Weapon efficiency

[Jamey]

Since I've done this for TT, I thought I'd look at efficiency for weapons in BATTLETECH.

• Ammo is the minimum tons I'd dedicate to the weapon. I'm generally looking for 15 shots.
  
• Dam / (W+A) is damage divided by weight of weapon and ammo
• Dam / (W+A+H) is damage divided by weight of weapons, ammo, and heat sinks
• STB is stability damage, and the efficiency calculations are identical for regular damage
• 65% HS and 120% HS efficiency numbers are for planets with biomes that increase and reduce HS efficiency.

Ballistic Weapons
Autocannons (ACs) get more efficient as they get bigger, especially in stability. That makes sense given their lower ranges.

Energy Weapons
The ML is competitive with some SRMs for efficiency. That probably makes it a little weak because it has no stability damage. I'm not convinced the accuracy buff is worth zero stability damage, especially once your pilots have leveled up their gunnery to a decent point.

The LL and PPC are less efficient than all ACs, even in the more heat efficient biomes. Currently the only usage I see for these is as the primary weapon on a lighter mech (e.g. a sniper Panther). I would personally tweak these so that they are at least more efficient than ACs in cold biomes.

Missile Weapons
LRMs are mostly balanced with each other, other than the LRM 10 which is worse than the others just like in TT. LRMs are among the best options for long range damage as well as stability damage. Looking at these numbers, I expect LRMs to be a major part of the meta. I would probably tune them downward in damage while leaving them as the kings of knockdown.

SRMs are weirdly balanced with. I almost suspect a typo in the SRM 4 heat number, as if it were 10 heat the SRMs would be reasonably balanced against each other. They are also well balanced against the ML in damage, but they also deploy stability.

Support Weapons
MGs are a massive outlier. My understanding is that they fire 5 shots per volley, so there are 40 shots in a ton of ammo. That may not be correct, which would change their calculation greatly. I went with 0.5 tons per MG (20 shots each) because they were crazy efficient at lower numbers.

SLs are very efficient. I'm going to look at mounting them over MLs on faster mechs. I'm imagining a Firestarter with 3 ML and 6 SL for back attacks.

Flamer heat damage is unique. If you take them, it is for the heat damage, not for the damage. That said, their damage efficiency is the same as MLs. It's not clear to me if they have only 3 shots like they did in beta. If so, they are very niche.

Other notes
There are other factors I'm not taking into account in my efficiency numbers because they are situational or subjective. These are the ones I know about:

• Lasers have an accuracy buff
• The PPC applies an accuracy debuff to targets it hits
• Autocannons have a recoil penalty that debuffs accuracy when fired on consecutive turns
• Different weapons can have different bonuses for + weapons. That may change the balance between weapons (e.g. LRMs can get +STB but lasers can get +DAM). More information will be required to take that into account, as this is all anecdotal so far based on seeing streams.

Here is the spreadsheet for anyone who wants it.

 

[Kereminde]

I'm imagining a Firestarter with 3 ML and 6 SL for back attacks.

You are not the only one there.

 

[Jamey]

You are not the only one there.

I'm thinking about this more. That's almost 90% of the damage of a HBK-4P in a 35 ton chassis with 6/9/6 movement. Yum.

 

[Tnarien]

You are not the only one there.

Swap out the SLs for MGs. Go headhunting instead. Save on the repair bills.

 

[CuCulainn]

Since I've done this for TT, I thought I'd look at efficiency for weapons in BATTLETECH.
View attachment 358407

• Ammo is the minimum tons I'd dedicate to the weapon. I'm generally looking for 15 shots.
  
• Dam / (W+A) is damage divided by weight of weapon and ammo
• Dam / (W+A+H) is damage divided by weight of weapons, ammo, and heat sinks
• STB is stability damage, and the efficiency calculations are identical for regular damage
• 65% HS and 120% HS efficiency numbers are for planets with biomes that increase and reduce HS efficiency.

Ballistic Weapons
Autocannons (ACs) get more efficient as they get bigger, especially in stability. That makes sense given their lower ranges.

Energy Weapons
The ML is competitive with some SRMs for efficiency. That probably makes it a little weak because it has no stability damage. I'm not convinced the accuracy buff is worth zero stability damage, especially once your pilots have leveled up their gunnery to a decent point.

The LL and PPC are less efficient than all ACs, even in the more heat efficient biomes. Currently the only usage I see for these is as the primary weapon on a lighter mech (e.g. a sniper Panther). I would personally tweak these so that they are at least more efficient than ACs in cold biomes.

Missile Weapons
LRMs are mostly balanced with each other, other than the LRM 10 which is worse than the others just like in TT. LRMs are among the best options for long range damage as well as stability damage. Looking at these numbers, I expect LRMs to be a major part of the meta. I would probably tune them downward in damage while leaving them as the kings of knockdown.

SRMs are weirdly balanced with. I almost suspect a typo in the SRM 4 heat number, as if it were 10 heat the SRMs would be reasonably balanced against each other. They are also well balanced against the ML in damage, but they also deploy stability.

Support Weapons
MGs are a massive outlier. My understanding is that they fire 5 shots per volley, so there are 40 shots in a ton of ammo. That may not be correct, which would change their calculation greatly. I went with 0.5 tons per MG (20 shots each) because they were crazy efficient at lower numbers.

SLs are very efficient. I'm going to look at mounting them over MLs on faster mechs. I'm imagining a Firestarter with 3 ML and 6 SL for back attacks.

Flamer heat damage is unique. If you take them, it is for the heat damage, not for the damage. That said, their damage efficiency is the same as MLs. It's not clear to me if they have only 3 shots like they did in beta. If so, they are very niche.

Other notes
There are other factors I'm not taking into account in my efficiency numbers because they are situational or subjective. These are the ones I know about:

• Lasers have an accuracy buff
• The PPC applies an accuracy debuff to targets it hits
• Autocannons have a recoil penalty that debuffs accuracy when fired on consecutive turns
• Different weapons can have different bonuses for + weapons. That may change the balance between weapons (e.g. LRMs can get +STB but lasers can get +DAM). More information will be required to take that into account, as this is all anecdotal so far based on seeing streams.

Here is the spreadsheet for anyone who wants it.

We had an engineer who played with us and his formula
(dam+range)/(Wt+slots+minRng+heat) Wt and Slots include a minimum reasonable ammo load usually 2 tons for LRM20 and ac20 and 1 ton for most everything else. As a Referee I used it to balance OpFOR units to push my players...POther than that it's largely meaningless. as tactics and play style have a far bigger impact

 

[momerathe]

Back in my TT days we used (2xDamage -5) as a figure of merit. We always reckoned three medium lasers equivalent to one PPC because of the damage concentration.

 

[Rabid]

AC10 does 60 dmg, you have 65. I think that several people have already been generating stats like this, which is where the general consensus of "why do LLs and PPCs suck so much" is coming from.

 

[Jamey]

Back in my TT days we used (2xDamage -5) as a figure of merit. We always reckoned three medium lasers equivalent to one PPC because of the damage concentration.

Damage concentration versus damage spread is hard to quantify in Battletech. You need a mix of both to quickly generate kills.

I also find it hard to compare weapons with dramatically different ranges. Comparing an AC10 and a PPC is easy. Comparing a PPC and a ML is less valuable to me.

 

[Jamey]

AC10 does 60 dmg, you have 65. I think that several people have already been generating stats like this, which is where the general consensus of "why do LLs and PPCs suck so much" is coming from.

Thanks, that's fixed. I must have missed it while updating from the backer beta numbers.

 

[Tangman]

Wont a firestarter die instantly next turn if hes in melee for those back shots?

 

[Pedroig]

Wont a firestarter die instantly next turn if hes in melee for those back shots?

With the Ace Pilot perk: Reserve Firestarter to last, move, shoot, next turn, shoot, then move. Whether it is the melee damage or flamer damage, doesn't matter; Hit and Run.

 

[Jamey]

Wont a firestarter die instantly next turn if hes in melee for those back shots?

With the Ace Pilot perk: Reserve Firestarter to last, move, shoot, next turn, shoot, then move. Whether it is the melee damage or flamer damage, doesn't matter; Hit and Run.

Also important to note that SLs have a 90 meter range. They'll fire out to there as well as in melee.

 

[Tangman]

That's actually a good point. I'll need to fix that, but it somehow feels that as the game progresses, that becomes less useful when I'll be running big mechs across the board. I get the appeal of the lighter ones, but my Plan is 1 LRM Boat, 1 Sniper/LRM Boat, 2 Juggernaut/Brawlers. Sit there and punch and/or shoot at each other with Bulwark, obviously less important once punching commences and Bulwark drops, it remains to be seen... I can definitively see myself making a 1LL each or AC5, rest being SRMs and SLs. Generally uptight and personal gaming, the 2 Up and personal fellas would obviously be packing Sensor Locks for the heavy artillery. 2 LRM Boats do have the advantage of redonkulos amounts of knockdowns. Still though, all purely speculation and the sort of style I would like to play. Bulwark up and punch to remove their Bulwarks, and I got 2 long range supports that can just compeltely focus fire anything that walks in to punch my Bulwark of. Its just a theory obviously trial and error and we go from there

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

I think the ace pilot makes the 6 flamer firestarter kinda interesting. You would instantly shutdown any mech and get out before getting shot at. Just can to this once due to ammo limitations. Would be cool to mount additional flamethrower ammo, might mod this in...

 

[Harmattan Assassin]

Ever since Mechwarrior 2 game designers seem to favor Autocannons more and more with each game, and I don't understand why. Personally, i'm in it for the Lazzzzers, but at this rate it won't be long until lasers are just put in to take up extra weight left over once all the ACs are installed.

Be nice if they'd lower the damage on the ACs a bit or increase the damage on the lasers to make them more comparable. I suppose increasing the weight of the autocannons might also do it, but would prefer the balance be made in damage.

You'd think that in a game set in the future, running around in walking tanks powered by nuclear reactors people would want futuristic weapons, not something that's basically been around since the 1300's.

 

[44th MAC|Bonsai]

Well, the ML is outstanding, even compared to the AC20, both for dmg/ton and dmg/heat. The SL kinda rocks, too. It's just the LL (and the PPC) that are pretty bad off. The AC5 looks like the sweet spot of the ACs

 

[Jamey]

Ever since Mechwarrior 2 game designers seem to favor Autocannons more and more with each game, and I don't understand why. Personally, i'm in it for the Lazzzzers, but at this rate it won't be long until lasers are just put in to take up extra weight left over once all the ACs are installed.

Be nice if they'd lower the damage on the ACs a bit or increase the damage on the lasers to make them more comparable. I suppose increasing the weight of the autocannons might also do it, but would prefer the balance be made in damage.

You'd think that in a game set in the future, running around in walking tanks powered by nuclear reactors people would want futuristic weapons, not something that's basically been around since the 1300's.

In fairness, the AC2 and AC5 in TT are pretty bad. They needed to be brought upward in power a bit to balance the weapons out. I think the ACs in this game are balanced pretty well with each other.

I think that the LL and PPC need some sort of tweak. I'm not sure exactly what I would do. Maybe heat reduced to TT levels to start with.

Well, the ML is outstanding, even compared to the AC20, both for dmg/ton and dmg/heat. The SL kinda rocks, too. It's just the LL (and the PPC) that are pretty bad off. The AC5 looks like the sweet spot of the ACs

The ML is really solid, it is just not as good as the SRMs because they are similar efficiency in damage plus do stability damage.

The AC5 is good for a long range sniper, but I'd also argue strongly for the AC20 to punch giant holes through armor.

 

[tobias.mb]

It's just the LL (and the PPC) that are pretty bad off

Seems like PPCs and LLs will mostly be useful for lightly armed mechs, since they are still efficient from a dmg / weight perspective as long as your free heatsinks are enough to keep you cool.
Like a Panther.
Or perhaps a brawler mech carrying only short range weapons, and you want to throw in a single LL, so it can at least do something even on long range.

 

[Bodha]

Ppc is still the sniping weapon of choice if you can keep ranges at 450m and still highly competitive outside of 270m. The lrms may do more efficient at overall dmg but it is spread all over. That ppc will punch through. If you were willing to run a lance of 2 lrm boats and 2 ppc snipers Im thinking you will be pleasantly surprised how effective that is. Lrms knock the opponent over and sandblast. Ppc punches holes and usually will be your finisher weapon at range.

If you build the ppc mech with enough hs to cover ppc and mobility heat you should have plenty of capacity to cover mlas or srms ifmyou fit those onto that mech. Where I think you will struggle is getting a ppc and ac 20 onto the same mech and have it make sense. If you really want to go nuts put slas on the mech anxd as soon as you hit range for them stop using the ppc. In fact if the build is running hot stop using the ppc as soon as you hit mlas range. Use the mlas to carry you to slas range and then go slas with perhaps some mlas tossed in.

What is bothering me with this kind of table is if fails to show dmg efficiency at the different ranges and it fails to consider damage concentration vs sandblasting effect of missiles. If you can stay outside 90m slas is 0.00 efficient. Outside 270m mlas is 0.00 efficient. If you can maintain range lrm is hands down the most efficient sandblaster and the ppc is most efficient concentrate. If you can get 2 or 3 rounds of shooting at those ranges and then close the dmg efficiency advantage of shorter range weapons dont look so great. If you can keep the range above 450m for 5 plus rounds of shooting you will do really well. If you can keep it at that kind of range for the entire mission you will no longer care about short range weapon efficiencies.

Or you can build around these efficiencies and get stuck using tactics that require closing to knife fighting range. Real world example would be man 1 has an m14 and man 2 has uzi and grenades. Who is more efficient at dmg? The table would saynthe uzi and grenade guy, but the m14 fellow would say lets see how that works when you have to first get into range of me and I get to dump an entire magazine or 2 down range in the meantime.

 

[Jamey]

Ppc is still the sniping weapon of choice if you can keep ranges at 450m and still highly competitive outside of 270m. The lrms may do more efficient at overall dmg but it is spread all over. That ppc will punch through. If you were willing to run a lance of 2 lrm boats and 2 ppc snipers Im thinking you will be pleasantly surprised how effective that is. Lrms knock the opponent over and sandblast. Ppc punches holes and usually will be your finisher weapon at range.

I'd argue that ACs and PPCs should be compared. The AC5 and the AC10 both compare very favorably with the PPC when you need to sink the heat.

What is bothering me with this kind of table is if fails to show dmg efficiency at the different ranges and it fails to consider damage concentration vs sandblasting effect of missiles. If you can stay outside 90m slas is 0.00 efficient. Outside 270m mlas is 0.00 efficient. If you can maintain range lrm is hands down the most efficient sandblaster and the ppc is most efficient concentrate. If you can get 2 or 3 rounds of shooting at those ranges and then close the dmg efficiency advantage of shorter range weapons dont look so great. If you can keep the range above 450m for 5 plus rounds of shooting you will do really well. If you can keep it at that kind of range for the entire mission you will no longer care about short range weapon efficiencies.

Or you can build around these efficiencies and get stuck using tactics that require closing to knife fighting range. Real world example would be man 1 has an m14 and man 2 has uzi and grenades. Who is more efficient at dmg? The table would saynthe uzi and grenade guy, but the m14 fellow would say lets see how that works when you have to first get into range of me and I get to dump an entire magazine or 2 down range in the meantime.

This table shows one way of looking at the information. It isn't the only way to look at it.

I personally find it useful to compare similar weapons (e.g. the PPC, AC5, and AC10).

I also find it useful to compare weapons with similar ranges (e.g. the ML and SRMs) as well as different missile counts, as some of the LRM and SRM racks are better than the others (e.g. the LRM10 is less powerful than the others).

What I don't do is say "Machine guns are the most efficient weapon, so I will mount nothing else!"