What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?

[Weirdo]

The biggest problem with revising aero rules is that any changes to stats or sheets is out of the question, since any such changes would leave the game unplayable for a lack of record sheets. What would you do within that caveat?

[Maingunnery]

The biggest problem with revising aero rules is that any changes to stats or sheets is out of the question, since any such changes would leave the game unplayable for a lack of record sheets. What would you do within that caveat?

If Aerotech is going to be reworked from the ground up, then we might need new record sheets for all aero units anyway.

And reworking from the ground up might be necessary, as Aerotech needs to be better then the competition to gain a market share.

[Weirdo]

That equals dead game because let's be honest, what are the odds of getting replacement record sheets in a timely manner?

[Sartris]

That equals dead game because let's be honest, what are the odds of getting replacement record sheets in a timely manner?

Low.

[Cryhavok101]

If they did something like Star Trek Attack Wing, or the Star Wars version, you wouldn't need record sheets. I would be perfectly happy if they made a very simple version of Aerospace stuff, and then moved all the complex stuff into the RPG side of things (while at the same time fixing the things that are just downright broken and/or make little to no sense at all).

[ColBosch]

I think record sheets could still be viable. Federation Commander uses very nice laminated sheets for dry erase markers.

[Jellico]

If they did something like Star Trek Attack Wing, or the Star Wars version, you wouldn't need record sheets. I would be perfectly happy if they made a very simple version of Aerospace stuff, and then moved all the complex stuff into the RPG side of things (while at the same time fixing the things that are just downright broken and/or make little to no sense at all).

Never played them but it made me thunk of two of the longer posts on the previous page.

A lot of people imagine Aerotech (for want of a better word) as something it isn't. There was a comment about building frigates instead of DropShip when frigate is a very fluid word outside of specific times and places. Another is the use of asteroids or solar flares as tactical terrain when they really aren't a big deal because AT plays at being hard SiFi. Heck, there is the perennial trying to shoehorn ship classes into a 1944 USN matrix, or whichever ship based game the poster is playing today.

This is not to say AT does it right. But sometimes players need to realise what is rather than try to make it something else.

[ColBosch]

But that's the core issue: what is it? BattleTech's spaceships are a hodge-podge with no unifying theme. The whole thing is 30 years of accumulation. Sometimes that results in pearls, but more often all you get is a pile of muck.

[Sartris]

I think record sheets could still be viable. Federation Commander uses very nice laminated sheets for dry erase markers.

Not until they develop a viable system for creating the sheets. This is obviously a much larger roadblock that gets to the core of the IP mess left by FASA, but we still don't have record sheets for units for different sources that are years old (Prototypes, ER 2750, and 3150 immediately come to mind). Whatever the reasons are, we can't count on CGL to deliver record sheets in a timely manner so I can't endorse completely overhauling anything that requires new sheets.

Are there better sheetless options out there? Yes . Are we likely to see TPTB adopt a major overhaul that completely divorces AT from BT? No. BMM avoiding non-mech units opens the door to tweak the rules for other unit types, a la vehicles and infantry from BMR to TW, but until the record sheet logjam (or whatever unknown reason exists for the holdup), asking for any changes is an exercise in futility.

[ColBosch]

Just because they haven't done record sheets lately doesn't mean that they can't produce record sheets.

[Sartris]

All speculative. I only know what I see, including TPTB often complaining about the difficulty of making sheets. I'm guessing with prototypes and others that the effort required to produce them isn't worth the time to profit ratio. Whether it's can't or won't we don't have them.

[ColBosch]

This entire thread is speculative, is it not? Like I said before, I don't expect CGL to do anything with aerospace beyond detailing a few new units now and then.

[Adrian Gideon]

The biggest problem with revising aero rules is that any changes to stats or sheets is out of the question, since any such changes would leave the game unplayable for a lack of record sheets. What would you do within that caveat?

Gordion knot. Cut it.

[Vition2]

Record sheets are only as difficult as the complexity they are made with.  If they are to be as specific as BattleTech record sheets with individual damage bubbles, internal components spread between different areas, etc., then they will be difficult to make.  If they are made to the level of Alpha Strike, they could be churned out quite quickly.

[Weirdo]

Gordion knot. Cut it.

Record sheet availability cuts the knot. And conveniently solves almost all of my issues.

[Adrian Gideon]

Record sheet availability cuts the knot. And conveniently solves almost all of my issues.

Design a game that doesn't require the nightmare backend in order to create sheets. Or design a game that doesn't need typical BT sheets. Record sheets is neither the problem nor solution to the OP. The problem of "What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?" isn't the same as "What problems do players who have no problems with the rules." OK, the problem to the latter is RS. RS will solve lack of RS. RS won't solve rules.

Sorry if the disconnect is on my end.

[Cryhavok101]

maybe try sheets that don't need bubbles for every point. Just subtract damage and put the new total there with numbers. If I recall the bubbles were the most difficult part of making the sheets.

[ColBosch]

Having record sheets in no way satisfies my issues with the space rules. I can make my own sheets.

[Doom]

I think things went bad with AT2. It became less AeroTech than AccountingTech for me. Arithmetic isn't an issue, but keeping track of a couple squadrons on a blank map, while the other player(s) do the same... It got old. I liked the squadron rules, but it was still boring by comparison to BattleTech. I think an Alpha Strike version of AT, AeroStrike, perhaps, might work. Forget the thrust versus speed, maybe by eliminating battles outside of atmosphere, and get it to move faster. I want to like the high altitude map and such, but in the end it just muddies things up when trying to have ground and aerospace units in the same battle.

I'd make ground attacks abstract, give fighters a single pool of armor rather than locations, have their Thrust and Overthrust become like 'Mech MPs, forget tracking fuel, and make their weaponry a single dice roll (and another single roll for location against a 'Mech) rather than rolling for each weapon like for 'Mechs (yes, it'd be devastating applying all damage to one 'Mech location, but fighters are supposed to overwhelm 'Mechs in that manner, so I think it'd work; it'd also make fighters fearsome against ground targets). Make their design rules closer to vehicles than to 'Mechs (right now it's sort of an amalgam).

[Dark Jackal]

but in the end it just muddies things up when trying to have ground and aerospace units in the same battle.

That's exactly right. Air interaction around Ground units must be limited as the combat area is way too small for Aerospace dog fights and takes away too much from the activity we want to influence which is the ground combat. We should not think of "winning" in a ground battle with Air Power but supporting the effort or influencing the outcome. This also adds some interesting options or tools for commanders to think a bit three dimensional on how they might want to employ their limited air assets, wager enemy capabilities or counters, and when to actually use it with how things are going at the ground level. Of course, the rules largely don't feel that way and I agree it needs to be thought out and more inline within the scope of influencing the outcome and not slowing down things.

We do have some interesting examples the way modern games like Wargame:Red Dragon or Steel Division do with air interaction on much larger battlefields. The system Eugen set up is pretty neat and not a heavy burden to the players. The airplanes vector from their home edge, go on a "mission", and will vacate the area assuming their "fuel" (really loiter time) runs out or their ordnance is dropped. All the planes fly at the same flight ceiling and do not diverge from this even if the animation looks like it does. That's it. When their use is up the airplanes must leave the battlefield via their home edge.

I like that particular flow as it adds some interesting things with an element of surprise depending on when the "call is made" and whether the enemy will counter with anything. This is not overly burdensome to ground combat but adds more options to influence it. Also, if you have things like AA units, then you do have a chance to "stun" the enemy pilots without necessarily damaging their jets or having to KO the jet completely. Unless you're suicidal with your jets or just unaware what the enemy has generally you will not lose your jets and most of the time they will evac again for some downtime.

A video from Wargame discussing Air mechanics. The video is a bit dry but I mainly posted that so the flow is understood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I99t_dtrsU

I hope this helps in some way. I always envisioned Aerotech around the way a MechBuster would fly and attack that one 'Mech in the enemy back field that is busted up but just shy of being crippled being husbanded by my opponent striking at the right opportunity.

[YingJanshi]

@Doom & @Dark Jackal...

It sounds like you guys might want to check out the Battlefield Support rules in the BattleMech Manual (which just dropped), it's about the most abstract rules for artillery and air support to date.

[Empyrus]

Yeah, the support powers seem neat. Or General Powers, as i like to call them, since they remind me of C&C Generals (wish that game worked on Windows 10).

Short version:
Air strike options (like bombing and strafing)
Air cover options (chance to negates above powers)
Artillery strike (pre-plotted and called)
Minefields (placed before starting the game)

That's not many but should be enough for casual games that want some spicing up.

[Jellico]

But that's the core issue: what is it? BattleTech's spaceships are a hodge-podge with no unifying theme. The whole thing is 30 years of accumulation. Sometimes that results in pearls, but more often all you get is a pile of muck.

Herding cats springs to mind. Look at this thread. Some point to the construction system. Some point to accountant tech even though it is simplified from AT1. Some want Battletech fidelity. There is no central agreement.

Decide what you want the game to look like and everything flows from that. A tactical squad based game like BT? We can do that. A high level fleet scale game with minimal accounting? It is called AlphaStrike but we can tweek it. Conservation of momentum or abstracted MP based movement? Whatever you like.

Maybe it us two or three rulesets we are looking for? But solve that before working out how to build it.

[ColBosch]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying, and why I feel the aerospace aspect of BT needs a ground-up re-imagining. The developers need to figure out how they want space combat to feel and play, and go from there, no matter how many sacred cows are slaughtered in the process.

[Maingunnery]

Herding cats springs to mind. Look at this thread. Some point to the construction system. Some point to accountant tech even though it is simplified from AT1. Some want Battletech fidelity. There is no central agreement.

Decide what you want the game to look like and everything flows from that. A tactical squad based game like BT? We can do that. A high level fleet scale game with minimal accounting? It is called AlphaStrike but we can tweek it. Conservation of momentum or abstracted MP based movement? Whatever you like.

Maybe it us two or three rulesets we are looking for? But solve that before working out how to build it.

Determining and creating what the fans and the greater market wants will be a lot of work. I expect that many players wish to have the same scalability that we also have with ground combat, and have Mechs integrated at all levels. I also suspect that only simple battles won't be good enough, but that it ends up as a combined arms system that is able to facilitate several types of missions/scenarios: Trails/Duels, Station defense, Invasion escort, Fleet Battles, Boarding actions, etc. 

[Adrian Gideon]

You make a fun game that people want to play at prices that are reasonable to produce and affordable to buy. That's a lot right there without all the other baggage of this thread. That's what it is, baggage.

[monbvol]

Yeah the construction rules themselves are frankly a mess but it is because of that mess that so many things at the game play level were written the way they were and make it a bit hard to play and enjoy.

[ColBosch]

Yeah the construction rules themselves are frankly a mess but it is because of that mess that so many things at the game play level were written the way they were and make it a bit hard to play and enjoy.

And that's because the construction rules were an attempt to codify the "fiat" stats presented in early sources like TR3025, DropShips and JumpShips, and TR2750. They didn't even succeed, which is why TR3057 has two sets of stats for many units.

You make a fun game that people want to play at prices that are reasonable to produce and affordable to buy. That's a lot right there without all the other baggage of this thread. That's what it is, baggage.

Aye, therein lies the rub. It's why I don't think it's worth fixing right now. Fair or not, any new space combat system is going to be compared to games like X-Wing and Star Wars Armada, and BattleTech's spacecraft just don't have anything unique to offer the general gaming market.

[William J. Pennington]

Oh, where do I begin? You know what, I'll make it simple: everything. Everything about BattleTech's space combat rules are terrible and deserve a complete re-imagining.

My hat is in this ring. And when I mean everything, i mean everything down to core game play elements. I want fighter combat to feel like fighters, not lumbering tanks. Realism be tossed to the wayside.  The words vector based movement never mentioned ever again.

And yes, the aspect I'm most interested in is aerospace support.

In my dream world, Warships would be abandoned because everyone eventually decides they aren't worth the cost because aerospace fighters are king, tactically and economically. At best, whgat passes for warships would just be lightly armed, or unarmed carriers. A revelation that the entire history of Warship production has been a waste of time and money. Just build more aerospace fighters. And that Dropships, other than those needed to transport ground based forces, fall into the same category. If they arent transporting sizable ground forces, or act5ing as escort carriers, just have aerofighters. The ideal situation is lots of balanced fighter combat so Mech forces are always safe to get to the ground.


Poof. there. Whole annoying categories of rules gone.  I personally wont miss those space battles and pretty much all warship or dropship intensive space combat which felt about as deep and fun as simulating projectile vomiting fights in an empty room.

Then start with a base set of rules that dont involve mech style armor tracking, critical charts, ammo,  location charts..heck, the most detailed level of rules to even start with at the base Battletech scale would be something just slightly morte detailed than the way aerofighters work in alpha strike. The abstarct radar map should be the default for anything ground based, and maybe parts of space combat as well.

[Scotty]

Warships are cool and good, and that's the biggest part I disagree with of your post.  Granted, I think Warships should be common enough that they're not campaign-level assets, and further that conducting orbital bombardment where reliable accuracy can be measured in "merely" multiple mapsheets of drift should make a given Warship hideously vulnerable even to ground fire.  Make them the 'Mech or tank to the Aerospace fighter's PBI in space, but only in space.