76 replies to this topic

[Magnificent Bastard]

Aegis Kleais™, on 13 May 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

I demand more info in this graphic...

[JazzySteel]

Heres a question. are the ranges for UAC weapons the same as regular Autocannons

[Aegis Kleais]

JazzySteel, on 17 May 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

Heres a question. are the ranges for UAC weapons the same as regular Autocannons

Clan UAC/2 = 810m
Clan UAC/5 = 630m
Clan UAC/10 = 540m
Clan UAC/20 = 360m

VS 3049 period IS UAC

IS UAC/5 = 600m

Edited by Aegis Kleaisâ„¢, 17 May 2012 - 07:18 PM.

[Paewen]

RedDragon, on 15 May 2012 - 04:11 AM, said:

The point is: There is no official word on LB-X being an acronym for "Lubalin Ballistics". The way it's used is the same it is used for all other manufacturers. But there IS an offical word on the acronym standing for "Large Bore - Extended". It's right there in many publications. They may be German publications but official nonetheless. (Germany has a long tradition of supplying official Battletech-products that are only later or never published in English, the "Classic Battletech" novels series for example)

Here is the lore (on-line) http://www.sarna.net...LB-X_Autocannon you can read the references listed at the bottom of the page, as you read the references it is implied that LB stands for Lubalin Ballistics. Nowhere in any of the TRO or other TT references does it say large bore.

On another note, Thanks Much Aegis, a great visual tool.

[RedDragon]

Paewen, on 17 May 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:

Here is the lore (on-line) http://www.sarna.net...LB-X_Autocannon you can read the references listed at the bottom of the page, as you read the references it is implied that LB stands for Lubalin Ballistics. Nowhere in any of the TRO or other TT references does it say large bore.

On another note, Thanks Much Aegis, a great visual tool.

Implied is the trigger word in your text. You can only speculate about the Lubalin Ballistics-thing, because unlike the "large bore" it's never explicitly mentioned as the meaning of the acronym.

To prove that, here you go:
http://postimage.org/image/3l3s01r3z/
Technical Readout 3052, page 242, even marked for your reading-convenience.

Now it's your turn. Show me a TRO-entry where it explicitly states that the LB stands for Lubalin Ballistics. And please don't just link to Sarna again. They don't provide traceable references for such things (if they did, you'd have no problem to redirect me to the specific sourcebook that states it). Sarna is a good source for quick searches and condensed overviews, but they don't provide 1:1 information from the sourcebooks. They only abstract the infos and sometimes add parts on their own initiative without lectoring them, occasionally ending with texts that nearly hurt to read (Operation Odysseus for example).

Don't get me wrong, I don't just want to insist on my point. If you can show me the source where this stems from, I'll gladly change sides. But as of now I have never read an entry that proves the Lubalin-thingy. For now I guess that it only had been adapted for convenience since there was indeed a LB-10-X autocannon manufactured by Lubalin (then still withouth the "Ballistics") in the early sourcebooks, but there where also guns from other manufacturers.
On the other hand there WAS a weapon built by a certain manufacturer that carried its name: The UAC-5. It was officially named the KWI-UAC-5 in the TRO 2750, because it was reinvented by Kawabata Weapons. The LB-10-X on the other hand is never mentioned as reinvented by Lubalin in that book.

Edited by RedDragon, 18 May 2012 - 05:26 AM.

[Aegis Kleais]

Can we drop the LB-X discussion? It's kinda taking the thread off topic. Let's just assume the graphic shows whatever the correct value is.

[RedDragon]

Hey, we only want your chart to be as accurate as possible

[A6PackofToucans]

Very useful graph Aegis, as I've said before I think all ranges need increased a bit for a more tactical game, even Paul Inouye needs to be able to reach out to 30 meters!!

[perfectblue]

According to that graph, an ER large laser does more damage, and has more reach than an AC 20. Why would I want to use an AC 20 when it has less reach, less damage, and is ammo dependent?

[Strum Wealh]

perfectblue, on 27 May 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

According to that graph, an ER large laser does more damage, and has more reach than an AC 20. Why would I want to use an AC 20 when it has less reach, less damage, and is ammo dependent?

Because it doesn't deal more damage?

ER Large Laser (IS model)
Damage per Salvo: 8 units
Heat per Salvo: 12 units
Max. Effective Range: 570 meters
Mass: 5.0 tons
Volume: 2 criticals
Ammunition per Ton: N/A

AC-20
Damage per Salvo: 20 units
Heat per Salvo: 7 units
Max. Effective Range: 270 meters
Mass: 14.0 tons
Volume: 10 criticals
Ammunition per Ton: 5 salvos

The AC-20 is heavier and bulkier (even more so when CASE and multiple tons of ammo are accounted for), shorter-ranged, and ammo-dependent. However, it produces far more damage and far less heat per salvo than the ER Large Laser.

[Arkhangel]

Arbhall Sommers, on 13 May 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

Dunno whys its listing an age at all,, i havent filled out much of the profile information.
Besides which i love my hobbies. Im currently painting assault marines for my new tabletop hobby.

Woot, another 40k player!

[HoldinJohnson]

According to this infographic, I can equip a Paul Inouye on my mech. Sweet...

[LegendSlayer]

I tip my hat to you Mr. Johnson, well played.

[Adridos]

A bump, I would understand, as the thread did have useful info, but this is just a really bad necro...

[HalfBurntRoach]

New Warrior here.
Just so I know I have the proper gist of the chart and am reading it right.
The AC20s have Moderate Heat (50% of bar) with 10 crit slots at 14 tons, a range of 270m for High Damage potential?

Thank you for time on this. Very helpful.

[Strum Wealh]

HalfBurntRoach, on 15 August 2012 - 04:25 AM, said:

New Warrior here.
Just so I know I have the proper gist of the chart and am reading it right.
The AC20s have Moderate Heat (50% of bar) with 10 crit slots at 14 tons, a range of 270m for High Damage potential?

Thank you for time on this. Very helpful.

Essentially, yes.
More specifically:

AC-20
Damage per Salvo: 20 units
Heat per Salvo: 7 units
Max. Effective Range: 270 meters
Mass: 14.0 tons
Volume: 10 criticals
Ammunition per Ton: 5 salvos

The yellow/green/red bars are graphical representations of the weapons' range envelopes (as certain weapons, like PPCs and LRMs, have a minimum range in BT canon that may be translated into MWO).

Personally, I think the graphic could be improved by:

• adding the heat-per-salvo value as a numeral adjacent to the orange heat bar for each weapon
  
• adding the damage per salvo numeral adjacent to the range bar for each weapon

Thus, a reader could determine a greater number of the actual values as well as the relationships between them from the graphic, instead of having to refer to rulebooks/Sarna for the former.

Also, at the risk if re-igniting the previous debate, can we please have "Luxor" changed to "Lubalin"?
Or to even to just use the generic "LB 10-X" designation, as there are several models in-universe, produced by several different in-universe companies?

[John Mechlane]

Aegis Kleais, on 13 May 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

OK, again, sorry if it all looks cheesy, but this graphic goes on the TT rules (since we don't know actual numbers from PGI). The weapons are color coded, heat (flame icon) is relative to the hottest weapon. The icons on the right on top are the crit slots and below it is the tonnage. The width of the bars is the weapon's length (even though PGI said that they may go further at reduced efficiency on some weapons) and the thickness of the bars signifies the weapon's damage potential.

Hope it proves useful.

Bump.
People should see this....helped me a lot to understand things.