Tincan Nightmare, on 18 March 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:
Ok I don't care if they buff or don't buff the MG, but lets think about this. The Marauder has an AC/5 that shoots a 3 round burst of 120mm rounds. So your talking about 3 M1A1's firing their main guns at a target and hitting the same general location and doing the equivalent of 5 points of damage. The Hetzer has an AC/20 that shoots a 10 round burst of 120mm rounds, now almost the same as a full company of M1's firing together at the same target and hitting the same location. Thats a damn good indicator of the toughness of BT armor, especially as it is usually described as being depleted uranium AP rounds. All the people bringing up a real life GAU-8 30mm should also remember that it is mounted on an aircraft attacking ground armor hitting them where they have the least protection, their roofs. Its why M1's and modern MBT's carry main guns in the 120mm range instead of a GAU-8, they are hitting much thicker armor facing toward the front or sides. And mechs don't have roofs (well maybe their backs).
http://www.sarna.net...echnology#Armor
Think this is actually the 3rd or 4th time I've posted this. Go read that, it's an excerpt from the Tech Manual for those without. Battletech armor is not "tough" in the sense that modern armor is. Modern armor is designed to deflect, it's measured in inches. Battletech armor is NOT meant to deflect, it's meant to essentially shatter to bits under impact, and is measured in millimeters and centimeters (inches across the surface area of a battlemech would bring it to it's knees).
A battlemech bumping into a building effectively shatters it's armor into fragments much like a pane of glass...it's why moving through buildings and falling is so painfully damaging in Table Top.
Tincan Nightmare, on 18 March 2013 - 11:02 PM, said:
Also the concept that the MG is the light AC equivalent of the Sm. laser is wrong. It is the ballistic equivalent of the flamer, which falls in the energy class (at least the mech carried version). Look at their TT stats. The MG does 2 points of damage, range of 3 hexes(90 meters), 0 heat, weighs .5 ton and requires ammo (either .5 ton or 1 ton) The flamer does 2 points of damage, range of 3 hexes(90 meters), 3 points of heat, weighs 1 ton and might require more heat sinks be mounted but has infinite uses. The flamer and the MG are the energy and ballistic equivalents of each other, not the MG and the Sm laser.
I can only assume you've never played Table Top, or you'd know why that comparison is so incredibly off base. When looking at weapon performance you also need to factor in the weight of the heat sinks you need to mount to use the weapon properly...after this calculation is performed the machine gun is effectively the ballistic small laser.
As an example, in the original game, 4 small lasers did 12 damage and used 6 tons (2 for the lasers + 4 single heatsinks). 6 Machine guns did 12 damage and used a much smaller 4 tons (3 tons for the machine guns + 1 ton for ammo), although with the risk of ammo boom. Double heatsinks would bring it to 12 damage for 4 tons on both weapons. The machine gun had a slightly smaller chance of getting into internals on any given hit, but generally a higher chance of a through armor critical when considering equal total damage output. Compare this to 24 tons to get the same damage with flamers (6 flamers + 18 single heatsinks), or 15 tons with doubles. All of these weapons have identical range brackets.
End result is that the machine guns are infinitely more comparable to small lasers then they are to flamers, which are a class unto themselves, essentially only having any role at all when using optional rules. (either fire on the map or +heat to mechs).
Edited by Squigles, 19 March 2013 - 12:36 AM.