AS PV: Aero Edition

[Xotl]

The large craft section was the one part of the PV process I didn't design (well, other than the basics), so I have a harder time speaking to it.  But overall, there's no real changes to aero other than what I've just discussed.

But yes, the fact that there is a general increase of ground unit costs cannot help but make aero a bit more attractive.  Slightly dropping armour costs (as the above change will accomplish) will help too, and weakening artillery a bit will raise the comparable utility of bomb strikes.  I think overall your analysis is correct.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Actually, rather than editing my previous post... I have another concern entirely to add.  I may actually want to see different PVs afterall for ASFs (one for CAS role, one for air/space battles)

Thrust is absolutely king in air/space battles.  Sufficient thrust advantages can completely negate enemy firepower ratings, and it should be by far the single most expensive factor behind PVs.

However, thrust is nearly irrelevant in air-to-ground. Armor and threshhold are far more important to an ASF in this context.  I do wonder if rather than trying to juggle one PV for both contexts, perhaps there should be two PVs for ASFs. 

[Xotl]

I'm not sure if that's practical.  Ray in particular is rather sensitive to things the threaten to make AS overly complex, and two PVs would, I assume, fall in that category.

Do other aero players feel the same about the space/ground disparity?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'll try to hold my tongue and not dominate your attention, but I would like to add one more thing.  Especially since the PV revision project is, afterall, meant to balance little annoying fast guys :)

Are interceptors under/overcosted as is?  The way the rules work, those little annoying guys can really have a disproportionate impact on much higher PV ASFs.  Some errata on the "checking to end the engagement" portion of the rules did make a big help in curbing the excesses of interceptors "invincibly" tying up heavy attack craft... so do they need a PV adjustment relative to the big ASFs in the vein of the high TMM minxes on the ground? If so, it seems they'd NOT need the adjustment in a ground attack role, since their skimpy armor actually comes in to play.

[Xotl]

Aero adjustments are being discussed more on the rules side of things than the PV side, though I don't know if they'll make this year's errata release.  As such, I'm not looking to do anything other than to fix things that I know are broken in ways that a rules change won't touch (like my hasty kludge on thresholds).

[Thunder]

You mentioned in another thread that things are pretty much set and need to be confirmed by higher ups.  Is this true for the aerospace side as well?

And besides the thereshold/armor value change, did anything else get changed?

So far as I remember,  the only main changes suggested where the armor value revamp, applying the double PV  damage value modifier to short range on fighters,  and maybe adjusting the thrust PV value bonus thresholds.


On the list of things that should probably be fixed, but haven't been talked about extensively.

Capital weapons PV is pretty much impossible to balance.  Its value in air to air vs its value in ground support don't compare to each other.

Special abilities.  Needs to be a pass that applies all special abilities to all unit.  Otherwise you run into minor annoyances like Artillery systems are Free on dropships.  And Capital missiles are Free on mobile structures.

[Xotl]

Yes, this is true for aerospace PV as well.

Range band utility is being adjusted through ground to air attack rules changes.  I've asked about the need for short-range changes, but no one seems to feel that it's needed any longer after the rules changes, so I guess they're staying as is.

Thrust value threshold PV change is something I'd forgotten about.  Thanks for the reminder.  I'll be upping the benefit from having 10 thrust or more to 2 PV (I'll go and update the master and downloadable spreadsheets now).

Capital weapons: not much I can really do at this point.  I have no way of properly testing this at the moment, and there's not enough time.  In the future, perhaps.

Special abilities: ditto.  Large-scale units might need their own adjustment later on, once their cards are readily available and people have had the chance to play around with them some more.

[Descronan]

I'm coming to this discussion rather late and haven't had a chance to read all the previous discussions so I'm sure many of you have already addressed some of these issues.

Complexity - By the book, the rules are far more complex than needed and don't really give you much benefit. I ended up creating a Visio flow chart to assist with how to deal with various scenarios. The complexity comes from inconsistency. +4 to hit with a strafing run, +2 for bombing, control roll for range in A2A combat, etc. Consistency cures complexity in most cases.

Order of Operation - The rules are ambiguous in regards to if you move air or ground first. I recommend making it standard that air moves first and completes all air activities before moving to the battlefield. This removes units from the initiative count.

TMM - Someone else suggested this and I agree wholeheartedly. Aerospace units should get a TMM consistent with ground units. And the TMM can be used for your control rolls.

Air Movement - Too predictable and, as mentioned, there's little reason to bring units with a 9a movement. I moved to using one classic battletech hex map to represent movement and gave all units an elevation. One elevation is equal to 1 hex of movement for consistency. Elevation can be from 1 (battlefield attack) to 12 (upper atmosphere). 1 hex costs 1 Movement. Turn 1 hex face for free and lower elevation by 1 for free per hex of movement. The battlefield is represented by a hex in the center of the map.

Control Rolls/Tailing - I get what you're trying to do, but it is unnecessarily complex in practice - particularly if you have 4 v 4 air battles.  I solved this by making a control roll during the attack phase. The high roll determines the range. Declare target. Control roll. Victor declares range. Roll attack. This eliminates the need to remember who had advantage on whom, etc.

Ground Movement - Allow the pilot to declare an elevation so they can determine the range to the target. This solves the problem of all attacks to the aerospace fighters having the same To Hit Number. Range can be measured to the closest point to the flight path or elevation, whichever is higher. Elevation can be up to 24" for those high-altitude bombing runs.

Ground Attack - Using elevation eliminates the need for special modifiers between the different attacks. Maybe you keep the modifier for the strafing run vs. a strike since units with ENE can do full damage. Otherwise, use the elevation/range.

Anyway, hope this helps.