388 replies to this topic

[Goldhawk]

The only thing that I can consider with the low-bore auto cannon would be the high range and the irritant factor on the heavier mechs. The old Jagermech varient, 3025 verson mounts 2 5 class auto cannons and 2 2 class autocannons along with 2 medium lasers. It was used in the universe as a direct fire mech along with Riflemen and Clints that had similar bore autocannons, it was also lumped in with Archers, Catapults, and Crusaders to give DIRECT firesupport to the "hit or miss" fire support of the missiles. Only way I could see it working is if you are in another battle, and someone keeps grinding down your armor with autocannon fire, I'd get pissed enough to try and find that guy instead of the mech I'm fighting. Essentually its the small child that pulls on your arm and annoys the crap out of you.

[Yeach]

Not really adding anything but...

the Autocannon 2, the new LONG-RANGE machine gun.

[RedDragon]

I think you're looking at it from the wrong side. AC's are there to be used just BECAUSE they are there to be used. Battletech (canon-wise) is not about min-maxing. The fun in TT has always been making do with what you have. Sure, a Marauder with only energy weapons and enough heat-sinks is a really deadly mech, but where's the fun in that? Firing every turn everything you have without thinking about it? Everyone can do that.
But in real life it just won't work. Germans did it in WW2, they built some of the best weapons ever used but what good did it do them? They had problems manufacturing and supplying them and in the end lost to armies with inferior weapons that could be manufactured a lot faster and cheaper.
It's the same in BT: Sure, you could use a PPC and some heat sinks along with it instead of an AC/5, but that would cost nearly twice as much, not to speak of the cost for maintenance or replacement. Also a PPC has a higher tech-grade than a simple autocannon, thus it will take more time, knowledge and money to build and repair them. So what use is a mech with the best weapons, if you can only produce 1 of them while you could instead have 2 or 3 "inferior" designs? BT is about numbers, the whole Clan-invasion proved that. With so many star systems to conquer/garrison, you just can't afford to only use high-tech weapons.

Apart from this there are numerous reasons for using ballistics instead of/alongside energy weapons. To name a few:
1) Heat. Already covered for the most part. You can get heat-neutral with energy weapons and enough heat sinks, but tell that to a mech pilot who received 1 or even 2 reactor-hits (+5/+10 heat/round), lost some heat sinks or is under attack by infernos/flamers/stands inside a burning hex. Heat is the main enemy of every mech and its pilot, even if it has enough heat sinks. The novels depict it clearly that even a Locust (which can get rid of all its heat points) becomes hotter and hotter everytime it fires its laser. It's just a fluff-thing and every Mechwarrior counts himself lucky if he ever gets critical heat-levels and still has some ballistics to fling about with no additional heat.
2) Damage. Sometimes you just need something to go "boom". Maximum Tech had an interesting rule about damage to infantry that's quite logical. There are weapons that can only kill one or a few soldiers with a single shot (beam-weapons, PPC, Gauss...) and others that can kill numerous men with a single burst (missiles, ballistics, flamers...).
3) Availibility. ACs can be mounted on every weapons-platform, including tanks, stationary defenses and infantry. You don't need generators or batteries to use them, so they will be widely available.
4) Special ammo. Later on there are many different types of ammo you can use to enhance standard ACs.

All in all there are many reasons why ACs are used in BT-canon. And that's why we should use them too. After all MWO will be a simulation, not an instagib-egoshooter.

Edited by RedDragon, 14 April 2012 - 08:33 AM.

[Victor Morson]

The problem with that RedDragon is that in a MW game, we're choosing the equipment we put on our 'mechs: Unless they add equipment shortages (which would be an interesting way to fix this), that won't take effect. And yes, doing with what you have is part of the appeal in the board game - I've played both with and against AC2s/5s quite a bit because of bum rolls on random armies.

This does circle back around to the Battle Value/CBill Value debate for drop limits (not buying the gear). If ACs take far less resources to field, that's a totally acceptable niche: A bad weapon that you can field without much penalty. Taking a heavy or assault that's centered around ACs for the drop resources of a good medium would be a complete fix.

Edited by Victor Morson, 14 April 2012 - 08:50 AM.

[RedDragon]

That's why I'm optimistic (and hoping) that the Devs will force us to use ACs and not only lasers + PPCs
I'm all for stock variants and hopefully the changes we can make in the mechlab will be nothing too dramatic.

[wwiiogre]

I am betting that we will not be making enough money to switch out to many weapon systems or switch mechs very early in the meta game and will have to make due in our original mech for awhile. Although I would love to have the option to buy more mechs and use them all.

chris

[Nik Van Rhijn]

You will always be able to buy mechs etc for money($) if you don't want to wait. The thing is if you are limited by hardpoints, there may not be a lot of choice.

[Orzorn]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 14 April 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:

You will always be able to buy mechs etc for money($) if you don't want to wait. The thing is if you are limited by hardpoints, there may not be a lot of choice.

Excellent point.

Due to hardpoints, if you want to put something like LRMs on a mech, you'll need a big enough missile hardpoint to do so. Some players will likely be forced into AC/2s and AC/5s if they want to perform a long-range role, unless they have a few million c-bills just lying around to purchase a new mech/variant.

So, much like in the actual Battletech universe, sometimes we're just going to have to make due with what we have available and what we can fit on those mechs. The AC/2 and AC/5 will definitely be a big part of that with the introduction of hardpoints. No more can we just slap on any weapon we want as long as we have the criticals and tonnage. Now we're going to have to seriously consider what we can realistically use. If you're stuck with a Hunchback, for instance, and really, really need a long range mech, you can't just slap LRMs on it anymore. Nope, you'll be forced to use AC/2s or AC/5s.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Or you can buy the LRM variant - nice thing about the Hunchback is that the canon variants available at this cover most eventualities.

[Orzorn]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 14 April 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Or you can buy the LRM variant - nice thing about the Hunchback is that the canon variants available at this cover most eventualities.

Yes, but that's buying an entirely new mech (a hunchback prime costs 3,467,875 c-bills, so any variant will likely cost around the same), as opposed to purchasing a few autocannons for 75,000 c-bills a piece

[wwiiogre]

But will PGI allow you to buy variants or make you work your way thru the standard model to open up the variant? I seem to recall in one of the blogs they said you opened up variants by completing a tree in the standard mech. Which means no easy outs, and you have to earn the variants. Which I really don't mind. I hope you need to fight at least one battle to open each module for each mech. So that a minimum of say ten battles or so before you can move up. Meaning you have to put a little work into moving up variants, etc. But who knows what they will do.

chris

[UncleKulikov]

Orzorn, on 14 April 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:

Excellent point.

Due to hardpoints, if you want to put something like LRMs on a mech, you'll need a big enough missile hardpoint to do so.

Just a technical note, I agree with the post:
The hardpoint discussion so far in MWO has not mentioned anything about the size of hardpoints; size is determined by critical slots left in the mech's location. Hardpoints simply provide the maximum number of a given type of weapon that a chassis can support in a given location.

In the demo shown on wednesday, the guy swapped out a Large Laser and could replace it with a small, medium, or PPC and the difference other than weight was critical slots available.

[Joe Lork]

Ive read this post and all u do is compair the AC2 and AC5 to other weapons and loadouts, i do have one thing to say not all planetary temperatures are the same , so consider this...lol

[Pht]

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

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.

Rapid fire would be nice as an option. That said: the ac2s weren't built, in gameplay or lore terms, to kill things quickly. They were built to pepper people's armor at extreme range without being stoppable by the mere addition of a few AMS's; and mech's can hit things at obscene range with them quite easily compared to other weapons systems.

AC2s weren't built to compete with weapons like the ppcs and gauss and other high risk/high reward weapons... it's not valid to compare them in an apples to oranges fashion.

Being able to blast things at 74 hex at only +6 is useful.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Orzorn, on 14 April 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Yes, but that's buying an entirely new mech (a hunchback prime costs 3,467,875 c-bills, so any variant will likely cost around the same), as opposed to purchasing a few autocannons for 75,000 c-bills a piece

Hunchback Prime?
Never knew they made an OmniMech out of that one.
Unless, of course, you mean the HBK-4G.
Also, the HBK-4J comes with twin LRM-10 launchers and costs only 40k more.

Quote

They were built to pepper people's armor at extreme range without being stoppable by the mere addition of a few AMS's; and mech's can hit things at obscene range with them quite easily compared to other weapons systems.

Or you could use 'Mech Mortars...
Same range as LRMs, if slightly less damage, but at the benefit of being immune to AMS as well.

Anyhow, I hope they're as useful as they are in TT - not that much at all.

Edited by Alizabeth Aijou, 14 April 2012 - 11:15 AM.

[Victor Morson]

Pht, on 14 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Rapid fire would be nice as an option. That said: the ac2s weren't built, in gameplay or lore terms, to kill things quickly. They were built to pepper people's armor at extreme range without being stoppable by the mere addition of a few AMS's; and mech's can hit things at obscene range with them quite easily compared to other weapons systems.

Whatever they were built for, they failed at it.

Pht, on 14 April 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Being able to blast things at 74 hex at only +6 is useful.

Not if you can't deliever any damage and a weapon 3 hexes shorter can.

[Bongo TauKat]

I love the AC2 for exactly the reasons it is scoffed at. It has a low per round damage. It takes up weight and space that others argue could be spent on better weapons with more damage However, its range is pheonomal as well as it firing rate. If you mass three or four together, it annoys the hell out of the OPFOR. By the time they get in range of their big guns, they will also not that several of their armor locations are glowing a healthy yellow from my pop gun.

[Damocles]

Victor Morson, on 14 April 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Not if you can't deliever any damage and a weapon 3 hexes shorter can.

So...rather do NO DAMAGE (with AC) at a range farther than PPCs then do damage with a PPC at the range where you will be able to be shot by other PPCs.

Sounds like a drawback to me.

Edited by Damocles, 14 April 2012 - 11:54 AM.

[Sug]

Make AC-2/5's rapid fire and let the recoil from sustained fire spread out the reticle to an ever-widening cone of inaccuracy. That way mechs with lighter ac's can plink at you from long range and still unload on you at close range.

This would also prevent larger mechs mounting multiple light ac's from hosing you down with pinpoint accuracy from 900 meters.

[Alizabeth Aijou]

Quote

That way mechs with lighter ac's can plink at you from long range and still unload on you at close range.

Which would still limit the lighter ACs to the heavier 'Mechs.
Lets look at the PNT-9R:
35 tons, 4/6/4 movement profile, 6½ tons of armour, 10 tons worth of weapons/ammo.
Namely a PPC and a SRM-4 with a single ton of ammo.
For that same weapon tonnage I can mount... one AC/5 with two tons of ammo (40 shots). Or one AC/2 with up to three tons of ammo (120 shots) and a Medium Laser as backup.
Now, on tabletop, those 40 shots go a long way. In real-time online combat? Probably not so much. Do you ever remember playing an online shooter where you had only 40 shots total?

Now, how about the UM-R60 UrbanMech?
30 tons, 2/3/2 movement profile, 6 tons of armour, 13½ tons of weapons/ammo.
Granted, the regular version mounts an AC/10 (with only 10 shots) rather than a lighter one, but still.
Still, we could give it an AC/5 with a hundred shots, not much of an improvement.
Mostly because just about any 'Mech that cares can get close enough to ruin its day.

Heck, even that PNT-9R would be a match for the UM-R60.