Weapon jamming has been implemented as of the latest update, so what does this mean? First and foremost, that all weapons have a chance to "jam". If you think it's absurd that a laser could jam like an autocannon, you'd be right. Something else is being represented by the jamming mechanic, however, and that is Murphy's Law. A laser can't jam per se, but something else can always go wrong, and will go wrong just when you need it most. Your Techs can go over that thing with a fine tooth comb and it can still "jam" during the course of a battle. Those are the kinds of events that soldiers must deal with under combat conditions. On the other hand, you can get through combat without a single "jam" — if you're lucky enough.

Not all weapons jam equally as often, though. The aforementioned laser is easily the most reliable because it's mechanically the most simple; the same cannot be said for an Ultra autocannon. Weapons thus come in four categories, from A-D:

  • Cat A: Few / no moving parts & no recoil = Laser, PPC, Flamer, TAG
  • Cat B: Moving parts & minimum recoil = COIL, MG, AMS, Gauss, LRM, SRM, & Rocket
  • Cat C: Moving parts & moderate recoil = Autocannon, LB-X AC, Rifle, & Thumper
  • Cat D: Moving parts, high recoil, and plain unreliability = Ultra AC

The above shouldn't need much justification, especially given how notorious UACs are for jamming. The basic rule of thumb is: the simpler the better. The Gunnery skill of your pilot has an affect on the chances of your weapons jamming, though it's not as extreme as it is in Roguetech (where, with high enough skill and certain gear, weapons will never jam). Gunnery now represents not only the pilot's shooting skills but their weapon skills more generally, and with greater experience comes greater ability to minimize the chances of screwing up, and when something does screw up — of being able to troubleshoot it faster while under enemy fire. At Gunnery 10 the chances of a jam are very low but they will never be non-existent, while jams will be cleared much more quickly.

Since this is a game, at the end of the day, things are currently more unreliable than they would be if they were developed for a military IRL. If you're curious by what I mean when I say "more unreliable" lets look at a few real-world examples. First up, one appropriate to the scale of Battletech.

The autoloader from the T-80 series MBT:
The autoloader is insensitive to scorching heat, freezing cold, nor does it care how fast the turret is spinning, thanks to its impeccable sense of balance. It does not matter if the tank is rocking around like a bucking bronco at 50 km/h over the most gutted dirt paths. The autoloader will still load a shell in the specified time, every time.
And its earlier iteration in the T-72 series MBT:
In reality, autoloader failures are exceedingly rare (but not non-existent)... The propensity for autoloaders to malfunction either from wear and tear or from a knock on the turret tends to be greatly exaggerated.
The above links document the kind of effort that goes into engineering a heavy weapon system that needs to be reliable under any and all circumstances (even if there's, inevitably, still a very small chance it can fail). For something closer to home for American readers in particular, lets look at a rifle dust test:
Dust testing consisted of each rifle getting a heavy dose of lubricant, the muzzle being capped, and the ejection port cover closed. Then, each weapon was exposed to a heavy dust environment in a dust chamber for 30 minutes. After the dust bath, a tester fired 120 rounds through each weapon. Then, back in the dust chamber they went for another 30 minutes of sand spray and dust bathing before having to fire another 120 rounds. This sequence was repeated until each weapon had fired 600 rounds.Then, all the weapons were wiped down and lubed again with heavy lubrication, and put back in the dust chamber for 30 more minutes, 120 rounds fired again, repeated to 600 rounds. At the 1,200-round mark— and every additional 1,200-round mark thereafter— the weapons received a full cleaning and lubrication. This continued until the testers had put a total of 6,000 rounds through each individual test weapon. Ten guns per weapon type times 6,000 rounds each comes to a total of 60,000 sandy rounds through each weapon type.
In the end, the testing rifles are put through is more rigorous and more brutal than actual combat conditions: but that's the point. It's performance under extreme stresses that differentiate a reliable weapon from an unreliable one (hence we see why the UAC never passed muster in the BT universe). But how reliable could, e.g., a rifle be? In the above tests, the HK-416 had a stoppage rate of 0.428333... percent (257 stoppages out of 60k rounds). That's an extremely reliable weapon, and those kinds of numbers might be too low for a video game.

The base percentage chance of a weapon "jam" (otherwise known as Gunnery level 1) by category is:
  • Cat A: 1.5%
  • Cat B: 1.75%
  • Cat C: 2.25%
  • Cat D: 3%
So, compared to our chosen benchmark, the most reliable weapons in Shoot to Kill are roughly 3.5x as unreliable as they hypothetically would be. From my playtesting I believe jams are noticeable, but not intrusive or frustrating. I'm not going to give an exact breakdown because ignorance of your chances are part of the fog of war — something you can't predict ahead of time. Will you have a good day or a bad day? The contract is signed either way.

Article information

Added on

Edited on

Written by

ZPointZ

0 comments