Author Topic: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?  (Read 16398 times)

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9102
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #60 on: 23 July 2017, 13:00:40 »
I think smartly made vector-movement game could be AeroTech's niche. When it comes to casual systems, it is difficult to compete with X-wing, and if it is a full-blown simulation... Well, not sure the market support such at the moment at all. (Perhaps the market does support different casual systems and settings but not sure i'd bet on that. Of course the thing that attracts me to BT's aerospace section at all is its partial realism, so i'm not willing to give up on all of it.)

Pure fighter focus could work either way. Not really a fan of WarShips, especially if they don't get art that is more reminiscent of TRO 2750 style, ie semi-realistic (fortunately several newer products have gone back to that at times, like Cruiser-class cruiser).

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #61 on: 23 July 2017, 13:09:05 »
MY turnoffs to the space rules:

Alpha Strike:
Where the ground battle rules are focused on mass combat, the aerospace rules are focused on the individual unit.  I don't mind abstract rules at all, in fact I think that's a viable direction for CBT's future aero direction.  However under Alpha Strike's abstact aero rules, every unit must have a relationship to every other unit, which isn't bad in of itself.  But for simplicity's sake, those relationships are completely irrelevant to each other.  So, in other words, you can't have a wingman protect a buddy.  You can't have your fighters all gang up on one injured flank of a warship or dropship.  Etc.

Lack of squadron rules!  It'd go immensely far in helping address my above concern, and it wouldn't be hard to do.  You can port them over almost word for word from the abstract combat rules in IO.


CBT/Boardgame BattleTech:
They're almost as complex as the ground rules, but don't share enough overlap on their venn diagram.  It's complex enough to learn the contents of TW & TO.  Learning another game entirely is beyond the patience of most casual gamers here for "one game".

Trying to be "realistic" is just a fools errand on so many counts.  The ground game's rules entire paradigm just doesn't translate to exoatmospheric combat.  You're compressing 3 dimensional combat onto a 2 dimensional play area.  The BTU doesn't have the technologies necessary to create swooping, WWII style dogfighting we're so familiar with in our Sci-fi.  You'd have to make a complete and hard break from preexisting rules/record sheets and start from scratch to make a playable space battle game comparable to and compatible with the BMM presentation.  Or, and my hope is this is what they're gonna do, just embrace the abstract combat model being trailblazed by IO and AS.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7154
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #62 on: 23 July 2017, 13:36:37 »
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.
Currently that is true, but I think that there is the potential (in the universe) to offer greater combined arms combat then other space games.
Herb: "Well, now I guess we'll HAVE to print it. Sounds almost like the apocalypse I've been working for...."

The Society:Fan XTRO & Field Manual
Nebula California: HyperTube Xtreme
Nebula Confederation Ships

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #63 on: 23 July 2017, 14:11:13 »
I'd be fine with a system that relegated warships to mass combat-only units, and outside of mass combat you use primarily aerospace fighters.

William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #64 on: 23 July 2017, 14:29:46 »
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.

I'm not saying its impossible to ever come up with a set of rules for BT Warships that would be better than what we currently have. But the games focus is ground combat, and I think we can agree the overwhelming majority of Battletech games played are completely ground focused. So, if aerospace rules are going to exist, the parts that need to be there are those that most connected to ground combat: aerospace fighters and transport dropships.

Theres some even arguments that can be made that the very existence of warships makes ground combat seem irrelevant. (And if they don't, why would you build them given their cost and demand on scare resources)?  Even with the generous failing to disregard realism, in Battletech technology,  eventually the idea of Warships that can target each other at space ranges, but struggle to hit even the general area of a battlefield from uncontested orbit becomes a bit hard to swallow. And if we make Warships, in setting, so rare that this isnt a factor, then why bother with rules for them in the first place.

In the end, it comes down to being worth the trouble. Sadly, there is only so much 'skull sweat' Catalyst has available, only so many resources to allocate.  The business case for a creating a quality working detailed rules set for Warships and assault dropships just doesn't seem to exist.

It comes down to capability, resources, the needs of the game/setting, and at the end, what bang for Catalysts buck spent will they get.   Dropships to get mechs to the plant are essential. Hard to have mech combat without a way to get mechs on the planet. Fighter craft are a logical second from that in necessity of needed military units. And if that is all a rules redesign team had to worry about, their burden would be greatly reduced. Beyond that, everything else could be  written out, completely, with no great harm to the setting or gameplay, and likely not make a noticeable difference in Catalyst's current bottom line.

And starting form that point of easier goals, maybe they could make a faster, easier, more fun aerospace rules set that would easily integrate with Battletech and Alpha Strike. Maybe more players would invest in a few aerospace fighters. And then, as use across the playerbase increased, the Warship/assault dropship could come back again, with a far more compelling argument for their place.






Daryk

  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 37057
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #65 on: 23 July 2017, 15:15:48 »
As far as "skull sweat", it strikes me an Open Beta would pretty efficiently tap the dedicated fans here.  Heck, during the last one CGL was even able to charge for the privilege of participating.

YingJanshi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4507
  • Switch Friend Code: SW-4326-4622-8514
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #66 on: 23 July 2017, 16:56:21 »
I think this thread illustrates the exact problem with the Aero rules: too want many people want too many things.  :))


Personally I want just as many options for Aero as there are for the ground combat. If I just want to play a quick game with 'Mechs, can do so. Or just a few fighter dogfighting in space. Can do that to. Or do a full on division level invasion from jumping in system to mop up operations, I can do that to.


And I'm with Scotty on this. I really like WarShips. Do we really need them? No, but I like what they bring to the table. I like having capital ship fights. I also like that they follow a certain "Hard SciFi" (using that term loosely maybe). I like not having a Star Trek/Star Wars feel. Yes, vector movement is clunky, and no, I'm not sure I understand it completely (mostly because I rarely play any kind of BattleTech these day), but if I wanted airplanes in space I'd play X-Wing.


At the end of the day, I'm not sure what TPTB could do....

Initiate of the Order of Valhalla

(HBS: Backer #4,960)
(Clan Invasion: Backer #314)
(Mercenaries: Backer #6,017)

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #67 on: 24 July 2017, 01:09:18 »
Just talked about this with friends at our weekly BT game, they know a bit more about other space games than.

If you want to make a space combat game somewhat realistic, your going to need vectoring and accounting tech.

If you want a easier game, your going to need to make a who new game like AeroStrike/AeroSpace as suggested and that will require time, money and effort not being spent on other aspects of BT.

Considering the non-battlemech related stuff hasn't been profitable in the past, it would be a huge leap of faith to do this and hope it will not blow up in their face like before.

 
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #68 on: 24 July 2017, 01:33:53 »
*nods* Yeah. Any which way, it's a huge risk, and something tells me CGL is not particularly interested in taking risks right now.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #69 on: 24 July 2017, 08:03:23 »
Yep, its all about return, and truthfully, developing a new set of aerospace rules on the battletech side,  even if easier and more enjoyable, might simply not be worth the effort. Fortunately, the Alp[ha Strike side removes a lot of pain, and its relatively simple to implement  on the ground side, so for that game, the status quo isn't so bad.

Dont fix what isn't broken is a saying.I figure  "Don't spend a lot of time and money you can't afford to fix what isn't essential" has to be related.

Ice_Trey

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 671
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #70 on: 24 July 2017, 08:35:18 »
For those who like it? All power to you.
For those that don't? That's up to you, too.

Myself, I have never met enough players that wanted to play to invest the time into learning the rules. It's difficult enough finding players with more than a few unpainted pewters from the early '90s. Finding someone with aerospace fighters that wants to play is way out of left field.

I don't mind it, but using Battletech to play space battles is kind of like going to A&W for the chicken. Battletroops suffered from a similar issue. There's also good reason why almost everyone's RPG campaigns end up being mercenary mechwarrior units.
« Last Edit: 24 July 2017, 10:44:41 by Ice_Trey »

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #71 on: 24 July 2017, 14:50:55 »
And that's just the absolute basics in order to figure out what spaces you can enter this turn, before spending thrust (which unlike on the ground, must be spent before maneuvers are attempted, or after all maneuvers have been finished, never in between).

That bit always boggled my mind. I don't understand why you couldn't apply thrust on-the-fly. If I'm not mistaken, Centurion and Interceptor of Renegade Legion fame never made such a requirement.

And, of course, the only way to track all the information you stated, is on a piece of paper, like a record sheet. Which consumed time.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #72 on: 24 July 2017, 14:57:04 »
Thinking more on this issue, I don't think it's worth CGL's time to fix the aerospace rules. What do BattleTech's spaceships have to offer the wider gaming public over other, better-known space combat games?

Should we look at a 'non-canon' conversion system and send people to a chosen system that fits BT well?

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #73 on: 24 July 2017, 15:02:38 »
Should we look at a 'non-canon' conversion system and send people to a chosen system that fits BT well?

I have some notes on using a variation of the Federation Commander system with BT spacecraft, with heat as the limiting factor rather than power. The problem there is that Amarillo Design Bureau is fiercely protective of their IP - understandable, given their legal struggles - and I really don't want to butt heads with them.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5796
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #74 on: 24 July 2017, 15:11:40 »
I have some notes on using a variation of the Federation Commander system with BT spacecraft, with heat as the limiting factor rather than power. The problem there is that Amarillo Design Bureau is fiercely protective of their IP - understandable, given their legal struggles - and I really don't want to butt heads with them.

So, it would have to be a fan project.

It's your world. You can do anything you want in it. - Bob Ross

Every thought and device conceived by Satan and man must be explored and found wanting. - Donald Grey Barnhouse on the purpose of history and time.

I helped make a game! ^_^  - Forge Of War: Tactics

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40758
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #75 on: 24 July 2017, 15:12:48 »
I've managed to convert a large number of WarShips(and a fair number of DropShips) to Starmada AE, if anyone plays that. It's roughly on par with ground Alpha Strike in complexity, with the benefit of actual hexed maps.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8648
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #76 on: 24 July 2017, 15:19:45 »
So, it would have to be a fan project.

Well, duh. CGL is not going to fund a new game right now. I'll try reaching out to ADB, see what they'd find acceptable, and if they raise a stink I'll do something else.

Because that's the proper way to interact with twitchy IP holders. O0
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP


Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40758
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #78 on: 24 July 2017, 16:06:38 »
http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/

I play Admiralty Edition exclusively. Nova is more of a big fleets game and sacrifices too much single-ship detail for my tastes. Unity is the most recent edition. It's 95% the same as Admiralty, but if they wanted my money they'd go all the way. I'm not reconverting dozens of ships across several settings just to play something that works essentially the same as what I already have.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

sadlerbw

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1679
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #79 on: 24 July 2017, 17:05:09 »
I'm a bit late to the party, but here, in no particular order, are some things that annoy me or suck the fun out of Aero BT games for me:

- The ships we have were designed over such a wide variety or rules that anything bigger than a fighter (and even some fighters) can be wildly inefficient or broken under the current rules.
- Warship and large Dropship recordsheets can be unusable thanks to the insane number and small size of armor bubbles and the amount of equipment that gets crammed into the small box on the left of the sheet. Not to mention the breakdown of facing and capital/non-capital is not at all helpfully displayed.
- In several eras of play Warships are either nonexistent or sufficiently scarce that they don't do much beyond hover over faction capitals. When they do exist, they are so vastly powerful that nothing smaller than them matters much.
- I've never found warship-scale fights to be balanced, especially when including dropships and fighter squadrons, without a variety of advanced rules that add more paperwork. Also, they tend to be murderous and destroy whole battle groups really fast.
- There is no good way to cost fighters in a ground-map fight in terms of force balancing. This goes for AS as well in my opinion.
- Missiles, Cannons, and Lasers don't feel sufficiently distinct in space, especially at sub-capital scales.
- Important factors that you need to be aware of to make tactical choices cannot be easily represented on the unit, the map, or the unit's recordsheet.
- To many of the detailed rules don't actually add anything fun.
- The basic heat rules for firing bays of weapons are annoying. Actually, the heat rules in general are un-interesting.

With regard to Alpha Strike in particular:
- The Radar map, physically speaking, doesn't have enough room for a decent-sized fight. Scotty even brought a blown-up version to Origins, and we STILL ended up pulling several squares worth of units off the map to keep track of things because we couldn't fit them in the physical space.
- I don't like the engagement system. Too binary with limited tactical choices.
- Virtually every engagement occurs at short or extreme range.
- There isn't much room to maneuver on the Radar map. The Capital map is a little better, but thanks to things getting slower further out it is still difficult to any sort of tactical positioning. I guess I though positioning on the game board would matter in Aerospace like it does on the ground, but that is not the case with the rules we have.

I do like the Alpha Strike rules for Aerospace fighters strafing/striking/bombing on the ground map. The Support version of airstrikes in BMM is nice, but the AS rules are pretty easy to deal with and don't involve a ton of corner cases and caveats. Also, I like the IDEA of space battles with fighters, dropships, and even the occasional warship, but not the rules we have to play them.

I've always though there fleet-scale BT might make an interesting card-battle game of some sort.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #80 on: 24 July 2017, 18:52:43 »
http://www.mj12games.com/starmada/

I play Admiralty Edition exclusively. Nova is more of a big fleets game and sacrifices too much single-ship detail for my tastes. Unity is the most recent edition. It's 95% the same as Admiralty, but if they wanted my money they'd go all the way. I'm not reconverting dozens of ships across several settings just to play something that works essentially the same as what I already have.

Thanks, much appreciated.

I've been considering using Travellor (an RPG) and their spaceship rules. It offers full customization but is a lot simpler.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #81 on: 24 July 2017, 18:54:09 »
I'm not saying its impossible to ever come up with a set of rules for BT Warships that would be better than what we currently have. But the games focus is ground combat, and I think we can agree the overwhelming majority of Battletech games played are completely ground focused. So, if aerospace rules are going to exist, the parts that need to be there are those that most connected to ground combat: aerospace fighters and transport dropships.

Theres some even arguments that can be made that the very existence of warships makes ground combat seem irrelevant. (And if they don't, why would you build them given their cost and demand on scare resources)?  Even with the generous failing to disregard realism, in Battletech technology,  eventually the idea of Warships that can target each other at space ranges, but struggle to hit even the general area of a battlefield from uncontested orbit becomes a bit hard to swallow. And if we make Warships, in setting, so rare that this isnt a factor, then why bother with rules for them in the first place.

In the end, it comes down to being worth the trouble. Sadly, there is only so much 'skull sweat' Catalyst has available, only so many resources to allocate.  The business case for a creating a quality working detailed rules set for Warships and assault dropships just doesn't seem to exist.

It comes down to capability, resources, the needs of the game/setting, and at the end, what bang for Catalysts buck spent will they get.   Dropships to get mechs to the plant are essential. Hard to have mech combat without a way to get mechs on the planet. Fighter craft are a logical second from that in necessity of needed military units. And if that is all a rules redesign team had to worry about, their burden would be greatly reduced. Beyond that, everything else could be  written out, completely, with no great harm to the setting or gameplay, and likely not make a noticeable difference in Catalyst's current bottom line.

And starting form that point of easier goals, maybe they could make a faster, easier, more fun aerospace rules set that would easily integrate with Battletech and Alpha Strike. Maybe more players would invest in a few aerospace fighters. And then, as use across the playerbase increased, the Warship/assault dropship could come back again, with a far more compelling argument for their place.

We have a game system famous for 'Mechs being more effective at punching each other in the face than at shooting each other at any range, where the most consistently lethal anti-'Mech weapon in existence is a mundane basement sublevel, and the part that violates suspension of disbelief is that Warships might have a hard time landing accurate fire on targets from orbit through atmosphere? ???

When it comes right down to it, I daresay that assuming that somebody, somewhere, wouldn't put as many guns on a Jumpship as its possible to put, and then use it to blow up another guy's jumpship is a little bit of a stretch.  From there, it similarly follows that genuine Warships would make a return.  Preventing an invasion entirely before it even hits the ground is generally pretty well worth exorbitant cost, barring one that is deliberately arbitrarily large.

Remove effective orbital bombardment from the equation (or just make it suicidally risky), and Warships can function effectively as both the first line of defense and also as the tip of the spear in a campaign setting or narrative focus without totally obviating the need for ground troops.

It would also help if the rest of the Aerospace rules were fun, but that's a different horse altogether.
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.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 25567
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #82 on: 24 July 2017, 19:19:59 »
It would also help if the rest of the Aerospace rules were fun, but that's a different horse altogether.

That. The thing, and the whole of the thing. Between the complex record sheets, the complex and inconsistent construction rules, the need to keep the AT1 aesthetics in a different game system, etc etc etc, I've just found the barriers to entry too high to justify the effort.

W
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

Phobos101

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 243
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #83 on: 24 July 2017, 20:22:03 »
The main thing that stops me is time. If I can't spend the time to get my head around the space rules, how can I expect my group to do so? Especially considering they are largely "casual" battletech players and rely on me for miniatures and rules.
I'd rather just devote my limited time to mech combat. Although it has crossed my mind to adapt some simplified air support rules into it, maybe flames of war style,  just to wet the feet. Semi off topic, but does that exist somewhere within the existing set of rules? If so, what book should I be reading?

William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #84 on: 24 July 2017, 21:49:14 »
We have a game system famous for 'Mechs being more effective at punching each other in the face than at shooting each other at any range, where the most consistently lethal anti-'Mech weapon in existence is a mundane basement sublevel, and the part that violates suspension of disbelief is that Warships might have a hard time landing accurate fire on targets from orbit through atmosphere? ???

Theres many factors of disbelief that you have to accept. But with Warships, having the ability to accurately thrusting targets at vast ranges in space (many not bigger than the patch of battlefield that needs to be hit)  but being unable to deliver accurate orbital fire support when in a stable orbit and unchallenged is too much.  If you cant do that, you can't do the math to get into space. If you can calculate landing windows from orbit, you can figure out how to accurately drop rods from God.

I can buy some degradation of accuracy from distance due to fear the planet might get a close burst nuke on Warships --another reason I think it would just be easier to handwave away Warships--nukes. Nukes are so much cheaper than Warships.  Stigma about using nukes doesn't seem to apply to Warships.  But if Nuke defense is a common deterrant, why have a warship building program int he first place? Dont send anything with a precious jump engine anywhere near a planet. Let those fighters and dropships handle it.

And if Warships can deliver accurate orbital support, an unchallenged warship is auto victory for most planetary assaults. if they can't, and you really need aerospace fighters to do accurate fire support..then just have aerospace fighters.

Quote
Preventing an invasion entirely before it even hits the ground is generally pretty well worth exorbitant cost, barring one that is deliberately arbitrarily large.

And, though accurately expressing a rational desire, the ability of Warships to do this is completely counter to what the setting wants to have happen.

Just toss warships. Its easy to rationalize. Too costly, too easily killed, masses of aerofighters ferried in by carriers who run, instead of fighting do it better. That what the current rules sort of lean to anyway. theres very little reason to have them, very little to gain from it. Stick to the minimums needed, and what is most likely to get played. It would simplify the dleivery of a better Aerospace system if (and thats a big if) there is ever a decision that aerospace is even worth trying to fix in the first place.


Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #85 on: 24 July 2017, 22:12:58 »
Just toss 'Mechs.  It's easy to rationalize.  Too expensive, too easily killed, masses of infantry ferried in by transports who run, instead of fighting do it better.

Careful, when you start bringing things that are "realistic" into it, it might be the kind of unit you enjoy using that gets put under the microscope.  Especially since we have a fairly significant preponderance of evidence, at least from the 3rd SW, that 'Mechs unchallenged by other 'Mechs is auto-victory for most raids/assaults.

BattleTech's mechanism of space travel ensures that a fleet response can be mustered in mere hours, if approaching by pirate point.  The issue with BattleTech's depiction of Warships is that there have only ever been too many, or too few.  Too many, and they become pointless background material, useful only for demonstrating unstoppable might (the SLDF).  Too few, and they do exactly what you describe, and make orbital superiority an auto-victory.  I therefore submit that a significant but not overwhelming number of Warships is necessary.  If the invasion of a semi-major planet, supported by a handful of warships, can be defended against by smaller initial handful of warships reinforced a few hours/days later by a greater concentration of warships that prevent orbital supremacy from being achieved...

Well, that sounds remarkably like what happens with 'Mechs on-planet already, and that's neither boring nor purpose defeating.
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.

William J. Pennington

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1079
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #86 on: 24 July 2017, 22:29:31 »
Just toss 'Mechs.  It's easy to rationalize.  Too expensive, too easily killed, masses of infantry ferried in by transports who run, instead of fighting do it better.

If we were talking about a game that is primarily a space combat game, with 1% of the base (or less) being interested in ground battles, I'd completely agree with you.


Quote
BattleTech's mechanism of space travel ensures that a fleet response can be mustered in mere hours, if approaching by pirate point.  The issue with BattleTech's depiction of Warships is that there have only ever been too many, or too few.  Too many, and they become pointless background material, useful only for demonstrating unstoppable might (the SLDF).  Too few, and they do exactly what you describe, and make orbital superiority an auto-victory.  I therefore submit that a significant but not overwhelming number of Warships is necessary.  If the invasion of a semi-major planet, supported by a handful of warships, can be defended against by smaller initial handful of warships reinforced a few hours/days later by a greater concentration of warships that prevent orbital supremacy from being achieved...

[/quote]

Then mechs become largely irrelevant the moment orbital superiority is achieved if Warships are a common part of even major raids.

Oh well, its probably moot. If any major aerospace revision happens to core battletech rules, I'll be amazed to see it.



Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13687
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #87 on: 24 July 2017, 22:57:03 »
The point I was making is that making warships more common also makes achieving orbital superiority non-trivial.  My analogy was carefully formed, since generally speaking once 'Mechs achieve superiority on the ground a battle is also over.

Orbital superiority isn't nearly as easy to achieve as you might think.  Without outnumbering the defenders, it's outright impossible in the span of mere hours to decisively intercept and destroy a Warship that does not want to be engaged.  As long as that Warship still exists, bombardment can not be attempted, because it leaves the bombarding ship the next best thing to immobile, which will get it killed in short order by ballistic capital missiles of any stripe.

We have canon examples of fleet battles that have lasted weeks before, without even using the massive fleets of the SLDF.  The existence of Warships as meaningful presences doesn't immediately reduce the time to achieve orbital superiority to trivial minutes, and further the existence of Warships that can be used as a mobile reserve would pretty much prevent it entirely outside of a very brief window dependent entirely on the initial attacking force - kind of like 'Mech regiments already work.
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.

Vition2

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 856
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #88 on: 24 July 2017, 23:18:14 »
If we were talking about a game that is primarily a space combat game, with 1% of the base (or less) being interested in ground battles, I'd completely agree with you.

Please stop the hyperbole, this is a false equivalent and you know it.  The Aerospace Combat section of the boards here have 40% the posts and 60% the topics of the Ground Combat section, even if we extrapolate this and cut it in half (or thirds or quarters) we're still much higher than 1%.  Remember, your meta is not everybody's meta.  And while I agree with you that a reworking of the space rules are unlikely to happen, for those people who are interested or those who would be with a good rework, it remains something many of us think about.

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9545
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #89 on: 25 July 2017, 00:24:45 »
... where the most consistently lethal anti-'Mech weapon in existence is a mundane basement sublevel, a

And tank ditches are still considered a effective deterrent to modern armor vehicles.   
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com