AS PV: Aero Edition

[Xotl]

In the PV revision thread a discussion began as to shortcomings in the aero combat rules, which might be easier to address than an aero PV revision.  The discussion began here:

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53612.msg1241734#msg1241734

As I'd like to keep that thread limited strictly to PV changes, feel free to discuss aero rules here.  HOWEVER, please keep this discussion focused.  This isn't a free-for-all, change-everything sort of discussion.  I am just looking at achieving a balanced air-to-air and air-to-ground experience where light, medium, and heavy fighters -- whether fast or slow -- have value in some ways.  Currently there's some concern that light fighters are far too good, thanks to the engagement rules.  Try to focus on that.  PV changes may still occur, if they would be part of the solution.  Simplicity is best, and please back your arguments with some proof.  Thank you.

[Scotty]

To reiterate what I said in the other thread: the ground map portion of aerospace balance is already good (I have some ideas for how to do it better; will mention them if asked since they're definitely house rules).  Heavy and Medium fighters can savage ground units by carrying more bombs, and having higher short range damage.  Light fighters are cheap enough you can bring a half dozen to strafe columns hoping for a hit or two that does damage, and you'll get your points back.

I posted at length how engagements favor Light fighters in the other thread.  Long story short, having to rely on 11s and 12s or your opponent failing a roll is not fun, being able to consistently do what you want is.  Variance favors averages not outliers.

I think, especially in the air, having a way for fighters to generate defense besides only dictating range, would be a good change.  Faster fighters should be harder to hit, but that should translate into being able to be hit more frequently than rules as written.  Anything that lacks extreme range damage simply is not going to get to shoot a light fighter (with appropriate thrust difference) more than 10% of the time if the light fighter doesn't want to be shot.

What if, in an engagement, it started at extreme by default, with the engagement roll strictly to determine who was tailing whom?  Then, you'd be able to spend thrust to change range bands (based on initiative, perhaps?  Engagement roll?), or to generate defensive modifiers, but not both.  In a head on engagement, it would cost more thrust (5 points versus 3?) to open the range back up than it would to close the range.  Fights would naturally gravitate toward what range fighters are individually best at because players would have choices to make and some manner of control over where the fight happened even if they lost the engagement.

[nckestrel]

Random untested thoughts:

1) Let Long and Extreme attacks be made from adjacent zones (to air targets only).
2) If you start the engagement, you may only choose a range where you have damage at.  You can't attempt to tail, then declare you're holding them off at extreme range if you fail.  If they start the engagement, you are welcome to run away.
3) Evasive manuever option (+ to your attacks, + to attacks against you)
4) I think every unit needs some ability to split fire, but none more so than Dropships+.

[Scotty]

1) I'm iffy, partly because extreme is already useful, partly because long is a lot of damage for some units that don't even have to make an engagement roll anymore.

2) see my suggestion above.  Having range be fluid in the engagement gives players interactive choice during, not just before the engagement actually happens.

3) probably a necessary inclusion, down the road.  I like it.

4) Splitting fire is tricky.  I think this one might require a rework of dropship conversion under the rules.  Have damage ratings for weapon bays, rather than entire arcs?

For fighters, being able to engage targets at two different ranges and only different ranges, reducing damage in the higher damage band by the damage done in the lower damage band might work.  With some fiddling for equal damage.

I.e. a fighter with 4/4/2/2 would be able to engage a fighter at long range with 2 damage, then a fighter at medium or short for 2 (4 - 2) damage.  A fighter with 2/3/3/0 could engage at short for 2, then another fighter at long  for 1.

[nckestrel]

I wasn't suggesting to get rid of the engagement roll for adjacent.  No idea how to work it, but I wasn't intending to eliminate it at all.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Random untested thoughts:

1) Let Long and Extreme attacks be made from adjacent zones (to air targets only).
2) If you start the engagement, you may only choose a range where you have damage at.  You can't attempt to tail, then declare you're holding them off at extreme range if you fail.  If they start the engagement, you are welcome to run away.
3) Evasive manuever option (+ to your attacks, + to attacks against you)
4) I think every unit needs some ability to split fire, but none more so than Dropships+.

1) I'm with Scotty on this.  WarShips get a similar ability already, and it's only of very limited practical use as is. Expanding it to long rubs me as being too generous, and the limited practicality for letting ASFs fire into adjacent sectors with extreme range sounds like adding way more tactical complication than providing balance between different units.

2) I like this, but technically speaking a simpler iteration.  I don't see any need to restrict engagements... so long as you can't contest a disengagement in a range band where you can't do damage.

3) seems interesting, but I don't know that it'd actually add enough depth to strategy to make up for the extra layer of complication.

4) My feelings are mixed.  Large craft already get numerous attacks.  I don't know that they need to be able to break multiple attacks into more multiple attacks, especially when MultiTasker is a thing as well.  (4 firing arcs becomes 8 attacks, which become 16 attacks with a SPA?)  OTOH, I do think that AS could do well with MultiTasker being a rulebook rule option available to everyone rather than being a special SPA.  But that's not aero-specific.


Assuming a rule similar to #2 comes into force I think engagements are actually ok as is.  Ever since IO came out I've been mulling over specific language for rules governing squadrons in AS combat.  The thing is, unless you're doing a big fleet battle you're not likely to use them.  And they're not really PV related anyway.... but dovetailing off of that is a spinoff project about a scaled down version for standard AS games... flights of 2 aero units instead of squadrons of 6 (or 4 dropships, etc).  Aerospace doctrine, both real world and in the fictional universe, prominently feature wingmen for the express purpose of helping the leader not get shot up in an engagement.  In the abstract aero rules as they are, wingmen are absolutely zero help as engagements are very strictly binary affairs, even when a unit is in multiple engagements.  I think AS abstract aero rules would benefit from a "small squadron" rule similar to those presented for ACS in IO.

But again, squadrons/flights/leader-wingmen rules aren't strictly PV related so I won't go further down that rabbit hole.  But that in turn does segue into (at last) my PV-relevant topic: numbers of units.   If you do bring a wingman or escort for bombers you're intending to conduct ground strikes, you're inflating your PVs spent on the aero component of your force.  You're also, as I mentioned in the other thread, screwing up your own initiative.  For every N aero units you bring more than the other guy, you're forfieting N-1 ground moves to the other guy after your last move even when you WIN initiative.  Initiative rules needs, imo, to divorce ground/air distinctions.  If I bring a swarm of fighters and you brought none, I might move my fighters first as init sinks, sure, but anyone can do that with any swarm.  Plus, there's an organic disincentive to use unopposed fighters as init sinks if they do indeed have to declare flight paths as part of their move if they end in the central zone.

The PV is a pricklier nut.  Is an ASF's contribution to a ground battle really worth its PV?  A Slayer is a good example of a basic, solid ground attack platform.  You're looking at 34-35 points, depending on the model.  Given the importance of passing lawn dart checks, you're probably paying more via skill hikes but for my purposes here I think its fair to assume default skill values between both ground and air units.  For those points, you're getting DAM 4 and 3 bombs.  It can soak 11 damage without dying, but inherent to its unit type ANY single hit can kill it (again, barring a huge skill investment) and any single hit exceeding its TH value gets a potentially mission-killing crit, even if armor has not yet been exhausted.

For the same PV, you can get a MAD-3R.  Its damage potential is very comparable, but of course it doesn't have the ASF's ability to drop TMM-ignoring bombs anywhere on the board.  Its damage soak is the same; it can take 11 damage w/o dying.  However it doesn't suffer any crits until armor is gone and gets to benefit from cover and terrain.  Critically, you don't have to make lawn dart checks every round you take damage and most importantly of all: it's on the table every round of the game (until it's dead/withdrawn, of course)

So for 35ish points, would you take the Slayer or the Marauder?  The Slayer doesn't show up until round 3, and is only present every other turn after that.  It's usually far easier to hit, and potentially is going to die any time it is hit.  Against those drawbacks, you would gain the upside of the 3 bomb attacks (and/or the opportunities to strafe multiple targets).  I don't think it's really a fair balance there... for 35 points I'd take the Marauder every time (esp. if the PV system fixes high-tmm spam). The 3 bombs aren't enough of an advantage to forgo taking the Marauder instead.

Xotl said in the other thread that dual PVs are not on the table.  Well, what if it were turned on its ear?  What if you get a PV discount for aero units in what's basically a ground battle? (for battles taking place w/o a ground component, obviously the PV discount need not apply).  I don't know what'd be a fair discount, but something like 2/3 would make Aero much more able to contribute in a manner consummate to their PV relative the PV to ground units.  In the Slayer and Marauder example, it'd be much more of a choice between a 21 point Slayer or a 35 point Marauder.

[cavingjan]

One thing that would be great to have is one time use ASF attacks. Bomb, strafe, and even artillery (I know not aero but similar concept) would work well for scenarios in which you have limited resources. We have them in various scenarios for regular battletech.

(I hope this isn't too far afield.)

[nckestrel]

If aero got a one-third PV discount, it would make them cheaper versus ground and keep them even in the air (all air would be discounted the same amount).

Currentlt I think light aero are fine, or close enough.  The heavier the aero gets, there's more of a problem.  The lawn dart check (threshold) being one reason.  Lower thrusts being another.  And wasted damage being the third. 
Dropships are very over PV right now? I've never seen anybody suggest bringing a Dropship as being with its PV.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

If aero got a one-third PV discount, it would make them cheaper versus ground and keep them even in the air (all air would be discounted the same amount).

Currentlt I think light aero are fine, or close enough.  The heavier the aero gets, there's more of a problem.  The lawn dart check (threshold) being one reason.  Lower thrusts being another.  And wasted damage being the third. 
Dropships are very over PV right now? I've never seen anybody suggest bringing a Dropship as being with its PV.

The genius of my idea, if I daresay myself (and of course I do ;) ) is that you don't have to give all aero the same discount.  The main problem with ground attackers is that they're making attacks so rarely.  Interceptors that can put themselves in the central zone on turn 2 and then stay there every turn for the rest of the game may not need the same discount.  If a Sholagar and Slayer both end up costing 21 PV this way, I don't see a problem.  In fact, it just may FIX the problem of interceptors vs bombers.

[nckestrel]

I'm not sure how you are defining things, who gets the discount and who does not.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'm not sure how you are defining things, who gets the discount and who does not.

Well, I'm more talking ideas than actual rules.  The idea is that the larger a portion of a game an aero unit misses the chance to contribute to the outcome (due to not being in the central zone) the bigger a PV discount should be. 

Now leaping across into proposing rules to implement that idea: it's hard to quantify what % of a ground battle an ASF misses b/c there's no set duration for a AS game.  But in my experience, they're usually decided on turn 4 or 5.  That means ASFs in those battles only got 1, maybe 2 passes in to the ground units' 4 or 5 turns of opportunity to affect the outcome.  So does that mean they should only cost 20-25% of their PV if they only contribute on 20-25% of the turns?

I think that's too steep of a discount.  My gut tells me that costing 2/3 normal would probably be "about right".  But that'd be for aero that can't show up on turns 1 and 2, and then attack every other round after 3.  Interceptors can attack om round 2 and every round thereafter.  There's only a slight disadvantage vs ground units in opportunity to contribute, and it's probably more than made up for by being able to strike anywhere on the table.  I don't think they suffer comparatively  in PV relative to similarly priced ground units. And so, they wouldn't need the same discount.  They probably don't need any discount at all.

That brings us to the third possible speed (that possessed by fast dogfighters): they arrive in the central zone on turn 2, but then strike every other round like all other non-interceptors.  They're slightly advantaged compared to these peers, but speaking in terms of rules proposals my gut tells me the K.I.S.S. principle applies and just keep the same, simple formula in place (2/3 price, or whatever the other group gets).


I think this jives very well with your own observation that cheapy fighters are probably priced fine, but bigger ones are overpriced.  It also neatly works with fleet/space battles since you just wouldn't use any PV discounting on ASFs and interceptors are far less problematic in these kinds of battles (no atmospheric penalty, coupled with having more units on the radar map than you would in a similarly PV sized battle involving ground units).

[Scotty]

Every single AS Tactical Command game (2 hours each) ended on turn 5 or 6.  Sample size of over a dozen games.

[nckestrel]

What if AS removed thresholds entirely?

[Vition2]

Mostly from what I've read, because I haven't actually played Alpha Strike, it seems one of the issues people complain about most frequently is that one fighter can be completely ineffectual based on the outcome of a single roll, and that slower fighters are much more likely to be ineffectual for that turn than faster fighters. (Tailing vs. tailed)

In regards to that, I suggest giving the tailed fighter the ability to fire at it's tail.  As the roll indicates the fighter which has the advantage in the dogfight, the loser must use it's medium range band (and associated +2 penalty to attack roll) and an additional penalty for taking opportunistic and inefficient shots (an additional +1 penalty on the attack roll).  This is intended to show that dogfights are inherently chaotic and while one unit should have an advantage throughout the turn, it won't always be able to completely prevent the opponent from firing at it.

I don't have the experience to say that's enough or if it's too much, but my impression is "if you can't do anything with a unit this turn, then you aren't likely to be having as much fun as if you could do something with that unit."

[Tai Dai Cultist]

What if AS removed thresholds entirely?

I don't know about removing the TH mechanic.  I've even gone the other way in pondering my own preferred house rules and thought about bringing in TW/SO's free crit on a 12 on the to hit roll.  (Without the golden BB principle, WarShips get a lot tougher)

However, I wonder if you meant to ask about getting rid of the lawn dart check instead?  I've also pondered giving all aero units a free Lucky 1 in a ground battle, so it's there as insurance against the failed lawn dart check. (If you use it greedily on a to-hit roll, that's on you...)   Honestly tho, I kind of like the idea of just dropping the lawn dart check entirely instead.  It doesn't directly jive with TW, but I think that's the more elegant way to enhance aero survivability (if that's a goal of a rules revisit).

[Scotty]

Lawndart checks aren't nearly the problem that the utter lack of distinction between fighters in terms of difficulty to hit is.  On the ground map, a target that can move faster is harder to hit represented by a TMM.  In the air, a fighter is a fighter is a fighter.

I suggest, then, that ASFs be given TMMs like ground units, and the penalty for firing at airborne aerospace targets be removed.  +1 per three thrust points, rounded down.  The slowest heavy fighters will get a +1 and a net reduction in defense against incoming fire.  The fastest fighter in the game is 14a, and will get a +4, in line with fast ground units (and notably not as much as the fastest ground units).  This also gives some reason to exist to fighters with 9 thrust, which were previously not really worth taking on account of not being able to move as fast on the radar map as a 10+ thrust fighter, and not being able to carry as much ordnance/armament as a 7-8 thrust fighter.

I also have a house rule I'd like to mention here, because I think that the single, straight flight path is... a necessary starting point but really limiting.  Currently, fighters must pick a straight path that crosses a minimum of 24" of table (I think that's the number) and anything on their flight path that they are capable of attacking is automatically at short range.  This brings up a problem immediately, in that it makes short range damage the de-facto gold standard of aerospace damage.  It quite frankly does not matter in the slightest if your heavy fighter can do 6 damage at long range, that long range damage will never, ever, ever get used, and you might as well bring something that does more short range damage and skips the long range entirely.

Instead, I suggest allowing fighters to shoot using their medium and long range damage values at targets that are not necessarily on their flight path, following the same rules as the units that can shoot back at them.  i.e. +12" to the range when it's not directly on the flight path.

Additionally, something I've been kicking around with the resident aerospace buff is the idea of allowing fighters to make banks over the ground map, rather than being locked into a singularly straight flight path.  It would not be unlimited.  A maximum of one performed bank, and a maximum bank angle of 90 degrees.  Slower fighters can turn in a tighter radius than faster fighters, so the working house rule is to use an AOE template that's half the size of their thrust rating, rounded down.  A 5a fighter would use a 2" template to bank.  A 12a fighter, 6".  This disallows hairpin turns that adroitly avoid dangerous AAA fire, but still lets a fighter conceivably react to shifting targets, and in conjunction with the suggestion above allows fighters with currently disused medium or long range damage values to contribute in more varied and interesting (to the players) ways.

EDIT: to sum up:

Problem: Aero Medium/Long range damage doesn't get used often, if at all.
Solution: Let them use it on the ground map.

Problem: Aero's decision making tree is one of roughly two branches at any given time.
Solution: Aero TMMs make it more attractive for light fighters to engage even if they don't have the perfect position, and malleable flight paths make it more attractive to pick a more aggressive flight path initially.

[nckestrel]

The issue I'm trying to address is how only light fighters are worth taking.  Making light fighters even better is the exact opposite direction.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Lawndart checks aren't nearly the problem that the utter lack of distinction between fighters in terms of difficulty to hit is.  On the ground map, a target that can move faster is harder to hit represented by a TMM.  In the air, a fighter is a fighter is a fighter.

I dunno... I disagree.  I think that no-TMM is fine, and that lawn dart checks ARE a huge disincentive against taking anything but the smallest of fighters.

I don't know if getting rid of lawndart checks is healthy for the game, but as is there's just no compelling reason to spend 60-80 PV for a fighter that can be destroyed by a single point of damage.  (and that's before factoring in how that fighter won't be overhead making ground strikes every turn even if it's not shot down...)

EDIT: to sum up:
Problem: Aero Medium/Long range damage doesn't get used often, if at all.
Solution: Let them use it on the ground map.

OTOH I do rather like this idea.  Not only does it keep with the "if you can shoot at me, then I can shoot at you" principle it also benefits bigger fighters more than smaller fighters, since bigger fighters tend to have more firepower to throw around at medium and long range.

The issue I'm trying to address is how only light fighters are worth taking.  Making light fighters even better is the exact opposite direction.

I don't know if you misspoke or oversimplified, but I'd quibble and disagree about the first sentence.  It's absolutely not true... if you're fighting an aerospace battle w/o a ground element.

However, most AS games are going to revolve around a ground battle so yes I'm aligned with you on general principle.  A concern I'd have about potential changes is how nerfing light fighters or boosting heavy fighters would affect conventional fighters.  One of the things I do rather like about AS is how it encourages usage of units that are too horrible to field in CBT... and CVs are at the forefront in this area.

CVs, being unaffected by the atmospheric penalty on control checks, are actually pretty viable combat units in atmospheric engagements.  It'd be a shame to see rules that end up making Angels and Meterors no longer worth playing.


A proposal:  Going back to what I said upthread about the possibility of using "small squadrons" to represent the teamwork between a leader and wingman... a way to codify that idea simply in rules is to invent a "Wingman Rule".  This would be that a friendly unengaged unit may redirect a declared engagement on a unit in the same sector onto itself.  (basically, using the idea introduced into AS in CM: Kurita via the Horde Lance)

It's simple, it keeps with doctrine in allowing a wingman to actually protect his charge, and it doesn't directly nerf anything.  However, it's a huge boon to tactical effectiveness of ground attack aircraft in a context where there are only a handful of air units involved.  I'd have to do some serious thinking on the playability of this rule in purely aero battles, but I think at least for "standard" AS games it seems like a very neat idea.

[nckestrel]

I don't know if you misspoke or oversimplified, but I'd quibble and disagree about the first sentence.  It's absolutely not true... if you're fighting an aerospace battle w/o a ground element.

However, most AS games are going to revolve around a ground battle so yes I'm aligned with you on general principle. 

Scotty showed earlier how an air to air battle with a Riever against a light interceptor is death for the Riever, in air to air, almost every single time.
If the options are be tailed (and not able to fire back) or be out of range (and not able to fire back), you're going to lose.  The other numbers don't matter at that point, other than to say how long you will last before you lose that battle.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Scotty showed earlier how an air to air battle with a Riever against a light interceptor is death for the Riever, in air to air, almost every single time.
If the options are be tailed (and not able to fire back) or be out of range (and not able to fire back), you're going to lose.  The other numbers don't matter at that point, other than to say how long you will last before you lose that battle.

I'm not so sure he actually showed anything of the sort.  Not that what he said was incorrect, but because the premise is flawed.

I don't agree that the same "Theory Strike" used in thinking about ground units carries over to air units.  AS uses an abstract combat system that is fundamentally different.  Yes, you can show that 1 on 1 the higher PV Riever is unlikely to defeat the low PV interceptor. But the converse is also true.  The interceptor, given infinite time, might score enough damage to destroy the Riever before the Riever gets lucky once, but if neither happens in 4-6 turns what difference does it make?  They're a draw in practical terms.

Now, by extension of the theoretical assumptions, X Interceptors are therefore better than X Rievers, since in a series of one on one engagements they all end in ties, and the Interceptors achieved this for fewer PVs.  I don't agree that's sound thinking.

Here's why: Even if the Riever side stupidly took no interceptors of their own escorts to handle enemy interceptors, the X Rievers can focus fire on each Interceptor in turn.  They'll get lucky together much sooner than later, and the interceptors go down one by one and the Rievers go down much slower, if at all.  If the interceptor side tries the same thing, then they allow all but 1 Riever to slip free of being pinned in place and they're off to go strike whatever the real target is.

[nckestrel]

Scotty's long post with numbers for Cheetah versus Riever.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53612.msg1242430#msg1242430

"Light fighters have multiple ways of completely controlling the game on the radar map (you can spam cheap fighters, or you can pump up the skill on cheap fighters but use less to get similar results with a larger safety net), and this is not reflected in their cost at all."

This is the point I agree with, and Scotty has proven time and again for both air to ground and air to air.  There is no point in taking anything other than light fighters (among all fighters) under the current rules/PV.

Light/fast fighers
1) get to the battle quicker
2) return to the battle every turn
3) control engagement range
4) control whether engagement continues

No PV changes will change those.
In additon, for the same PV
Light/fast fighters tend to
1) carry more bombs (paying less PV for armor, higher non-short damage values means more bombs for the same PV)
2) deal more short range damage (when they don't pay for medium+ range damage that never gets used)
3) when/if they fail control roll over ground, don't lose as many PV in single crash

In other words, light/fast fighters do all the things that are important, and generally don't pay for the things that aren't important.
We could skew PV so armor is cheaper, thrust costs more, non-short range damage is cheaper, etc.  IE. have PV reflect that light/fast fighters are the best and heavy/slow fighters are not.
And/or we could find uses for slower/heavier fighters.
I think finding uses for slower/heavier fighters is preferably, as it fits the BT universe more.  I like that light/fast units in AS are useful, but I think it goes too far in making heavy/slow units obsolete. 
So how can slower/heavier fighters have a use?  My first thought is to make their armor and longer range more useful.  Removing "cheap" crashes makes the armor more useful.  I think Scotty is on the right track for range, but I worry about delaying air units even longer till they get to doing something useful, so I'm not sure how to make that work.  Thus my thought on allowing extreme/long to adjacent zones.  You would still have to make engagement rolls/etc, but the only options for range would be extreme and long.  Now those heavy/slow units (generally with long range) have a role as fire support.  Light/fast interceptors have to make a choice, stay over the ground map atacking ground units, or leave to where the fire support air is to engage them at short range. 

I don't know if the proposals would work, but that's what the goals of them are.  Giving air units a TMM based on thrust makes light/fast fighters even more uber (maybe if air TMM was only for ground to air attacks? giving thrust the ability to control engagements and give TMM is going to be extremely difficult to balance). 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

This is the point I agree with, and Scotty has proven time and again for both air to ground and air to air.  There is no point in taking anything other than light fighters (among all fighters) under the current rules/PV.

Well, again, when you say "there is no point in taking anything other than light fighters" you have to caveat that statement with a "for what purpose".  If you want to shoot up an enemy WarShip, DropShip, or ground target (pretty much any purpose at all other than intercepting fighters) interceptors just don't have enough firepower to cause enough damage to do that job.  Now, intercepting enemy fighters is expressly what they're for... heck it's right in the title of their role.   I can't help but view "interceptors stop attack craft" with a shrug and a "well, duh" ;)  Rock beats Scissors.  You don't PV balance Rock against Scissors, you bring Paper to counter Rock.  You don't (intelligently) bring Rievers to an air-to-air battle.  The premise is flawed from the get go.  You bring Rievers to pop DropShips, WarShips, and ground targets.  You bring dogfighters/fast dogfighters to protect the Riever from Interceptors.  You shouldn't be trying to find a way to make Scissors be a fair matchup against Rock.  (Again, the entire Abstact Combat System is fundamentally different from ground AS and therefore warrants a different kind of thinking about balance)

On points 1-4 and the second set of points 1-4, I agree with you.  They're objectively true, after all.  But interceptors are still generally only dealing 1 or 2 points of damage.  The true "damage" they deal is in preventing the real hitters from being able to hit the targets that need hitting (I.E., pinning your Rievers in place)  I think if you fix THAT, you fix interceptors.  Without going so far as to make interceptors unable to do their job at all, of course.

In space battles, the Rievers of the world are already worthwhile to take.  They just need to also be worthwhile for regular AS games that are primarily ground battles.  Again, to that end I think a PV discount for non-interceptor speed Aero units and the Wingman rule to "deflect" interceptors might be enough to do so.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I don't know if the proposals would work, but that's what the goals of them are.  Giving air units a TMM based on thrust makes light/fast fighters even more uber (maybe if air TMM was only for ground to air attacks? giving thrust the ability to control engagements and give TMM is going to be extremely difficult to balance).

Rather than keep saying how I like my ideas better than yours, I'll try to offer some constructive feedback on this idea.  I too am not a fan of making Interceptors any good at ground strikes... they have their role.  They don't need to do their prey's role, too.  So long as ASFs are fairly reliably hit by ground fire over the central zone, that incentivizes armor and TH values, which Interceptors don't do very well.

For aerospace engagements, I'm not sure that there needs to be an added layer of complexity.  Allowing the bonus from thrust for the control check to be re-allocated for a different effect seems like a neat idea though, but I agree that letting Interceptors make themselves harder to hit is counter-productive.

So why not go the other way?  Let a unit that knows it's going to lose the engagement control check use its thrust derived bonus on the to-hit roll instead.  Basically, a sort of "forfeiting movement to aim" in Aerospace combat.  THAT'D increase the Riever's effectiveness vs the Cheetah, if that's really what you want to do.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Scotty's long post with numbers for Cheetah versus Riever.
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=53612.msg1242430#msg1242430

On re-reading this, I'm even less sold on on the veracity of his conclusions than I was before.  I'm not questioning his math, though.

First of all, a skill 0 vs a skill 4 is not a fair matchup, even if the PVs match.  Maybe that's something you're looking to address, but with how important skill value is in the abstract combat system I feel a 4 pip difference on a 2d6 bell curve will never be fair as the system is now.  (EDIT: maybe that's an idea there.  Make the PV cost for skill increases go waaay up for aero units, since skill is so much more important than it is for ground units.  If you do though, I'd temper that with making lawn dart checks easier to pass so that you don't need to invest in skill upgrades for the heavier units...)

But even pressing on with this scenario for analysis, the Riever at default skill 4 is only failing its control check 8% of the time (about ~30ish% of the time in the atmosphere... which goes to support the in-universe lore that attack craft don't like descending down into the atmosphere before air supremacy is achieved...)  During these events the Cheetah can shoot at the Riever w/o being shot back at since the Riever lacks REAR.  During the other 92% of the time (70% of the time in the atmosphere) the Cheetah either has to pick extreme range or be shot back at.  If it picks extreme range, it doesn't (well, SHOULDN'T) pin the Riever in place and it's not doing its job of keeping the Riever off the DropShips/Central Zone/real target.  If it does pick Short-Long range, it's risking being popped like a zit.  If you're doing apples to apples and using like skill values, it's as likely to die as it is to hit the Riever. 

Of course, if you're doing a more proper apples to apples comparison, you'd be looking at just about 2 Cheetahs vs the one Riever at like skill values.  In a space battle, I'd be fairly confident in putting some amount of money down on the Riever getting past those two Cheetahs.  I'm not a rich dude so not a lot of money, but it's certainly a plausible bet w/o the atmospheric penalty factoring in.

In the atmosphere, those two cheetahs will probably take care of the Riever (whichever one the Riever shoots at picks extreme range, and the other papercuts it and repeat every turn, since it's unlikely to win a disengagment), but they imo SHOULD be able to do so given the roles of ASFs involved.  I don't agree there's a problem that requires fixing, there.

[jshdncn]

It occurs to me that part of the problem is that light fighters can pin heavy fighters in place. If I have a fighter loaded with bombs and enough armor to survive a few hits from an interceptor I want them delivering that ordnance, not mixing it up. I suggest simply removing the ability to pin opponents in place. Let bombers focus on being bombers, let interceptors try to stop them, and let dog fighters provide cover.

[nckestrel]

When you have to create multiple house rules to make Scotty wrong, you are backing the point that something needs to change.
Of course the Cheetah is going to pick Extreme range.  It's folly to pick anything else.  That was the entire point.  Air to air in that case is tail or extreme, there are no other viable choices.
And with that, there is no viable choice except taking low skill, high thrust fighters. Thars what I want to fix.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

When you have to create multiple house rules to make Scotty wrong, you are backing the point that something needs to change.

Multiple house rules?  The only one I alluded to was no ability to cause damage=no pinning.  The same one you've expressed support for in multiple threads now, so I thought that was fair game.  I don't know what other house rule you're saying I factored in.

And yeah, I'm totally agreeing with you that something needs to change.  I thought we both thought that interceptors were pretty fine as is but bigger fighters needed love.

Of course the Cheetah is going to pick Extreme range.  It's folly to pick anything else.  That was the entire point.  Air to air in that case is tail or extreme, there are no other viable choices.

Again, I thought (perhaps mistakenly) that there was consensus about the need for a no extreme damage = you don't pin at extreme range change to the rules.

And with that, there is no viable choice except taking low skill, high thrust fighters. Thars what I want to fix.

I'm going to harp on this because I'm not getting the vibe that you're hearing it (although, if you are and you're just rejecting it, you can say so and it'll be the last time I bring it up) Scotty's theorycrafting is presuming that the one and only job of ASFs is to fight other ASFs.  In that, YES, skill and thrust trump everything.  But there's more things you might want an ASF to do besides shoot other ASFs, and thrust isn't necessarily going to carry you in those goals... tho skill is always good to have... perhaps you really should make skill upgrades cost more than for ground units.  Maybe peg skill upgrade costs to MV values rather than PV values?

[nckestrel]

We seem to be crossing wires.
I said light fighters are overpowered, you said I was wrong.  So I pointed out Scotty's evidence, and your rebuttal was suggesting rules changes.  So I said if you are supporting rules changes, then that's not evidence that I or Scotty are wrong about light fighters being overpowered.

There is no consensus on rules changes.  I'm not sure there is even any possiblity of rules changes.  Or desire for them.  And even if there is, there's no consensus on what those rules changes should be.  So yeah, I don't think we should assume any.

Of course ASF isn't just air to air.  But earlier you were saying that air to air didn't need balancing, only air to ground did.  So I pointed out the issue was both air to ground and air to air. 

Best ASF for air to ground: high thrust, short range damage.
Best ASF for air to air: high thrust, short range damage.

There is no role at which low thrust or long range damage is better than a high thrust, short ranged fighter.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

We seem to be crossing wires.
I said light fighters are overpowered, you said I was wrong.  So I pointed out Scotty's evidence, and your rebuttal was suggesting rules changes.  So I said if you are supporting rules changes, then that's not evidence that I or Scotty are wrong about light fighters being overpowered.

There is no consensus on rules changes.  I'm not sure there is even any possiblity of rules changes.  Or desire for them.  And even if there is, there's no consensus on what those rules changes should be.  So yeah, I don't think we should assume any.

Of course ASF isn't just air to air.  But earlier you were saying that air to air didn't need balancing, only air to ground did.  So I pointed out the issue was both air to ground and air to air. 

Best ASF for air to ground: high thrust, short range damage.
Best ASF for air to air: high thrust, short range damage.

There is no role at which low thrust or long range damage is better than a high thrust, short ranged fighter.

Yeah, seems I was talking past you then.  In that light, I'll just recap my ideas that I think would be beneficial and after that I'll step back from the soap box for a while and let other people get a post in:

Skill upgrades: peg their cost to aero unit MV rather than PV.  Make it (relatively, if not absolutely )more expensive for the interceptors to crank the all-important skill value rather than the heavy PV bombers.  Double benefit: The rich don't get richer in dogfights by being cheaper on PV, and bombers get to more easily pass lawn dart checks.

Pinning: If you can't damage at that range, you can't contest a disengagement roll.

PV discounts: If you can't show up over a ground battle every round, you should get a PV discount relative to comparably statted ground units.  (I like 2/3 price, and it also has the double benefit of helping big fighters being discounted vs non-discounted interceptors)

Wingman rule: A friendly unengaged aero unit can redirect an engagement onto itself if it's in the same sector as the enemy's intended target.  Benefit: It lets escorts actually escort!

The I'm going to lose the engagement roll anyway rule: Forfeit bonus to engagement check from thrust to gain same bonus to the to-hit roll instead.

[Scotty]

I think that something I said might have been lost, or perhaps the implication has been lost amidst the discussion.

If you give fighters a TMM, and fast fighters get a commensurately higher TMM, then you open up an ability to play with ranges not normally seen in the air game.  A Cheetah, right now, stands exactly the same chance to be hit as the Riever.  Unless there's tailing involved, those numbers will never vary, they will never change.  Medium Range is Medium Range, and both fighters are treated as equal.  This is what generates the binary decision making when determining ranges.  Either I am going to be hit (horrible disadvantage) [/b]or[/b] neither of us will get to shoot (best pick).  If you introduce TMMs, suddenly the calculus changes.  It becomes less binary, because the Cheetah can now afford to close without instantly dying even if it does not tail the opponent.

Combined with nckestrel's previously suggested rule of not being able to keep an engagement without being able to do damage at the range it took place, it gives the player a risk/reward that is currently absent.  My proposed steps would give a Cheetah a +4 TMM, and the Riever a +1.  Let's look at how the numbers change.

Short range: 8 TN vs. 5 TN (previously 4 vs. 4).  The Light fighter obviously has the advantage here, but there's still a 42% chance that the heavy fighter scores the hit.  Probably not the safest thing, but unlike the mutual 4s, there's a decent chance the light fighter gets away with it and has an excellent chance of scoring good damage.

Medium range: 10 TN vs 7 TN (previously 6 vs 6).  In the particular example of the Cheetah, this is the last range it can actually hit.  The odds are not good for the heavy fighter (17% chance), but they're not impossible, but they are still good for the Cheetah.  There's risk involved, but the Cheetah can play the numbers game and hope to come out on top.

Long range: 12 TN vs no shot (previously 8 vs. no shot).  The Cheetah cannot force the engagement to continue here, and as such it probably won't be picked.  But, if the Riever is very low on health and can't risk the fight, it could pick this one to get one last parting shot at the light fighter at effectively no risk.  There is a reason it would be taken.

Extreme range: 14 TN (if there were extreme damage involved) vs no shot (previously the same).  Extreme range probably shouldn't be a viable range to engage for 90% of shots, +6 is just murderous on the bell curve.

My conclusion from this (which could obviously differ) is that the light fighter suddenly has options, and the heavy fighter by extension has the ability to contribute to the engagement beyond "hope you win the engagement roll".