What I love about the Battletech setting is the march of technology: the autocannon replaces the rifle, the gauss rifle replaces the autocannon, the Succession Wars happen and everyone's back to autocannons, then the gauss rifle replaces the autocannon. The AC5 is a very viable weapon that fills a niche until double heat sinks and light gauss rifles become available.
AP ammo can make a big difference. Nothing better than a couple good roles leaving the enemy a burnt out husk even though you barely scratched the surface.
UAC/5 feels like roughly correct balance for damage and tonnage, although LB-10X is sitting just 2 tons heavier with the extreme flexibility of taking off armor in 10-point chunks or landing half a dozen locations for critical hits.
LB-5X is seriously underrated IMO. Great long-range "plinking" gun for vees and fire support Mechs. Also I'm to this day puzzled that there's never been an official quad LB-5X version of the Partisan, given how absolutely evil that loadout would be in the air defense role.
By itself the AC5 is meh, but when you team one with a PPC or LRMs, it shines. It's negligible heat generation really is a huge asset when your mech is cooking and you still want to throw something at a damaged foe.
If you had to just alpha something and put your heat high, it lets you cool and continue putting down decent fire on scouts. Also put them on blackjacks for fun if you have the ability to
I sometimes infer that a lot of the 3025 era weapons were balanced (questionably) around how they perform at the margins, i.e., when a mech has already fully saturated its heat sinks. A PPC would cost 17 tons to be heat neutral (7T + 10T heat sinks), a large laser would cost 13 tons (5T + 8T heat sinks), an AC/5 10 tons (8T + 1T heat sink + 1T ammo), and a medium laser would be 4 tons (1T + 3T heat sinks). If you look at it on that kind of scale, the balance almost makes sense. It’s “lighter” than a PPC or Large Laser as a package if you consider the heat sinks required to make those weapons heat neutral. That said, I feel like this kind of balance breaks down when you consider mechs have 10 “free” engine heat sinks, so a PPC or Large Laser is ALMOST always better, UNLESS your mech runs hot, or doesn’t have the spare tonnage for heat sinks, in which case you could make a decent argument for an AC/5. Since it gives similar range performance for far less heat.
That performance at the margins is part of what makes 3025 fun. An all medium laser or all LRM build will always be most efficient, but a build with sharp strengths and weaknesses will beat them if played to the strengths. The AC/5 tends to be great either on 5/8 and 6/9 medium or heavy mechs, or on heavy and assault mechs which already more more than 10 heat at medium-long range
I think paired with a 5/8/0 or 5/8/5 chassis and maybe a PPC as its Hot Boi friend it would make an awesome harasser unit. Sadly you usually only get 1 not both until you get into more advanced tech.
@@cavalryscout9519 that's why in 3025 my favorite mech is the Grasshopper. Average speed, jump capacity, and it can sink all its weapon heat. Plus it's armor is nearly on par with an Awesome. I've weathered so much fire with that big bug. Also, standard engine and a LL in the CT makes it a true zombie. Only dies or loses its danger factor when you take off its head.
I picked up a pair of Ultra Light Rotary Rifles in my most recent RogueTech playthrough, and found that despite their pathetic damage, I'm in love. 2 tons, 2 slots, 6 rounds, lots of recoil. love me some weird periphery pea-shooter goodness.
Every man and his dog may have an AC 5 but there is definitely a reason for that it’s effective weapon that runs cold and cost effective with plentiful ammo making it a great weapon for your more financial restricted factions like a certain band of corsairs in the periphery
I've never played tabletop, but in the PC Battletech game and even in the 90s 'Mech games AC 5s and 10s really seem to punch above their weight. The only drawback being ammo detonations lol. When I build a 'Mech each AC usually gets 2 tons of ammo or I don't run it, so lack of ammo isn't a problem with my builds, thankfully.
If I recall correctly the AC/5 was the FIRST Autocannon to be designed and perfected, with all other variants being offshoots and mutations on the core concept the AC/5 provided
See now we're getting into something viable for AC's; the Damage is still somewhat light but it can still reach out and pimp smack folks at range and has enough ammo that it won't run out in short order like larger AC's and still not have too much left in the tank in the event of a hull breach (and god forbid the dreaded internal ammo explosion). Certainly decent prior to the discovery of lostech. Also (come to think of it), the AC5 gets a shot in the arm in later generations thanks to the advent of sub munitions.
ACs of all classes have there uses, specially when your playing in 3025 Era. Heat Management becomes a real thing. Becoming an immobile target that can barely hit shit is an extreme danger.
Yeah, but what about later areas? I feel like Ballistics really get shafted when it comes to even 3060, with things like the Bombast, Plasma cannon, and ALL the new Missile weapons, the only real development is the RAC. the HVAC really isn't worth it on average, and the configs that mount them are very limited. There needs to be a new version of the AC that lightens the cannons WITHOUT decreasing performance or limiting ammo types. something that, say, reduces the weight by about 30% for each class of cannon, so it'd become something like 4/6/10/12 Tons for AC/2, 5, 10, and 20's respectively.
The AC5 is a weapon when you want to prioritize range and survivability. Sure ammo explosions might happen but removing 2 Heat Sinks for an additional ton of armor and ammo is a good trade off. Even moreso when you can increase the speed of your mech. An AC5 paired with 3 medium lasers in chain fire gives you pin point damage from long to mid-range.
The bread and butter of ‘Mech weapons. It pairs nicely with Large/Medium Lasers where the two can alternate fires to maintain constant damage output, stay cool and offset recoil. And it’s a wonderful addition to any Alpha strike.
It may literally include the Rheinmetall RH-120 in its weight class, but the AC/5 is really the Ma Deuce of the Battletech universe. Not spectacular super-science, but reliable enough that you want to bolt one on everything.
As an actual user of military ordinance I can see the merit in both sides of the argument for what constitutes The weapon family "autocannon". Between the 20 mm Vulcan, 25 mm Bushmaster, 30 mm Avenger, 40 mm Bofors for rapid fire, or Ordinance more applicable to the history of main battle tank guns from the 60 mm, 88 mm, 100-105 mm, and 120 mm single shot cannon, There is quite a lot to choose from when depicting "autocannon" weapon fire. Realistically I lean more towards the lower caliber weapons, separating the fire type into single shot, 3 round burst, short burst, and long burst (2, 5, 10, 20). That realistically solves the ammo storage problem, And the scaling down of shots per ton as the damage is increased. Also, Ultra and LBX autocannons then become features of Rate of fire, and target tracking. While I would give my and your left nut to witness at 8 barrel 120 mm road Gatling/Vulcan/Avenger-style rotating auto cannon Rip loose a stream of fire like a C-RAM on ALL the steroids, It just would not be possible without ammo storage on par with the extra dimensional space in a TARDIS.
I like cannons. The thump and crunch is just satisfying. You don't have to fill your Mech with a dozen heat sinks. Sure, ammo can explode, but overheat shutdown can kill you too. Range is good. Damage is decent. I just don't enjoy large lasers and PPCs as much.
The AC/5 is a nice weapon. The weight is certainly a problem, but the ability to spool out so many long ranged, relatively accurate, relatively damaging shots for no real heat makes it a yeoman’s weapon. I like it. Not everything has to be the best at this or that - there needs to be a middle-tier; something that can hammer away without the enemy noticing because they’re worried about this PPC or that AC/20. It’s still dangerous, given the size of it, and I can appreciate that. It has its place.
Interesting. I usually do not take them. PPCs, large (pulse) Lasers, and the stuff with "Gauss" are preferred by me, but maybe the AC is worth a second look.
The AC 5 is something you pair another high heat weapon system to give you that extra punch if you have to switch fire weapon system ... That was why it was useful on a marauder. If you fire both PPC's continuously your heat will jump , but the next turn you fire the AC 5 with one PPC your heat will drop back down to normal with only a 1/4 in drop of damage.
I come from a starsiege/heavy gear/armored core background when it comes to stomp robots and mechs. One thing I learned from them was that when a weapon seems weak on its own? It's what it's paired with that matters alot. From the mech to the other hard mounted weapons you carry. But in starsiege and armored core, energy weapons are their own damage type and armors have ballistic and energy resistance values
Armored core has the big disadvantage of having to pay for ammo, and that cost gets expensive very quickly. Playing mech Warrior with limited ammo makes a big difference, you gotta think about using better weapons with less ammo or weaker weapons with plenty of rounds.
The AC/5 is a great weapon for skirmishers, okay for a little extra ranged punch on a mech which already has heat problems, and a horrible waste of weight if used on the wrong mech. It's odd because so much of the AC/5's efficiency depends on the size of the mech's engine. The AC/5 would be bad on mechs like the Centurion or Enforcer, because those mechs have small engines, so they have plenty of tonnage to devote to an AC/10, heatsinks, ammo, etc. The AC/5 would be bad on a Phoenix Hawk, because that mech has a huge engine, and you'd need to strip off so much armor to replace the large laser with an AC/5 that you'd basically just be creating a more expensive Clint. On the Wolverine though, the AC/5 is great because the engine is heavy enough that you couldn't mount something with more punch, but light enough that you can still carry heavy armor, a couple more weapons, and enough heatsinks to jump and fire everything for 4 rounds before heat becomes an issue. That niche is what makes it a skirmisher gun. It works well on 40-65 ton mechs with a high movement speed, and that type of mech makes a good skirmisher since they can also mount enough armor to jump around the flanks while juggernauts are pounding each other in the center. Skirmishers need to be able to wreck light mechs (which the AC/5 can do), plink heavy and assault mechs from a safe distance, and sustain fire for an entire battle. The AC/5 is also a good secondary gun on very heavy mechs (70+ tons) with average speed, as long as they have something punchier for their primary armament. It's the sort of gun that can be fired every single round and keep the damage output up while the primary guns are rested for heat. It tends to work best on mechs that run hot, where you'd follow some cycle of overheating and cooling off.
That image is kind of how imagine an AC5 variant - I can totally see a succession wars model being a ww2 style oerlikon 40mm with a fast clip loader and fat barrel cooling jacket. Roaring out 5 shells in half a second and spending the next 9.5 seconds desperately sucking heat out of the barrel and slamming another 5 shells into the feeder.
Its also energy independent, giving ICE vehicals a long range direct fire weppon for low cost, which was crittical in the fusion engine depleated sucessor state armies durning the later sucession wars.
As armor, in the lore, continues to get better, the ac-5 falls under the same umbrella as the t-800 in the terminator franchise. "Old, but not obsolete. yet."
Imho both the criticism and the virtues are both valid, and I love using the AC5 as a harassing weapon in open fields when I know the enemy cannot return the greeting in kind, when you have 2 or 3 AC5s firing in concert at a single target that can be very punishing for that target. Alone and in a vacuum it is definitely not that impressive, but people forget that those 5 points of damage could be the killing/crippling blow. One experience I had was having a lucky critical hit with my tank against a warhammer and it caused an ammunition explosion which caused the mech to be cored. Never underestimate any weapon, lest you lose a mech to it in such a manner. Great video like always!
For the PPC to be effective, you’d need a crap ton of heat sink. Without those, you’d be wasting turns getting rid of the PPC’s generated heat, or risk shut down. The AC5 lets you shoot round after round, so long as you still have ammo.
I don't think it's bad per say, but it's just a bit too heavy. If it were the same weight as the AC2, I think it'd fair better. People gotta remember though, 1 heat is a huge advantage in Battletech. Not saying it's good, but it walks the line between good and bad. Remember, the PPC does 10 damage for 10 heat and 7 tons. The medium laser makes it look bad too. I try not to get toooo deep on comparing to medium lasers, as they're overtuned imo.
It is a bit unfair to see it as 1 ton for 5 damage. In a prolonged engagement, your 1 medium laser needs 3 heatsinks to keep pace for half the range. The argument for the PPC however is even worse. 7 ton weapon plus 5 tons heatsinks to make it shoot once every two turns. Its plus side is always and only ammo independence.
This is why in the Mechwarrior games I usually end up chain firing mediums while my heatsinks just barely keep up in something up armored. Mediums are OP
The AC5 is a decent weapon, especially when combined with other weapons of a similar profile. An AC5 mated with medium lasers and LRM 10 could do more than a little damage while keeping opponents at arms length
The MG, AC2, and AC5 all benefit from some kind of burst-fire option, and both of the light AC variants do well with special ammo (including Flak in 3025 tech). As-is, in 'Mech v. 'Mech combat, the AC5 is an excellent backup to a harder-hitting, high-heat gun, but as a primary cannon it is lackluster. Like the AC2, I like it as an anti-air option, especially with the universal accessibility of Flak ammo. It makes for a cheap gun for a cheap tank (the Scorpion and Vedette being prime examples). Like the AC2, the LB option makes it more attractive IMO. I'm less a fan of the Ultra mechanic, given the unfavorable cluster rolls.
Idk, a Clint is good bug hunter because of its ac5. It can reach out and slap wasps and stingers and even Locust at long range where they can't retaliate. 5 damage to a Wasp is scary as heck at any range. A PPC in the same place would just overheat the poor thing and not let it keep up with the enemy. Also cluster rolls for Uktra AC's suck. I'd rather just roll to hit twice.
Boating AC5s can be fun. Plus side, you can deal significant damage at long range with little heat buildup. Minus side, you need to bring a lot of ammunition to avoid running out, and that increases the risk of going boom on a critical hit.
It’s always interesting seeing people’s perspective on weapons from a tabletop standpoint as someone who only plays the games where various variables make things like the ac5 and ac2 much more desirable weapon systems. The aim correction and lack of minimum range on top of the cool running make them a lot more helpful when you’re directly piloting a mech in games. Furthermore u like in table top where you can pop out, let lose a ppc, and back off to have another make fire the consistency offered by acs in the prolonged singular combat of the games helps to further establish them as a solid choice.
The interesting thing about the AC5 is that it's basically on the same level as a cold war are MBT cannon. And with cold war era I mean from 1946 to 1991.
Modern tank guns are more like light rifles, not Autocannons. Tanks don't burst fire several rounds at a time (except, you know, actual modern autocannons, which are MGs by mech standards)
I love me some Ultra AC5s. In MechWarrior 4, take a mauler, remove all other weapons, heatsinks. Max the armor and put 4-6 AC5 and an extra 2 tons or so of ammo. Put two per firing group. Enemy 'mech will have a hell of a time getting you back in their crosshairs. Go forth and rock and roll. (Their chassis)
It’s not a bad gun for it’s heyday in 3025, moving forward in the timeline the Light AC/5 is pretty much a direct replacement as the reduction from 8 tons to 5 tons and the removal of the minimum range makes it much more palatable to take
@@semperatis Oh yes. I messed around with that idea. Even with basic tech you can cram 4 and all the single sinks you need into a 50 ton chassis. Use doubles and you can stick 6 LPPCs and all the cooling you need in a 60 tonner and spam shots all day.
Much like AC2 can be replaced by LRM10s, the AC5 can be replaced by LRM15s if not large lasers But i love them anyways, maybe because I use doubletap and alternate ammo rules.
Ayo, unrelated to this video but more of the main thing of your channel; I'm quite happy in tears that there are more people getting interested in the BattleTech lore (since BT is quite an underrated worldbuilding imo, and I grew up with it as a kid). I was curious about the name of your channel until I just knew that you did make videos on WH40k as a whole before BattleTech, so it's quite interesting to see that the Warhammer 40k fans are intrigued with the lore since... that 'exodus' months ago I believe... Anyways, I love to watch/listen to your BT lore videos.
The AC5 is a bit underwhelming. Lets compare it with two energy based weapons. The AC5 does 5 points of damage over the same range as a PPC, for 1 heat. A PPC does 10 damage for 10 heat. A heat sink dissipates 1 heat per turn and weigh 1 ton each. 2 AC5s does 10 damage, and weighs 8 tons each for 16 total, plus 1 ton of ammo for both would give 10 shots before it runs out. This generates 2 heat when both AC5s are fired. The PPC weighs 7 tons, plus 8 tons worth of heat sinks makes the PPC match the performance of 2 AC5s. That is a savings of 2 tons, and no dependence on ammo. The AC5 vs a Large Laser is worth looking at too. The Large Laser has slightly less range, but is comparable to an AC5. The L. Laser does 8 damage. The weapon weighs 5 tons and generates 8 heat. That means 7 heat sinks to reduce the heat build to the same level as the AC5. 12 tons for the L. Laser + 7 heat sinks, 9 tons for the AC5+1 ton of ammo. The AC5 looks decent in the comparison. In lighter mechs that don't have a lot of weapons to build heat, the 10 heat dissipation that every mech starts with can make the large laser more attractive than the AC5. It really depends on if the mech has a enough other sources of heat that it needs additional heat sinks. Depending if a mech design wants to have 1 or 2 AC5s can change the math on if it is worth having or not. The heavier armed a mech is and the more heat sinks it will need to dissipate that heat the more attractive the AC5 becomes. More advanced versions of the AC5 completely change the math. The Ultra AC5 builds 2 heat and adds 1 more ton to deliver 10 damage like a PPC. It also needs double the ammo for the same performance, but the math becomes much better for the Ultra 5. LBX5 makes the cannon 1 ton lighter, and adds a shotgun ammo option. Not very popular, but some people like it. The eventual development of the Rotary AC5 changes the entire equation. If you can mount an RAC5, it is good enough to replace several PPCs and definitely something that you should consider.
People want to build their mechs around one system a lot of the time, so they look at 5 damage and poo poo it. But without double heatsinks? 1 heat for 5 damage starts looking appealing.
Autocannons are meant to be a standard tank / vehicle weapon. Also as Battletech roots take place is a time of lost tech knowledge, I would think that this class of weapon would be the the one even the most backwater of planets could service / provide ammo for. And can be paired up with ICE. Another item that can still be serviced by the less tech savvy. Channeling my Grey Death Legion / Decision at Thunder Rift into to Battletech.
I think the AC5 may be the most humble weapon in the entire game. It isn't going to be the favorite piece of kit for most mechwarriors but it is hardly one to be scoffed at.
Advanced rules are delightful for weapons like this. Damage variance helps less than good shots do some damage, while nailed perfect shots get bonus damage/penetration potential. Another rule allows one to push the AC for an extra use in a turn at a moderately high risk of potential problems. These two alone make an ac/5 pretty good. The risk and penalties for pushing them to their limits are more than a slap to the wrist, and can make the typical tabletop battle play more like a cinematic epic.
AC5 is my favorite weapon class in BT. Although I love that the one on the Marauder is listed as a 120mm in the fluff. I just picture it as the main gun off of an Abrams or Leopard with an autoloader more than a true "automatic" cannon.
And out of game. Many worlds can have the technical ability to maintain such weapons. Where if something goes wrong with your PPC or Lasers you might have to ship the weapon to another world to get it looked at in a more advance lab. The ability to maintain and do routine maintain a weapons systems like and Auto cannon is going to be easier since its mechanical in nature vs needing specific systems to align and focus and energy weapons lenses and crystals. Just look at how we still use what is basically WW2 tech even today in our 50 cal machine guns.
That was interesting, I believed AC5 to be very good, I didn't realize it was considered low damage. AC5 very reliable in my opinion, they have enough damage to nudge/batter, good range and rate of fire with low heat. I really like them, I'm ideally thinking if I see AC2's on my mechs I really want AC5's instead lol. In my MW5 play throughs I've changed the AC10's on mechs such as an Urban, Hunchback or Enforcer to AC5's to pop a XL or L engine with an AC5 with jump jets, its really good & fun on raids, patrol etc contracts you can outmaneuver most heavier /AC10 mechs, keeping out of distance, jumping around, I recommend giving it a go ^_^ If you can change the gyro as well that's sweet!
AC/5s are good for vehicles. They can back up bigger energy weapons in mechs or be a long range suppliment to a bunch of MLs, but as a primary it limits the mech because you can't carry enough ammo. Within the game, it's not as big a deal, it lacks the staying power of a large laser. Wars are won on logistics, and that has always been ignored except when needed for plot. But rather than subbing in a PPC, put in a LL and the heatsinks. You can put in the PPC, but in most cases it's too hot.
Fun fact - the modern main gun on an Abrams tank is technically an AC/5, though on the upper end of it's range in terms of projectile weight (it's close to being an AC/10 with some types of ammunition). Though the range on the IRL gun is approx. 7x greater than the AC/5. Though all in all, almost *all* of the ranges given for weapons in Battletech don't make sense, and almost all the conventional weapons with IRL equiv. don't deal as much damage as they should compared to IRL hardware.
Stick that load out on a Marauder with more armor, jump jets, and some good 'yee haw' spirit you have something too well armed to ignore when it gets behind you and too tough to crack easily. It's a risky use of a fire support mech but in my experience it is going to really mess up cohesion
Ironically (given the risk of ammo explosions) Autocannons' low heat can become a huge advantage as your mech starts suffering armor breaches or losing components. Battlemechs relying on heavy energy weapons also depend on large banks of heatsinks. Destroying a few from direct hits or knocking off the part they're in, and/or heat generated by an engine critical can leave them unable to fire their primary weapons without movement and targeting penalties the next turn. If you have autocannon(s) they can happily fire even with nothing but your indestructible 10 engine heatsinks and the fusion engine barfing out heat from a hole in the shielding. At least from Solaris RPG rules, the AC/5 is a direct competitor to the PPC in terms of damage output thanks to being able to fire twice in the same span of time. It's a solid balancing point imo and recreated as well in most videogame adaptations of the setting. Like now a Rifleman or Jagermech has multiple attacks per turn and you can imagine them working in their intended role, crit-seeking against vehicles or at least firing often enough on poor odds to make some kind of damage stick.
Ac5 is a step up from the AC2, while those stuck in the succession wars might point out that it has half the damage as a ppc, but weighs more than one. Post 3060 games see it having more utility with alternative ammo types. Combine that with its relatively low heat and decent range and it becomes a formidable weapon. Ap gives every shot a probability for through armor crit irregardless of hit location, at the cost of a 1 modifier to hit requirement and halving ammunition. Fletchette makes it more leathal vs dismounts, doing full damage vs infantry, but half vs mechs and tanks. Flak makes it more leathal vs aircraft. Caseless doubles ammunition at the cost of survivability. Incendiary effectively turns the autocannon into a Long range flamethrower able to build heat in a mech or do heavy damage vs infantry. Precision which halves ammo but reduces hit requirements by 2 effectively negating medium range accuracy debuffs. Lastly tracer which does 1 less damage but reduces noght, dusk, and dawn shooting modifiers to +1.
The AC5 matches up very favorably with a lot of weapons. Personally, I like comparing it to the medium laser, because it does the same damage as a medium laser, but generates only a third of the heat. It costs 70 BV, and an additional 5 BV for each ton of ammo. One ton is enough for all but the longest of engagements. And you can plink every turn, even without very favorable probabilities to hit, because of the deep ammo reserves and negligible heat output. But you won't be missing often, because the range brackets have you shooting at a better base-to-hit than most weapons. To compare, two medium lasers will cost you 90 BV, versus the AC5 loaded with one ton of ammo at 75 BV, and those medium lasers are hitting at worse probabilities at all but three hexes in the AC5's range bracket (hexes 1-3 due to minimum range modifiers). But outside of those hexes, chances are, at least one of those two medium lasers is going to miss, and there's a good chance both will miss, generating six heat for nothing. The AC5 typically has a better chance to hit than a medium laser, but even if the AC5 misses, it's no big deal, as you are only one heat point in the hole, and one shell lighter in the bin. Yes it weighs a lot. But it seems this matters more in terms of design. In terms of battlefield performance and value for the BV, I'm surprised with how competitive the AC5 is with other popular alternatives. A particle projection cannon is 176 BV, and that doesn't include any additional heat sinking you might need to place on top of it, or power amplifiers if you are putting it in an ICE powered vehicle. An AC5 system with a ton of ammo is less than 43% of the price of a PPC, and you can fire it all day with only the base heatsinks off the engine.
Maybe it isn't flashy, but its a workhorse. People often think that combat always equates to what you'd see in Solaris: Highly controlled combat environments where everything is clear, rules are in place and there's no way to modify circumstances mid match. In combat, you don't have the luxury of knowledge, like how many enemies are you fighting, when are you fighting or where are you fighting most of the time. Let's look at the KGC000B, an arena fighter second to none. In cqc, fighting 1v1? It slaps. But when it runs out of ammo... it dies.
AC-5 stands at the bare minimum of damage required to deal crippling blows against light or medium mech’s, within the shrinking windows of opportunity afforded by increasing range(terrain obstruction/maneuverability), unlike the weaker AC-2. I’d still much rather an AC-10 if possible, as it crippling capacity within its given window scales up better to contend with heavy and assault targets, but unlike 5’s, 10’s are too heavy to be stacked on a medium platform. AC-2’s may be even more stackable, but in all situations with dual AC-2’s, a single gauss for the same weight would have been superior.
One fact about the AC-5 that is spoken of, but often not seriously considered. It's availability. Literally, there is almost nowhere you can go that you cannot find this weapon being produced, sold, or traded. PPCs and even lasers can be hard to obtain, and costly to procure. They also require more maintenance and man-hours to keep up to spec. Parts can be expensive. The humble AC though is a tough, mostly reliable, and easy to maintain weapon system. Its ammo is easily found and procured in large quantities. Parts are often 'cheap' in comparison, as is the ammunition. About the only thing more reliable and available is the ultra common Machine Gun.
People like to drag on the AC2, but at least it has a niche: utterly absurd range for AA coverage and fortification reduction. The AC5, though? That's a weapon that I've never really figured out the point of.
the AC/5 is interesting to me in that the baseline version has potential, and infact could have a place even if there is ultra, LBX and even rotary versions of it or new weapons like er mediums and plasma rifles in the future eras, but what makes this obsolete is not newer weapons but the double heat sink, such a powerful upgrade renders its benefit of being so cool running nil, which would be its biggest pro followed by its range make it more justifiable against its weight and volatile ammo drawbacks. i would say this weapon is in fact the succession wars iteself, and dies once we leave it. when i think of the AC/5, makes me wonder how BT would be like if double heat sinks rules where to externally mounted only and engine sinks are always single strength
Arguably the first useful AC, but that's only really in comparison to the AC2, in which case anything is an improvement, while having slightly better range than the AC10, which isn't significant enough to be worthwhile unless the target is immobile. Regarding the difference between it and a PPC: for an AC5 to run cool and for long enough to matter, it needs 1 SHS and 1t of ammo, bringing it up to 10t of equipment for 5pts of damage, or .5 pt/t, while the PPC needs 10 SHS for 17t of equipment for 10pts of damage, or .588 pt/t. So strictly speaking the PPC is superior, it's lighter for a mech and deals greater damage, even considering the greater heat cost, but it's not so superior to render the AC5 useless, particularly for ICE equipped vehicles which may have to pay for an additional 1t in amplifiers in addition to the SHS.
Everyone likes to bring up that the weight is justified by the heat but anything less than 10 heat is inconsequential. 3 medium lasers four 3 tonnes and 9 heat will usually be more effective, barring large lasers which still compare favorably but the PPC maxes the base heat sinking by itself leaving no overhead for movement.
The AC/5 is meh in the TT, yet the HBS game shows how a simple balance adjustment can make it a very solid weapon indeed. And in the TT, it still has a niche for being a cheap long-range weapon with a lot of ammo capacity, which makes it a good weapon on likewise cheap ICE-powered tanks. Or as a pair with a PPC or two on an introtech Mech, where the negligible heat output comes into play.
There's a reason a lot of people swap to the Marauder's D-variant or something like it as soon as DHS becomes an option. Vanilla AC5 is just meh and it shows in how it needs specific circumstances to make it not terrible for its weight.
The AC5 is odd... When I saw the tabletop rules I got confused, because surely that short range was a mistake? Its range is shorter than expected, its damage is underwhelming, but at least it is ammo efficient. A Light AC5, a Rotator AC5 or an Ultra AC5 on the other hand... now we are talking. It is also a good fit for penetrator rounds or tracer rounds. No idea about the LB 5-X, but overall the weapon is a bit underwhelming in 3025, and gets a real glowup with tech progression.
In the Mechwarrior game you can land 2-3 shots by the time a medium laser is able to fire again; so theirs that. Damage by volume rather than a single impact
So, some maths. In my admittedly limited experience, most BattleTech games tend to run about 15 turns. So one ton of AC/5 ammo, yielding 20 shots, is sufficient for one engagement. The AC/5 generates one heat, meaning you need 1 heat sink to fire it, and 1 ton of ammo to use it. Total cost to mount an AC/5: 10 tons, 5 critical slots (8 tons 3 crits for the weapon, 1 ton 1 crit each for ammo and heat sink). A PPC does 10 damage and generates 10 heat, weighs, if I recall, 5 tons and takes 2 critical slots, but does not need ammunition. But generates 10 heat. Total cost to mount a PPC: 15 tons, 12 critical slots (5 tons 2 crits for the weapon, 10 tons 10 crits for the heat sinks). Now, yes, all 'Mechs come with 10 free heat sinks which skews this math, but it's a good thought experiment to keep in mind when gauging the efficiency of various weapons' systems in BattleTech.
I've always found the AC5 to be a terrible primary weapon, for a mech, always preferring the PPC or LL variant if I can find it (sorry WVR-6R). Buuuut as a complimentary weapon in a mixed load out, it's excellent. The MAD-3L and Striker STC-2C are probably the best examples in Introtech. High heat primaries combined with the basically "free" ac5. It let's you play with that heat curve and keep pumping out fire even when the machine is hot. The Striker especially works like butter with that combo. On tanks the AC5 is totally acceptable. They're generally cheap and a few AC5s peppering from range is nothing to sneeze at.
First viable autocannon. It's still a bit low on damage side, but range is great and heat is pretty low. I prefer ac10, but ac5 is still worth it. While not perfect it's far better than joke gun like ac2.
1:20 For context; and because sci-fi designers have no idea what scale is. 40mm would be the average size of barrel mounted grenade launchers on modern military rifles; and 120mm is the standard size for the main gun on most NATO nations MBT's. So apparently AC/5s fire anything from a golf-ball, to a 5gal keg.
@@BigRed40TECH I do wish they had a bit better organization of their weapons. I picture the cannons as, AC 2 = 37mm AC 5 = 75mm AC 10 = 120 mm AC 20 = 180mm Give or take.
Yeah, the AC/5 and AC/10 are cool and all but have you ever used the AC/15? It's very rare. My uncle who works at Defiance Industries showed it to me one time.
In the real world, numerous warships have been equipped with automatic cannons like the OTO Melara 76 mm turret since the early 1960s. Conversely we don't have a weaponized version of the PPC available. Procurement and Logistics need to be a part of battletech consideration as the weapon you don't have or can't use is not very effective.
Alternatively, using a Light Gauss Rifle in place of an AC-10,same weight,10 hexes extra range,2 pts less damage, but doing 128 pts of damage/ton of ammo.
AC/5 is good but not great, it's like a Warhammer: It's good enough. Now AC/10 vs. PPC, I'll take a PPC almost every time depending on additional weaponry.
I really want you to cover the LB C cannons, cause i don’t understand if they just have a switch that switches from solid slug or shotgun, or if that’s something has to be configured prior to deployment
What I don't get is why do missiles get more shots per ton of ammo than cannons? The conventional wisdom with tube vs rocket artillery irl is that cannon shells are smaller lighter and cheaper for a given payload at a given range than the equivalent rocket but the inverse is true for the weapon systems that consume this ammo. Therefore an AC/5 may be heavier than an LRM-5 but it should be getting much more shots out of a ton of ammo, but even that is not the case (20 vs. 24)
in MW:O I respect the AC/5 as a great weapon to sustain damage at most operational ranges, pack a bite to whoever gets hit by it, and isn't such a investment in heat or weight unlike the AC/10 which starts becoming a weight investment, and AC/2 which just DOESN'T Quite do enough damage unless you're able to boat them (And then you run into problems of having to store a lot of ammo). The Ac/5 in MW:O only needs 2 or 3 to have the desired effect for sustained malicious fire. Versus the PPC which you can only pop off 3/4 shots before needing to back away to cool down, and in MW:O, that may not be an option for you.
@@BigRed40TECH most definitely, MW:5, MW:O, battletech, and of course, the tabletop are all incredibly different and yet still almost translate the same usefulness of weapons which I find to be an amazing balancing act.
Maybe from the weight of fire it has s a rac but have you seen videos of the impactzone of one. It so huge that you can put a house inside it and there will still be shots going left and right.
What I love about the Battletech setting is the march of technology: the autocannon replaces the rifle, the gauss rifle replaces the autocannon, the Succession Wars happen and everyone's back to autocannons, then the gauss rifle replaces the autocannon. The AC5 is a very viable weapon that fills a niche until double heat sinks and light gauss rifles become available.
I feel the ultra ac5 is where this category really starts to shine alot more. But that's a different beast.
AP ammo can make a big difference. Nothing better than a couple good roles leaving the enemy a burnt out husk even though you barely scratched the surface.
UAC/5 feels like roughly correct balance for damage and tonnage, although LB-10X is sitting just 2 tons heavier with the extreme flexibility of taking off armor in 10-point chunks or landing half a dozen locations for critical hits.
@@MrDmitriRavenoff Eh, by the time AP ammo is around, you're better off firing it out of a Light AC/5.
LB-5X is seriously underrated IMO. Great long-range "plinking" gun for vees and fire support Mechs. Also I'm to this day puzzled that there's never been an official quad LB-5X version of the Partisan, given how absolutely evil that loadout would be in the air defense role.
I always thought ac5 were to heavy to run . But now when mention it's probably due to the built in heat management. It makes more sense
By itself the AC5 is meh, but when you team one with a PPC or LRMs, it shines. It's negligible heat generation really is a huge asset when your mech is cooking and you still want to throw something at a damaged foe.
...or keep enemy infantry busy at long range with los heat and ammo expenditure
If you had to just alpha something and put your heat high, it lets you cool and continue putting down decent fire on scouts.
Also put them on blackjacks for fun if you have the ability to
Ask any 3R Marauder pilot the value of that AC5 when it comes to keeping damage on target as the heat goes on
I sometimes infer that a lot of the 3025 era weapons were balanced (questionably) around how they perform at the margins, i.e., when a mech has already fully saturated its heat sinks. A PPC would cost 17 tons to be heat neutral (7T + 10T heat sinks), a large laser would cost 13 tons (5T + 8T heat sinks), an AC/5 10 tons (8T + 1T heat sink + 1T ammo), and a medium laser would be 4 tons (1T + 3T heat sinks). If you look at it on that kind of scale, the balance almost makes sense.
It’s “lighter” than a PPC or Large Laser as a package if you consider the heat sinks required to make those weapons heat neutral.
That said, I feel like this kind of balance breaks down when you consider mechs have 10 “free” engine heat sinks, so a PPC or Large Laser is ALMOST always better, UNLESS your mech runs hot, or doesn’t have the spare tonnage for heat sinks, in which case you could make a decent argument for an AC/5. Since it gives similar range performance for far less heat.
That performance at the margins is part of what makes 3025 fun. An all medium laser or all LRM build will always be most efficient, but a build with sharp strengths and weaknesses will beat them if played to the strengths.
The AC/5 tends to be great either on 5/8 and 6/9 medium or heavy mechs, or on heavy and assault mechs which already more more than 10 heat at medium-long range
I think paired with a 5/8/0 or 5/8/5 chassis and maybe a PPC as its Hot Boi friend it would make an awesome harasser unit. Sadly you usually only get 1 not both until you get into more advanced tech.
@@cavalryscout9519 that's why in 3025 my favorite mech is the Grasshopper. Average speed, jump capacity, and it can sink all its weapon heat. Plus it's armor is nearly on par with an Awesome. I've weathered so much fire with that big bug. Also, standard engine and a LL in the CT makes it a true zombie. Only dies or loses its danger factor when you take off its head.
@@MrDmitriRavenoff Or the LRM5 ammo is hit before it runs out.
Don't forget when you add in double heat sinks the AC's get even less balanced.
Wether it's standard, Light, LB, Ultra, or Rotary I love me some AC 5. 🎉
I picked up a pair of Ultra Light Rotary Rifles in my most recent RogueTech playthrough, and found that despite their pathetic damage, I'm in love. 2 tons, 2 slots, 6 rounds, lots of recoil. love me some weird periphery pea-shooter goodness.
@@AliasDrakes just because it ain't Warhammer don't mean you can't Dakka 🤣
Every man and his dog may have an AC 5 but there is definitely a reason for that it’s effective weapon that runs cold and cost effective with plentiful ammo making it a great weapon for your more financial restricted factions like a certain band of corsairs in the periphery
I've never played tabletop, but in the PC Battletech game and even in the 90s 'Mech games AC 5s and 10s really seem to punch above their weight. The only drawback being ammo detonations lol. When I build a 'Mech each AC usually gets 2 tons of ammo or I don't run it, so lack of ammo isn't a problem with my builds, thankfully.
If I recall correctly the AC/5 was the FIRST Autocannon to be designed and perfected, with all other variants being offshoots and mutations on the core concept the AC/5 provided
See now we're getting into something viable for AC's; the Damage is still somewhat light but it can still reach out and pimp smack folks at range and has enough ammo that it won't run out in short order like larger AC's and still not have too much left in the tank in the event of a hull breach (and god forbid the dreaded internal ammo explosion).
Certainly decent prior to the discovery of lostech.
Also (come to think of it), the AC5 gets a shot in the arm in later generations thanks to the advent of sub munitions.
ACs of all classes have there uses, specially when your playing in 3025 Era. Heat Management becomes a real thing. Becoming an immobile target that can barely hit shit is an extreme danger.
Yeah, but what about later areas? I feel like Ballistics really get shafted when it comes to even 3060, with things like the Bombast, Plasma cannon, and ALL the new Missile weapons, the only real development is the RAC. the HVAC really isn't worth it on average, and the configs that mount them are very limited. There needs to be a new version of the AC that lightens the cannons WITHOUT decreasing performance or limiting ammo types. something that, say, reduces the weight by about 30% for each class of cannon, so it'd become something like 4/6/10/12 Tons for AC/2, 5, 10, and 20's respectively.
@@havoc3742 Have you ever heard of light autocannons?
@@anexistanthuman2435 They only go up to Class 5's, and have shorter ranges, I said WITHOUT decreasing Performance.
The AC5 is a weapon when you want to prioritize range and survivability. Sure ammo explosions might happen but removing 2 Heat Sinks for an additional ton of armor and ammo is a good trade off. Even moreso when you can increase the speed of your mech.
An AC5 paired with 3 medium lasers in chain fire gives you pin point damage from long to mid-range.
The bread and butter of ‘Mech weapons. It pairs nicely with Large/Medium Lasers where the two can alternate fires to maintain constant damage output, stay cool and offset recoil. And it’s a wonderful addition to any Alpha strike.
It may literally include the Rheinmetall RH-120 in its weight class, but the AC/5 is really the Ma Deuce of the Battletech universe. Not spectacular super-science, but reliable enough that you want to bolt one on everything.
I would more think something like the oto melara 76mm, including firerate in mechwarrior.
As an actual user of military ordinance I can see the merit in both sides of the argument for what constitutes The weapon family "autocannon".
Between the 20 mm Vulcan, 25 mm Bushmaster, 30 mm Avenger, 40 mm Bofors for rapid fire, or Ordinance more applicable to the history of main battle tank guns from the 60 mm, 88 mm, 100-105 mm, and 120 mm single shot cannon, There is quite a lot to choose from when depicting "autocannon" weapon fire.
Realistically I lean more towards the lower caliber weapons, separating the fire type into single shot, 3 round burst, short burst, and long burst (2, 5, 10, 20). That realistically solves the ammo storage problem, And the scaling down of shots per ton as the damage is increased. Also, Ultra and LBX autocannons then become features of Rate of fire, and target tracking.
While I would give my and your left nut to witness at 8 barrel 120 mm road Gatling/Vulcan/Avenger-style rotating auto cannon Rip loose a stream of fire like a C-RAM on ALL the steroids, It just would not be possible without ammo storage on par with the extra dimensional space in a TARDIS.
I run 2 MAD 3R with stock loadout in MWO. I love the AC5 in the soulder, and off course, some Dragon. Kurita pilot here 🤩
Thanks for this video
I like cannons.
The thump and crunch is just satisfying.
You don't have to fill your Mech with a dozen heat sinks.
Sure, ammo can explode, but overheat shutdown can kill you too.
Range is good. Damage is decent.
I just don't enjoy large lasers and PPCs as much.
The AC/5 is a nice weapon. The weight is certainly a problem, but the ability to spool out so many long ranged, relatively accurate, relatively damaging shots for no real heat makes it a yeoman’s weapon. I like it. Not everything has to be the best at this or that - there needs to be a middle-tier; something that can hammer away without the enemy noticing because they’re worried about this PPC or that AC/20. It’s still dangerous, given the size of it, and I can appreciate that. It has its place.
Interesting. I usually do not take them. PPCs, large (pulse) Lasers, and the stuff with "Gauss" are preferred by me, but maybe the AC is worth a second look.
The AC 5 is something you pair another high heat weapon system to give you that extra punch if you have to switch fire weapon system ... That was why it was useful on a marauder.
If you fire both PPC's continuously your heat will jump , but the next turn you fire the AC 5 with one PPC your heat will drop back down to normal with only a 1/4 in drop of damage.
I come from a starsiege/heavy gear/armored core background when it comes to stomp robots and mechs. One thing I learned from them was that when a weapon seems weak on its own? It's what it's paired with that matters alot. From the mech to the other hard mounted weapons you carry.
But in starsiege and armored core, energy weapons are their own damage type and armors have ballistic and energy resistance values
some weapons do strong on its own. Weapons like AC20, gauss rifle, and MRM20.
Armored core has the big disadvantage of having to pay for ammo, and that cost gets expensive very quickly.
Playing mech Warrior with limited ammo makes a big difference, you gotta think about using better weapons with less ammo or weaker weapons with plenty of rounds.
The AC/5 is a great weapon for skirmishers, okay for a little extra ranged punch on a mech which already has heat problems, and a horrible waste of weight if used on the wrong mech.
It's odd because so much of the AC/5's efficiency depends on the size of the mech's engine. The AC/5 would be bad on mechs like the Centurion or Enforcer, because those mechs have small engines, so they have plenty of tonnage to devote to an AC/10, heatsinks, ammo, etc. The AC/5 would be bad on a Phoenix Hawk, because that mech has a huge engine, and you'd need to strip off so much armor to replace the large laser with an AC/5 that you'd basically just be creating a more expensive Clint. On the Wolverine though, the AC/5 is great because the engine is heavy enough that you couldn't mount something with more punch, but light enough that you can still carry heavy armor, a couple more weapons, and enough heatsinks to jump and fire everything for 4 rounds before heat becomes an issue.
That niche is what makes it a skirmisher gun. It works well on 40-65 ton mechs with a high movement speed, and that type of mech makes a good skirmisher since they can also mount enough armor to jump around the flanks while juggernauts are pounding each other in the center. Skirmishers need to be able to wreck light mechs (which the AC/5 can do), plink heavy and assault mechs from a safe distance, and sustain fire for an entire battle.
The AC/5 is also a good secondary gun on very heavy mechs (70+ tons) with average speed, as long as they have something punchier for their primary armament. It's the sort of gun that can be fired every single round and keep the damage output up while the primary guns are rested for heat. It tends to work best on mechs that run hot, where you'd follow some cycle of overheating and cooling off.
That image is kind of how imagine an AC5 variant - I can totally see a succession wars model being a ww2 style oerlikon 40mm with a fast clip loader and fat barrel cooling jacket. Roaring out 5 shells in half a second and spending the next 9.5 seconds desperately sucking heat out of the barrel and slamming another 5 shells into the feeder.
Its also energy independent, giving ICE vehicals a long range direct fire weppon for low cost, which was crittical in the fusion engine depleated sucessor state armies durning the later sucession wars.
As armor, in the lore, continues to get better, the ac-5 falls under the same umbrella as the t-800 in the terminator franchise. "Old, but not obsolete. yet."
Imho both the criticism and the virtues are both valid, and I love using the AC5 as a harassing weapon in open fields when I know the enemy cannot return the greeting in kind, when you have 2 or 3 AC5s firing in concert at a single target that can be very punishing for that target. Alone and in a vacuum it is definitely not that impressive, but people forget that those 5 points of damage could be the killing/crippling blow. One experience I had was having a lucky critical hit with my tank against a warhammer and it caused an ammunition explosion which caused the mech to be cored. Never underestimate any weapon, lest you lose a mech to it in such a manner. Great video like always!
Yep! While the AC2's just tooooo unlikely to be that shot that takes that arm off, the AC5 starts to really close in with it being otherwise.
For the PPC to be effective, you’d need a crap ton of heat sink. Without those, you’d be wasting turns getting rid of the PPC’s generated heat, or risk shut down. The AC5 lets you shoot round after round, so long as you still have ammo.
Good range, low heat. But I just can't get behind a weapon that does the same damage as a one ton medium laser that weighs, at minimum, 9 tons.
I don't think it's bad per say, but it's just a bit too heavy. If it were the same weight as the AC2, I think it'd fair better.
People gotta remember though, 1 heat is a huge advantage in Battletech. Not saying it's good, but it walks the line between good and bad.
Remember, the PPC does 10 damage for 10 heat and 7 tons. The medium laser makes it look bad too. I try not to get toooo deep on comparing to medium lasers, as they're overtuned imo.
@@BigRed40TECH Agreed that mediums are a bit OP.
It is a bit unfair to see it as 1 ton for 5 damage. In a prolonged engagement, your 1 medium laser needs 3 heatsinks to keep pace for half the range. The argument for the PPC however is even worse. 7 ton weapon plus 5 tons heatsinks to make it shoot once every two turns. Its plus side is always and only ammo independence.
I assume that's why in battletech game they gave it 40 damg while my.laser deals 25 damg
This is why in the Mechwarrior games I usually end up chain firing mediums while my heatsinks just barely keep up in something up armored. Mediums are OP
With a PPC there will always be that moment where your mech is too hot to shoot without risk. Not so with the AC5.
The AC5 is a decent weapon, especially when combined with other weapons of a similar profile. An AC5 mated with medium lasers and LRM 10 could do more than a little damage while keeping opponents at arms length
The MG, AC2, and AC5 all benefit from some kind of burst-fire option, and both of the light AC variants do well with special ammo (including Flak in 3025 tech).
As-is, in 'Mech v. 'Mech combat, the AC5 is an excellent backup to a harder-hitting, high-heat gun, but as a primary cannon it is lackluster. Like the AC2, I like it as an anti-air option, especially with the universal accessibility of Flak ammo. It makes for a cheap gun for a cheap tank (the Scorpion and Vedette being prime examples). Like the AC2, the LB option makes it more attractive IMO. I'm less a fan of the Ultra mechanic, given the unfavorable cluster rolls.
Idk, a Clint is good bug hunter because of its ac5. It can reach out and slap wasps and stingers and even Locust at long range where they can't retaliate. 5 damage to a Wasp is scary as heck at any range. A PPC in the same place would just overheat the poor thing and not let it keep up with the enemy.
Also cluster rolls for Uktra AC's suck. I'd rather just roll to hit twice.
AC2 and to a lesser degree 5 can fire more often in the Solaris Timescale than bigger weapons. I forget the ratio but 1 tabletop round is almost 20
The workhorse of every faction in Battletech.
Boating AC5s can be fun. Plus side, you can deal significant damage at long range with little heat buildup. Minus side, you need to bring a lot of ammunition to avoid running out, and that increases the risk of going boom on a critical hit.
I know that dropping the 4 ac/2 from the mauler for 2 ac/5 is a pretty solid improvement.
Nice upload! Great job!
You haven't even watched it yet! lol
It’s always interesting seeing people’s perspective on weapons from a tabletop standpoint as someone who only plays the games where various variables make things like the ac5 and ac2 much more desirable weapon systems. The aim correction and lack of minimum range on top of the cool running make them a lot more helpful when you’re directly piloting a mech in games. Furthermore u like in table top where you can pop out, let lose a ppc, and back off to have another make fire the consistency offered by acs in the prolonged singular combat of the games helps to further establish them as a solid choice.
The interesting thing about the AC5 is that it's basically on the same level as a cold war are MBT cannon. And with cold war era I mean from 1946 to 1991.
Modern tank guns are more like light rifles, not Autocannons. Tanks don't burst fire several rounds at a time (except, you know, actual modern autocannons, which are MGs by mech standards)
@@LewisFawley I meant cold war era. And while some of the stuff from the cold war is still around today, it isn't quite the same thing.
@@inquisitorbenediktanders3142 No, it's pretty clear that an AC5 is significantly more power than that
@@DIEGhostfish ok, in what way specifically?
@@inquisitorbenediktanders3142 Official rules are that modern guns are "Light rifles" and can't even scratch BAR8 armor. Battlemechs are BAR10.
I love me some Ultra AC5s.
In MechWarrior 4, take a mauler, remove all other weapons, heatsinks. Max the armor and put 4-6 AC5 and an extra 2 tons or so of ammo. Put two per firing group. Enemy 'mech will have a hell of a time getting you back in their crosshairs. Go forth and rock and roll. (Their chassis)
It’s not a bad gun for it’s heyday in 3025, moving forward in the timeline the Light AC/5 is pretty much a direct replacement as the reduction from 8 tons to 5 tons and the removal of the minimum range makes it much more palatable to take
You really start to worry when facing a Rifleman armed with 4 of these weapons.
@@semperatis Oh yes. I messed around with that idea. Even with basic tech you can cram 4 and all the single sinks you need into a 50 ton chassis. Use doubles and you can stick 6 LPPCs and all the cooling you need in a 60 tonner and spam shots all day.
It's the perfect tool to keep firepower coming down range between heat heavy volleys. Works really good on a Marauder.
Much like AC2 can be replaced by LRM10s, the AC5 can be replaced by LRM15s if not large lasers
But i love them anyways, maybe because I use doubletap and alternate ammo rules.
Wow 40mm - 120mm that's quite the range, I had no idea!
Ayo, unrelated to this video but more of the main thing of your channel; I'm quite happy in tears that there are more people getting interested in the BattleTech lore (since BT is quite an underrated worldbuilding imo, and I grew up with it as a kid). I was curious about the name of your channel until I just knew that you did make videos on WH40k as a whole before BattleTech, so it's quite interesting to see that the Warhammer 40k fans are intrigued with the lore since... that 'exodus' months ago I believe...
Anyways, I love to watch/listen to your BT lore videos.
I started playing Battletech when I was 8, 1 year before 40k. I didn't think people would be interested in Battletech lore. Turns out I was wrong. lol
The AC5 is a bit underwhelming. Lets compare it with two energy based weapons.
The AC5 does 5 points of damage over the same range as a PPC, for 1 heat. A PPC does 10 damage for 10 heat. A heat sink dissipates 1 heat per turn and weigh 1 ton each. 2 AC5s does 10 damage, and weighs 8 tons each for 16 total, plus 1 ton of ammo for both would give 10 shots before it runs out. This generates 2 heat when both AC5s are fired. The PPC weighs 7 tons, plus 8 tons worth of heat sinks makes the PPC match the performance of 2 AC5s. That is a savings of 2 tons, and no dependence on ammo.
The AC5 vs a Large Laser is worth looking at too. The Large Laser has slightly less range, but is comparable to an AC5. The L. Laser does 8 damage. The weapon weighs 5 tons and generates 8 heat. That means 7 heat sinks to reduce the heat build to the same level as the AC5. 12 tons for the L. Laser + 7 heat sinks, 9 tons for the AC5+1 ton of ammo. The AC5 looks decent in the comparison. In lighter mechs that don't have a lot of weapons to build heat, the 10 heat dissipation that every mech starts with can make the large laser more attractive than the AC5. It really depends on if the mech has a enough other sources of heat that it needs additional heat sinks.
Depending if a mech design wants to have 1 or 2 AC5s can change the math on if it is worth having or not. The heavier armed a mech is and the more heat sinks it will need to dissipate that heat the more attractive the AC5 becomes. More advanced versions of the AC5 completely change the math. The Ultra AC5 builds 2 heat and adds 1 more ton to deliver 10 damage like a PPC. It also needs double the ammo for the same performance, but the math becomes much better for the Ultra 5. LBX5 makes the cannon 1 ton lighter, and adds a shotgun ammo option. Not very popular, but some people like it. The eventual development of the Rotary AC5 changes the entire equation. If you can mount an RAC5, it is good enough to replace several PPCs and definitely something that you should consider.
People want to build their mechs around one system a lot of the time, so they look at 5 damage and poo poo it. But without double heatsinks? 1 heat for 5 damage starts looking appealing.
Autocannons are meant to be a standard tank / vehicle weapon. Also as Battletech roots take place is a time of lost tech knowledge, I would think that this class of weapon would be the the one even the most backwater of planets could service / provide ammo for. And can be paired up with ICE. Another item that can still be serviced by the less tech savvy.
Channeling my Grey Death Legion / Decision at Thunder Rift into to Battletech.
I think the AC5 may be the most humble weapon in the entire game.
It isn't going to be the favorite piece of kit for most mechwarriors but it is hardly one to be scoffed at.
My mechs tend to get dangerously hot and stay dangerously hot, so ACs work pretty well for me. Better than lasers anyway.
Since I wrote this comment I have finally discovered the art of cycling and joined the cult of the medium laser and MPL.
Advanced rules are delightful for weapons like this. Damage variance helps less than good shots do some damage, while nailed perfect shots get bonus damage/penetration potential. Another rule allows one to push the AC for an extra use in a turn at a moderately high risk of potential problems. These two alone make an ac/5 pretty good. The risk and penalties for pushing them to their limits are more than a slap to the wrist, and can make the typical tabletop battle play more like a cinematic epic.
AC5 is my favorite weapon class in BT. Although I love that the one on the Marauder is listed as a 120mm in the fluff. I just picture it as the main gun off of an Abrams or Leopard with an autoloader more than a true "automatic" cannon.
Autocannons truly shine on high ambient heat maps, PPC's and lasers will quickly overheat a mech but the autocannon will continue chugging out damage.
And out of game. Many worlds can have the technical ability to maintain such weapons. Where if something goes wrong with your PPC or Lasers you might have to ship the weapon to another world to get it looked at in a more advance lab. The ability to maintain and do routine maintain a weapons systems like and Auto cannon is going to be easier since its mechanical in nature vs needing specific systems to align and focus and energy weapons lenses and crystals. Just look at how we still use what is basically WW2 tech even today in our 50 cal machine guns.
50 Cals were invented prior to ww1. So even more old school.
That was interesting, I believed AC5 to be very good, I didn't realize it was considered low damage. AC5 very reliable in my opinion, they have enough damage to nudge/batter, good range and rate of fire with low heat. I really like them, I'm ideally thinking if I see AC2's on my mechs I really want AC5's instead lol. In my MW5 play throughs I've changed the AC10's on mechs such as an Urban, Hunchback or Enforcer to AC5's to pop a XL or L engine with an AC5 with jump jets, its really good & fun on raids, patrol etc contracts you can outmaneuver most heavier /AC10 mechs, keeping out of distance, jumping around, I recommend giving it a go ^_^ If you can change the gyro as well that's sweet!
Pair up a AC5 and a PPC and you have the perfect load out for a top Assault Mech!
AC/5s are good for vehicles. They can back up bigger energy weapons in mechs or be a long range suppliment to a bunch of MLs, but as a primary it limits the mech because you can't carry enough ammo. Within the game, it's not as big a deal, it lacks the staying power of a large laser. Wars are won on logistics, and that has always been ignored except when needed for plot. But rather than subbing in a PPC, put in a LL and the heatsinks. You can put in the PPC, but in most cases it's too hot.
Fun fact - the modern main gun on an Abrams tank is technically an AC/5, though on the upper end of it's range in terms of projectile weight (it's close to being an AC/10 with some types of ammunition). Though the range on the IRL gun is approx. 7x greater than the AC/5. Though all in all, almost *all* of the ranges given for weapons in Battletech don't make sense, and almost all the conventional weapons with IRL equiv. don't deal as much damage as they should compared to IRL hardware.
an AC5 and 4 medium lasers is a loadout I'd be happy to run.
Stick that load out on a Marauder with more armor, jump jets, and some good 'yee haw' spirit you have something too well armed to ignore when it gets behind you and too tough to crack easily.
It's a risky use of a fire support mech but in my experience it is going to really mess up cohesion
Ironically (given the risk of ammo explosions) Autocannons' low heat can become a huge advantage as your mech starts suffering armor breaches or losing components. Battlemechs relying on heavy energy weapons also depend on large banks of heatsinks. Destroying a few from direct hits or knocking off the part they're in, and/or heat generated by an engine critical can leave them unable to fire their primary weapons without movement and targeting penalties the next turn. If you have autocannon(s) they can happily fire even with nothing but your indestructible 10 engine heatsinks and the fusion engine barfing out heat from a hole in the shielding.
At least from Solaris RPG rules, the AC/5 is a direct competitor to the PPC in terms of damage output thanks to being able to fire twice in the same span of time. It's a solid balancing point imo and recreated as well in most videogame adaptations of the setting. Like now a Rifleman or Jagermech has multiple attacks per turn and you can imagine them working in their intended role, crit-seeking against vehicles or at least firing often enough on poor odds to make some kind of damage stick.
Ac5 is a step up from the AC2, while those stuck in the succession wars might point out that it has half the damage as a ppc, but weighs more than one. Post 3060 games see it having more utility with alternative ammo types. Combine that with its relatively low heat and decent range and it becomes a formidable weapon.
Ap gives every shot a probability for through armor crit irregardless of hit location, at the cost of a 1 modifier to hit requirement and halving ammunition.
Fletchette makes it more leathal vs dismounts, doing full damage vs infantry, but half vs mechs and tanks.
Flak makes it more leathal vs aircraft.
Caseless doubles ammunition at the cost of survivability.
Incendiary effectively turns the autocannon into a Long range flamethrower able to build heat in a mech or do heavy damage vs infantry.
Precision which halves ammo but reduces hit requirements by 2 effectively negating medium range accuracy debuffs.
Lastly tracer which does 1 less damage but reduces noght, dusk, and dawn shooting modifiers to +1.
The AC5 matches up very favorably with a lot of weapons. Personally, I like comparing it to the medium laser, because it does the same damage as a medium laser, but generates only a third of the heat. It costs 70 BV, and an additional 5 BV for each ton of ammo. One ton is enough for all but the longest of engagements. And you can plink every turn, even without very favorable probabilities to hit, because of the deep ammo reserves and negligible heat output. But you won't be missing often, because the range brackets have you shooting at a better base-to-hit than most weapons.
To compare, two medium lasers will cost you 90 BV, versus the AC5 loaded with one ton of ammo at 75 BV, and those medium lasers are hitting at worse probabilities at all but three hexes in the AC5's range bracket (hexes 1-3 due to minimum range modifiers). But outside of those hexes, chances are, at least one of those two medium lasers is going to miss, and there's a good chance both will miss, generating six heat for nothing. The AC5 typically has a better chance to hit than a medium laser, but even if the AC5 misses, it's no big deal, as you are only one heat point in the hole, and one shell lighter in the bin.
Yes it weighs a lot. But it seems this matters more in terms of design. In terms of battlefield performance and value for the BV, I'm surprised with how competitive the AC5 is with other popular alternatives. A particle projection cannon is 176 BV, and that doesn't include any additional heat sinking you might need to place on top of it, or power amplifiers if you are putting it in an ICE powered vehicle. An AC5 system with a ton of ammo is less than 43% of the price of a PPC, and you can fire it all day with only the base heatsinks off the engine.
Maybe it isn't flashy, but its a workhorse. People often think that combat always equates to what you'd see in Solaris: Highly controlled combat environments where everything is clear, rules are in place and there's no way to modify circumstances mid match. In combat, you don't have the luxury of knowledge, like how many enemies are you fighting, when are you fighting or where are you fighting most of the time. Let's look at the KGC000B, an arena fighter second to none. In cqc, fighting 1v1? It slaps. But when it runs out of ammo... it dies.
AC-5 stands at the bare minimum of damage required to deal crippling blows against light or medium mech’s, within the shrinking windows of opportunity afforded by increasing range(terrain obstruction/maneuverability), unlike the weaker AC-2.
I’d still much rather an AC-10 if possible, as it crippling capacity within its given window scales up better to contend with heavy and assault targets, but unlike 5’s, 10’s are too heavy to be stacked on a medium platform. AC-2’s may be even more stackable, but in all situations with dual AC-2’s, a single gauss for the same weight would have been superior.
It's like a 76mm oto melara to me. Reliable, useful, and overshadowed by bigger weapons systems. It's not always what you want but what you need
We house rule the AC2&5’s. For us the AC/5’s get two turns of firing in a single weapon phase. Makes this weapon a ton of fun on tabletop.
One fact about the AC-5 that is spoken of, but often not seriously considered.
It's availability. Literally, there is almost nowhere you can go that you cannot find this weapon being produced, sold, or traded.
PPCs and even lasers can be hard to obtain, and costly to procure. They also require more maintenance and man-hours to keep up to spec. Parts can be expensive.
The humble AC though is a tough, mostly reliable, and easy to maintain weapon system. Its ammo is easily found and procured in large quantities. Parts are often 'cheap' in comparison, as is the ammunition.
About the only thing more reliable and available is the ultra common Machine Gun.
People like to drag on the AC2, but at least it has a niche: utterly absurd range for AA coverage and fortification reduction. The AC5, though? That's a weapon that I've never really figured out the point of.
It's a half damage PPC for 1 heat.
@@BigRed40TECH it's a half damage PPC for one heat that has an explosion risk.
I really don't like through armour crits.
@@quinncyquinnquinn Life is all about taking risks. Besides, who doesn't love fireworks? ;)
AC-5...Old Faithful
Autocannons please the algorithm.
There's a reason the two most famous direct-fire support 'mechs carry two of them. They're straightforward workhorse weapons.
Okay, I'm aware of the Rifleman, but what's the other one?
@@havoc3742 the Jagermech
the AC/5 is interesting to me in that the baseline version has potential, and infact could have a place even if there is ultra, LBX and even rotary versions of it or new weapons like er mediums and plasma rifles in the future eras, but what makes this obsolete is not newer weapons but the double heat sink, such a powerful upgrade renders its benefit of being so cool running nil, which would be its biggest pro followed by its range make it more justifiable against its weight and volatile ammo drawbacks. i would say this weapon is in fact the succession wars iteself, and dies once we leave it.
when i think of the AC/5, makes me wonder how BT would be like if double heat sinks rules where to externally mounted only and engine sinks are always single strength
Arguably the first useful AC, but that's only really in comparison to the AC2, in which case anything is an improvement, while having slightly better range than the AC10, which isn't significant enough to be worthwhile unless the target is immobile.
Regarding the difference between it and a PPC: for an AC5 to run cool and for long enough to matter, it needs 1 SHS and 1t of ammo, bringing it up to 10t of equipment for 5pts of damage, or .5 pt/t, while the PPC needs 10 SHS for 17t of equipment for 10pts of damage, or .588 pt/t. So strictly speaking the PPC is superior, it's lighter for a mech and deals greater damage, even considering the greater heat cost, but it's not so superior to render the AC5 useless, particularly for ICE equipped vehicles which may have to pay for an additional 1t in amplifiers in addition to the SHS.
Everyone likes to bring up that the weight is justified by the heat but anything less than 10 heat is inconsequential. 3 medium lasers four 3 tonnes and 9 heat will usually be more effective, barring large lasers which still compare favorably but the PPC maxes the base heat sinking by itself leaving no overhead for movement.
The AC/5 is meh in the TT, yet the HBS game shows how a simple balance adjustment can make it a very solid weapon indeed. And in the TT, it still has a niche for being a cheap long-range weapon with a lot of ammo capacity, which makes it a good weapon on likewise cheap ICE-powered tanks. Or as a pair with a PPC or two on an introtech Mech, where the negligible heat output comes into play.
There's a reason a lot of people swap to the Marauder's D-variant or something like it as soon as DHS becomes an option. Vanilla AC5 is just meh and it shows in how it needs specific circumstances to make it not terrible for its weight.
At least you feel the AC5 when it tags you unlike the little boy AC2
The AC5 is odd... When I saw the tabletop rules I got confused, because surely that short range was a mistake?
Its range is shorter than expected, its damage is underwhelming, but at least it is ammo efficient.
A Light AC5, a Rotator AC5 or an Ultra AC5 on the other hand... now we are talking. It is also a good fit for penetrator rounds or tracer rounds.
No idea about the LB 5-X, but overall the weapon is a bit underwhelming in 3025, and gets a real glowup with tech progression.
In the Mechwarrior game you can land 2-3 shots by the time a medium laser is able to fire again; so theirs that. Damage by volume rather than a single impact
In the video games its performs much better.
@@BigRed40TECH true. Haven't played the tabletop since I was a kid in the 90's so kind of forgot
So, some maths.
In my admittedly limited experience, most BattleTech games tend to run about 15 turns. So one ton of AC/5 ammo, yielding 20 shots, is sufficient for one engagement. The AC/5 generates one heat, meaning you need 1 heat sink to fire it, and 1 ton of ammo to use it. Total cost to mount an AC/5: 10 tons, 5 critical slots (8 tons 3 crits for the weapon, 1 ton 1 crit each for ammo and heat sink).
A PPC does 10 damage and generates 10 heat, weighs, if I recall, 5 tons and takes 2 critical slots, but does not need ammunition. But generates 10 heat. Total cost to mount a PPC: 15 tons, 12 critical slots (5 tons 2 crits for the weapon, 10 tons 10 crits for the heat sinks).
Now, yes, all 'Mechs come with 10 free heat sinks which skews this math, but it's a good thought experiment to keep in mind when gauging the efficiency of various weapons' systems in BattleTech.
The most common AC 5 is the M2 Machine gun developed by John Moses Browning.
not even close
And they call her... Ma Deuce!
@B Kane the Ma Duce isn’t even a AC 2, it’s literally what Mach’s use as machine guns
A ac2 is at least a 20mm
I've always found the AC5 to be a terrible primary weapon, for a mech, always preferring the PPC or LL variant if I can find it (sorry WVR-6R). Buuuut as a complimentary weapon in a mixed load out, it's excellent. The MAD-3L and Striker STC-2C are probably the best examples in Introtech. High heat primaries combined with the basically "free" ac5. It let's you play with that heat curve and keep pumping out fire even when the machine is hot. The Striker especially works like butter with that combo.
On tanks the AC5 is totally acceptable. They're generally cheap and a few AC5s peppering from range is nothing to sneeze at.
First viable autocannon. It's still a bit low on damage side, but range is great and heat is pretty low. I prefer ac10, but ac5 is still worth it. While not perfect it's far better than joke gun like ac2.
Just an overly complicated Heavy Rifle. Give my that periphery tech any day
1:20 For context; and because sci-fi designers have no idea what scale is.
40mm would be the average size of barrel mounted grenade launchers on modern military rifles; and 120mm is the standard size for the main gun on most NATO nations MBT's.
So apparently AC/5s fire anything from a golf-ball, to a 5gal keg.
Yep. I just go with it. Don't expect these games to have realistic weapons, none of them do. lol
Do I hear MW4 music here or am I tripping? I know that music from somewhere...
A 120mm AC5? What are those shells made out of, plastic? Sure weapons factory, blame the “succession wars.”
Apparently the AC5 is viewed, by BT, as being the equal to a modern smoothbore tank cannon. *shrugs*
@@BigRed40TECH I do wish they had a bit better organization of their weapons.
I picture the cannons as,
AC 2 = 37mm
AC 5 = 75mm
AC 10 = 120 mm
AC 20 = 180mm
Give or take.
Yeah, the AC/5 and AC/10 are cool and all but have you ever used the AC/15? It's very rare. My uncle who works at Defiance Industries showed it to me one time.
It's called a Gauss Rifle. lol
@@BigRed40TECH In my head canon, this is a real schoolyard conversation that took place at some point in the Battletech universe
In the real world, numerous warships have been equipped with automatic cannons like the OTO Melara 76 mm turret since the early 1960s. Conversely we don't have a weaponized version of the PPC available. Procurement and Logistics need to be a part of battletech consideration as the weapon you don't have or can't use is not very effective.
ACs 5, 10 & 20 all do up to 100 damage with 1 ton of ammo. So the most damage per weapon ton is the 5.
Alternatively, using a Light Gauss Rifle in place of an AC-10,same weight,10 hexes extra range,2 pts less damage, but doing 128 pts of damage/ton of ammo.
Also happens to be the same calibre as the M1A2 Abram's main gun, for size reference
AC/5 is good but not great, it's like a Warhammer: It's good enough. Now AC/10 vs. PPC, I'll take a PPC almost every time depending on additional weaponry.
I really want you to cover the LB C cannons, cause i don’t understand if they just have a switch that switches from solid slug or shotgun, or if that’s something has to be configured prior to deployment
With time, we will cover this.
AC-5 is okay for medium weights single shots on MWO... Burst fire in the clan version a must use if you run heat hungry clan mechs.
The rotary AC/5 is broken as all hell but I love it any way.
The good ole' AC5
In Lunar and Martian environments AC5 is pretty great
the other PPC placeholder
What I don't get is why do missiles get more shots per ton of ammo than cannons? The conventional wisdom with tube vs rocket artillery irl is that cannon shells are smaller lighter and cheaper for a given payload at a given range than the equivalent rocket but the inverse is true for the weapon systems that consume this ammo. Therefore an AC/5 may be heavier than an LRM-5 but it should be getting much more shots out of a ton of ammo, but even that is not the case (20 vs. 24)
Missiles miss more. They're a scatter based weapon. They don't give you the full number of missile hits per ton, basically. It's a game reason why.
*sigh*, the Jagermech doesn't carry 4 AC5s in tabletop, to my great disappointment.
Amazing content.
Much appreciated!
in MW:O I respect the AC/5 as a great weapon to sustain damage at most operational ranges, pack a bite to whoever gets hit by it, and isn't such a investment in heat or weight unlike the AC/10 which starts becoming a weight investment, and AC/2 which just DOESN'T Quite do enough damage unless you're able to boat them (And then you run into problems of having to store a lot of ammo).
The Ac/5 in MW:O only needs 2 or 3 to have the desired effect for sustained malicious fire. Versus the PPC which you can only pop off 3/4 shots before needing to back away to cool down, and in MW:O, that may not be an option for you.
MWO plays very differently from Battletech to be fair.
@@BigRed40TECH most definitely, MW:5, MW:O, battletech, and of course, the tabletop are all incredibly different and yet still almost translate the same usefulness of weapons which I find to be an amazing balancing act.
If the BJ-1 Blackjack had an AC/5 instead of twin AC/2s, we would have flying cars
Rotary AC/5 for the win.
My PCs never mounted one when they made their mechs. Its math didnt help it out. Autocannons need a bit of love in the math department.
I wonder if the real world Warthog’s 30mm cannon would be classified as an AC-5 or 10.
AC5 is 40mm and up. So this thing is a measly ac2 and that is exactly where this turd of a gun belongs.
@@maeckiemesser6958 given it's extreme rate of fire it's probably a rac 2 slightly better.
Maybe from the weight of fire it has s a rac but have you seen videos of the impactzone of one. It so huge that you can put a house inside it and there will still be shots going left and right.
I thought the AC stood for Air Conditioner