Battletech Missile Equations, Pt I

A long time ago, I did some laser equations. I may have also done some work with AC equations. I forget. At the very least, I believe there's an old Battletech forum post desconstructing autocannons.

But I haven't seen/done that kind of work on missiles. For starters, missiles are stupid. Why only SRMs 2-6? Why not an LRM 25? And once you open up the cluster hits table to cover everything from 2 to 20, that question is even more pertinent. Multi-missile launchers run from 3 to 9 and launch either type of missile, so they certainly don't give a shit.

Then there's the tonnage issue. If an LRM 10 will drop about the same average damage as two LRM 5's, you have to justify why you'd take the LRM 10. That's especially hard when you save a ton by running two of the lighter systems.

There are so many of them! The unguided medium range missiles. The differently-guided rocket launchers. Enhanced LRMs which are abbreviated as NLRMs because Extended LRMs are the ELRMs. Streak systems which are more reliable, but no more precise and Thunderbolt launchers which are just one, big missile. Like an autocannon.

Did you know Arrow IV artillery systems were missiles? You probably did. I never use artillery. I thought they were all ballistic because as far as I know, artillery is always ballistic. Otherwise, it's just sparkling cruise missile.

Rocket Launchers above RL 10's. That's this paragraph's premise, point, and evidence.

The first analysis is per missile tube. Heat per tube, tons per tube, critical slots per tube, etc. The next is tons of damage and number of missiles to maybe "missile size." The final part of the preliminaries is an analysis of guidance systems (including minimum ranges).

Name       Tons/Missile* Heat/Missile* Crits/Missile*
LRM 5           0.4          0.4           0.2
LRM 10          0.5          0.4           0.2
LRM 15          0.467        0.333         0.2
LRM 20          0.5          0.3           0.25
SRM 2           0.5          1             0.5
SRM 4           0.5          0.75          0.25
SRM 6           0.5          0.667         0.333
NLRM 5          0.6          0.4           0.4
NLRM 10         0.6          0.4           0.4
NLRM 15         0.6          0.333         0.4
NLRM 20         0.6          0.3           0.45
ELRM 5          1.2          0.6           0.2
ELRM 10         0.8          0.6           0.4
ELRM 15         0.8          0.533         0.4
ELRM 20         0.9          0.6           0.4
MML 3           0.5          0.667         0.667
MML 5           0.6          0.6           0.6
MML 7           0.643        0.571         0.571
MML 9           0.667        0.556         0.556
MRM 10          0.3          0.4           0.2
MRM 20          0.35         0.3           0.15
MRM 30          0.333        0.333         0.167
MRM 40          0.3          0.3           0.175
SSRM 2          0.75         1             0.5
SSRM 4          0.75         0.75          0.25
SSRM 6          0.75         0.667         0.333
Thunderbolt 5   0.6          0.6           0.2
Thunderbolt 10  0.7          0.5           0.2
Thunderbolt 15  0.733        0.467         0.2
Thunderbolt 20  0.75         0.4           0.25
RL 10           0.05         0.3           0.1
RL 15           0.067        0.267         0.133
RL 20           0.075        0.25          0.15
           
*Thunderbolt stats are based on missile damage, not per missile.    

I thought this shit was wild before. The LRMs and SRMs mostly work. Larger racks are more heat efficient than the smaller ones. That's a reason to use them over banked smaller ones...a little bit. Their crits get worse, which is weird and it's obvious the LRM 5 and LRM 15 should weigh an extra half ton, especially when NLRMs keep a consistent set of curves without tonnage inconsistencies. But I guess fractions are for machine guns.

The MMLs are great. Their heat and crit efficiency increase as the rack size goes up, even if the gross tonnage efficiency drops. That's so great. Big racks are better for heavier 'mechs with more heat and fewer crits. Three MML 3's weigh has much as an MML 7, but they generate more heat and have more crits than an MML 9. Not much more, but a little more. 

It feels like the MMLs were crafted in a way that, say, MRMs were not. MRMs go home; you are drunk. MRM 10 and 40 have the same tonnage efficiency, which is better than the 20 and 30. MRM 20 and 40 have the same heat efficiency, which is better than the 10 and 30. The MRM 10 is, relatively speaking, a crit-hog, the MRM 20 is the most crit-efficient, and the line trends down to the MRM 30 and MRM 40.

There's no real rule to them. I don't get it at all. Look: The crit and heat efficiencies of the MML 9 are pathetic in a game where weight is usually the number that matters. Was the goal to counter any intuitive understanding of efficiency and just make players use an MRM 40 where they needed an MRM 40?

Are MRM's trolling us? 

The extended LRMs follow a set pattern, except for the ELRM 5, which is way off the curve. The ELRM 15's bizarre 8 heat (instead of 9) also begs some questions. Just one question. "Why is the the ELRM's heat not 9 instead of 8?".

Streak SRMs are just extensions of SRMs and even Thunderbolts are logical and linear, with efficiency of the Thunderbolt 20 bottoming out because it's a fucking AC/20 with the range of a PPC.

Rocket Launchers are on crack. You'd have to be hard-up for crits to choose a RL 15 or RL 20 ever. I have no idea how their range gets worse, especially when Rocket Launchers let you individually shoot smaller volleys.

There's no Clan equipment here, because this is already a big enough mess. If there is a grand unifying theory of missiles, it won't include them.

Next time, I'm going to logically asses the reasonable factors behind what makes missiles act the way they do (fuel, payload, sensors, reload requirements, and 'blast containment') and why we should probably throw it all out the window.