown apart by a ruptured ammunition bin.
|
ghostrider
02/23/15 04:58 PM
76.89.120.217
|
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?
Time line arguments are not really a good thing. All the weapons used in the original boxed set as weaker then the later ones, that the games fictional time line said came first. Star league era weapons. Up until that point, you NEVER found in canon material something that was left from the star league that had the 'upgraded' weapons. Finding a cache of ancient units always had the standard weapons for 3025 until they came out with the helm memory core. So this is will be hard to agree on.
Sorry. the last paragraph was written as I was reading the posts. It basically repeats what was said, but wanted to keep it in here.
The marauder is how you use it. Most people I know fire off the ppcs until the can get into range of the mls then swap one out for them. Rarely do I see people fire the ac 5 unless desperate, or overheating that badly. But that might just be the people I game with.
|
Cray
02/23/15 05:54 PM
67.8.171.23
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
TigerShark
02/25/15 06:04 PM
12.130.166.32
|
You're comparing it to the AC/5 because it's the only weapon for which you could even marginally make an argument. And at that, it's geared more to your play style than "is it a good/bad weapon?"
As for the SHD-2D, if you think more BV for a paper-thin unit is a good thing, then by all means. You have at it. A Large Laser would be a better swap, cheaper and require no logistical support. And four tons saved = more armor. THAT is an improvement.
And please stop citing the AC/5 as a 3075 weapon. At least switch to an LB-5X or something contemporary. Bit like saying the Flamer is a superior weapon to the Machine Gun, then ignoring the Small Pulse out of convenience. As I said, pick an era and stick with it. You're making a SW Shadow Hawk comparison, then talking about Battle Armor vs. AC/5. You're all over the place. lol
Pick ONE era and compare the Heavy Rifle against all contemporaries.
Edited by TigerShark (02/25/15 06:05 PM)
|
Akalabeth
02/25/15 06:53 PM
64.251.81.66
|
When I compare the AC/5 to the Heavy Rifle regarding Battle armor it's for Retry's benefit as that's a discussion both he and I were having.
In any event, I ran the numbers for the Heavy Rifle and AC/5 against a 4-man squad of battle armour. I assumed that the to hit number was an 8+ and that the battlearmor could sustain either one Heavy Rifle or two AC/5 hits. I then ran the numbers again with the AC/5 carrying precision ammo. In both cases, the Heavy Rifle was superior.
Assuming a 41.6% of hitting and taking into account no rounding for how many hits:
Heavy Rifle
Takes 10 turns to kill a 4 man squad of armour
AC/5
Takes 20 turns to kill a 4 man squad
w/Precision Ammo (assuming 6+ to hit)
Takes 12 turns to kill a 4 man squad
Both the AC/5 w/precision and Heavy Rifle require 2 tons of ammunition to do the job.
Actual reduction in damage output of the BA Squad targeted:
Over the course of 20 turns, compared to the average and maximum damage that an undamaged squad can do, the AC/5 will at best reduce the damage of the squad to 69.6% of its average, or 62.5% of its maximum. At worst it will only reduce the max and average damage to 84.8% of its average or 81.2%
With precision ammunition, over those same 20 turns the AC/5 will at best reduce the average to 37.5% and the maximum damage to 41.7%. At worst it will only reduce it to 47.5% and 50%
The Heavy Rifle meanwhile, will reduce the average damage of the squad to 32.5% or its maximum potential damage to 35.7%.
What this translates into,
Is that when an AC/5 has finally killed the battle armour squad, that same squad will have potentially inflicted from 50-70 more damage than the squad targeted by the Heavy Rifle. The squad targeted by precision ammo will have inflicted potentially 9-21 more points of damage.
Other AC Types:
The other AC/s are different as they have different ranges.
Assuming the same range band at the time of firing, the LAC's performance would be identical to the AC/5
The LB-5X would be identical to the AC/5 as well unless the battle armour had only 6-7 points of health and it could effectively use its cluster munitions. Even then there's no guarantee the cluster munitions would spread. It could simply reduce a 5 point hit to a 3 point on a single man. At best against say 6-7 point troops with average cluster munitions and optimal spread, it will kill the squad in about 13-14 turns. Against 8-9 point troops you'd probably be better off firing solid slug. With sub-optimal or abysmal spread, it may take longer than 20 turns depending upon when the cluster rounds are fired.
The UAC/5 firing double rate could destroy the squad in 10 turns, the same as the Heavy Rifle, but by turn 9 it would have a cumulative 25% chance of breaking.
The RAC/5 assuming Rate of Fire 5 (jam on 3 or less) would destroy the Battlearmor squad by the 7th turn but would have a 50% chance of jamming by the 6th turn.
So to Summarize
Again, discounting range the Heavy Rifle in this instance is pretty much better than ANY other class-5 autocannon against Battlearmor whether they're using precision rounds or not. The RAC could be better if it gets lucky but will use more than one ton of ammo and has a much higher BV at 247 rather than 91
And one last thing, on the subject of precision ammunition:
If you ask the question "why are you assuming an 8+ to hit? That's not realistic. Etcetera."
At 8+ to hit, the Precision ammunition will gain its greatest benefit. It will never increase the odds more than going from 8+ to 6+. So really that is the ideal to hit number for these purposes. You can increase the numbers if you like but the relative results will not change, only the amount of ammunition required by all weapons involved.
Regarding Best vs Worse Performance for AC/5
Also, for the AC/5. Best performance with regards to reducing a BA squad's damage output is calculated as though the AC/5 hit and subsequently killed each trooper in turn with no spreading of damage. The worst performance is calculated as though the AC/5 hit each of the four troopers once before hitting them a second time.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/25/15 07:35 PM)
|
TigerShark
02/25/15 07:51 PM
12.130.166.32
|
FYI - I've been dicking with you. lol I love me some Heavy Rifle. ;-)
We played a full campaign on the Shack during the Age of War and the Estevez did more than marginally well against the tanks we generated using Support Rules. They even carried over into early Star League, so I don't really have an issue with the HR. lol Especially since we used weather in 100% of our games and hot planets make that weapon shine.
Just figured I'd bring up a think tank.
|
ghostrider
02/25/15 08:00 PM
76.89.120.217
|
Ok. Did you read the start of this thread?
I decided to downgrade a Shadowhawk, giving it a Heavy Rifle instead of an AC/5. To my surprise it wasn't much of a downgrade at all.
That was the sentence that started the whole debate.
That is why the ac 5 is being compared.
Changing the weapons being compared to changes the entire statement.
The battle armor came up to try to show the rifle wasn't effective enough against battle armor. From what it looks like, the ac 5 for that particular battle armor is weaker. This is not counting for lesser shots per ton. It is just destructive power for a single shot.
Also, do they explain WHY the rifle doesn't to the full amount of damage to the armor?
Soft rounds?
Lack of power, such as muzzle speed?
I would think the smaller pellets of the lbx cannon should have issues as well, but that is assuming the rifle problem is softer rounds.
If a lack of muzzle speed is the issue, I don't understand why they didn't fix that issue. Guess they wanted to limit the choices for a while until they could design other weapons.
|
Akalabeth
02/25/15 08:01 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
FYI - I've been dicking with you. lol I love me some Heavy Rifle. ;-)
....
Just figured I'd bring up a think tank.
Yeah doesn't matter. My experience with the Heavy Rifle has been less than stellar since I always give their vehicles green crews but recognize its potential on paper. Did make a Partisan-look alike with four heavy rifles but going up against the Clans doesn't last long. And I haven't made a point of targeting BA since at that time in the campaign (AU campaign) the crews wouldn't know they'd be more effective or the BA's potential to inflict pain.
Incidentally people also say the AC/5 is superior because it can operate in space; but the AC/5 is mounted on exactly two aerofighters (both variants) in the entire game from what I can tell so the game's fiction doesn't really support that either. If that's one of the reasons it rose to prominence why doesn't anything mount it? The only thing in space that really uses the AC/5 are dropships.
Edited by Akalabeth (02/25/15 08:03 PM)
|
ghostrider
02/25/15 08:06 PM
76.89.120.217
|
The ac 5 is more popular because the developers made it first?
No matter the game time line, the real time line had the ac 5 as the first cannon people used when the box set came out. Not sure about when it we battle droids.
|
Akalabeth
02/25/15 08:21 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Popularity is something else. But fiction should make sense.
If for example, the AC/5 came out and was immediately mounted on an aerospace fighter it would make historical sense that the AC/5 or ACs in general began to be favoured in advance of heavier armor being introduced. But the earliest space-borne craft I can find with an AC/5 is the Vulture Dropship in 2312, a full 62 years after the AC/5 was introduced.
The earliest aerofighter to mount an AC/5 is either the Riever 100b in 2835 (585 years after the AC/5s introduction) or the Stingray at some point after 2762 (512 years after the AC/5s introduction)
The earliest aerofighter I can think of offhand to mount any type of AC is the firebird in 2400 though earlier examples may exist.
|
TigerShark
02/25/15 08:57 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Considering how ridiculously easy it is to crit with Aero, ANY auto cannon or explosive component is a no-no. AC/5 or HGR, I wouldn't mount either. That's asking for a blackout.
Erik (Legends) had a good idea in that lasers should have a maximum charge, like they do with BattleArmor. It would ensure that there is SOME limitation to energy weapons. Otherwise, they're ridiculously overpowered as far as E/B/M comparisons go. There's really no reason to mount ballistic unless you're (a) a vehicle with an ICE, (b) on a hot planet or (c) in a dust storm or (d) LB-X (the crit-seeking/blackout potential is unmatched anywhere but Infantry).
Beyond that, Ballistics in general are garbage. The Heavy Rifle can be of use, but it's still rather "blah" when compared to a simple Large Laser or PPC.
|
ghostrider
02/26/15 02:20 AM
76.89.120.217
|
Isn't it possible for a fighter to run into it's own ballistics fire? They can increase their speed each turn, while not having to maintain thrust to keep moving in a straight line. And with this, wouldn't cannon fire from deep space have the chance of killing someone on a planet or moon, or even hitting something beyond the target?
Example would be a fighter battle for a ship yard. The target is between the firing ship and the yard. Straight line, and they miss the target ship. The ammo does not just disappear.
This would be more possible with an ac 20 then an ac 2.
Also, they could fire from a distance and let the shots, especially something like a gauss shot, use the momentum to hit a very distant target.
And making sense? Read crays posting on what the game should be like if we used logic... Ie a grounded drop ship dies in minutes of being immobile. Drones, icbms, even fighters and such would know where it landed at and shelling it immediately. Any unit lucky enough to get off the ship before it blows up would be hunted, and have a poor chance to escape, as sensors around the world would be able to find them kinda easily. Plus the 9 out of 10 shots that hits a tank 2 miles away while moving out.
|
Akalabeth
02/26/15 03:06 PM
64.251.81.66
|
I wish they'd go back to Aerotech 1 rules for fighters. I don't know why they feel it necessary to have different style of hit locations and criticals and above all weapon ranges. Like why isn't the cockpit a hit location anymore? I don't think the pilot has suffered more than a single hit in one of our games.
It causes particular confusion when you get something like LAMs in the mix which function as fighters but apparently don't suffer threshold criticals. If they can make a LAM in aero mode not be subject to threshold criticals why are dedicated aerospace fighters subject to them?
Though our group uses house rules for aerotech fighters where we have them on-board. What's the point of buying miniatures if you can't actually put them on the table? They fly around at 4x thrust and have turning restrictions based on fighter class and so forth. That being said they're of limited value. We got rid of the aerospace atmospheric penalty and instead gave conventionals a bonus to their piloting, but even with that pristine fighters can just drop out of the sky at the touch of a hat.
|
Cray
02/26/15 03:44 PM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Isn't it possible for a fighter to run into it's own ballistics fire? They can increase their speed each turn, while not having to maintain thrust to keep moving in a straight line.
Er...in the real world, yes, that could be an issue. They could catch up with their shells. However, it is not addressed in the game. As in ground combat, shells (and energy bolts) disappear instantly at the end of their range.
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.
|
ghostrider
02/26/15 03:44 PM
76.89.120.217
|
I can understand them wanting to streamline using dropships and especially warships. It would slow down play greatly to mark off 2 points from the warships armor for every machinegun hit, or srm hits. I would think they should have a rule set for those that like to know why their fighter died from a hit other them the armor failed especially in space. Losing a section does NOT mean automatic destruction of a fighter in space. Granted the main thing that would be left is ejecting, but atleast it is a saving grace move.
I find the lack of control hits on a lam in fighter mode to be poor planning at best. Then again, once in fighter mode, it should move from normal ground combat to fighter combat, hence use all the fighter rules. This should include crashing at low level flight when hit by random movement hits. They should have something like this for air-mech mode as well.
As the description for the originals says, the controls are exposed during changing. The games lack of realtime pulls that 'quirk' out of the game. During the phase it is changing, it should be more likely to suffer a critical hit or random movement hit.
Also, how much fuel does it hold?
Normal fighters run out faster in atmosphere. Shouldn't that hold true with the lam?
With the original discussion, is it possible there was something in the heavy rifle that is difficult to produce, like a component that requires a specific alloy that is hard to get?
|
TigerShark
02/26/15 06:21 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Why? It's basically a large-caliber, rifled tank barrel. We make those now and with common (relatively) alloys.
|
Akalabeth
02/26/15 09:12 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Erik (Legends) had a good idea in that lasers should have a maximum charge, like they do with BattleArmor. It would ensure that there is SOME limitation to energy weapons. Otherwise, they're ridiculously overpowered as far as E/B/M comparisons go. There's really no reason to mount ballistic unless you're (a) a vehicle with an ICE, (b) on a hot planet or (c) in a dust storm or (d) LB-X (the crit-seeking/blackout potential is unmatched anywhere but Infantry).
Well, that probably won't happen in Battletech. Need a new game. They could have done something in 3250 plan but, if Re-engineered lasers are apart of that they missed the opportunity.
A game like the old computer game X-wing for example you need to balance your power between shields, lasers and movement. If power from a mech's engine needed to be prioritized between weapons and movement that would make ballistics stronger - but it would also introduce a resource management mechanic on top of the heat mechanic that is already there. So, better to build a new game entirely around such an idea.
Quote:
TigerShark writes:
Beyond that, Ballistics in general are garbage. The Heavy Rifle can be of use, but it's still rather "blah" when compared to a simple Large Laser or PPC.
Blah performance but more interesting weapons. I like marking ammunition, having a finite resource that needs to be managed.
|
ghostrider
02/27/15 12:58 AM
76.89.120.217
|
I believe the subject of movement not being figured in with engine output was touched, but never really discussed.
And there are a few computer games that has the engine/weapons settings. Wing commander had them as well as renegade legions. I want to say a few others had something like it, but they were not known (well). Honestly, ppcs should have limits as well as just how long a fusion engine reactor can run on how much fuel as well.
Yes, a lot of people would say it is very little fuel for a long ways, but I don't think it is that small, plus not every world would produce it. This would make for more tactical use of things like ICE and raids on storage facilities.
It would also complicate the game, like fuel for ice.
And a lot of the designs on the boards tend to use energy weapons because as long as you have power, you can fire from a mech. Vehicles are the only ones with limits, as they need enough heat sinks to fire them.
Now you could got the route of other games and just say there is enough ammo for ballistic weapons for the game session. You still need to have an ammo bin for each type, but this would solve some of the issues of the ballistics. If you want different ammo types, ie inferno and high explosives, you would need a second ammo bin.
|
Cray
02/27/15 07:25 AM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Akalabeth writes:
I wish they'd go back to Aerotech 1 rules for fighters. I don't know why they feel it necessary to have different style of hit locations and criticals and above all weapon ranges. Like why isn't the cockpit a hit location anymore? I don't think the pilot has suffered more than a single hit in one of our games.
BattleSpace and AT2 were built on extensive player feedback (complaints) about AT1. The movement system was unrealistic, the scale was ludicrous (each thrust point required about 10,000Gs), the fuel points too sparse, and conventional ground-style weapon ranges/grouping was extremely time consuming for anything larger than a fighter. With the huge simplification of hit locations for large craft, it was sensible to simplify fighters, too. Your experience might've been different, but AT1 generally failed to impress and was not future-proofed for larger vessels.
That said, weapon ranges can be addressed by using the optional "Individual Weapon Ranges" rules found on p. 114 of Strategic Operations.
Quote:
but even with that pristine fighters can just drop out of the sky at the touch of a hat.
Yeah. That was done to keep 'Mechs as kings of the battlefield with something based on rules rather than fluff. There were probably better ways to handle that.
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.
|
ghostrider
02/27/15 01:09 PM
76.89.120.217
|
To make mechs more of kings of the battlerfield, they probably should have gone the direction of increasing the weapon weights, saying things like the weapons adjustment servos were needed as well as possibly having issues with power feeds and extra cooling jackets for energy weapons.
Maybe even limit the fusion engine to non vehicles, since a single crack in the shielding would bleed radiation to outside and shut down the tank, possibly exploding it from the shot.
Maybe have people pay extra for the number of tracks/wheels used to drive a vehicle, as well as make it a little more harsh when they get damaged, ie you have 2 tracks. Destroying one should make the tank immobile, though I would suggest making this less likely. Hovercraft could suffer a turn or loss of control when the skirt takes a shot, maybe a permanent piloting penalty until fixed.
Infantry weapons could have an issue that it does damage like half the time for rifles, since they would need to hit the same area to do much more then flake paint. Lasers and srms could do normal damage since they are technically mech grade weapons. They are supposed to be rare, which isn't the case for most players. Increasing the cost for them might be the best way to go. Might even go so far a set up and break down time of weapons before move. Damage to unit has x chance to render weapons unusable.
|
Akalabeth
02/27/15 02:03 PM
64.251.81.66
|
Quote:
ghostrider writes:
Maybe have people pay extra for the number of tracks/wheels used to drive a vehicle, as well as make it a little more harsh when they get damaged, ie you have 2 tracks. Destroying one should make the tank immobile, though I would suggest making this less likely. Hovercraft could suffer a turn or loss of control when the skirt takes a shot, maybe a permanent piloting penalty until fixed.
The game currently has motive hits that abstracts this already does it not?
|
ghostrider
02/27/15 04:53 PM
76.89.120.217
|
Kind of. Some tanks show they have 2 tracks, like the scorpion, yet the you can cause a -1 movement point when hit. Something like the demolisher shows 4 tracks. Taking out one would not stop the tank like it would a scorpion.
Yes this makes it even more difficult to use a vehicle in combat, but as I said, drop the amount of possible times you could crit a vehicle.
This would be more of house rules then a game changer, as it really changed alot of how the game runs. It also adds to more issues in design and playing.
And I just seen the hovercraft damage needs some clarification. The suffering a turn is not combat round turn, but random movement. Maybe force a drive skill roll to keep from crashing. This would mean drive piloting would have something important to do instead of just look good. Might be a good idea to use it when drive systems are hit on vehicles moving at flank speeds. Damage could be nothing more then crew shaken, to real damage from impact or rolling.
Yes, that could mean upside down, but that would be up to a discussion on what might work or not.
|
Akalabeth
03/02/15 03:11 PM
64.251.81.66
|
The armored motive system would accomplish what you want. Reduces chances for motive crits.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Armored_Motive_System
Differentiating between different numbers of tracks and other such qualities would require an entirely different set of construction and play rules.
|
TigerShark
03/03/15 12:13 PM
12.130.166.32
|
Primitive & Support Vehicles -> Standard Rules -> TacOps Vehicle Effectiveness -> Armored Motive System
Pretty much covers the range of development for vehicles in BattleTech. ~2500, 2500 -> 2600, Jihad for the Armored Motive System.
|
|
|
Extra information
|
1 registered and 95 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: 25455
|
|
|
|
|
|
|