Author Topic: AS PV: Aero Edition  (Read 17015 times)

Xotl

  • Dominus Erratorum
  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11642
  • Professor of Errata
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #60 on: 21 August 2016, 12:39:14 »
I can't speak to the aero rules as I don't know them: anything that changes there will ultimately be on nckestrel.  However, I agree that the TH + armour cost is out of line with reality.  It, if nothing else, will likely be adjusted.
3028-3057 Random Assignment Tables -
Also contains faction deployment & rarity info.

http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=1219.0

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #61 on: 22 August 2016, 04:40:20 »
I don't find anything too odd about aerospace's armor point value   1.5 per point.   Can take a critical hit if the damage is over the threshold.   Its kind of an in between point between mech armor and BAR armor.   Could the value be fine tuned, probably.  But it doesn't necessarily need to be.  (If you include armor and threshold, then size 1 fighters are paying 1.66 pv per armor, size 2 1.83 pv per armor and size 3 fighters pay 2 pv per armor.)

Though one of my questions in the other thread was why is size a factor in the threshold calculation?  the size of the unit does nothing to affect the likelihood of a threshold hit, save that bigger units are more likely to have higher thresholds, so it becomes a defacto geometric increase in price for larger units.

Grimvyn

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #62 on: 22 August 2016, 06:52:57 »
That's a good point about the Size factor.  Size has nothing to do with the Threshhold conversion.  Since Th is always exactly a third of all aerospace armor it seems there would be no need for a separate PV calculation for it, just consider it within the Armor PV.  Anything else is more math than is needed in the calculation.  The only reason I can think that Th is being calculated for would be Bombs.  But since the PV rule is applying to all aerospace meaning smallcraft, dropships, jumpships, and warships (all of which do not get bombs) this wouldn't really apply properly.

That brings me to another question, why do smallcraft+ have such small thresholds?  Can a landing Leopard really be one-shot killed by anything hitting it with 3+ Damage?  Not to mention its large profile making it easier to hit (and thus an inflated PV value).  Even look at Dropship vs Dropship, every one of them can pretty much shot-shot each other given all of their firepower far exceeds any of their thresholds.
2nd Dieron Regulars
5th Lyran Regulars
3rd Crusis Lancers

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #63 on: 22 August 2016, 10:43:20 »
Dropships can be thresholded in the base game, so yes.  The odds of it happening are not high.  Particularly when it comes to Unions and Leopards, the phrase "eggshells with sledgehammers" comes to mind.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #64 on: 24 August 2016, 14:00:05 »
Since discussion on the rules of aero engagements seems to have bogged down into irreconcilable differences of opinion, I'll rejoin the discussion on a new topic more directly related to PV:

Skill costs.

Skill value is the single most important stat on an aero unit.  As with ground units, it directly affects the odds of a successful attack.  However, it ALSO has an impact on determining range of said attacks.  Skill even matters moreso than thrust value, as each point of skill improvement directly equates to a full 'pip' of improvement on the die roll for engagement checks, whereas each full point of thrust value only equates to a half-pip (at best) of impact on the same check.   Add in the unique-to-aero-units nature of being subject to instadeath on a failed skill check (in the form of the lawn-dart check) and skill has another dimension of importance beyond attacking and dictating range.

All told, the PV cost for skill improvements is dramatically underpriced as-is.  With skill being so much more important to aero units than to ground units, there's no way it should cost the same to increase a 33 PV mech's skill as a 33PV asf's skill.

Nailing down a specific proposal for a new pricing scheme for skill upgrades probably isn't possible w/o also ironing out once and for all how engagements are supposed to work, but I think in general it's very safe to say that skill upgrades should cost some amount more than they currently do (for aero units).

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #65 on: 24 August 2016, 14:25:30 »
Skill doesn't actually affect the result of an engagement roll, since it changes the target number and not the roll result.

It does, however, make failing the control roll less likely, which is still significant.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #66 on: 24 August 2016, 14:57:08 »
Skill doesn't actually affect the result of an engagement roll, since it changes the target number and not the roll result.

It does, however, make failing the control roll less likely, which is still significant.

It makes failing the check less likely, sure.  But the important thing is that MoS is a thing in engagement control checks.  Lowering the base TN by the skill upgrade is effectively the same thing as gaining that same value as a bonus to the roll itself.

Skill 4 in a 6 thrust dogfighter vs Skill 4 in a 8 thrust fast dogfighter: the latter wins the engagement control check on a contested 2d6 roll, but while gaining a +1 bonus to his own roll (barring either side rolling 2 or 3, of course)

Same scenario, but give the dogfighter pilot a skill upgrade to 3: Sure, the higher skilled pilot is less likely to be tailed, but what's more likely to be relevant (assuming a result of 3+ on the 2d6) is that the base TN of 3 cancels out the +1 bonus the faster fighter has due to thrust.

EDIT:  Maybe that gives a benchmark.  Skill upgrades should cost at least as much as if the fighter had 2 higher thrust.  Maybe tack that on to existing upgrade cost?

« Last Edit: 24 August 2016, 15:00:38 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #67 on: 24 August 2016, 19:24:12 »
It only provides an extra effective point if the results and initial thrust are tied.  It's only a bonus if you're the same thrust as your opponent and you tied the initial roll.  That's not an every-roll occurrence (or even every ten rolls), so you can't say it's the same as a full number on the roll.  It's the second tiebreaker, not the first.

In your example, the faster fighter would still win on an equal roll.  Hell, it would win on an equal roll even if the slower fighter were skill zero (if it did not fail its own roll).  Skill is important because it makes it easier to avoid being tailed, and for gunnery.  It has negligible impact on the engagement roll outside of tailing/being tailed.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #68 on: 24 August 2016, 20:14:21 »
What if you had to declare the target range before the engagement roll?  Short gave a +4 to target, Medium +2, Long +0 and Extreme +4?
so there was a risk to going for short range?

And then a related Wingman/escort rule, where two units declared as wingmen (during movement) always have the same range to a target, but have a +1 to control rolls (per wingman)?  But only the one rolling would be tailed/not tailed?   
« Last Edit: 24 August 2016, 20:20:06 by nckestrel »
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #69 on: 24 August 2016, 21:48:15 »
I don't like it.  Declaring before the roll has some merit, but the declared range making the engagement roll more difficult is... please no.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #70 on: 25 August 2016, 05:58:44 »
I don't like it.  Declaring before the roll has some merit, but the declared range making the engagement roll more difficult is... please no.

Why not?  Short range combat requires more complicated maneuvers, especially if the other is trying to avoid it.  Would you like it better if I named them as maneuvers?  Immelmann: +4 to your control roll, +4 to target control roll, must declare short range?

Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #71 on: 25 August 2016, 08:11:00 »
Because it makes trying to get to short range a losing proposition.  A 10+ TN kind of losing proposition.

I mean, it'd be a great way to solve the problem of short range being too valuable but it doesn't sit well with me to have a 16% chance of succeeding the engagement roll.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #72 on: 25 August 2016, 08:49:03 »
Because it makes trying to get to short range a losing proposition.  A 10+ TN kind of losing proposition.

I mean, it'd be a great way to solve the problem of short range being too valuable but it doesn't sit well with me to have a 16% chance of succeeding the engagement roll.

so the problem is the size of the modifiers, not the concept?  What about +2/+1/+0/+1?
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #73 on: 25 August 2016, 08:54:21 »
I don't like the modifiers in general, but pointing out how high they were was an easier argument on my work break than an exhaustive analysis.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #74 on: 25 August 2016, 09:05:08 »
I don't like the modifiers in general, but pointing out how high they were was an easier argument on my work break than an exhaustive analysis.

I don't need an exhaustive analysis, but logically why don't you like the modifiers in general? 
The maneuvering at short range is far more difficult than maneuvering at medium or long.  Nobody is impressed by the Blue Angels manuevering at opposite ends of the sky.  Dogfighting at short range is more difficult, and far more likely to end up with tailing.  If I'm going for medium range, and you're going for long range, we're far less likey to end up tailing each other.  If we're both going for short range, we're far more likely to end up with somebody tailing.   That seems logical to me. 
And that's the majority of what the control roll determines (and therefore modifiers to it).  As you pointed out, margin of success is only the second tiebreaker.  A modifier to the control roll target number is primarily just for determining tailing.  And tailing should be far more likely when one or both are trying for short range, than when both are trying for long range.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #75 on: 25 August 2016, 10:46:14 »
Skill is important because it makes it easier to avoid being tailed, and for gunnery.  It has negligible impact on the engagement roll outside of tailing/being tailed.

I wonder if this is another thing we've been doing differently.  Skill, as I understand how engagement control checks work, IS indeed a very important variable as it sets the baseline TN.  The winner of the check isn't who got the highest roll but who got the highest MoS.  Lowering the TN ends up directly equating to an indirect bonus to the roll itself on a one-for-one rate.

If I have a skill 2 pilot, it doesn't matter what your pilot's skill is.  Whatever I roll has a MoS of two higher than what I would have otherwise rolled with a skill 4.

With regards to tailing*, once you purchase even a single upgrade (to skill 3) you're only looking at a 1 in 36 chance of failing your check.  Skill 2 and better is flat out unable to fail the check, making tailing a pretty fringe phenomenon once skill upgrades are brought into the calculus.
*=again, I consider exoatmospheric contexts for theorycrafting aerospace balance issues

What if you had to declare the target range before the engagement roll?  Short gave a +4 to target, Medium +2, Long +0 and Extreme +4?
so there was a risk to going for short range?

I think this has theoretical promise.  I think it could work if each side of the engagement declares its own range but having A shoot at B at one range while B shoots back at A at a different range is threshholding a rabbit hole that may be more trouble than it's worth.  Not only is it going to change the existing paradigm, it's extra detail/complication for big furballs.

Honestly, I think in a context of several squadrons worth of ASFs thrown into a mutual dogfight with one another the system works pretty good as-is*.  It's simple enough that you can rotate through 12-18+ ASFs' actions fairly quickly and the level of detail/attention doesn't feel overly abstracted for a single fighter's contribution to the outcome.

*=Of course, "as-is" in my case assumes that declarations to fire strictly come before the results of the engagement control check are determined.  In a furball it doesn't matter in the same way as a two on one dogfight whether or not the little fast guys are anklebiting you.  You won't find any given fighter "gamed" out of having any eligible targets to fire upon.  And yet in the two on one scenario where one anklebiter draws the declaration to fire and then picks extreme range while the other then freely swoops in at short range without risk of return fire... that very much feels "works as intented".  We're talking about a wingman-less, outnumbered target here afterall.  Complaints about the unfairness to that target sound to me very much like complaining about a Fireball or Locust being so fast as to run around and backstrike a big unit that's already moved.  That's not abusive... that's how they're supposed to do it...



Quote
And then a related Wingman/escort rule, where two units declared as wingmen (during movement) always have the same range to a target, but have a +1 to control rolls (per wingman)?  But only the one rolling would be tailed/not tailed?   

I'm glad you like the general idea of a wingman rule but until the way engagements are going to be coded is finalized I don't know that we can discuss how wingmen should contribute to an engagement.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #76 on: 25 August 2016, 10:59:30 »
I think this has theoretical promise.  I think it could work if each side of the engagement declares its own range but having A shoot at B at one range while B shoots back at A at a different range is threshholding a rabbit hole that may be more trouble than it's worth.  Not only is it going to change the existing paradigm, it's extra detail/complication for big furballs.
Declaring desired range.  You still have to win the engagement roll.
I declare short range.  You declare medium range.
I win engagement roll, we are at short range. You win, we are at medium range.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #77 on: 25 August 2016, 11:07:20 »
Aerospace fighters don't really dog fight acrobatically at knife range.  Short range is still .5 to 3 Km in atmosphere.  And up to 108 Km in space.

The modifiers tend to make being tailed much more likely in ways that don't make sense.  For example, both pick extreme and fail.  Does this represent both turning tail and running away?  A massive overshot that could only be achieved with suicidal velocities in the atmosphere?   The nature of aerospace fighters is to face each other and death spiral in until one or the other is destroyed, or until one tries to run to keep the range open.  Its an affect of being required to move forward, and having all the primary weapons facing forward.  (IIRC Aerotech I, the wings had more side arc capability, so a longer range circle could be more effective.  With the tighter arcs used now you want to be facing your enemy, but you also have to move towards them.  Thus holding the range open becomes nearly impossible.)


Special maneuvers sounds interesting, but as a set of advanced rules.

If being tailed was not contingent on failing the engagement roll, The modifiers idea works better, since its primary effect is to determine whether 1/4 or 1/2 thrust is added to the engagement roll.   Maybe give attempt to tail its own modifier.

One on one in aerotech, its nearly impossible to tail.  If you move with minimal velocity its easy to turn to face the enemy.  Attempts to maneuver into a tailing position require substantially higher thrust levels to pay for the turns needed. (like in the 12+ range for only moderate velocities.)

Examples of how your modified rules would work would be appreciated nckestrel.  Run us through a turn to see how you think it should work.

==========================

In other thoughts,  No comments on my proposal from the previous thread page?  Namely each fighter's engagement roll determines its options of who it can fire at at what range bands based on margin of difference between engagement rolls, while dropping the pick now who you're firing at when engaged.  And adding in a wing man rule that allows supporting an engagement at a cost of being an additional range band away.


=======================================

Ninja's by Tai Dai...
I personally think its better to assume you're fighting in atmosphere.  Few ground games are on airless moons that I've encountered, and in the end aerospace is still about supporting the ground battle for AS.  (until the advanced rules for fighters actually maneuvering on a table top is developed.)

And as a side benefit of my proposal, skill improvements have a more limited affect on your ability to not be tailed.  Which has a secondary benefit of negating the need for a separate method of recalculating PV for skill changes in aerospace.  Which was another point I needed to make eventually.   Tis better to get aerospace to the point where a single rule for skill point changes works then to add another set of rules in a different section of the rules.

==================
ninja'd by Nckestrel...

What if they both win?  Highest engagement roll?   Medium range for a tie?

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #78 on: 25 August 2016, 11:10:26 »
Declaring desired range.  You still have to win the engagement roll.
I declare short range.  You declare medium range.
I win engagement roll, we are at short range. You win, we are at medium range.

Is the inactive player also declaring an intention to fire or not fire along with the intended range?

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #79 on: 25 August 2016, 11:11:09 »
Is the inactive player also declaring an intention to fire or not fire along with the intended range?

Yes, that's still the same.
Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #80 on: 25 August 2016, 11:43:01 »
TDC: highest result (roll + appropriate thrust) wins.  Skill does not apply except to make failing the roll entirely less likely.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #81 on: 25 August 2016, 11:48:39 »
Well, I think I'm understanding where you're coming from better then.

Something I do rather like about the idea is adding a bit of an "uphill challenge" for the Cheetah to just take away the Riever's attack by just going "LoL, I pick extreme range and neither of us gets a shot..."  The proposed +4TN even seems about right in light of it representing the cheetah keeping the riever committed to an engagement at that extreme range.  As a bonus it'd make a possible no range=no engagement rule unnecessary.

Another upside is that it would be a novel way to address the general lack of incentive for picking medium-long range as is.

But I also have to agree with Scotty.  +4TN to achieve short range would amount to an unwarranted kick in the jewels for attack craft.  They want that short range and are already challenged to achieve it as-is without additional penalties. 

Idea: if both sides want the same range, ignore the TN modifiers.  (two rievers want to close and smash one another at short range, then just waive the +4 for trying to get that close, but a riever may be willing to settle for a smaller modifier to hit medium range on a target even bigger and slower than it is, like a DropShip or WarShip)

Another idea: perhaps have modifiers relative to the ranges picked rather than static ones.  Perhaps the "no modifier" choice is medium or long range, and picking short or extreme range means you take a +2TN penalty to the control check per range band removed from your opponent.

TDC: highest result (roll + appropriate thrust) wins.  Skill does not apply except to make failing the roll entirely less likely.

Well I was all prepared to quote the rules... but in highlighting them I saw you're not wrong.  So I see what you were saying now about skill only being a tie breaker in the event the rolls and thrust were tied.  There's still only so many different thrust values, but yes I recognize that skill isn't AS important to the outcome as I was saying it was earlier.

Still, matter of opinion here, but I'm gonna dig my heels and still say that 2nd tie breaker is still a bigger impact on an engagement than the question of tailing is... I think I see ties on 2d6s on matching thrust more often than raw 2s and 3s ;)
« Last Edit: 25 August 2016, 11:58:44 by Tai Dai Cultist »

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #82 on: 25 August 2016, 13:51:36 »
What about 4s and 5s?  The atmosphere modifier counts if you're playing over a normal battlefield.  There's a 27% chance of being tailed with a skill 4 pilot, before any other modifiers.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #83 on: 25 August 2016, 14:18:22 »
What about 4s and 5s?  The atmosphere modifier counts if you're playing over a normal battlefield.  There's a 27% chance of being tailed with a skill 4 pilot, before any other modifiers.

Like I said, I don't think that's a fair consideration if cover and woods aren't considered in ground battle balancing.  Open conditions and no penalties is equatable to open conditions and no penalties.  Add in atmospheric control penalties and you're moving away from apples to apples comparisons between air and ground balance assumptions.

Besides, in looking at the rules as representing the universe rather than as an expansion to cover air support for a ground battle...  aero fighters are going to spend more time dealing with contesting orbital insertion zones than making attack runs on enemy mechs.  The "default" assumption for aerospace combat operations is imo more naturally (from the perspective of the aerospace pilot) in space than in the atmosphere.

But if I'm by myself on that view and we're going to go ahead and assume atmospheres are present by default, I'm going to quibble with that 27%.  It's only 27% of the time your opponent also does not fail the check, which he in turn is also failing 27% of the time (assuming like, default skill levels).  Assuming skill 4s in the atmosphere it's actually more like 20% chance that someone ends up tailed (one person fails WHILE the other person doesn't fail)

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #84 on: 25 August 2016, 14:20:55 »
Well, all aerospace battles take place over a ground map of some sort in the central zone.  If the default for a ground battle is oprn terrain, then the default for aerospace should be above an open terrain map... which is still in atmosphere.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #85 on: 25 August 2016, 14:24:47 »
Well, all aerospace battles take place over a ground map of some sort in the central zone.  If the default for a ground battle is oprn terrain, then the default for aerospace should be above an open terrain map... which is still in atmosphere.

Battles between dropships, warships, and aerospace fighters certainly do not have to take place in an atmosphere.  Making an approach on a target planet (and defenders attempting to prevent said approach) pretty much definitively takes place outside the planet's atmosphere (on the capital radar map).

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #86 on: 25 August 2016, 14:31:56 »
Is the capital radar map even in the basic AS book?  I thought it was in the Companion for some reason.
Catalyst Demo Agent #679

Kansas City players, or people who are just passing through the area, come join us at the Geekery just off Shawnee Mission Parkway for BattleTech!  Current days are Tuesdays in the afternoon and evening.  I can't make every single week, but odds are pretty good that somebody will be there.

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #87 on: 25 August 2016, 14:34:49 »
given equal skill and thrust 9% chance of a draw.  reducing the skill by 1 eliminates that range of chances, reduces being tailed by 8% (20 to 12), increases chance of tailing by about 4% (20 to 24) and gives a 31% vs 29% (From 21.5 vs 21.5) chance of dictating range.

Biggest annoyance with the proposed range based modifiers is that it increases your chance of being tailed substantially.

Equal skill (4) and thrust (5)
Attacker picks long
defender picks short. +4 modifier for short.
Both fail 23% of the time.  Attacker laughs and goes "This is what I wanted all along!"
Defender gets tailed 60% of the time,  55% at long, 5% at short.  (You failed the roll, but you still get to pick your range.  Short....)
Attacker who presumably has long range weapons goes, LOL, and proceeded to fire with a -2 modifier for tailing.
Defender has it their way 15% of the time, 4% tailing.

Same scenerio, +2 modifier for short

Both fail 16% of the time.  Still laughing.
Defender gets tailed 42% of the time.
Defender has it their way 20% of the time. 10% of which it does at least get to tail the attacker.

Thunder

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 241
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #88 on: 25 August 2016, 14:41:44 »
If we buy the apples you're selling Tai Dai,  then we would need to consider breaching rules, and instant death for most vehicles and the PBI.

I think you're in an edge case minority.  The majority of players are going to go "Battlemechs!" and maybe toss in 1 or 2 fighters for spice for a pick up game.  It takes dedicated campaigners to start worrying about the capital scale map.

Or you can reverse the case, and argue that we're arguing over the edge case that results in the most extreme target numbers to see if the rules break down too badly there.

nckestrel

  • Scientia Bellator
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11030
Re: AS PV: Aero Edition
« Reply #89 on: 25 August 2016, 14:44:18 »
Defender gets tailed 60% of the time,  55% at long, 5% at short.  (You failed the roll, but you still get to pick your range.  Short....)
Attacker who presumably has long range weapons goes, LOL, and proceeded to fire with a -2 modifier for tailing.

This is impossible.  You can't win an engagement roll if you fail the roll.  If both fail, it's long range.  If you fail and they don't, they win and declare the range.
There's only one range per engagement.  The engagement roll is to determine who gets to decide that range.  I haven't made any changes to that.

And ignore the numbers.  Those are easy to change.  You want them smaller, they can be smaller. 
The goals are
1) make ranges other than short (and extreme) meaningful
2) make units other than just the highest thrust possible useful.

How do we do that?  Make risks to short range.  Make thrust necessary to compensate for that risk, and/or allow lower thrust, but longer range units to have less risk.  How much risk can be debated after. 

Alpha Strike Introduction resources
Left of Center blog - Nashira Campaign for A Game of Armored Combat, TP 3039 Vega Supplemental Record Sheets