388 replies to this topic

[Mr T]

Screw that, I want to see some JagerMech loving.

[EDMW CSN]

tynaiden, on 13 April 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

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.

The PPC = 200K C-Bills
The AC-5 = 125K C-Bills.
A single ton of AC-5 ammo cost 4.5K C-bills

It would take roughly 16.5 tons of AC-5 ammo to break even with the PPC. But considering that if you expand about 40 shots per game (TT ammo count 20 shots per ton), within 8 matches you would have almost met the cost of a PPC.

[MagnusEffect]

@Katr

I'm interested to know where you are getting this information that makes you so certain that "all AC/s have to fire their bursts in less then a tenth of a second". I've read plenty of official sources that describe ACs both as a tank/artillery cannon or rapid fire/burst weapon.

Kartr, on 13 April 2012 - 09:56 PM, said:

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.

I can't really tell if you are seriously trying to explain something I just referenced and explained or just being patronizing. ACs are autocannons, some of which use the same basic mechanics as the modern day "autocannon" (shell loaded in a single chamber, fired, expelled, repeat). Some fire a higher volume in a more rapid succession. Someone mentioned the Yen Lo Wang earlier.

I know all about Ultras and Rotaries. The Rotaries I don't feel should be really part of the conversation as they were clearly a retroactive type thing to differentiate them from standard ACs. Ultras simply fire "twice" (not necessarily "two") the volume of shells. They DO fire two "shells" for purposes of TT rules, but that number is arbitrary. Yes, Rotaries are big nasty Vulcan-like fire spitters. They came much later than the original ACs.

I'm not saying standard ACs = Rotaries. I'm saying in terms of rate of fire, standard ACs were of relative (but still variable) speeds to each other with Ultras having double the rate of fire and Rotaries being even faster (up to five times faster I believe).

Nowhere have I read that the original ACs ONLY fire in rapid bursts. Nowhere have I read that an AC can't fire a shell once per second continuously (which is actually quite feasible for a modern large caliber autocannon).

And since we're being **** about it, lets be clear about terminology.

EDIT: you can't say A.N.A.L? wow.. its like I'm back in catholic school.

"Clip" is not really accurate. ACs use "magazines"; as in storage bins filled with ammunition. I've also seen some that are clearly a belt-fed chain gun (again, these belts are usually stored in a M249-like ammo bin). That's why CASE works. Clips look like this:


Oh and chain gun does not mean gatling gun/rotary cannon... they are NOT synonymous.

I source my previous mentioned info from various Technical Readouts that I own. Probably the best example is the Patton/Rommel (I think... I forget which one specifically). Here's the sarna.net link: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Patton but it doesn't contain most of the original info from the Tech Readout. In the tech readout, it clearly compares a 60-65 ton tank with a AC/10 to a modern day main battle tank of the 21 century (cough, cough Abrams tank... check the stats... they are the same). When it is also considered that a turn in the TT is roughly 10 seconds, that right there pretty much shoots your argument of "ALL AC/s have to fire in bursts" full of holes... burst of holes even Are we to believe that an autocannon can only fire a burst of rounds in a fraction of a second once every 10 seconds? That seems like a bit of a stretch.

I'm not really arguing everything should be the same as TT. Just pointing out that the 2,5,10,20 number is more a generic "damage rating" and not an indication of the AC's individual performance. The IS manufactured many brands of ACs, all with their own unique qualities.

Most famous of the AC/10s: Ceres Arms T by Ceres Metals Industries, Defiance Killer Type T by Defiance Industries, and Mydron B by Yeffters Weapons Factory

The MW games have never reflected this... to our detriment.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 April 2012 - 01:55 AM.

[nitra]

in kesmai's mpbt 3025 on of my favorite mechs was a black jack outfited with ac 2's it was great at kiting the other mechs.

while ac 2's may not be glamourous they can be a major problem to slower mechs especially if they start pentrating torso armour.

Edited by nitra, 14 April 2012 - 12:08 AM.

[EDMW CSN]

nitra, on 14 April 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

in kesmai's mpbt 3025 on of my favorite mechs was a black jack outfited with ac 2's it was great at kiting the other mechs. ac 2's may not be glamourous they can be a major problem to slower mechs especially if they start pentrating torso armour.

They will not be a peashooter if their reload is like 1 to 1.5 seconds. Just chain fire them for maximum PING.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 14 April 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[trycksh0t]

I still can't fathom where this idea that AC/2s and AC/5s are "useless" came from, as I've always found them useful when situation warranted, namely Light and Medium scouts, as even a measly 2 damage could be devestating to some of those chassis, and 5 could be catastrophic. Add in that they produce negligible heat, and you can run full-speed firing 'em off all day long until you run out of ammo.

Further note to the PPC "only" needing an extra 7 HS to keep it at zero - that's only if you're standing still. Any movement, at all, pushes past that mark. As for ammo explosions, I will admit that's a risk. However, all those heat sinks keeping the energy boats nice and cool are more likely to get hit, just due to the sheer number of 'em required. I'm hopeful that heat sinks will be destructible, because once they start popping, energy boats are in a world of trouble.

[MagnusEffect]

trycksh0t, on 14 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

I still can't fathom where this idea that AC/2s and AC/5s are "useless" came from

I think it mostly stems from their utility. LRMs are lighter, and similar range, perfect for long range fire support. PPCs hit harder and are better suited to mechs than the light ACs thanks to the first 10 heatsinks you get for free. Large Lasers also hit harder for roughly comparable in weight (after factoring extra heat sinks) and have no worry of ammo explosion. A crit hit on a heat sink is not a deal breaker... hell even losing half a dozen isn't always a deal breaker. Ammo explosions (especially without CASE) is almost ALWAYS going to ruin your day, though. The light ACs are in that weird "jack of all trades/master of nothing" slot that makes them unpopular for anything but niche roles and circumstances. And I'm sorry, but lets be honest with ourselves... 2 damage for 6 tons of weapon is never "devastating". Especially when a single LRM5 can do the same job for 2 tons.

Honestly, I always felt the standard AC5 and 2 were sort of trash weapons. Basically, cheap and easily replaced until you could get something better. Rotaries went a long way in correcting this problem. I never cared much for ultras though. Had one too many perma-jams for my liking and stopped using them. At least rotaries you could unjam.

And yeah.. I DO hope they bring full critical damage back in all its glory. So tired of the Large Laser boats.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 April 2012 - 01:03 AM.

[MagnusEffect]

Oh.. and final comment about AC firing rates debate (just randomly found this while browsing):
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/AC-10

"The Autocannon is a direct-fire ballistic weapon, firing HEAP (High-Explosive Armor-Piercing) rounds at targets either singly or in bursts.
Different manufacturers and models of autocannons have different calibers (25mm-203mm) and rates of fire. Due to this, autocannons are grouped into generic "classes" of autocannons with common damage ratings, with Autocannon/10s causing more damage than lower-caliber autocannons while retaining a moderate range.
An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "shot", while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, but causing higher damage. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output."

I think I won this round

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 April 2012 - 01:35 AM.

[LoneDragon]

*rolls eye as he see's this silly argument again*

i have to go with the fact that all wepons have their spot. I play a crap ton off TT and i have seen even the mighty atlas brought down with those harmless AC-2's. I have allso seen PPC boats eat AC 2/5 mechs. I saw a lance of jager mechs bleeding own a charger and the rest of its mixed lance.

The battle feild is a fluid thing. high heat planet? your gonna wish you had AC's, low heat well may the PPC go.
i have allways felt the wepons were balanced. it depends on what is around you etc. in the same battle you could see a long fire lane covered by an AC mech being a real pain in the bum. or outher situations.

lord its like watching people argue over who is the better sports team. its pointless and wastes everyones time.

[Omigir]

Can I just opt out for having nipples on my mech instead of Ac2/5 or PPC's?

[MagnusEffect]

LoneDragon, on 14 April 2012 - 01:39 AM, said:

lord its like watching people argue over who is the better sports team. its pointless and wastes everyones time.

It's only pointless and wastes time if you gain nothing from it. Before, I admittedly was a bit fuzzy on how ACs worked. Now, I am most definitely not.

And just because you've seen the debate before doesn't mean others have or should be excluded from engaging.

[LoneDragon]

now you see. a post abut how they work wouldnt annoy me. i just think the argument is silly. its all about what style you play and what flavor of death you prefer to toss about.

and Hey if you learned something from this mess then it wasnt a waste.

[MagnusEffect]

Style of play? As in how viable the light ACs are? Yeah I would never argue against them. Only that they are a bit more muddled in their uses compared to "death from afar" LRMs, meat&potatos PPCs, etc. which have better clearly defined applications.. at least I think. I reference again the "Scorpion Nest" scenario as the best application of light ACs; nice, cheap long-range death by a thousand cuts.

Edit: that bit about them being "trash" weapons probably sounded a bit harsher than I intended. What I should say is cost effective. You can field a buttload of light ACs for a fraction of the cost of other weapons. And assuming you can gain and maintain a range advantage with them, even their plinky damage does add up.

Oh and I forgot about the newer "advanced rounds" that only standard ACs can fit. They are pretty awesome actually. (sorry, couldn't find a link).

As far as the firing rate argument goes, I admit I sort of got sucked into it. It just always bothered me there are so many people that are like "no, a ballistic firing weapon can only fire one way" when they should be by far the most versatile in terms of firing modes (and ammunition). Here's hoping that maybe the devs listen to the NGNG guys about the offering of different "brands" of weapons with different quirks. Could give a neat "collecting" mechanic to the market beyond buying generic AC/10 or generic AC/20.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 April 2012 - 02:52 AM.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

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

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 closest BT-equivalent to current-day cannons used on tanks etc. is the Rifle (Cannon) weapon, specifically, the Light Rifle (Cannon). http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Light_Rifle
Note, that as Primitive weapons, they only deal full damage to armour that has equal or less BAR than their damage, otherwise they have a -3 penalty to their damage dealt. So yeah, a modern abrams does nothing but literally scratch the paint on a battlemech.

[MagnusEffect]

Actually, you are right about that Alizabeth. I forgot about those. I was mostly just making the point that standard ACs do not have any set firing rate and that the AC# is only a generic rating of damage potential. The AC/10 class (or perhaps an AC/5?.. the distinction is a bit vague) could be considered closest to a modern MBT main gun, but only in the most general of terms. The Rifle Cannons are certainly a closer match.

Oh and the reference to the Abrams was more in terms of weight class, speed, and performance; almost identical to the Patton even if the damage output is diminished.

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 April 2012 - 03:00 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

BattleTech/Mechwarrior ACs are stated to use magazines/clips (in the style of assault rifles, or magazine-fed autocannons like the British RARDEN 30mm autocannon).

As an example, "Enforcers use big, ten-round clips that are easily slipped into and out of the 'Mech's back. If possible, a truck and crane system are parked close to Enforcers during battle to allow quick reloading of the 'Mech's [Federated AC-10]. If the battle is too mobile and the Enforcer has no opportunities to reload, its pilot has no option but to mother his ten shots."
The idea is that each unit of ammo listed in the TT tables represents a magazine/clip (e.g. the AC-10 has 10 magazines/clips, the AC-20 has 5 magazines/clips, and so on; Ultra ACs can be connected to/fire from two magazines/clips at once, just like the RARDEN), where each magazine/clip contains one or more individual shells and is expended over the course of a single firing.

Unfortunately, the ammunition bin where the magazines/clips are stored are also commonly referred to as "magazines" - cue the "I put magazines in your magazines" puns/meme.

-----

Also, I'm not really buying the "all ACs that fire bursts of shells must fire all of said shells in within ~0.10 seconds or less".
If for no other reason, how would one position and fire ten 150mm shells (the Hetzer combat vehicle's AC-20) that quickly?
One per second, maybe. One per half-second would be really pushing it.
One 150mm shell per 0.01 seconds, out of a non-Gatling weapon? Really?

Even the fastest-firing (~2,000 rounds per minute) revolver-type autocannons (which don't operate on those calibers; the largest practical ones are on the order of 30-35mm - a range of calibers better suited to the AC-2 than the AC-20) can only manage ~33.3 shells per second at most, not the 100 shells per second needed to fire 10 shells (of any caliber) in 0.1 seconds or less (minimum or 6,000 rounds per minute).

A revolver-style AC could, however, easily fire 10 shells over the course of ~5 to ~3 seconds (an average of ~2-3 shells per second), which does make a Solaris/dueling-style 7.5-second recycle for an AC-20 (5 seconds firing, 2.5 seconds reloading) and 5.0-second recycle for an AC-10 or AC-5 (3 seconds firing, 2 seconds reloading) seem rather reasonable, yes?
It also works well for smaller bursts - the Marauder's AC-5 firing 1 shell per second for 3 seconds and taking 2 seconds to switch the magazine/clip seems rather more reasonable to have a 3-round burst within a 5-second window...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 14 April 2012 - 03:16 AM.

[MagnusEffect]

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

BattleTech/Mechwarrior ACs are stated to use magazines/clips (in the style of assault rifles, or magazine-fed autocannons like the British RARDEN 30mm autocannon).

As an example, "Enforcers use big, ten-round clips that are easily slipped into and out of the 'Mech's back.

Can you source this info? I am interested. I get the feeling that FASA may have screwed themselves a little on explaining exactly how an AC works. Ten round "clips" seem highly impractical compared to magazines. They are NOT synonymous btw. Its one thing to load a clip with your hands. Ammunition that weighs a ton? Magazines seem like a better option; self contained, protected from the elements, etc. (think M249, not handgun)

Magazine loaded ammunition:



Clip loaded ammunition:


Guess which is better when your ammo weighs a ton or more

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

If possible, a truck and crane system are parked close to Enforcers during battle to allow quick reloading of the 'Mech's [Federated AC-10].

This I have heard of... I believe the Catapult is capable of doing the same (I think.. don't quote me on it) as well as a few others.

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

If the battle is too mobile and the Enforcer has no opportunities to reload, its pilot has no option but to mother his ten shots."
The idea is that each unit of ammo listed in the TT tables represents a magazine/clip (e.g. the AC-10 has 10 magazines/clips, the AC-20 has 5 magazines/clips, and so on; Ultra ACs can be connected to/fire from two magazines/clips at once, just like the RARDEN), where each magazine/clip contains one or more individual shells and is expended over the course of a single firing.

Okay wait... that's what I'm talking about... just because the Enforcer has "ten shots", doesn't mean that all ACs are the same. What I mean is that I have read in multiple official sources that just because on paper 1 ton = 5 "shots" of AC/20 ammo, that does not mean it is necessarily 5 giant-*** bullets sitting in the mech (although by the look of the gun on the Hunchback, it does make me wonder if the HB really does fire Ford Focus sized shells at you ). The point is, one AC/20 model is not necessarily the same as another different AC/20 model.

-----

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

Also, I'm not really buying the "all ACs that fire bursts of shells must fire all of said shells in within ~0.10 seconds or less".
If for no other reason, how would one position and fire ten 150mm shells (the Hetzer combat vehicle's AC-20) that quickly?
One per second, maybe. One per half-second would be really pushing it.
One 150mm shell per 0.01 seconds, out of a non-Gatling weapon? Really?

This is pure speculation but I'm willing to guess that the rounds a Hetzer fires are functionally the same as its historical ancestor: tank rounds; slowish fire rate, but massive, massive damage. Which is not necessarily the same as the Yen Lo Wang version which has been mentioned was a rapid fire, single barrel STANDARD AC/20 (at one point anyway).

Strum Wealh, on 14 April 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

Even the fastest-firing (~2,000 rounds per minute) revolver-type autocannons (which don't operate on those calibers; the largest practical ones are on the order of 30-35mm - a range of calibers better suited to the AC-2 than the AC-20) can only manage ~33.3 shells per second at most, not the 100 shells per second needed to fire 10 shells

You mean "rotary". Again.. there seems to be a lot of confusion on what the 20 in AC/20 means. It DOESN'T necessarily mean bigger caliber than an AC/5 or AC/10. IT'S JUST A GENERIC RATING FOR DAMAGE POTENTIAL.

The "Ultra" designation just means it has an optional fire mode to fire double rate of standard.
Rotaries are just multibarreled ACs that can fire at an even faster rate and are generally considered to use a smaller caliber.
Example: the main gun on a Bradley could loosely be compared to an AC/5 and an A10's Vulcan could be loosely compared to a Rotary AC/5 or standard AC/20... depending on reliability of the weapon jamming... Rotary ACs jam much more often. A rapid fire AC/20 would be smallish-caliber with less chance of jamming due to superior design but capable of essentially the same damage. Some standard ACs have clearly been described as "multibarreled". This was most often the case before Rotary ACs were introduced. You can thank FASA and company for that confusion.

Don't believe me, read from a reliable source:
"Autocannons range in caliber from 30mm up to 203mm and are loosely grouped according to their damage vs armor."
"An example of the rating system: the Crusher Super Heavy Cannon is a 150mm weapon firing ten shells per "shot", while the Chemjet Gun is a 185mm weapon firing much slower, but causing higher damage. Despite their differences, both are classified as Autocannon/20s due to their damage output."
-Sarna.net

More links on the subject:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Autocannon
http://www.sarna.net...i/Autocannon/10

Edited by MagnusEffect, 14 April 2012 - 04:21 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Yeach, on 13 April 2012 - 04:49 PM, said:

You forget that MW4 increase armor values were for the increase damage (DPS or reduced recycle time of the weapons)
Gauss riifle 17 damage / 8 recycle = 21 dmg (over 10 seconds DPS) which is 140% compared to regular 15 damage TT value.

As I mentioned in another thread there is a damage-armor-ammo/heat delicate balance relationship in Battletech.

Ah yes Yeach. Good additional point. That delicate game Balance thing.

Or the "Domino Effect Repercussion Position" or DERP. LOL

I really hope the Dev keep it mind eh?

Edited by MaddMaxx, 14 April 2012 - 03:49 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Victor Morson, on 13 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

If they weighed less, sure, but AC/5s stacked against Medium Lasers is not a pretty damage/ton ratio. You could effectively put 4 Medium Lasers and enough heatsinks to run them all, dealing 4 times the damage of a single AC5, in the same tonnage.

I think many, many people are in love with the idea of AC2s and AC5s and haven't had much actual practical experience against a player who sticks to good weapons, it's the only explanation.

I hope you have other weapons other that Mech. Those 4 ML's will do you little good while you are out ranged by a factor of 2.

[MagnusEffect]

MW: Living Legends handles the light autocannons beautifully I might add. The Partisan is easily one of my favorite pics early in a match and depending on the tactical situation. If you want to see something tangible, I highly recommend giving it a go.