173 replies to this topic

[Lucky Clove]

Oh LB 10-X AC, why are you so expensive? Why do you appear worse than the AC-10? Why don't you have alternate ammo? Why Are you long ranged if your munitions are scatter-shot?

Well, Lets work through this step by step!

First off, I'm not going to be answering these questions in the order above because I have faith in your basic comprehension skills!

Second off! Alternate ammo? It's default ammo is the alternate ammo! It says at http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X_AC :Quote, "The LB 10-X Autocannon is essentially a 'Mech-mounted shotgun, capable of firing special "cluster rounds" that split apart after being fired. LB-X Autocannons are able to use either the special cluster rounds or standard autocannon rounds,".
This means that the LB 10-X is already using the critical hit seeking "alternate" ammo. So the only thing left for it is to implement the ammo switching during a battle. (Unless for some reason you can already do this and I don't know.)

But why does it have a longer range than the AC-10 if it's first impression is a shotgun? The LB 10-X's name actually tells us the answer! The LB stands for "Light Barrel" or "Long Barrel" as I would prefer to call it as a longer barrel makes a weapon's accuracy better at longer range. This, however, is just speculation so don't take it too seriously.
(Light Barrel is the spectualtion stated at Sarna.net. Long Barrel is my own spectualtion, but both would make sense.)

Next up is expense. You might think that the LB 10-X is more expensive because it's lighter than it's AC counterpart, and you'd be right, but only by half. To be more specific, the LB 10-X is a, quote; "derivative of the standard and relatively primitive Autocannon/10 design used for centuries by every military in the Inner Sphere," and that by "Taking advantage of advanced materials such as Endo Steel, the company was able to reduce the weight of the weapon for only a slight increase in bulk and mated it with the advanced Mercury-VII targeting system to boost its effective range,".

And before you start typing, there is no way that a "targeting system" could increase the range of effectiveness without the weapon itself being physically capable of longer range. Meaning the before stated speculations still make sense.

Many thanks for reading this post! I hope this made sense and cleared the fog for those of you who didn't quite understand the LB 10-X AC! Though this all means that there is still some mechanics to be implemented before the LB 10-X AC stands above the AC 10 as it should, it's still good as a long range "pester weapon" and "weapon removing" cannon. Not to mention it appears to fly faster and straighter than it's AC counterparts.

[TB Freelancer]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Oh LB 10-X AC, why are you so expensive? Why do you appear worse than the AC-10? Why don't you have alternate ammo? Why Are you long ranged if your munitions are scatter-shot?

I'll save you the wall of text....

.....because PGI.

[Lucky Clove]

Well, that's a bit unfair to PGI don't you think? I mean after all! This is a "free-to-play" game. They don't exactly have a ten foot tall wallet of cash at their disposal. Not to mention a lack of funds means a lack of staff.

So have faith in them! This game has lots of potential! And I'm sure beating them over the head with a stick isn't going to help them... Anywho! PGI! If you can hear me! I'll do researching weapons and such for you guys! Just give me a call!

Also, by the way, very intelligent contribution to this post TB! They could use more guys like you!

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 05:19 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Oh LB 10-X AC, why are you so expensive? Why do you appear worse than the AC-10? Why don't you have alternate ammo? Why Are you long ranged if your munitions are scatter-shot?

Well, Lets work through this step by step!

First off, I'm not going to be answering these questions in the order above because I have faith in your basic comprehension skills!

Second off! Alternate ammo? It's default ammo is the alternate ammo! It says at http://www.sarna.net/wiki/LB_10-X_AC :Quote, "The LB 10-X Autocannon is essentially a 'Mech-mounted shotgun, capable of firing special "cluster rounds" that split apart after being fired. LB-X Autocannons are able to use either the special cluster rounds or standard autocannon rounds,".
This means that the LB 10-X is already using the critical hit seeking "alternate" ammo. So the only thing left for it is to implement the ammo switching during a battle. (Unless for some reason you can already do this and I don't know.)

But why does it have a longer range than the AC-10 if it's first impression is a shotgun? The LB 10-X's name actually tells us the answer! The LB stands for "Light Barrel" or "Long Barrel" as I would prefer to call it as a longer barrel makes a weapon's accuracy better at longer range. This, however, is just speculation so don't take it too seriously.
(Light Barrel is the spectualtion stated at Sarna.net. Long Barrel is my own spectualtion, but both would make sense.)

Next up is expense. You might think that the LB 10-X is more expensive because it's lighter than it's AC counterpart, and you'd be right, but only by half. To be more specific, the LB 10-X is a, quote; "derivative of the standard and relatively primitive Autocannon/10 design used for centuries by every military in the Inner Sphere," and that by "Taking advantage of advanced materials such as Endo Steel, the company was able to reduce the weight of the weapon for only a slight increase in bulk and mated it with the advanced Mercury-VII targeting system to boost its effective range,".

And before you start typing, there is no way that a "targeting system" could increase the range of effectiveness without the weapon itself being physically capable of longer range. Meaning the before stated speculations still make sense.

Many thanks for reading this post! I hope this made sense and cleared the fog for those of you who didn't quite understand the LB 10-X AC! Though this all means that there is still some mechanics to be implemented before the LB 10-X AC stands above the AC 10 as it should, it's still good as a long range "pester weapon" and "weapon removing" cannon. Not to mention it appears to fly faster and straighter than it's AC counterparts.

I'm not sure what your question is but you have largely answered the questions imo.

It's defined / labelled in TRO 2750 and TRO 3050 as an LB-X in Innersphere, and in Clan space they add the 'calibre' of 2, 5, 10 or 20.

All of them as you have quoted are similar to AC's of the same 'calibre' so I don't see light barrel or long barrel as being the driver, it could just as easilt be named after the scientist that perfected it, or his wife?

Advanced targetting is a pre requiste to effective range imo. Just because a shell can reach 500 meters if I cannot place it on target then it might as well be 100m or 1000m. Modern rifles have ranges far in excess of normal combat conditions because they are fired over an open sight which has vision restrictions. Add a scope and effective range is extended.

Yes it should be doing solid shot hits as the primary loadout from TT, with cluster the alternate. For whatever reason PGI did away with the solid shot but gave it bonuses on crits that the TT version did not have. So it's kinda ducks and drakes to compare that. In some circumstances its a plus, in others its not.

I think in some ways I am just re doing what you have said in different words cause I am not sure what your point is.

Are you for or against LB-X? Is it too weak or too strong? Can you clarify the purpose of this thread?

[Felicitatem Parco]

TB Freelancer, on 19 February 2014 - 04:55 PM, said:

I'll save you the wall of text....

.....because PGI.

It weights less than an AC/10 and takes up less space than an AC/10, but has the same number of shots/ton, same amount of damage/ton of ammo, and that's from Table Top (not from PGI).

It should not be better-than an AC/10.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 19 February 2014 - 06:09 PM.

[Lucky Clove]

Well, as you can see in the beginning of my post, I was answering the several questions pertaining to not only it's expense and effectiveness in battle, but also some small trivia which you can confirm at Sarna.net!

Also, the name of the LB 10-X AC, quote: "Supposedly stands for "Lubalin Ballistics", the original designer and manufacturer of the weapon." (Sarna.net again.)

Not to mention it states, quote: "The LB-X 10 Autocannon was a derivative of the standard and relatively primitive Autocannon/10 design."

To finish off, I am all for the LB 10-X AC! It's good and has made the transition from Table Top to MWO very nicely! It goes without saying that there was going to have to be changes made with the transition! I would say same goes for the Clan mech building mechanics, but I haven't researched that yet! And thanks for the reply Craig!

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 06:22 PM.

[Lucky Clove]

On the contrary Prosperity! The LB 10-X AC is an improvement on the standard and primitive AC 10. Being lighter, longer ranged, and more versatile at the expense of... Well, expense!

Also Prosperity, what's from the Table Top and not PGI? The fact that the LB 10-X AC is lighter and takes up more slots than the AC 10 is canon. But in MWO, the ammo-per-ton for the LB 10-X AC is definitely not canon... But that's ok! I'm sure we can forgive them this transgression!

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 06:38 PM.

[Gremlich Johns]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

On the contrary Prosperity! The LB 10-X AC is an improvement on the standard and primitive AC 10. Being lighter, longer ranged, and more versatile at the expense of... Well, expense!

Also Prosperity, what's from the Table Top and not PGI? The fact that the LB 10-X AC is lighter and takes up more slots than the AC 10 is Cannon. But in MWO, the ammo-per-ton for the LB 10-X AC is definitely not cannon... But that's ok! I'm sure we can forgive them this transgression!

"AC10 is Canon" is what you meant despite the fact that the AC10 is a "cannon".

I wish you guys would get it right.

[Lucky Clove]

Gremlich Johns, on 19 February 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

"AC10 is Canon" is what you meant despite the fact that the AC10 is a "cannon".

I wish you guys would get it right.

Sorry for the typo! I guess I was wrong about that "basic comprehension skills" thing...
Hopefully, my transgressions will be forgiven too!

Also, if you understand what I mean, why berate me over it? Just ask politely if you're confused on what I meant!

P.S. I'm no grammar teacher, but that sentence was rather poorly constructed... No offence meant, of course!

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 06:43 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 06:36 PM, said:

Sorry for the typo! I guess I was wrong about that "basic comprehension skills" thing...
Hopefully, my transgressions will be forgiven too!

Also, if you understand what I mean, why berate me over it? Just ask politely if you're confused on what I meant!

P.S. I'm no grammar teacher, but that sentence was rather poorly constructed... No offence meant, of course!

I don't know any gram ma teachers, they all retired about that age don't they? Maybe if they started young I guess?

[Strum Wealh]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

Oh LB 10-X AC, why are you so expensive? Why do you appear worse than the AC-10? Why don't you have alternate ammo? Why Are you long ranged if your munitions are scatter-shot?

The MWO pricing of the LB 10-X AC (800,000 c-bills) is an alteration performed by PGI - the weapon price in BattleTech is half of the MWO price (400,000 c-bills), and the ammunition price for the LB 10-X was substantially greater (12,000 c-bills per ton for LB-X slug rounds & 20,000 c-bills per ton for LB-X cluster rounds) than the ammunition price for the AC/10 (6,000 c-bills per ton for standard AC/10 rounds).
Additionally, the lack of re-arm costs largely negate the opportunity/usage cost of ballistic weapons in general, which may have contributed to the increase in the acquisition cost...?

Part of why the LB-X is considered by some to be "deficient" or "worse" versus the AC/10 is due to the inherent nature of the cluster rounds; the LB-X cluster round, like the canister shells and grapeshot upon which it is based (or the shotshells to which it is very often compared), was specifically designed to spread its potential damage over a larger target area rather than concentrating it in a small area or a single location.
"In addition to firing the standard Dual-Purpose Armor-Defeating Rounds, the weapon may also fire a special Cluster Round that acts much like an anti-'Mech shotgun. After being fired, the round breaks up into several smaller submunitions. This improves the chance of striking a critical location on the target, but also reduces the overall damage done and spreads it out over the entire target area rather than concentrating it in one location." - TRO 2750 (the first book in which the LB-X is introduced to the BattleTech universe), pg. 08
(Identical wording is also used in the original Classic BattleTech Master Rules, the Revised CBTMR, and the original TRO 3050.)
On top of that, BT had it set up such that a single LB-X submunition could destroy a single internal item; a single LB 10-X shell could destroy up to 10 separate components in BattleTech. By contrast, a single LB 10-X shell in MWO would need to have all 10 submunitions strike a single component to destroy said component; without the ability to wreak the same level of havoc against an opponent's internal components, the MWO LB 10-X appears to be largely de-fanged when compared to its BT counterpart.

The lack of the ability to use both slug ammo (likely so named in reference to shotgun slugs, to further play-up the stated role of the weapon as "an anti-BattleMech shotgun"... and in spite of the fact that such rounds, by description, are shells (projectiles with an explosive payload) and not true slugs (solid projectiles with no payload)) and cluster rounds was probably a gameplay balance issue decision (as a slug-firing LB-X, with the current autocannon mechanics, could render the standard AC/10 wholly obsolete, and avoiding that scenario would require reworking the entire AC mechanics system).

The longer effective range of the LB-X is, in-universe, attributed to the built-in "Mercury-IV fire control system".
"Another important feature of the LB 10-X is its Mercury-IV fire control equipment. This electronic system gives the cannon a better hit probability at all ranges, as well as extending its maximum effective range by 20 percent." - TRO 2750, pg. 08
Though, later and more-detailed descriptions (specifically, page 207 of TechManual) indicate that the LB-X series are smoothbore weapons rather than being rifled (which is to be expected of weapons specifically designed to fire canister rounds, as the rifling would produce a doughnut-like spread of the submunitions... though, this also means that the LB-X ACs also don't get the advantages of rifling, for which the Mercury-IV system seems to compensate).

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 04:53 PM, said:

But why does it have a longer range than the AC-10 if it's first impression is a shotgun? The LB 10-X's name actually tells us the answer! The LB stands for "Light Barrel" or "Long Barrel" as I would prefer to call it as a longer barrel makes a weapon's accuracy better at longer range.

The original name of the weapon, as stated on page 34 of TRO 2750, is "Lubalin Ballistics 10-X autocannon"; the "LB" originally stands for the in-universe OEM of the weapon (the Lubalin Ballistics company... which, sadly, did not survive the Succession Wars), and then became a generic trademark to represent "specialized shotgun-like autocannon".

The idea that "LB" stands for "light/long barrel" originally comes from non-conanical German-published sources, though similar language was recently used as a general description for the weapon on page 104 of Era Report: 3062 ("The class-ten light barrel, extended range automatic cannon was a breakthrough in autocannon technology when it was first introduced...")

[Craig Steele]

Strum Wealh, on 19 February 2014 - 06:49 PM, said:

On top of that, BT had it set up such that a single LB-X submunition could destroy a single internal item; a single LB 10-X shell could destroy up to 10 separate components in BattleTech.

Huh?

As I recall you rolled to hit, then rolled on the LRM10 chart for number of hits and then hit locations. Then if you did any internal dmg you got to roll a crit for every point (ie, 1 dmg lots). Splat shells still hit armour first.

The chances of destroying 10 components are astronomical?

Edited by Craig Steele, 19 February 2014 - 07:02 PM.

[Lucky Clove]

Very interesting indeed strum! But how does a targeting system for a weapon make it better at longer range If the weapon itself doesn't fire that far?

Also, you may have missed my post: Also, the name of the LB 10-X AC, quote: "Supposedly stands for "Lubalin Ballistics", the original designer and manufacturer of the weapon."

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 07:05 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 07:05 PM, said:

Very interesting indeed strum! But how does a targeting system for a weapon make it better at longer range If the weapon itself doesn't fire that far?

because hitting a target at 500m is more effective than missing a target at 500m

[Lucky Clove]

So you're saying that a computer is aiming, not a pilot?
This is starting to sound like drone mechs...

Edited by Hickory, 19 February 2014 - 07:09 PM.

[Craig Steele]

Hickory, on 19 February 2014 - 07:08 PM, said:

So you're saying that a computer is aiming, not a pilot?

See the modern rifle example.

You take an automatic rifle and fire off one shot at a target 1,000 meters away from a standing position. I'm gunna bet 99 people out of 100 wouldn't hit the target unless it was a house.

Now take your automatic rifle and add a scope, a tripod, you can lie down now too and your chance of hitting the target goes throught the roof.

Same weapon, same ammo, same shooter, better targetting assistance.

'Effective' fire, not fire

[Strum Wealh]

Craig Steele, on 19 February 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:

Huh?

As I recall you rolled to hit, then rolled on the LRM10 chart for number of hits and then hit locations. Then if you did any internal dmg you got to roll a crit for every point (ie, 1 dmg lots). Splat shells still hit armour first.

The chances of destroying 10 components are astronomical?

Astronomical, yes... but still possible in BattleTech.

For example, imagine if the arm of a Black Hawk Prime (4 actuators + 1 Heat Sink + 6 CERMLs = 11 possible items to crit) was stripped of its armor, and then a LB 10-X cluster shell hit it from close range, and all of the submunitions hit, and each submunition hit a different item...

With the way item health & LB-X submunition damage vs internals are set up, this would not be possible in MWO, even under the same (ideal) circumstances.

[Zerberus]

Giving the LBX 10 slugs woiuld essentially make teh AC10 obsolete... lighter, longer range, same damage, same ammo count...

Seriously, name one GOOD reason ( i.e. not "I like how the barrel looks") that anyone in their right mind would still use an AC 10 if the LBX had slugs...

[Craig Steele]

Zerberus, on 19 February 2014 - 07:19 PM, said:

Giving the LBX 10 slugs woiuld essentially make teh AC10 obsolete... lighter, longer range, same damage, same ammo count...

Seriously, name one GOOD reason ( i.e. not "I like how the barrel looks") that anyone in their right mind would still use an AC 10 if the LBX had slugs...

Ummm, yeah thats kind of the point. It was technologically speaking better. It was Star League tech.

In the BT world cost and availability were the only real hinderances. That and AC5 was the predominant AC.

Until the Helm Memory Core came out and all houses got access to the understanding and started to produce their own, then availability became less of an issue.

But also in the BT world there was no mechanism to just pop out your AC 10 and slip in a LB-X, Bettlemechs just didn't work that way in canon.

But like Ultra's in due course, LB-X was a superior weapon in canon.

[wintersborn]

I can hit a 18" steel gong at 1k with my .338 Lapua standing with a sling, my partner can do it with his .300 RUM as well : ) ( I get your point though).

I do not know what the point of the OP is, are you saying the LBX10 is better than the AC10 or its just not right according to the lore?

I have used the LBX10 a lot on a Cicada and for assists or chasing lights it may be slightly better, but on a big mech I will take a AC10 or 2 AC5's every time.