6 replies to this topic

[Xhaleon]

So, the title should give away what this topic is about. Battletech on the tabletop (or really, Megamek) has been a fun and unique game from the moment I discovered it. However, I've always lamented the fact that there are some very glaring flaws in how some equipment are just better than others, or how some rules make certain weapons less useful than they could be. I hate the current cluster hit table, for example, as it means that any weapon afflicted by it is practically going to never to its full damage, no matter how well you rolled to hit. But that's just one thing, and it can be lived with.

The problem is, these rules and equipment stats can never really be changed because Battletech is a game with backwards compatibility in mind, and old machines are supposed to be valid and viable in any game from 2500 all the way to 3100 and beyond. I respect that, but sometimes I feel that Classic BT could use a reboot where it is completely overhauled and rebalanced, drawing from years of knowledge and games played, then remake most of these classic machines even with radically different equipment statistics. Most of it is good, but there are things that could be improved.

In any case, enough of that rambling. This thread is here to ask you if you have any thoughts and ideas about how you think you could improve the CBT tabletop rules, in any way that you want.

I'll start off with little study on the Autocannon/10. You've probably heard this one from different people in different places already, but ballistics are horribly represented in Battletech. While the AC/10 seems like a solid weapon at first glance, it in fact a piece of **** when compared to some other weapons, especially energy types. Let's look at the stats for the AC/10 and the Large Laser, which shares the same range bracket.

The AC/10 does 10 points of damage out to a 5/10/15 range and generates 3 heat. For every ton of ammunition, you get 10 shots. It weighs 12 tons and takes 7 criticals by itself. The Large Laser (which was actually invented 30 years earlier by the Hegemony) deals 8 damage to the same range bracket at 8 heat. Since its an energy weapon, ammunition is a non-issue. The laser weighs 5 tons and takes 2 criticals.

The most obvious issue is weight and criticals. The damage of the Large Laser is only superficially less than the AC/10, but is massively lighter and smaller, AND doesn't suffer from deadly ammunition explosions AND is harder to hit and disable. The AC/10 would need at least 2 tons of ammunition for a decent combat load, and needs CASE if you don't want to be suicidal. This adds 2.5 tons to the total, which is a hefty 14.5 tons at the acceptable minimum. Those 2 points of damage could come into play in some battles, but most of the time the extra weapons from the freed tonnage is more worth it. Add to the fact that the Large Laser can keep going indefinitely, and the story is looking very bad for the AC/10.

The AC/10 weighs almost three times as much alone for only two extra points of damage, but it's unfair to leave out heat sinks. So, if we're using Single Heat Sinks, to compensate for the heat you would bring a Large Laser up to 13 tons at 10 criticals, while an AC/10 would be a whopping 17.5 tons at 13 criticals. At this low tech level and no Endo-Steel or Ferro-Fibrous, 3 extra criticals is not an issue, but 4.5 tons is very significant. You could fit another Medium Laser in there with SHS and still have half a ton to spare, which is more useful than two piddly points of damage. This is worsened further by Double Heat Sinks, where the AC/10 requires 2 tons worth (with 1 heat point spare) while the Large Laser would use 4 tons, widening the gap even more. Even in this case, the AC/10 is still inferior in critical space at 16 points versus the LLAS which only goes to 14 criticals.

As I mentioned earlier, this is also considering the fact that fielding an AC/10 means risking an ammunition explosion, which is one of the worst things that can happen to you. A Large Laser is a better choice practically all the time, in almost every way except 2 points of damage. You might say that there is specialty ammunition available for the AC/10, and you are right with the Flak anti-air ammo and the less useful Tracer (both Age of War tech), but the really sweet things like Precision and Armor Piercing ammo was only available hundreds of years later as the NAIS tried to bring regular Autocannons to a competitive level. Playing a Star League game makes the AC/10 total useless garbage. This is not considering how boneheaded the in-universe designers had to be if they never realized this fact, even if there were some availability issues on some very backwater planets during the Succession Wars.

So, my take? Autocannons in general should have been MUCH lighter and more compact, plain and simple. I have a spreadsheet where I'm working with tweaking Battletech equipment but it is not complete, so I cannot say how heavy I would put a revised AC/10 at, but maybe... 8 tons at 5 criticals? The problem is complex, while the solution is simple. So now that we're done with that, what might you have on your plate?

[Xhaleon]

Wow, really? No one?

Guess I must have offended some people's sensibilities then. Carry on.

[Sartris]

Nothing against you... these are all arguments TT people have gone around in circles with ad nauseum for years.

[DFDelta]

There are many things that are not quite balanced in the basic TT rules, and with level 2 (especially with DHS) they only became more.

One of my worst offenders is the basic medium laser that is way to effective overall. Damage/Heat/Crit/Weight
MW:LL did the right thing by making them 2 tons.

[Glare]

The AC/10, firing nothing but standard ammunition, is a steaming piece of junk. No argument there.

The AC/10, firing special munitions, is a very, very useful bit of machinery. Flechette ammo to mulch infantry. Precision ammo to hunt down those pesky fast movers. Armor-Piercing ammo to crit the enemy into uselessness long before otherwise possible.

For the rest of the Autocannon family, the LB-10X is probably the single most effective common anti-vehicle weapon in the game. Cluster hits rack up fast against vehicles, motive critting them into impotence, stunning the crew, locking turrets, killing engines, etc. Slug ammo reaches out further, and the weapon weighs less on top. Were it not for special ammunition, hands down better. As it is, however, there are tradeoffs. Not near as effective versus infantry. Not going to TAC the enemy as often. Not going to just hammer a fast mover, instead plinking at it, with less of a chance to hit on top.

UAC/10s pack a bit more range, double the firing rate, making it almost as effective as a vanilla AC/20 but four tons lighter, but at the chance of burning out on the lowest possible roll. Good trade-off, even if I don't particularly like it.

You're also neglecting the intial ten heat sinks on a BattleMech integral to the engine. Yes, you'll get a Large Laser and change in heat sinks for free, but you'll get the next two whole AC/10s and change for free, too. Or if you're using AC/5s, you get ten of them without having to add more. That adds up fast, especially on vehicles which don'i free heat sinks and which don't track ballistic weapon heat for cooling purposes. So, your Large Laser now eats 13 tons just to mount. The AC/10, with it's additional 2 damage and ammo versatility, costs 14 tons, if you're not going for CASE, which is debatable on vehicles with that low of ammo. What's this, you see? Only one more ton for 2 more damage and the ability to kill infantry, shoot down VTOLs, catch light 'Mechs, and punch straight through heavy armor? SIGN ME UP!
That's before we even get into Advanced rules ammo. All of the above is strictly tournament legal. At Advanced, you get Tracers and Flak, to deal more specifically with aircraft.

To be perfectly honest, vanilla autocannon are not effective on 'Mechs. They never have been. It's on vehicles they really start to shine though. Just look at the above for the reasons why. Swap out the AC/10 for an AC/5. Gain some range, keep the ammo choices, and you can drop it straight to 9 or 10 tons for 3 less damage than the 13 tons for a Large Laser. Hell, an AC/20 will only cost 16 tons with a decent amount of ammo (not great, mind you). Three more tons for twelve more damage to a single location, and still with all these wonderful ammo options.

[Xhaleon]

Eh, while it might be something old (something I expect it to be), the page views says that most people are turned off by the title already.

I do know that ACs are better on vehicles, but Battletech is a game of romanticized giant robos beating up on each other, so it isn't right if the "main character" is locked out of one family of weapons unless you add in middle-era technology to bring it up to par. There can be uses, but just oftentimes there are better configurations to pick out there.

I DO love them, nothing can replicate the BAMBAMBAM of an AC, it's just that I hate how unbalanced some aspects of the game is, while there is no way to fix them because doing so would invalidate many past designs (or leave them severely underloaded).

That's why I said I'm working on spreadsheet. I do not want to change the core rules of Battletech, because the core rules are what makes BT fun. However, the tinkerer in me says I could rework the equipment, do away with UACs using the cluster hit table (or maybe just figure out a suitable replacement), modify a few rolls here and there, and create something like a BT2.0, completely separate from the real thing and just there for fun. And this thread can help me do that with input and ideas.

Considering my proper responses in a moment to you DFDelta and Glare.
And yeah, Mechwarrior has always addressed these issues, so I am going to be quite happy to play MWO if they get it right.

I think that Medium Lasers are just fine the way they are. It's the other weapons that feel underpowered, especially the AC/5. Longer range? Sure, but not when you weigh eight times as much, have explodey ammunition and have a minimum range with an illogical fluff explanation. Their brains would explode if you reminded them that heavier guns are harder to move than lighter ones. Or they'd just look at you like you're really an alien.

It should remain as a 1 ton, 3 heat, 5 damage weapon unless you want to alter the durability and longevity of mechs/vehicles on the tabletop, which I think is just fine.

Glare, I was specifically referring to the AC/10, not the UAC or LBX versions, which are much better. Like I said, the only way the AC came back into relevance was when the FedSuns decided that their love for Mrs. Autocannon was true and pure and bought her a big fat diamond ring. But only after 800 years or so. Bad husband!

The LBX is an awesome upgrade, and it kind of means that the Star League had the AC/10 completely outdated all the way back then. I think it's fine, just too heavy like the regular one. The UACs I think are too unreliable in their double damage. The cluster hit table makes it pointless. I would have changed it to a second individual shot with a modifier added on top, without rolling twice, so roll once and see how many shots hit (applies to rotaries too). Then increase the weight somewhat to balance the fact, or leave it as is if everything else .

Anyways, finally about those free heat sinks; Like you pointed out, its most useful for vehicles because of how they track heat. For battlemechs, why build a medium-weight which can house that AC/10, when you can build a lighter one with a Large Laser that costs several million C-Bills less, and just build more of them? They may have less armor, but they could end up being more durable because they weren't carrying bombs around in their bellies, especially if the tonnage difference was minor. It's even more critical in the Succession Wars.

Edited by Xhaleon, 11 November 2011 - 02:27 AM.

[Nebfer]

Well a simple way to improve autocannons a bit is to drop their heat.

One thing to note is while all mechs and fusion powered vehicles get free heat sinks it is common to factor in the heat sinks needed due to other weapons may use up all the free heat sinks...

AC-2 = 0 heat (8 tons effective, saving a ton)
AC-5 = 0 heat (9 tons effective, this saves a ton)
AC-10 = 1 heat (14 or 15 tons effective vs 16 or 17 tons (one or two tons ammo) saving two tons)
AC-20 = 3 heat (20 tons effective vs 24 tons (3t ammo) four saved tons)

A more involved one is dropping the weight of the guns to say
AC-2 = 4t
AC-5 = 6t
AC-10 = 10t
AC-20 = 12t

Their are others who prefer to increase the damage of the weapons.