388 replies to this topic

[Orzorn]

The1WithTheGun, on 13 April 2012 - 07:41 PM, said:

Yes - infantry platoons with AC2/5 guns could give mechs a nasty surprise.

Also - regarding this subject - didn't one of the devs state/suggest that AC2s and 5s would have no minimum range in this game (while other weapons like PPCs and LRMs would keep theirs)? So, if true, that would give the lower-end ACs a bit of a boost right there.

It was said that direct fire weapons (lasers and autocannons, MAYBE PPCs) would deal optimal damage within their normal ranges, and past that they experience damage fall off.

[The1WithTheGun]

Orzorn, on 13 April 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

It was said that direct fire weapons (lasers and autocannons, MAYBE PPCs) would deal optimal damage within their normal ranges, and past that they experience damage fall off.

No no - I'm not talking amout MAXIMUM ranges - but MINIMUM ranges.

IIRC a dev stated/speculated that LRMS and PPCs (which have minimum ranges in the boardgame) would have difficulties firing against targets close to the unit (LRMs don't arm till they get a certain distance from the unit - and the PPCs may cause feedback damage at close ranges).

AC2s and AC5s also have minimum ranges in the boardgame, but that as direct-fire weapons it wouldn't make much sense in MWO so they are ignoring them for this game. Personally, I approve, and houseruled the same thing for the boardgame a long time ago.

[Malkenson]

One last slug on this hot topic...

Battle Tech is a TEAM game, so as a TEAM, having a Mech on my side that has AC/2's or AC/5's that will do its job and stay back, supporting other close range Mechs in my unit to get in close and do their job, all is good.

"But LRM's are better"

Well, in damage per strike, yes, MOST weapons are better than an AC/2 or AC/5. But what about heat per strike? Range? Tonnage required, not just to mount the weapon, but support its heat out put or ammo? Rate of fire?

Yes, any ammo based weapon has its draw backs vs a pure energy weapon Mech. Yet, completing what I started with, this is supposed to be a team based game, 12 Mech vs 12 Mech battles. Whom ever can get the most out of their team will probably win.

Now, if we are talking one on one duels, yeah, an AC /2 or AC/5 usually will not cut it. But in team's, some mechs will take on support roles, one of which can be long ranged fire support.

If you do not like AC/2's or AC/5's, do not use them. But a good team player using them just might change your opinion during some battle.

[Morr]

Ummm any of you guys play Mechwarrior LL? The way they treat AC 2's and 5's is by making them like a bigger and badder MG, which would be really nice if they added that to MWO. Using those to just pepper your foe as you close looks so back *** and makes you feel so awesome. Keep in mind they did bring down the damage so that it didn't do 2 points per hit.

[Karyu]

First of all I will say I never played TT BTech. I have only played the Sega version and EVERYTHING post MW2, including the MPBT Beta. In MPBT...the Blackjack was by far my favorite mech, and I was extremely effective in it.

Taking what I have read about TT rules concerning heat usage, damage, and range and making some estimations about rate of fire I will say this. The AC2's role seems to be less than useful, the only option is to significantly increase it's RoF basically giving you a fairly accurate if not weak rapid fire weapon capable of whittling away a significant amount of armor versus other light/medium mechs. No matter how I have been able to slice it, you would have to be mildly retarded to include the AC2 on anything over 45 tons. 50 tons and up and you're able to create practical variants that are much more competitive with heavier mechs, unless you specifically wanted to make a 50/55 ton anti-scout mech.

AC5 on the other hand has a very useful albeit, contingency role. The damage and RoF combined with extremely low heat output make it a useful stop-gap weapon when the pressure is on and it's a dps race with another mech. Halfway through a firefight the ability to maintain a steady rate of fire with the AC5 without risking cooking yourself may be the difference between winning and losing that fight. Before that it gives you a fairly reliable way to whittle away some armor as an enemy mech is closing on you while allowing you to maintain low enough heat levels to still open up with an effective initial salvo or alpha strike.

Now...the scary part. I'm going to inject some reality. (Oh God I know it's a game please don't hurt me, I'm just trying to give some relevant comparisons.)

An AC2 is supposedly equivalent to a 25mm round. The most commonly used modern day variant is probably the U.S. Military's M242 Bushmaster chaingun. It fires 180 rounds per minute with the standard configuration up to 3km with decent accuracy. Certain aircraft use multibarrel 25/30mm cannons with faster motors that fire up to 9,000 rounds per minute. And before anyone tries to argue the difference between an autocannon and a chaingun; It qualifies as an "autocannon", the only requirement for that is that is uses a separate mechanical function to cycle the rounds instead of recoil or gas return. The term chaingun simply describes the specific device used to motivate the rounds through the chamber (a chain attached to a 1hp motor).

That being said...I know much technology was lost, but we still have giant walking robots and nuclear reactors, I think it would be perfectly plausible that we could develop something with the mechanical complexity of a moped. If even a slight amount of creative license was taken to balance these weapons out, the AC2 could essentially be a rapid fire light damage "sniper" weapon, you could very effectively harass other snipers with it from the kinetic impact and do some serious damage to lighter mechs who are trying to close with you. Even if for the sake of balance and BT lore you reduced the real RoF of 3 rounds per second to 1 round per second it will still be effective.

[EDMW CSN]

Karyu, on 13 April 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

An AC2 is supposedly equivalent to a 25mm round. The most commonly used modern day variant is probably the U.S. Military's M242 Bushmaster chaingun. It fires 180 rounds per minute with the standard configuration up to 3km with decent accuracy. Certain aircraft use multibarrel 25/30mm cannons with faster motors that fire up to 9,000 rounds per minute. And before anyone tries to argue the difference between an autocannon and a chaingun; It qualifies as an "autocannon", the only requirement for that is that is uses a separate mechanical function to cycle the rounds instead of recoil or gas return.

The term chaingun simply describes the specific device used to motivate the rounds through the chamber (a chain attached to a 1hp motor). That being said...I know much technology was lost, but we still have giant walking robots and nuclear reactors, I think it would be perfectly plausible that we could develop something with the mechanical complexity of a moped. If even a slight amount of creative license was taken to balance these weapons out, the AC2 could essentially be a rapid fire light damage "sniper" weapon, you could very effectively harass other snipers with it from the kinetic impact and do some serious damage to lighter mechs who are trying to close with you. Even if for the sake of balance and BT lore you reduced the real RoF of 3 rounds per second to 1 round per second it will still be effective.

Calibre size has no bearing in BT.

If it is really a 25mm chain gun, you will be forced to fire a lot of shots just to deal to do 2 damage. After all, the Marauder's AC/5 is actually a 120mm cannon that fires in 3 round burst.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 13 April 2012 - 08:31 PM.

[Morr]

[EDMW]CSN, on 13 April 2012 - 08:30 PM, said:

After all, the Marauder's AC/5 is actually a 120mm cannon that fires in 3 round burst.

aye they do say this, But at the same time i seem to remember that Yen-Lo-Wang and a Very Rapid firing cannon, What class was it again? (hint it ends in a 20)

Battle Tech doesn't care about firing rates, what they care about the Damage out put which is what they are rated on.

[MagnusEffect]

The1WithTheGun, on 13 April 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

No no - I'm not talking amout MAXIMUM ranges - but MINIMUM ranges.

IIRC a dev stated/speculated that LRMS and PPCs (which have minimum ranges in the boardgame) would have difficulties firing against targets close to the unit (LRMs don't arm till they get a certain distance from the unit - and the PPCs may cause feedback damage at close ranges).

AC2s and AC5s also have minimum ranges in the boardgame, but that as direct-fire weapons it wouldn't make much sense in MWO so they are ignoring them for this game. Personally, I approve, and houseruled the same thing for the boardgame a long time ago.

This is a very interesting idea. Would be very cool if they finally (and correctly) implement field inhibitor mechanics to PPCs. I always thought it was weird AC/2s and 5s had minimum range requirements. My friends and I always disregarded the min range for ACs and found it made them more useful without making them too powerful. Hopefully the devs do something similar that works.

Morr, on 13 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

aye they do say this, But at the same time i seem to remember that Yen-Lo-Wang and a Very Rapid firing cannon, What class was it again? (hint it ends in a 20)

Battle Tech doesn't care about firing rates, what they care about the Damage out put which is what they are rated on.

I distinctly recall the AC/10 being compared to the average modern day tank gun. Morr is right though; the number is more of a generic rating of damage potential, not firing rate. The general concept of the autocannon is actually pretty lowtech. Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Autocannon

Of specific note is this:
"Several modern tanks such as the Russian T-80 and the French Leclerc use autoloaders on their 120 mm guns to reduce the crew complement from the usual four (commander, driver, gunner, and loader) down to three by eliminating the loader."

The difference between our current technology and Battletech is the feeding mechanism. Modern day autoloaders are less reliable compared to a standard AC of 3050.

So basically:

AC/20 = 10 secs of WRECKING damage
AC/10 = 10 secs of 1/2 that

Some fired slow like a tank or artillery gun, some fired fast like a chain gun. It was my understanding that the larger bored guns usually fired slower. Ultras and Rotary ACs were essentially just regular ACs with more robust (i.e. faster) feeding mechanisms.

The guys at No Guts No Galaxy (nogutsnogalaxy.net/) made a good point that we should be able to buy both fast firing and slow firing versions of each autocannon rating depending on availability and personal tastes. Hopefully, we get that wish.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 13 April 2012 - 09:23 PM.

[Morr]

The Yen-Lo-Wong, is Justin Xiang Allard's mech, it is a custom Centurion with an AC 20 btw.

[Myst Lynx]

on MW3 I loaded an atlas up with 6-8 ultra ac-2 and shoved as much ammo in as I could, it worked out very well. Another time I slowed down an atlas, and loaded it with 4 clan uac-20, and 40 rounds of ammo, for the most part it took only 1 volley to take down mechs

[Thom Frankfurt]

I dunno about that. It's kinda fun to park a BJ-1 on top of a hill and just peck away at super far off targets... I love annoying people.

[Sug]

Yes we know if you load up an annihilator/atlas with 10 ac-2's you can rip people up at long range.

[GySgt Sev Skirata]

I like me some autocannons. I think you should be able fire faster and with each shot make it less acurate within a certian period of time.

[Joe Davion 86]

GrimJim, on 13 April 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

And even if they didn't I'd still take it over nothing. You may not down a 'Mech with these weapons but 10 to 1 the 'Mech using this weapon will be fast and not likely to be going toe to toe with brawlers (Vulcan, Blackjack, Clint, JaggerMech anyone?.....their armor is low so to pilot WON'T go toe to toe). It will snipe from the edges, wear a 'Mech down for it's lancemates to handle, or open of some holes so when the opponent finally closes you can finish them off with a spread of crit seekers.

sorry had to chime in on the Blackjack...http://www.sarna.net...ack_(BattleMech) specifically this part...
The Blackjack was designed by General Motors in a bid for a fire support and counter-insurgency 'Mech. The prototype version of the Blackjack was designed to carry Flamers, but were replaced with two light autocannons in the production version of the 'Mech. In long range engagements, the Blackjack has lackluster performance. Where the 'Mech excels is in close quarters combat because its short ranged weapons, jumping distance of up to one hundred and twenty meters, and heavy armor make it a devastating street fighter.

[Kartr]

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Of specific note is this:
"Several modern tanks such as the Russian T-80 and the French Leclerc use autoloaders on their 120 mm guns to reduce the crew complement from the usual four (commander, driver, gunner, and loader) down to three by eliminating the loader."

The difference between our current technology and Battletech is the feeding mechanism. Modern day autoloaders are less reliable compared to a standard AC of 3050.

The autoloader technology for the AC is the mechanism that feeds the clip or cylinder. The bursts that AC/s fire would most like be handled with either a clip and fire like an M-16 on three shot burst or use the revolver cannon style system.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

So basically:

AC/20 = 10 secs of WRECKING damage
AC/10 = 10 secs of 1/2 that

All AC/s have to fire their bursts in less then a tenth of a second. If it takes more than an tenth of a second to fire the entire burst the AC will not do all its damage to a single location. Most likely the burst duration is in the hundredths of a second and varies depending on how many rounds are fired per burst.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Some fired slow like a tank or artillery gun, some fired fast like a chain gun. It was my understanding that the larger bored guns usually fired slower. Ultras and Rotary ACs were essentially just regular ACs with more robust (i.e. faster) feeding mechanisms.

Incorrect, the only way for AC/s to achieve striking a single area on a 'Mech is if each burst is under a tenth of a second. A 10 rd burst that is a tenth of a second long fired at a target moving perpendicular to the flight path of the shells (and assuming it hits) at 120kph will have the last round land approximately 3.5m behind where the first round landed. Most 'Mechs arms or side torso's, which would be the area getting hit in such a scenario wouldn't be that large and you would have shots striking CT, Side Torso and Arm, maybe even Rear Torso depending on how far out the front and rear torso's stick out past the side torsos.

The difference between a UAC and an AC is that the UAC fires two bursts rather than just the one. This implies that they have two clips and once the first one is fired then the breech switches to accept the feed from the second clip. The loading mechanism would then refill both clips once the firing sequence is completed.

The RACs on the other hand are simply gatling guns that spin the entire barrel system and pull the ammunition through to achieve a constant stream of fire. The only reason to stop firing is you're no longer on target, you need to let the weapon cool down or the weapon jammed. RACs can't be built in the largest calibers because you have to spin multiple barrels and spinning that much mass just isn't worth it. Not to mention the recoil would be such that you wouldn't be able to keep your shots on target long enough for it to do any more damage than a clip fed AC.

MagnusEffect, on 13 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

The guys at No Guts No Galaxy (nogutsnogalaxy.net/) made a good point that we should be able to buy both fast firing and slow firing versions of each autocannon rating depending on availability and personal tastes. Hopefully, we get that wish.

Yes eventually you will be able to buy fast and slow firing types of each autocannon class. You're just going to have to wait until we get UACs and RACs, because every single standard AC MUST fire a burst that lasts no more than a tenth of a second and probably less.

[WithSilentWings]

Leetskeet, on 13 April 2012 - 08:24 AM, said:

Oh my dear sir that is not a drawback in a video game that you can actually aim in. Popping high damage shots on the same location is exactly what you want.

That said, the AC/5, outside of table and it's 10 second recycle times, is or should be a high dps constant fire weapon. For instance, hitting the center torso with a PPC every time it's ready is, lets make something up, 10 dps. The AC/5 should be 12 dps or so, but its damage comes in small increments so it isn't just a flat out better weapon. If they're turning to protect their weakest location, you'll end up spreading damage out, whereas a PPC can just pop a flat chunk of damage in a single trigger pull.

In context, all damage hitting a single location is bad. The context in this case is that you're taking a beating from an enemy mech using an AC5 that happens to rock your reticule and fill your screen with explosions preventing you from effectively returning fire--not to mention the low heat means this weapon can continue to fire until the ammo runs dry.

[LordDeathStrike]

Odanan, on 13 April 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I've been playing Battletech (table-top) and all Mechwarrior computer series for the last 20 years, so I can say I'm a long time fan.

It's only me or more people think the Autocannons 2 and 5 are seriously underpowered? They weight too much, use ammo (which is always a risk) and deal a very small damage. OK, they are long range, but any mech can sustain single 2s and 5s of damage for a many turns.

The "Rapid-Fire" rule (two shots at the same time, with the risk of complications) improves the use of these weapons, but will it be implemented in the game? Please, devs, say yes!

I would suggest the developers to make it possible for the pilot to shoot again immediately after a shot with the autocannon: the second shot would be harder to hit and has a small chance to jam/destroy the gun.

while you have a case that without tanks and air craft the ac2 is pretty damn useless, the ac 5 is still a good solid weapon in 3049.

why you might ask? because mechs that could only carry an ac 20, can carry an ac 5 lots of ammo and some support weapons like a large laser a 2nd ac 5.

if you are on a more open map (non city brawler game) this comes in handy, as you can find some cover, use your teams scouts to know where enemies are comeing in from, set your radar to passive, and plink at them as they come. if you equip a 7x zoom mod you can even accurately plink at their cockpits, possibly scoreing a head shot kill before they know where you are.

as others have said, a ppc is the same range, but its massively hotter, to repeatedly fire a pair of ppcs instead of a pair of ac 5s, you need alot of heat sinks.

lrms require active radar, the enemy will see you on the scope as you lock on.

the ac5 certainly has a place in mwo.

the ac2, well, its the dead beat of the weapons list along with small lasers imo. (i find small lasers a waste of crit spaces, ild rather have another heat sink for my real guns then waste a crit on a point blank weak *** laser, unless im running a ninja med assassin mech with all small lasers and some heat sinks to passively sneak up and melt things from behind, but even then, small laser EWWWWWW)

[EDMW CSN]

Morr, on 13 April 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

aye they do say this, But at the same time i seem to remember that Yen-Lo-Wang and a Very Rapid firing cannon, What class was it again? (hint it ends in a 20) Battle Tech doesn't care about firing rates, what they care about the Damage out put which is what they are rated on.

I would prefer the AC2 to be just a single shot 120mm cannon that reloads every 1.2 to 1.5 second. Constant ping ping ping just annoys everyone !

Rapid fire mini-shots be damn, i want to deal all my damage on one spot instead of a extra long range MG that shoots 5 to 10 rounds to do 2 points of damage.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 13 April 2012 - 11:26 PM.

[tynaiden]

Eesh so many large posts and it's getting too late to keep reading so apologies if this has been brought up --

What about the velocities of the weapons like AC/2 & 5s compared to PPCs and LRMs? Even against AC/10 & 20s? The 2 and 5 should be considered quite high on that regard. It could also provide more incentive since it should impart the smallest amount of damage drop-off and travel arcs of any other weapon available. Gauss would also be mega-velocity weapon but it's mass would impart a larger damage drop-off and/or travel arc drop while PPCs loss-less travel arc would be countered by it's (probably) greatest damage drop-off.

As with posts I have seen mentioned in these boards supporting such and previous MW games, the recoil of being hit by solid projectiles like AC rounds should be a benefit as well.

A post above this even points out that LRMs require a lock at distance to get the homing functions, yet any AC would not. Rabbiting and cover hopping with flanking would be a tactic that should highly grief support boats trying to acquire locks.

AC/2 & 5s are typically mounted more so in the lower echelons of 'mech weights so you would see (or not see, per next paragraph) flanking of an different sort; long range rear armor drilling. While it could be argued you can accomplish the same goal of drilling into rear armor with lasers on a light mech, the flanking pilot would have to be closer and end up highly likely to be spotting and more quickly dealt with. Being straight beams of light sorta gives away your position much much easier than tiny high velocity rounds leaving little more than millisecond of air wake.

The greater skilled pilots would of course go silent... even though I probably woldn't be able to reach that level of skill, you -know- there will be some pilots that shall. So with good aim, an eye for terrain and the tactics to route paths and enemy reactions, smaller ACs could be a very viable option. Not to mention irritating.

Final note: has anyone brought up the actual values of weapons in any discussion here? Both in terms of C-bills and any metering system that may come in place such as Battle Value? I have seen lots of numbers in many threads on these forums but it always seems to be about weight, damage, or range coming from games where money or balancing systems were not in place or little issue.

[Naughtyboy]

i think as long the weapons is doing what the mechwarrior wants there is no problems autocannons whatever size has its place ,same as whatever laser,pulse or normal and ppcs got theirs all depends on the situation.