| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 917
Location: Spain
|
 Posted: 25-Nov-2003 16:02 Post subject: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
  |
|
As you may know, I proposed renaming the AC/5 as the AC/7, and the AC/2 as the AC/3, doing respectively 3 and 7 points of damage (duh)
But I have seen that several people have shown a preference for upgrading the AC/2 to do 4 points of damage. After playtesting, I have to agree with them.
I've realized I was mistaken. After further thought, I now believe the AC/2 should be renamed AC/4, do 4 points of damage and haeve 40 shots per ton and take 2 critical slots. Aftr all, is way bigger than MG or Medium Laser.
First are game balance reasons. The gun is so rare raising its damage doesn't cause any game balance problems.
It also fits nicely with the gun scale, after all there was no weapon that did 4 points of damage, so we would have standard MG 2 points, Heavy MG 3 points, and their larger cousins the autocannons starting at 4 points of damage.
Correspondingly they would be 20mm, 30mm and 40mm ( a big 40mm not a Bofors one)
I also realized that there was not enough reason to have a 30mm caliber for an AC/2, other that I was fixated on the "big cartridge, small slug" idea. Since the gun is going to fire APDS anyway, bore diameter is not that important. I was fixated on the gun firing
30mm solid rounds from influence of modern days Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Moreover, since the main function of autocannons is firing HE shells, a 40 mm caliber would be a much more effective gun for antipersonel purposes a 40mm has a decent punch, there's not enough explosive filler in a 30mm shell. MGs base their antipersonnel effect on a high ROF, with HE shells being a bonus, autocannons comparative advantage is they fire larger HE shells, with greater blast and fragmentation effects.
The combination of a fast RoF with HE shells make the gun a decent area suppression weapon, not as good as a MG firing on full auto, or as the powerful blasts of large calibers guns, but it has two advantages
1)Great range (if you are close enough to use MGs the enemy can also shoot back)
2)Plenty of ammo, with larger calibers guns you have to choose carefully your targets. You cannot afford to waste a salvo firing at some bushes.
With an AC/4,you have plenty of ammo, and it's cheap
It's no wonder that 'Mechs meant for antiguerrilla missions have this gun, like the Vulcan and Blackjack
From a ballistics standpoint, the damage of 4 is more justified. One thing that bothered me is that a gun with such a long range had such a weak punch. That the projectile was too light and it did little more than punching nice, neat little holes were and still are valid points, as well that there's nothing special in the range other than the gun size allows to maximize its performance due to a proportionally longer barrel and specially,low recoil (though it still would be difficult to mount one on a 20 tonner 'Mech) resulting in much better accuracy.
Still, 3 points fell short of the mark, something with enough energy to travel that far should punch slightly bigger holes.
Also, it tidies up the math and fits better the scale.
Comparing the ammo weights we can see how it fits the propellant mass with muzzle velocity and damage
In one burst each autocannon fires
AC/4 10 rounds x 2.5kg = 25 kg 40 bursts / ton (400 40mm rounds)
AC/7 5 rounds x 10 kg = 50 kg 20 bursts / ton (100 75mm rounds)
AC/10 4 rounds x 25 kg = 100 kg 10 bursts / ton (40 105mm rounds)
AC/20 4 rounds x 50 kg = 200 kg 5 bursts / ton (20 155-200mm rounds,
Note, the caliber figures are just averages given for reference purposes. Exact caliber doesn't matter as long as the propellant charge and therefore muzzle velocity are consistent with the above figures, wich are the "best fit" solution
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 25-Nov-2003 21:03 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
| I'm glad to see we agree on something. I really like what this rule does to the Vulcan. I've got the old pursuit lance set (one Vulcan, one Jenner, and two Commandos), and so I use this combination of 'mechs a good deal. Doubling the damage of the AC makes the Vulcan a much more serious threat against other light and small, fast medium 'mechs, none of which have the range to match the Vulcan. Even a Locust or Stinger can usually shrug off two points of damage, but four can be another matter entirely. Look out recon lances!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 25-Nov-2003 21:06 Post subject: p.s. What about advanced ACs? |
|
|
| I do rather wonder if this will unbalance Ultra, LB-X, and especially Rotary Autocannons. I'm not so concerned about the Ultra or LB-X, but a Rotary AC/4 could be fearsome indeed (to say nothing of a 7)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 917
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: 26-Nov-2003 01:36 Post subject: RE: p.s. What about advanced ACs? |
|
|
That's none of my business, pal. I'm concerned about the 3025 game 
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Havoc~Ronin
Federated Suns
Major
Joined: 13-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 427
|
| Posted: 26-Nov-2003 12:23 Post subject: RE: p.s. What about advanced ACs? |
|
|
I like it alot. I also found that the A/C2 was a waste of weapon slots as the 2 points of damage was ok if your opponent was powered down and you had all the time in the world to chip away at his armor. There is a tank that carries a series of A\c2's taht using this change, would make it a fearsome opponent (I forget its name - over 60 tons)
Good work. I like the fact that you are providing supporting evidence to your argument.
_________________
"Ours is not to question why, ours is just to do...."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 26-Nov-2003 16:44 Post subject: RE: p.s. What about advanced ACs? |
|
|
| I think you're talking about the Pike Support Vehicle. The Partisan is another one that receives a big upgrade from this (4 AC/7s). Among 'mech designs, I'd have to say the Jagermech probably receives the biggest boost from this. (despite my earlier praise for the Vulcan). The Jagermech goes from being an undergunned piece of shit to a heat-efficient fire support 'mech. (armor still sucks though).
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Raven!
Clan Snow Raven
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1326
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 26-Nov-2003 17:26 Post subject: RE: p.s. What about advanced ACs? |
|
|
Rifleman gets a much needed boost. Now it can switch freely between Large Lasers and AC/7 without much loss.
Raven!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 26-Nov-2003 20:47 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
So does an ultra AC/2 become an Ultra AC/4?
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 27-Nov-2003 01:01 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
| That's a good question, isn't it?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 917
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: 27-Nov-2003 12:26 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
I think you can figure out that since all special autocannons are improvements on the basic model you will have Ultra AC/4s and LB-X 7s for example, it's obvious enough.
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
-Mud
ex-Jade Falcon
Bounty Hunter
Joined: 04-Nov-2003 00:00
Posts: 1082
|
| Posted: 27-Nov-2003 13:59 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
| My only thing is that they make the RACs soemwhat munchy, but then again, RACs were always pretty munchy. Cluster ammo is also a bit nicer too, although you'd need to come up with a formula for determining how many submunitions out of seven hit, as there are no SRM-7s out there.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 917
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: 27-Nov-2003 17:30 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
*waves hand*
RACs DO NOT EXIST
There's no spoon!
As for the LB-7x cluster rounds, as if anybody bothered to use them at all...
No column for 7s in the missile table? Roll just two dice as normal and then add together the results in the 2 and 5 columns. Easy enough, innit?
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Motown Scrapper
Clan Ice Hellions
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 24-Jul-2003 00:00
Posts: 2074
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 27-Nov-2003 19:09 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
Another way to chart the hits for your house rule LBXs would be to use the chart set-up for missile carrying protomechs 
_________________
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have-Rush Limbaugh www.rushlimbaugh.com
Force of nature
Still crazy after all these years
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Gangrene
Federated Suns
Leftenant General
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 939
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 30-Nov-2003 17:10 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2003-11-27 12:26, Vampire wrote:
I think you can figure out that since all special autocannons are improvements on the basic model you will have Ultra AC/4s and LB-X 7s for example, it's obvious enough.
|
|
I was wondering if you had extended your analysis to include the upgraded autocannons. As Mud pointed out, the RAC's now become a lot more powerful. Applying this basis to all autocannons has the potential of unbalancing the game.
_________________
Gangrene
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vampire
Free Worlds League
Lieutenant Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 917
Location: Spain
|
| Posted: 01-Dec-2003 11:15 Post subject: RE: The AC/2 should be renamed the AC/4 (tech stuff) |
|
|
Well, frankly I consider the RACs ludicrous, but if you don't care as much as I do about realism, and don't mind the munchiness, I'd leave the RAC damage as they were (RAC 2 and 5)
And the pseudo sicentific explanation you could come up with is that they are smaller caliber than standard autocannons, but with a faster rate of fire.
I'd never touch them with a ten foot pole, but I understand that there are people that want as many weapons and gizmos as possible. Since the RACs were designed with 2 and 5 points of damage in mind, and are supposed to be balanced , I wouldn't tamper with them.
_________________
Memento audare semper
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
