Are PPC's underpowered or are they lore accurate?

[stjobe]

But... they can't fire back too well if they're dead, either

This is my basic philosophy for this game. All I care about is knocking out other mechs, period. The best tools for that are ballistics, missiles, and very specific lasers, in general. PPCs are the worst option late-game for knocking mechs out.

Sadly, not every weapons activation is a kill shot, not even with AC/20s or Gaus Rifles.

Sometimes (well, most of the time), this game is about managing and manipulating odds, trying to twist them in your favour. The PPC is unique as a weapons system in that it can add to your risk mitigation strategies by reducing the chance of the enemy return fire hitting you, as well as putting a decent-sized hole in your target's armour.

The to-hit penalty does stack, so the more PPCs that hit your target, the harder it will be for it to effectively fire back.

 

[Kereminde]

The to-hit penalty does stack, so the more PPCs that hit your target, the harder it will be for it to effectively fire back.

I was under the impression for all this time - it doesn't stack except with the Snub, and that was "an error". Hmmm.

AWS-9Q when?

 

[MeiSooHaityu]

Makes the Marauder, Warhammer, and even Catapult K2 look better .

 

[Kereminde]

Makes the Marauder, Warhammer, and even Catapult K2 look better .

Hey, they're the classics. (And I'd argue, mildly, not necessarily GOOD, but they're classics.)

 

[Doctor Machete]

Which follows what I say. They're not the best solution, but they're still decent - especially as there's no risk of ammunition explosions, nor risk of heat issues if you're playing well.

And for me "good" means better than average, it implies there are bad weapons and it's not the same meaning as "good enough". All weapons being good is the same as no weapon is good (or bad).

For the ammo explosions to be a factor you need to be in a very bad spot, in which maybe you wouldn't be if you dealt more damage before.

If you play well all weapons can work, the difference is what weapons make easier to win even when playing badly, making mistakes or in much more difficult scenarios. A weapon that can do the job doesn't mean it is necessarily good, it may be but also still can be bad.

There's also a very real danger of relying entirely on focusing too much on whether X is better than Y on a one-to-one basis. There is no point in HBS' game where you are required (or should) be riding solo. With that in mind, evaluating 'Mechs, loadouts, or weapons outside of the idea of "I have four units, not one"... can give you a skewed picture. To quote a wiser man than me, "the map is not the territory"... the statistics, the rules, the analysis and the probabilities all say one thing.

I agree it's not the full picture but still is more objective and much more useful than the "it works for me so it's good" in a really easy game once you know the mechanics.

And there is a point to ride solo in this game, or using just AC2s when there are a lot more weapons in the game, or not using PS/V, or using stock mechs exclusively, or only light mechs, and so on. That point would be the game being so easy. That's why many people play with self imposed handicaps or install mods which greatly increase difficulty.

And here who's relying entirely on whether X is better than Y on a one-to-one basis?. I think nobody. But this topic happens to be about that.

I think the question of "Are PPCs underpowered compared to tabletop?" can only be answered in the spirit of the theoretical, and is the wrong question to ask. What should be asked is "How do you folks use your PPCs?". Sure, you'll get people saying "I don't".

Why is it a wrong answer question?. You're just assuming that PPCs being underpowered it cannot even be subject to discussion because they're obviously not, so obvious that it doesn't make sense to ask if they are, that the only possible explanation is the OP doing something wrong. Well, I disagree with that, both are not exclusive. The OP may or may not be playing them well AND PPCs can be underpowered too (or not).

Also I could turn it around and argue that ammo explosions being considered a very important factor is a symptom of bad playing, and thus that being the case may lead to a wrong conclusion. Because unless there's bad play, lack of experience or some sort of self-handicap ammo explosions should be a non-issue for any experienced player.

...but you'll probably get more useful information than someone who holds up a chart and tries to tell you the PPC shouldn't be used.

You are strawmanning me, putting words in my mouth, because I've never said PPCs shouldn't be used. And in fact I've used them a lot, really a LOT (I've used AC2s a lot too and I don't think many will regard them as good weapons), still I have no problem recognizing they're pretty bad in most cases, and that was pre-HM. Now they're even much worse because more better weapons were added and some other already existing were boosted.

Those charts are based on the game data on damage/weight/heat and ammo consumption. Why don't people use LLs instead of ML, they have longer range, right? well, heat, damage and weight is not the only thing to consider but it matters a lot.

With the game being so easy it doesn't really matter much, but if you still want to know they're not the final word but just a helpful tool. And they would be much more important with a more strong competitive scene (single or multi player) or a much harder game.


Also you misrepresent me because I don't base my assessment exclusively on numbers (derived from the ingame mechanics and not just the basic weapon stats) but also real experience and pressure tests. It's like car crash tests. They're not like real driving, it's not the same as a real accident but still they're useful. And same happens in lots and lots of other contexts, like component certification for example.

I don't use PPCs as often as before HM but still do once in a while and as I see it it's not that they're not the best weapon but that they're not even mediocre, they're not many weapons worse than the PPC.

Let's say you compare it to ML, MPL, ERML, LL, LPL, ERLL, AC2, AC5, AC10, AC20, SL, ERSL, SPL, MG, UAC2, UAC5, UAC10, UAC20, LBX2, LBX5, LBX10, LBX20, SRM2, SRM4, SRM6, LRM5, LRM10, LRM15, LRM20 and Gauss. How would you rate it among those weapons?

Learning based around Theory, Pactice, then Evaluation.

In Theory PPCs are great. No ammo, no risk of explosion.

In Practice: I never run out of ammo or explode.

Yep, that's it.

Both your "theory" and "practice" ignore a couple of things:

PPCs out-range most other weapons.
PPCs do pin-point damage (as opposed to missiles or massed MLs).
PPCs are the only energy weapons that does stability damage.
PPCs are the only weapons that has a stacking to-hit debuff you can apply to the target.

So while the lack of ammo is a pro for the PPC, it is by no means the only pro. If, for example, you want to both impart instability to your target and give it a harder time hitting you back, the PPC is your only choice for that. ACs can't do it, Lasers can't do it, LRMs can't do it.

1 - PPCs range is definitely a good advantage, but in this game range has diminishing returns due to how maps are designed, unless you have Indirect Fire. And PPCs are bad compared to other long range weapons too.
2 - If for example you use LRMs with PS and you aim at the CT then LRMs are going to do almost the same damage (within 5%) and also will damage other locations as well, same for SRMs. LRMs have longer range and Indirect Fire as well. And without PS there is a no contest. LRMs are mediocre-bad for PS (besides the head) and still have the same performance as PPCs, but they're excellent without PS. PPCs aren't.
3 - ACs deal stab damage to plus they are much more efficient. And missiles are arguably the best for that use.
4 - The debuff is very small unless you stack PPCs. But if you have enough available weight for a 4-5 PPC setup then you also have room for a way way higher damage setup at long range which is going to make stab damage irrelevant due to its raw killing power.

I think the real strength of PPCs would be in missions were ammo was actually a real limiting factor and bigger and more open maps, but that's not an issue here.

Sometimes (well, most of the time), this game is about managing and manipulating odds, trying to twist them in your favour. The PPC is unique as a weapons system in that it can add to your risk mitigation strategies by reducing the chance of the enemy return fire hitting you, as well as putting a decent-sized hole in your target's armour.

The debuff is very small and only applies to one target, you need to stack several PPCs to be meaningful. Funny enough, with a SNPPC you may apply the debuff to more than one target with the same weapon (still only one stack per foe per weapon) if there are stray shots.

 

[Kereminde]

And for me "good" means better than average

Okay, what's the average? If you say 'Medium Laser' then you're picking the best weapon in many cases of crunching numbers, so what's the average?

And there is a point to ride solo in this game, or using just AC2s when there are a lot more weapons in the game, or not using PS/V, or using stock mechs exclusively, or only light mechs, and so on. That point would be the game being so easy. That's why many people play with self imposed handicaps or install mods which greatly increase difficulty.

Self-imposed handicaps probably shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Or I'd bring my own ("Stock Only") into consideration, which I didn't. I specifically went hunting up information so I could address things outside of "Stock". And if we want to point to the use of mods, that's not discussing the game HBS made, it's discussing a mod someone else put together. They are two separate entities - so let's stick to what HBS made versus the CBT tabletop.

Wherein the PPC remains in the same position it always has.

Why is it a wrong answer?. You're just assuming that PPCs being underpowered it cannot even be subject to discussion because they're obviously not, so obvious that it doesn't make sense to ask if they are, that the only possible explanation is the OP doing something wrong. Well, I disagree with that, both are not exclusive. The OP may or may not be playing them well AND PPCs can be underpowered too (or not).

Also I could turn it around and argue that ammo explosions being considered a very important factor is a symptom of bad playing, and thus that being the case may lead to a wrong conclusion. Because unless there's bad play, lack of experience or some sort of self-handicap ammo explosions should be a non-issue for any experienced player.

I didn't say it's a wrong answer, I said it's the wrong question. Please don't quote me and then immediately proceed as though it was saying something else.

You are strawmanning me, putting words in my mouth, because I've never said PPCs shouldn't be used.

I never said you did. I picked my words very carefully, because conversations like this one about PPCs have happened on and off by people theorycrafting and making charts measuring how effective, efficient, and "useful" weapons are. It's happened long before Harebrained Schemes made this game, and I've sat in on some discussions before we even got a peek at the game we're talking about now - about what weapons were less-than-useful. (This, incidentally, was where I ran across the point of how the humble basic Medium Laser is by far the best weapon by weight, and by heat. Which winds up stepping away from reality entirely.)

The charts of statistics and the analysis of the data always gets pointed to as though it's reality. As though the conclusions are absolute. It's not, they're not, reality is never quite living up to the models. That's why the HBK-4P Hunchback has eight Medium Lasers and tends to "land damage" but not necessarily have that damage be as effective against the target in comparison to the 4G.

The PPC has a place, it has a use, but outside of that use it's not as good. That use is as a long-ranged energy-based weapon - and you can get some good use out of it. I certainly have, and for the way I play PPCs have been useful. It's not good in a close-in-brawl, because melee is almost always a better option once you get into Heavy/Assault class 'Mechs. There are a number of places the PPC does not excel, but putting a large chunk of damage into a target from a good distance away - without having it splash into multiple locations - the PPC is among the better weapons at the base. The advanced models are more interesting, though I have always felt the more accurate models (Tiegart) were better than the more damaging ones (Donal).

And, to cut off the comparison - yes, not as useful as Gauss Rifles. But those things are an outlier and not "supposed" to exist in this time period, so of course they are great. (They're also pretty great in the time period they're intended for, even with better armor protection. They are, by far, almost a good a candidate for "this is the best choice" as the Clan ER Large Laser, I think it was.)

It's like this on CBT as well. As much as the lore did romanticize and play up the intimidation of the PPC, as I understand it - that was during an era when a lot of weapons weren't there. But you'd definitely need to ask someone with the oldest set of books, before adjustments and retcons adding new equipment into history as though it's always been there. And yet... the PPC remains intimidating even on tabletop when it's 10 damage points into a single target area, from a distance where there's few things to answer back reliably. The two things more intimidating are a 'Mech sporting an AC/20 (though you can solve THAT by staying outside of six spaces from the enemy) and a large number of LRM tubes (because they're likely to land a good hit, just with wildly variable damage results). The PPC doesn't need ammo, it doesn't need to be close-in, and there's a reason one of the worst things you can come across is a competent pilot in an AWS-8Q in 3025.

... or someone being a cheeky fool and concealing several SRM Carriers in the forest you just walked past...

 

[Chaosticket]

A lot of the posts Im reading confuse me until I think about people doing the opposite, and getting into slugging matches.

My situation may be different for some people. I focus on scavenging all the equipment and technology I use so raw damage to me is only useful when making Headshots. I wont use an AC-20 because its range is too low, but Medium Lasers might be useful because they are 1 ton. I use them as Emergency weapons, like the Blackjack, Jagermech, Catapult, and so on.

AC-5s are not the best weapon, but they are very efficient. Best combined ratio of weight-tonnage-heat.-range-power. a big weakness is the low stability damage of the default model, so I pair them up with the LRMs. 1 Sniper, 1 Artillery.

The upgraded models are better. AC-5+++ had triple the Stability damage and about +20% accuracy. LRM+++ has double Stability damage.

PPCs are not as great with upgrades because they have no +++ "ultimate" model. You have to pick between +20% damage, +150% stability damage or +20% accuracy. The Damage model is the weakest improvement but might be able to make a Headshot in one hit.

Defending the PPC isnt really succeeding because the only thing unique about it is the Sensor disruption effect.

 

[Jade_Rook]

I was under the impression for all this time - it doesn't stack except with the Snub, and that was "an error". Hmmm.

AWS-9Q when?

Initially the PPC penalty didn't stack. That was changed in an update. It was around the time of the skill update. Either that or first DLC. There was a challenge to see how many stacks of sensor impairment someone could get on a single unit. I think they got into the 20s.

A lot of the posts Im reading confuse me until I think about people doing the opposite, and getting into slugging matches.

My situation may be different for some people. I focus on scavenging all the equipment and technology I use so raw damage to me is only useful when making Headshots. I wont use an AC-20 because its range is too low, but Medium Lasers might be useful because they are 1 ton. I use them as Emergency weapons, like the Blackjack, Jagermech, Catapult, and so on.

AC-5s are not the best weapon, but they are very efficient. Best combined ratio of weight-tonnage-heat.-range-power. a big weakness is the low stability damage of the default model, so I pair them up with the LRMs. 1 Sniper, 1 Artillery.

The upgraded models are better. AC-5+++ had triple the Stability damage and about +20% accuracy. LRM+++ has double Stability damage.

PPCs are not as great with upgrades because they have no +++ "ultimate" model. You have to pick between +20% damage, +150% stability damage or +20% accuracy. The Damage model is the weakest improvement but might be able to make a Headshot in one hit.

If you are going exclusively for head shots and pilot kills for salvage then PPCs won't be very helpful. They can supplement a knockdown mech, but aren't really good at that role.

Personally, I include head hunting as an option, but don't focus my full lance around it. I know it can be very effective, but I just don't enjoy that strategy as much.

 

[Chaosticket]

Initially the PPC penalty didn't stack. That was changed in an update. It was around the time of the skill update. Either that or first DLC. There was a challenge to see how many stacks of sensor impairment someone could get on a single unit. I think they got into the 20s.



If you are going exclusively for head shots and pilot kills for salvage then PPCs won't be very helpful. They can supplement a knockdown mech, but aren't really good at that role.

Personally, I include head hunting as an option, but don't focus my full lance around it. I know it can be very effective, but I just don't enjoy that strategy as much.

My question is what do people do when you cannot make a one-turn-KO/Kill? I remember in the early game I hated that because I had to get my entire lance to locus fire and HOPE even 1 enemy would be kill and then hope some more that I wouldnt destroy all the possible salvage.

 

[Jade_Rook]

My question is what do people do when you cannot make a one-turn-KO/Kill? I remember in the early game I hated that because I had to get my entire lance to locus fire and HOPE even 1 enemy would be kill and then hope some more that I wouldnt destroy all the possible salvage.

Chew through armor and structure. Flank and focus on weak sides or get back shots. Don't get pinned down and keep up evasion. I don't expect one turn kills until very late game.

 

[Kereminde]

My question is what do people do when you cannot make a one-turn-KO/Kill? I remember in the early game I hated that because I had to get my entire lance to locus fire and HOPE even 1 enemy would be kill and then hope some more that I wouldnt destroy all the possible salvage.

Don't sweat the apparent loss of salvage, because if I let myself worry about "I could have gotten more out of that mission" while scraping Dekker out of another cockpit and dragging him to the infirmary... why I'd obsessively-compulsively reload every mission until I got the best possible outcome. And I lived through that with XCom: UFO Defense. I'm not doing that again.

Chew through armor and structure. Flank and focus on weak sides or get back shots. Don't get pinned down and keep up evasion. I don't expect one turn kills until very late game.

Unless I'm abusing the game like a mad Capellan leader, I don't often score many one-turn kills in late game either. I get far more in the mid-game. Before you start finding out Steiner Scout Squads are now the bulk of your OpFor encounters. When that starts happening, it's time to load that MAD-3R (or if you got it, the MAD-2R) for a spot on the Aurigan Reach's hot trivid series "The Deadliest Catch" and pop King Crabs in the face all day. But that's about as boring as garrison duty for the Lyrans, even if you don't get company store'd out of existence.

 

[Chaosticket]

Don't sweat the apparent loss of salvage, because if I let myself worry about "I could have gotten more out of that mission" while scraping Dekker out of another cockpit and dragging him to the infirmary... why I'd obsessively-compulsively reload every mission until I got the best possible outcome. And I lived through that with XCom: UFO Defense. I'm not doing that again.



Unless I'm abusing the game like a mad Capellan leader, I don't often score many one-turn kills in late game either. I get far more in the mid-game. Before you start finding out Steiner Scout Squads are now the bulk of your OpFor encounters. When that starts happening, it's time to load that MAD-3R (or if you got it, the MAD-2R) for a spot on the Aurigan Reach's hot trivid series "The Deadliest Catch" and pop King Crabs in the face all day. But that's about as boring as garrison duty for the Lyrans, even if you don't get company store'd out of existence.

Last time IO played UFO Defense was a few years ago. Ill agree with you on random rewards. I load saves a lot by the end to get some better gear. I do not like the salvage system. Its way too grindy.

Assault Mechs may seem dangerous but again, High Skill pilots scoring Knockdown and Marauder+Headshots. To me Assault Mechs are walking equipment stores waiting for salvage.

Small fast enemies with very high evasion are more diifficult. In those cases carrying multiple small weapons like Medium Lasers and Multitrack are better. Thats when getting weapons with +20 accuracy start being really useful like an AC-5+++ and Medium Laser+++.

Someone else might turn the campaign settings so it take 8 salvage, mechs are cripple when assembled, no default equipment is mounted, and you only get 1 save that deletes itself if you fail.

 

[Kereminde]

Someone else might turn the campaign settings so it take 8 salvage, no default equipment is mounted, and you only get 1 save that deletes itself if you fail.

You're describing at least two people I 'know' on these forums who liked the concept and claim it's a lot of fun, while I tried it once and realized I really needed to step up my game. I still plan on playing it Ironman again next time, and streaming it so the world can watch me fail beautifully

 

[Doctor Machete]

Okay, what's the average? If you say 'Medium Laser' then you're picking the best weapon in many cases of crunching numbers, so what's the average?

You tell me, what's the average, or (better) what weapons do you think are worse than the PPC?. Because if for you the PPC is good then the majority of the other weapons must be worse. That's my point. I'm not saying there is an absolute truth about which weapon is better or worse (although of course I have my opinion) but you cannot have all weapons being good. You maybe haven't thought about it but try to put them in a list and then tell me if the PPC is still "good" if it's still better than more than half of the weapons.

As an example, if you want to know what would be my line of thinking for the ML (and in this case assuming ++/+++ with DHS available), I'd say it is no doubt quite good but not top tier anymore due to long range playstyles being favored. Pre 1.9 it would have been (top tier), along SRMs, but now there are more good long range weapons and some already existing ones were buffed (lostech energy weapons and Gauss). Still with lower efficiency than the ML but the gap is much smaller. Also RF++/+++ are way easier to get than before, which benefits longer range weaponry and it does factor in. Still the ML is super efficient, only one crit slot and one ton means it's very easy to mass (because energy hp are pretty common) or just add as some extra damage, it can be quite good from light mechs up to assaults.

As a direct comparison the SRM2 is actually a bit more efficient than the ML. It is kinda a mini UAC, but with the scarcity of missile hardpoints and lack of punch I would probably put it well bellow average. Still it may have some uses, like for a bit of extra damage on top of other weapons, but not as the main weapon system, perhaps not even secondary, while SRM6s or SRM4s are much more reasonable as primary or secondary weapons, even if they're a lot less efficient than the SRM2 for headcapping (not so much for CT core).

Self-imposed handicaps probably shouldn't be brought into this discussion. Or I'd bring my own ("Stock Only") into consideration, which I didn't. I specifically went hunting up information so I could address things outside of "Stock". And if we want to point to the use of mods, that's not discussing the game HBS made, it's discussing a mod someone else put together. They are two separate entities - so let's stick to what HBS made versus the CBT tabletop.

That works better for my point, because in that case you shouldn't be worried about ammo explosions, ever (imo), and if you do then that's bad playing in my book. And that makes less trustworthy an evaluation of a particular energy weapon when that impossibility of ammo explosions (which shouldn't be an issue at all) is considered a very big deal.

I didn't say it's a wrong answer, I said it's the wrong question. Please don't quote me and then immediately proceed as though it was saying something else.

Sorry my dumb mistake. I meant "question", else my comment doesn't make much sense because what you say.

I never said you did. I picked my words very carefully, because conversations like this one about PPCs have happened on and off by people theorycrafting and making charts measuring how effective, efficient, and "useful" weapons are. It's happened long before Harebrained Schemes made this game, and I've sat in on some discussions before we even got a peek at the game we're talking about now - about what weapons were less-than-useful. (This, incidentally, was where I ran across the point of how the humble basic Medium Laser is by far the best weapon by weight, and by heat. Which winds up stepping away from reality entirely.)

You didn't but I thought it was very clear who was referring to. Who's has been posting charts like the last months (and not once but several times), or even a year, and in this same thread?. And even if it wasn't me, who in the entire history of the forum has said PPCs shouldn't be used, has that happened ever?.

The charts of statistics and the analysis of the data always gets pointed to as though it's reality. As though the conclusions are absolute. It's not, they're not, reality is never quite living up to the models.

Again, you say always, but who has said or implied that?. Many many times, here and in the steam forum when I've posted charts I've said something like that. That there are some bias in it, some assumptions must be made and it's not the whole picture, but as long as you're aware what the charts mean they are useful. What they show is not the conclusion, you cannot take them at face value, you need to interpret them.

And not only me. I don't think anyone posting a chart of this kind has implied things like range or hardpoint availability don't matter.

 

[stjobe]

We have a Bickering Thread for bickering.

The topic is: "Are PPCs underpowered or are they lore accurate?". If anyone has some more input on that actual topic, feel free to contribute. If not, feel free to agree to disagree.

 

[Kereminde]

As you like, I'll just let it go. I've got things to work on which appeal far more than repeating the same points. Here's my last words on the idea:

Having played both tabletop (I need to get back to that) and HBS' game - I find more reasons to have PPCs in HBS' game. As in tabletop it's usually a bit more of a logistical headache paperwork-wise to replace them, while HBS' game lets you simply pop one out and replace it with no fuss. And I have less of a reason to do it in this game, primarily because when used as the design encourages (sniping from longer range, in the back) they're fairly good.

Practically every time I use them, it's not for "knife-fighting", because I'd rather use punches/kicks for that range. It's at long-range, and only one weapon tends to outshine it - the Gauss Rifle. LRMs aren't as reliable at punching holes, AC/5s only come close in damage (but not stability), but the PPC's debuff is just a little extra thing to make it more attractive. Of course, if I have the choice - Gauss. (The ability to hit into structure and potentially crit something is a big reason to use it on top of range/damage ratio.)

Now, if it has to be compared to tabletop, PPCs in tabletop have the problem of range penalties being more punishing. (You're less often to have excellent pilots unless you're doing campaign play or your pickup games let you just 'make up' elite-level 'MechWarriors.) The "stability" damage they inflict doesn't quite make up for a +2/+4 penalty adjustment on two six-sided dice. And that's without adding in the penalty for the attacker moving - which can translate to anything from the +2 to a +7 penalty before figuring in how far the defender's moved... which means many light 'Mech targets are literally unable to be hit by a 'standard' pilot. (Starting at a base value of 4, add +4 for shooting at long range, add +1 because you walked, add +3 because the enemy was a Locust which ran... that's hitting only on a 12. Good luck!)

Lore-wise, once again, remember the lore was written all through a period where things we now take for granted didn't exist, or even in some cases before the tabletop game really had the data finalized. (I think Stackpole's first trilogy was written before the tabletop was released?) So there's a wide variety of potentials there, but in lore the PPC resembles a lightning strike. Much like Infernos and Flamers, that's got a psychological effect on people which the game rules don't model at all.

 

[Chaosticket]

#1 The Early Tabletop Rules the PPC was an excellent weapon, but that was when the AC-"5=25 damage" was the only autocannon, so a PPC with 50damage was much stronger, and the AC-20 didnt exist at all yet.

#2 Nothing ingame is 100% accurate between the Tabletop and PC game. PPCs got buffed with the Sensor Disruption effect, but directly nerfed by the increase in heat.

#3 The big argument is that while PPCs are fairly normal some other weapons are HEAVILY buffed, which knocks PPCs into "plain" category.

High efficiency Autocannons, high power Gauss Rifles, minimal weight Medium Lasers, efficient Large Lasers, death-from-any-angle Long Range Missiles.

#4 The Hardpoint system tells you what you can and cannot do with a mech. Choosing to fill your slots with PPCs means you give up on others weapons because of both limited slots but also tonnage, and its very easy to overheat requiring additional slots and tonnage for heat sinks.

Its easier for Missile boats and Gunboats to fill out their Big Guns, and then fill up energy slots with Medium Lasers.

#5 Minimum Range on the Tabletop and ingame is a misnomer. Its an accuracy penalty. Ingame its quite brutal when you get slightly into "penalty range" and see you taking a -40% accuracy. I havent tested this so I cant really say if its closely accurate from tabletop-PC.

a High Tactics skill removes the Penalty from PPCs entirely, but the PPC didnt have a big Penalty Range anyways.

#6 Its actually a noticeable problem for the Gauss Rifle where the Tabletop Range is 2=60meters but ingame its 180meters=6, so HBS tripled the penalty range of Gauss Rifles. Presumably its for competitive balance?

#7 Clan PPCs fro 3050+ are closer to what people imagine. They are one-shot decapitation weapons. Ingame the closest you can get are ultra-rare ultra-expensive ER PPC++ with 70 damage. Because of all the ingame changes they arent quite as dreaded. Damaged Reduction is rare on the Tabletop, while ingame just being in light cover gives you a magical -20% damage reduction buff. That can go to -40% with Bulwark skill, and -60% with entrenching.

So Its POSSIBLE to get PPCs closer to the Lore its In My Honest Opinion just not worth trying. Still I am a fan of the underdog, and am actually trying to get SLDF mechs, with double heat sinks, and ER PPC++. Maybe Ill try modding the game to remove all the buffs and nerfs to make the PPC exactly like the tabletop?

 

[Kovax]

#1 The Early Tabletop Rules the PPC was an excellent weapon, but that was when the AC-"5=25 damage" was the only autocannon, so a PPC with 50damage was much stronger, and the AC-20 didnt exist at all yet.
......
Maybe Ill try modding the game to remove all the buffs and nerfs to make the PPC exactly like the tabletop?

The AC/5 did 5 damage (not 25), because all armor values and weapon damages have been drastically increased (by roughly a factor of 4-5) in the HBS game. The PPC did 10 points, which is roughly close to the amount of armor on several locations of many Medium 'Mechs. One hit MIGHT penetrate a thinner-skinned Medium 'Mech, but it would leave practically any of them at risk of internal damage from almost any other hit to that location. That's far scarier than having 2-3 different locations hit by LRMs.

I don't think that modding the PPC to match its TT values (multiplied to compensate for the armor increases in HBS) would "balance" the weapon, because other weapons have gotten significant boosts, leaving the poor PPC as only marginally more powerful than the standard AC/5, which is a relatively weak and inefficient weapon on the tabletop. Corresponding nerfs to bring the other weapons down to TT levels would be needed, otherwise the PPC, without its "special abilities" in the HBS game, would be clearly "worse" than several other common weapons choices. As it is, it's "situational".

 

[Panzer-Killer]

As the title says after reading and listening to several Battletech books it seems like PPC were a very feared weapon in game the seem very meh... do they need a boost in damage to reflect what the lore says?

I've read a dozen or so Battletech novels up to now, and as far as I can tell in all of them PPC are a respected weapon system due to their longer effective shooting range, which allow the 'Mech armed with them to snipe enemies while keeping out of retaliation range, as well as for their no need for ammo, which comes useful in long campaign saddled with too much long or difficult logistic routes while their damage potential even though quite high is not so much feared apart from Light and maybe Medium's 'Mechs pilots.

Both effective shooting range as well as their ammo-independence are less useful in a videogame, the first due to battle map not being able to let you snipe out of retaliation forever, and the latter due to each battle being essentially independent, so that no ammo consumption does ever really metter so long as you've enough to endure the whole battle in the first place.

Even though I've never played to the tabletop, I have a feeling anyway that the same is true for the tabletop too, as a tabletop battle map is essentially a 450 x 510 mt rectangle, and in order to make sense of sniping forever out of retaliation you should always set up at least a 4 x battle map by joining four different battle maps together, and ammo consumption is better managed as downtime activity between campaign missions, and ther

 

[Chaosticket]

The AC/5 did 5 damage (not 25), because all armor values and weapon damages have been drastically increased (by roughly a factor of 4-5) in the HBS game. The PPC did 10 points, which is roughly close to the amount of armor on several locations of many Medium 'Mechs. One hit MIGHT penetrate a thinner-skinned Medium 'Mech, but it would leave practically any of them at risk of internal damage from almost any other hit to that location. That's far scarier than having 2-3 different locations hit by LRMs.

I don't think that modding the PPC to match its TT values (multiplied to compensate for the armor increases in HBS) would "balance" the weapon, because other weapons have gotten significant boosts, leaving the poor PPC as only marginally more powerful than the standard AC/5, which is a relatively weak and inefficient weapon on the tabletop. Corresponding nerfs to bring the other weapons down to TT levels would be needed, otherwise the PPC, without its "special abilities" in the HBS game, would be clearly "worse" than several other common weapons choices. As it is, it's "situational".

YES I know that. I was trying to be "multilingual" by translating Tabletop-to-PC_Game equivalents.

"remove all the buffs and nerfs " Heres a small list.

AC-2s damage reduced from 25 to 10 damage, shots per ton of ammunition increased from 25 to 45.
AC-5s damage reduced from 45 to 25 damage, shots per ton of ammunition increased from 15 to 20.
AC-10 damage reduced from 60 to 50 damage, shots per ton of ammunition increased from 8 to 10.

Medium Lasers heat reduced from 12 to 9, gain Stability Damage (10?), lose Accuracy bonus
Large Lasers Heat Increased from 18 to 24, gain Stability Damage(16?), lose accuracy bonus.
PPC Heat decreased by 35 to 30, Sensor Disruption debuff removed.

and so on.
==========================
All units can "tank" damage much more easily in the PC_game.

on the tabletop: There arent skills to raise your evasion. You dont reduce damage taken for being in cover. Entrenching doest exist.
Knocking enemies down is somewhat easy as every time they get kicked, get hit by or use a Death From Above attack, or take 20(or 100 PC) damage in a turn they have to check to fall over. Its not guaranteed, just "maybe" but you can get hit by multiple knockdown checks in one turn.

In the PC_Game: knockdowns are either very difficult or super easy. Fill the bar up and 100% guaranteed success. But if you dont fill that up its 100% Still Standing
You can equip Gyros that reduce enemy accuracy or reduce the stability damage taken.
Evasion can be raises to very high levels.
Bulwark/Cover/Entrenching reduces damage taken by up to 60%.
Sure Footed skill reduces stability damage(knockdown) by 50%
Fog of War means units cannot just shoot anything not behind very heavy cover like cliff.
Losing a leg doesnt "kill" your mech.
Ammunition Explosions dont extend past the side torsos. So you are safe if you move all Center Torso ammunition to the sides.
NPCs never eject.

PC_Game: PPCs arent terrible, but all the changes from the Tabletop to the PC make them mediocre. Its far too easy to reduce their effectiveness but since you still gain 35 heat EVERY TIME YOU FIRE Its possible to just win by getting the enemy to overheat. If they shutdown you get free Called Shots.

Best I find is just use the PPC with 50 Stability Damage. At least that some some use that an AC-2 or 5 cannot completely copy. (unless someone can use 2 AC-2s with 25stability damage each.)
=========================
PS: anyone know how to turn off the Fog of War through modding? That would drastically change the game where massed long range weapons would be better than any melee brawling