30 replies to this topic

[FaustianQ]

I always thought of the AC/2 and 5 as anti-tank cannons(100-120), while the AC/20 was a howitzer repurposed for direct fire(155-203), and the AC/10 was a field artillery piece(105-175). Still, it has always kind of amazed me how incredibly inefficient the ACs are as far as space and weight compared to even 80s tank guns, howitzers, or field guns.

But then I remembered this is Battletech.

[Strum Wealh]

Yeach, on 20 May 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I have posted something similar (I just don't remembered where I posted in)
Where AC20 fires 4 times as many salvos as an AC5 in the same amount of time.

Basically
AC5 fires once / 10 seconds
AC10 fires twice / 10 seconds
AC20 fires four x / 10 seconds.
Essentially AC20 is an AC5 firing 4 x as fast.

The ammunition consumption rate would allow for sharing of AC ammunitions
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

The only reason why people HATE this seems to be because they want the AC20 to do CONCENTRATED damage.

At that point, though, what is described as an AC-10 is then closer to a UAC-5 (AC-5 caliber ammo being fired at twice the normal rate for an AC-5) than to the concept of an AC-10 (a harder-hitting, larger-bore weapon with more limited range than a typical AC-5).

While the TT rulebooks and novels' descriptions indicate that ACs in general are high-ROF weapons that fire "high-speed streams or bursts of high-explosive, armor-defeating shells through one or more barrels", the gameplay footage thus-far released shows that the AC-20s of MWO will behave more similarly to auto-loading versions of real-world howitzers ("...a type of artillery piece characterized by a relatively short barrel and the use of comparatively small propellant charges to propel projectiles...") and field guns than to "gigantic machine guns".

Footage of Paul's "ForumUserKiller" (will the filters let that 'Mech's initials through?! ) in this video (from the 28-second mark onward) seems to imply that the AC-5 would behave similarly to its heavier counterpart (e.g. single-shell fired per firing cycle; though, distinguishing the AC-5 from the MGs mounted in the same location isn't easy), indicating that the "single-shell, concentrated damage" model may be applied to all standard ACs.
(Which then raises the question of how they'll deal with the UAC-5 that is available in MWO's timeframe... )
Also, the recycle bar (partially obscured by the Massively logo) seems to indicate a recycle time in the ~4-5 second range for the AC-5.

Moreover, I did notice that the list in the quoted post omitted the AC-2...

[Yeach]

Strum Wealh, on 20 May 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

Moreover, I did notice that the list in the quoted post omitted the AC-2...

Well you know how I feel about AC2s. ie they should be removed or somehow magically disappear from BT somehow.
ie I don't like them and probably won't use them.
Machine gun damage at 12 x the weight (though with 8 x the range).

On another note why did the choose AC2 and not AC2.5? It's the only AC that doesn't seem to fit in the multiple of "5" category for ACs.

And on that ultra5 question, the double-tap shot option would be fine with me.
http://mwomercs.com/...tra-ac5-vs-ac5/

[LordKnightFandragon]

Whats wrong with ACs in MWO again!? the AC20 has a shorter range because well, its similar to a HOWITZER!!!!! It is like 120-155mm or something like that, maybe bigger, the AC10 has slightly longer range because its smaller and the AC5 smaller and AC2 even smaller yet. How does it NOT make sense that the 20 is slower, smaller ammo count more damage, less range while the AC5 is longer range, more ammo count, lower damage, faster RoF!?

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 20 May 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Well you know how I feel about AC2s. ie they should be removed or somehow magically disappear from BT somehow.
ie I don't like them and probably won't use them.
Machine gun damage at 12 x the weight (though with 8 x the range).

On another note why did the choose AC2 and not AC2.5? It's the only AC that doesn't seem to fit in the multiple of "5" category for ACs.

And on that ultra5 question, the double-tap shot option would be fine with me.
http://mwomercs.com/...tra-ac5-vs-ac5/

Play a few games with aerospace fighters thrown in and you'll wish more mechs carried them. I had a Blackjack pilot on the 3025 MegaMek campaign server that had 17 fighter kills over the course of his career.

[Deathz Jester]

Has the OP fired a real firearm?

[Yeach]

Kudzu, on 20 May 2012 - 08:13 PM, said:

Play a few games with aerospace fighters thrown in and you'll wish more mechs carried them. I had a Blackjack pilot on the 3025 MegaMek campaign server that had 17 fighter kills over the course of his career.

The problem is that the "initial" game doesn't have aerospace fighters.
And aren't aerospace fighters really fragile?
(Or do AC2 have some written rule that gives it better chance to hit like machine guns are on infantry)

[Wyzak]

I forget where I heard this or even if it is canon, but here goes:

AC2 = 20-30mm cannon
AC5 = 70-90mm cannon
AC10=105mm cannon
AC20=120mm or higher shell

Why are AC20 shells heavier with lower range and projectile speed, even though they are roughly equivalent to M1 tank shells?
Possible answer: Most M1 tank shells are kinetic energy penetrators. Battletech AC20 shells are high explosive so they use all that space that was used for fins and penetrator reinforcing to pack in more battletech era explosives - in order to have a chance of denting aligned-crystal durallax armor.
To reiterate what the above posters have said - AC2 has always been intended for use on anti-air platforms, but in a battlemech-centric environment they make ok sniper rifles in a pinch (if you can't afford Gauss or it isn't available at your technology level) and they can also be fit on smaller mechs too.

[Kudzu]

Yeach, on 20 May 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

The problem is that the "initial" game doesn't have aerospace fighters.
And aren't aerospace fighters really fragile?
(Or do AC2 have some written rule that gives it better chance to hit like machine guns are on infantry)

Aerospace fighters vs ground units in the TT are a strange duck-- really really really hard to hit, but if they take damage they tend to be easy to crit (and it forces a piloting skill roll that can send them face first into the dirt).

The AC/2's effectiveness not so much a rule as it is the combo of damage rules, longe range, and modifiers like flak ammo that make it easier to hit. Even without aero, the AC/2 is underated by most people-- being able to plink away and get in early head hits, TACs, and just plain old armor damage can really change the course of a fight without people noticing.

[Easy 8]

The ranges make some sense...it's not the size of the shell, but the shape of the shell, taper and length of the barrel and size of the powder charge behind the shell. If you look at the AC/5 on a classic Shadow Hawk or Marauder and compare it to the AC/20 on an Atlas or Hunchback, you will notice how much longer the AC/5 barrel is as compared to the AC/20. Also that the barrel tapers down toward the muzzle, this creates greater range, accuracy and penetration for the shell. This can be seen often in Worls War 2 era armor. The PzrKmpfw IV.D had a short KwK L24 75mm with a range of less than 1000m, where as the KwK 42 L/70 75mm has a range of neary 2000m. In modern armor, compare the 120mm M256 on an M1A1 to the M8E1 152 mm on a M551 Sheridan. The M8E1 cant't out range a 7.72 NATO round. The M256 can range several miles. As for the minimums, I never thought of the fact that the smaller ACs were fiing APFSDS (armor piercing fin stabalized discarding sabot) rounds, but that would makes total sense...kudos Vulpesveritas on that deduction.

As for damage, in the novels and source books it has stated autocannons are rated for their rate of fire, not by the size of the shell.

[Psydotek]

Oswin Aurelius, on 19 May 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

Now you're talking about LB-X ACs. XD

Nah, you're talking about buckshot. I'm talking about a single solid slug the diameter of the shotgun barrel.



Shotgun slugs don't have much range but will punch huge holes in your target. A .22 rifle round will go significantly further but will put tiny holes in your target.