Author Topic: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?  (Read 16516 times)

Daemion

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5852
  • The Future of BattleTech
    • Never Tales and Other Daydreams
So, I've seen a general discontent regarding the space side of BattleTech. Part of the problem is no Mechs on that Battlefield. Or, if they are, they're hampered for seemingly arbitrary reasons.

But, there are other things, I'm sure, that could be done differently to make the space game better.  What are they for you?

I, for one, wonder if Volume shouldn't be a consideration in construction and how damage is applied to large vessels like dropships.  Think about it. Combat dropships don't have to be giant metal bubbles because they don't have to carry cargo.  Cargo vessels do.  But, the bigger the shell, the more surface area you have to spread your armor over.  Now, considering I'm one who believes in a 'reactron' style of defense for mobile units, I can see the armor faces in the current game being placed by defensive computers in a position to intercept incoming fire effectively.  But, what about when the dropper is sitting on the ground as a giant building with armor?  You should be able to pick out spots to hit on the thing, right?

It makes sense that if Mechs have crit tables, ships should, too. Or, for that matter, vehicles, but that's pushing the scope of the thread.


So, what else might not work for you, and do you have a vague ideal for how to fix it?

Discuss.

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: 40820
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #1 on: 21 July 2017, 15:06:49 »
I'm happy with 99% of the space game, with only two real quibbles:

The first is a lack of readily accessible record sheets. Plenty of WarShips are available if you know where to look, but not so much for DropShips. A few are available(the latest TROs have been great for this), but for many, you have to make them by hand, or use unreliable ones from the old RS: Aero book or the equally old and unreliable HM:A(both were riddled with errors). This lack of sheets is why aero games are so rare even for me, setup is so much work that I might as well say screw it and play a ground game.

Second are fighter squadrons. They've always seemed needlessly complex to me, with my preference being much closer to how Battleforce treats them. The same record sheet issue exists here as well, with every fighter squadron sheet having to be made by hand.

Everything else is just fine, provided nobody asks me to use the Aero Units on Ground Maps rules.
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

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13279
  • I said don't look!
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #2 on: 21 July 2017, 15:16:28 »
Two factors for me.

1. Just the way the construction rules are frankly such a mess.  I do tend to think many players underestimate how much of an impact the construction rules do have on the actual game rules and how you need to play certain designs.

2. Balance is much trickier in space.  A fight that is supposedly balanced can actually be very much out of balance from the get go or become very unbalanced very quickly because of either issue #1 or even just a couple lucky dice rolls in a much more pronounced way than the ground game.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3636
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #3 on: 21 July 2017, 15:23:05 »
Yeah construction rules are difficult same with record sheets.  Movement and ranges are equally nuts.  The few times I've kinda played around with it, I realized Babylon 5 wars was better at the Sim aspect.  I do like fighter squads though it is simpler to deal with stats at the same range.  Pocket warships are junk though the inner sphere should have been able to make capable frigates rather than deal with upgunned dropships.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #4 on: 21 July 2017, 15:47:01 »
Only humanoid shaped ground units can operate in space as long as they have jump jets. The "Humanoid" requirement seems arbitrary and nonsensical, since vehicular jump jets are a thing, as are quad mechs.

The ruling that DropShips have K-F stuff in them enough to mess with a jump which is why the have to be attached to a collar. It was to prevent people from filling cargo bays full of DropShips bypassing collar limitations. It causes more problems than it fixes, and seems far more abuse-able that the problem it is meant to fix since now you can just interdict anything by docking a DropShip to it.

The Lack of diagrams explaining the different levels, elevations, and altitudes between the hard ground mechs are standing on and open space. A diagram that not only showed the different levels together, but showed their scale in relation to each other, and the interface point between them would be great.

Lack of terrain. Clouds should have some effect, storm patterns, etc. In space nebula, solar flares (they can effect things throughout a system, so I am not talking about right next to the sun), etc.

The utter lack of range diversity in capital scale weaponry. There are only a couple medium range capital weapons and no short range ones until you get to sub-capital. Every warship is a long range combatant, and that is kind of boring.

The limits on the total strength of a weapon bay coupled with bracketing fire making the strongest individual capital weapons suboptimal choices in every case. They are basically fluff pieces taken because they are scary, not because they are effective.

Fighters not paying in tonnage for their structure, unlike literally every other unit type in the game.

Docking collars being so fragile that expending thrust while anything is docked to them has a good chance of destroying them.

The arbitrary things that can't legally be put on a large aerospace unit, like MASH Units or Field Kitchens. I realize they automatically get the number needed for their crew, but it is illegal to put extra on, so you can't make hospital ships and such.

Screen Launchers being able to cover an entire space hex, but nothing else can? No one has made a warhead that shreds an entire space hex at capital missile range? Really? In fact capital weapon selection in general sucks.

Every aerospace unit capable of flying in the atmosphere and in space can land vertically, except aerodyne small craft. Why? They use almost identical construction rules as dropships, they function in almost the same way, excepting a few other minor things, why can't they land like everything else can? Makes no sense to me.

Ground Vehicles with large crew can ignore many multi-target penalties, but warships with hundreds of crew can't?!?! Seriously who thought that was a good idea? Every single capital weapon has it's own gunner, but they suffer penalties for targeting different things on different sides of the ship?

Sub-compact warships are DropShip sized, but can't be made to fly in an atmosphere. The only one we have in cannon is even shaped like DropShips. I've seen some of those DropShips if they can fly in an atmosphere, anything can.

The weight gap between subcompact and full warship. It bothers me.

Almost everything in the often vague and unclear satellite rules. The only part that is completely cut and dry is the design rules for them. Everything else is a mess.


ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8702
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #5 on: 21 July 2017, 15:47:43 »
Oh, where do I begin? You know what, I'll make it simple: everything. Everything about BattleTech's space combat rules are terrible and deserve a complete re-imagining.
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

Dark Jackal

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 79
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #6 on: 21 July 2017, 15:50:49 »
Good comments above gang.

To add, there is also a lack of interesting elements or pizazz to make Aerospace stand out within the universe which seems overly minimized. I did like the short Aerospace story in the rule book but some more strategic thinking and fleshed out concepts need to be put into the universe. Not sure if there is some fear it will take the thunder away from 'Mechs but I don't see it that way. You can have your epic space themes without ruining the story which is what Star Wars does, for the most part, well enough. It's an aesthetic that needs to be promoted along with the other things in the universe. I'm still waiting for an epic fleet engagement as I see a potential with the Snow Ravens to go full Empire mode a-la-Star Wars instead of the Clan Rent-a-Ship service ferrying convenient plot lines across space, time, and story telling.

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13699
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #7 on: 21 July 2017, 15:57:21 »
Oh, where do I begin? You know what, I'll make it simple: everything. Everything about BattleTech's space combat rules are terrible and deserve a complete re-imagining.

Thresholding is largely fine, and the concept of tracking altitude and velocity isn't inherently bad.

Otherwise I agree wholeheartedly.
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.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #8 on: 21 July 2017, 16:14:04 »
Also the rule that aerospace doesn't make money, so doesn't get dev time. I want that one to chage too :P

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8702
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #9 on: 21 July 2017, 16:27:05 »
Part of it not making money is because few people enjoy it. If it was more fun, it'd get played more, and thus could attract more attention and money.
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

Sartris

  • Codex Conditor
  • BattleTech Volunteer
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19849
  • Cap’n-Generalissimost
    • Master Unit List
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #10 on: 21 July 2017, 16:32:57 »
For me it's less a rules thing and more a universe thing. I'm not here for space battles. My interest in aerospace (and artillery and any other ancillary units) only really extends as far as "how does it compliment my giant stompy robot fun?"

You bought the box set and are ready to expand your bt experience. Now what? | Modern Sourcebook Index | FASA Sourcebook Index | Print on Demand Index
Equipment Reference Cards | DIY Pilot Cards | PaperTech Mech and Vehicle Counters

Quote
Interviewer: Since you’ve stopped making art, how do you spend your time?
Paul Chan Breathers: Oh, I’m a breather. I’m a respirateur. Isn’t that enough?

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8702
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #11 on: 21 July 2017, 16:40:23 »
For me it's less a rules thing and more a universe thing. I'm not here for space battles. My interest in aerospace (and artillery and any other ancillary units) only really extends as far as "how does it compliment my giant stompy robot fun?"

That's a good point, and something that makes me grind my teeth whenever a new rule is invented or someone asks for such. The BattleTech rules have bloated from about 12 pages to seven hardcover volumes. There is no focus to the game anymore. I'm hoping the BMM and TRO:SW help fix that.
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

guardiandashi

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4828
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #12 on: 21 July 2017, 16:46:42 »
my biggest issue is that I LIKED the original aerotech rules where fighters were essentially mechs in space and the ranges ported straight across, it gave all the weapons advantages and disadvantages for instance the IS ppc vs large pulse laser.  IE trading range for accuracy.  ETC.   don't get me wrong something like the battlespace (or modern rules) may be necessary for fleet level engagements but I personally despise how the "squadron" level construction simplification became the default.

I wonder how battletech would fare if "alphastrike" was the default rather than battletech.  and that's where IMO aerospace combat more or less jumped the shark.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #13 on: 21 July 2017, 16:48:49 »
For me it's less a rules thing and more a universe thing. I'm not here for space battles. My interest in aerospace (and artillery and any other ancillary units) only really extends as far as "how does it compliment my giant stompy robot fun?"

In Strategic Operations it has rules for using mechs on the hull of a star ship, but they are kind of incomplete and reference a scenario for just such a thing. The scenario doesn't exist anywhere as far as I can tell. I'd love to have a scenario for boarding an enemy ship with mechs.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9121
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #14 on: 21 July 2017, 16:51:38 »
Part of it not making money is because few people enjoy it. If it was more fun, it'd get played more, and thus could attract more attention and money.
I wonder. BattleMechs are the point of BattleTech. Never really understood why FASA expanded to Aerotech as well. But perhaps 80s and 90s were strange times... and i do have vague recollection of someone saying FASA had more imagination than business sense.


Anyway. I've never really delved into AT rules but in principle, i really love the concept of vector-based movement. Which isn't in Total Warfare if i recall correctly... And common sense dictates it needs considerable playing area or otherwise units can easily leave the playing area.

Just some thoughts:

I like designing 'Mechs, and to lesser extent vehicles (mostly to complement 'Mechs for roles unsuitable for 'Mechs) but ASFs don't feel fun to create. Not many things to tweak, XLFEs and advanced armors are automatic inclusions once available. There are no real trade-offs, and many weapons lose their identities in compared to when equipped to 'Mechs. Ideal fighter seems to be an OmniFighter with good mobility and brick-like layer of reflective armor, while having enough cooling and weapons to make short work of others who aren't like this (and Omni-capability allows for anti-Reflec configurations). Expand that to all three weight-types and you're set as fighters go. Not very interesting.

I like to think of ASFs as futuristic scifi versions of real fighter planes but the rules don't really allow this. Less focus on internal weapons, more external weapons. Complete overhaul of weapons: Space fighters do not use same weapons as 'Mechs. Ability to build two-seaters for special purposes (second crew being either a gunner or specialist for, say, EWAR). Stuff like that.
Striking balance between simulation and playability is difficult for sure though. Ideally rules should be somewhere in-between, with optional rules for greater simulation, and alternative rule-set like Alpha Strike for simpler system.


For actually to be attractive to casual players, rules probably should be akin to X-wing, or some other quick-playing game. Though perhaps this corresponds more to Alpha Strike than semi-simulationist system BattleTech and AeroTech are.

That's a good point, and something that makes me grind my teeth whenever a new rule is invented or someone asks for such. The BattleTech rules have bloated from about 12 pages to seven hardcover volumes. There is no focus to the game anymore. I'm hoping the BMM and TRO:SW help fix that.
The BMM is a 'Mechs-only compilation of rules. If you want scenarios or vehicles... well. Guess one needs all those seven books then.
It is not really a new edition of BattleTech. Hell, in a way, there has never been a new edition of BattleTech. We're at 1.7 or something like that, if that makes sense.
« Last Edit: 21 July 2017, 16:54:18 by Empyrus »

ActionButler

  • Global Moderator
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #15 on: 21 July 2017, 16:54:22 »
Oh, where do I begin? You know what, I'll make it simple: everything. Everything about BattleTech's space combat rules are terrible and deserve a complete re-imagining.

That...
Part of it not making money is because few people enjoy it. If it was more fun, it'd get played more, and thus could attract more attention and money.

...and also that.
Experimental Technical Readout: The School
http://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=56420.0

Jellico

  • Spatium Magister
  • Freelance Writer
  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 6124
  • BattleMechs are the lords of the battlefield
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #16 on: 21 July 2017, 17:10:20 »
Thrust is confusing. Replace it with simple MPs. Terrain. It needs terrain. All air to ground rules need to be eliminated. All craft can use VTOL targeting rules. And Mechs. Needs more Mechs. And tanks and infantry.

Then it will cease being confusing and Battletech players will play it.
I wonder. BattleMechs are the point of BattleTech. Never really understood why FASA expanded to Aerotech as well. But perhaps 80s and 90s were strange times... and i do have vague recollection of someone saying FASA had more imagination than business sense.

The same reason they added rules for infantry or fighting in a city. People wanted to be able to do things and the exiating rules couldn't handle it.

Arguably the big mistake was trying to make a fighter sim rather than simplify it to the point of fast VTOLs.

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #17 on: 21 July 2017, 17:31:42 »
BattleMechs are the point of BattleTech.

I honestly hate that statement. With a passion. If BattleMechs were the only point of BattleTech it would have been dead to me decades ago. If I couldn't build cities of buildings and castle brians. If I couldn't build tanks and hovercraft and all the other things in BattleTech besides BattleMechs, I wouldn't play it anymore.

The game has soooooooo much more to offer than BattleMechs. It may be all you  or even the average player is interested in, but if that is all there was to it, I guarantee you the player base would be even smaller.

Never really understood why FASA expanded to Aerotech as well. But perhaps 80s and 90s were strange times... and i do have vague recollection of someone saying FASA had more imagination than business sense.


Because once they put a unit in the fluff people wanted to use it in the game. The moment someone had the idea of attacking a grounded DropShip, they needed rules for them. Once there were rules for them on the ground someone is gonna ask , "Why can't I just take off?" and the ruleset evolves from there, until you have chased the DropShip all the way back to it's JumpShip and into the system it came from.

Or to put it simply: Mechs weren't enough for people, anymore than veritech fighters would be enough without SDF-1.

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3636
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #18 on: 21 July 2017, 17:44:39 »
Speaking of Alpha Strike, I feel Aerospace would fit better in that paradigm than in the munchy Aerotech or Battletech nature.  Warships are better abstracted than detailed, would make construction easier.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10150
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #19 on: 21 July 2017, 17:52:18 »
The rules are broken, and many people don't know how to play it correctly. If Aero got a nice update with some different updated rules and it was played at a con, it would go a long way.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13699
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #20 on: 21 July 2017, 18:28:46 »
I think one of the biggest things is the sheer amount of information that has to be carried over between turns.  With ground units, you have to remember: your heat.  That's basically it.  Sometimes critical damage.

For fighters, you have to remember (in atmosphere):

Heat
Velocity last turn to recalculate for this turn
Altitude
Number of hexes traveled in the current direction (for turning)

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).

And then you have to do that for every fighter on the field.  It's a mind-numbing amount of things to keep track of above and beyond playing the game.
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.

Empyrus

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9121
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #21 on: 21 July 2017, 20:04:41 »

Then it will cease being confusing and Battletech players will play it.
The same reason they added rules for infantry or fighting in a city. People wanted to be able to do things and the exiating rules couldn't handle it.

Arguably the big mistake was trying to make a fighter sim rather than simplify it to the point of fast VTOLs.
Granted.  Expanding the game from mere 'Mech death match to allow proper scenarios makes sense.
But making everything else as complex doesn't really. And hence my statement about BattleMechs being the point of BattleTech.
Or to put it simply: Mechs weren't enough for people, anymore than veritech fighters would be enough without SDF-1.
Yet AeroTech didn't sell enough to keep it a separate game and it was folded into core rules of BT. And it still doesn't get played (that much).
« Last Edit: 21 July 2017, 20:06:52 by Empyrus »

Cryhavok101

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1840
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #22 on: 21 July 2017, 21:37:32 »
Yet AeroTech didn't sell enough to keep it a separate game and it was folded into core rules of BT. And it still doesn't get played (that much).

Yep. I can speculate all day as to why that is, but in the end, all it would be would be speculation. My speculation leans towards the aerospace rules being a complexity nightmare rather than "No one want's to play with spaceships because BattleTech is about 'Mechs." I know my group would be excited to play aerospace it it was a lot more streamlined. As it is now I can barely get them to touch it because of all the moving parts. They especially hate that ECM bubbles are the terrain in space, making the terrain change every time anything moves. They don't have a problem with the construction rules, but they hate using larger ships due to number of dice roles they can take.

I know quite a few people who love the fluff behind aerospace stuff in BattleTech. They love the stories and they love space action, so beyond my own likes and dislikes, I strongly suspect it has nothing to do with "BattleTech is for mechs."

Besides, I think it is better rolled into one game than kept separate. I prefer it rolled together. I just want it improved over the mess it is in (and has been in forever) so it isn't a nightmare for people to play.

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8702
  • Legends Never Die
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #23 on: 21 July 2017, 21:45:54 »
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?
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

Scotty

  • Alpha Strike Guru by appointment to the FWLM
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13699
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #24 on: 21 July 2017, 21:51:17 »
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?

Counterpoint: Since other, better-known space combat games have really taken off with more casual gamers, why shouldn't CGL try to tap that market?

There's definitely opportunity there, it just involves making a game that doesn't involve tracking four separate variables across turns on top of BattleTech's traditional record sheets.
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.

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7179
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #25 on: 22 July 2017, 04:07:48 »

I have sometimes used grounded dropships in scenarios and in my experience their IS too fragile, their IS points should be capital scale.
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

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40820
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #26 on: 22 July 2017, 11:28:40 »
This surpass surprises no one. The vast majority of DropShips are the spacegoing equivalents of a Higgins Boat with token armor and firepower. They're designed to survive in a defended landing zone or push past a fighter screen that has already been disrupted by their own birds or escorts, no more.

Only very recently have designers started building ships that can haul ground forces and survive pitched combat at the same time.
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

Maingunnery

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7179
  • Pirates and C3 masters are on the hitlist
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #27 on: 22 July 2017, 11:38:06 »
This surpass surprises no one. The vast majority of DropShips are the spacegoing equivalents of a Higgins Boat with token armor and firepower. They're designed to survive in a defended landing zone or push past a fighter screen that has already been disrupted by their own birds or escorts, no more.

Only very recently have designers started building ships that can haul ground forces and survive pitched combat at the same time.
It is mostly the ratio between armor and structure, it is highly unsatisfactory to have something instantly pop after the armor is gone.
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

Force of Nature

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 843
  • Battletech and Paintball. Life is good.
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #28 on: 22 July 2017, 11:49:13 »
My reasons for not playing Aerotech:

Star Fleet Battles - Slow, but playable rules.
Full Thrust
Battlefleet Gothic
Babylon 5
Firestorm Armada
Silent Death
Starfire
Starmada
Star Wars Miniatures

These are all well known and played. Except for Star Fleet Battles, they all play well and at a decent pace.

Battletech has what? Mekton, which nobody plays and is out of production.
CAV which is in production (for how long?) but is overly complicated for combat resolution and has a flawed defensive fire rule.
Warbots rules that I have seen NOBODY play at all.
Robotech which may be the closest challenger for mech combat. Never played it as I am invested in Battletech.

So there are NINE other space combat games that I have played instead of Aerotech. Quite simply Aerotech is in an oversaturated market. There are even more space combat games that I have not listed that are at Starship Combat News that I have not even heard of.

Battletech has what? Robotech which was recently reproduced a couple of years ago. Before that there was CAV which died and then came back recently. So basically, there has been no competition against Battletech. Battletech IS the market for mech combat.

Adrian Gideon

  • BattleTech Developer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 6824
  • BattleTech Line Developer
Re: What aspects of the space rules are a turn-off for players?
« Reply #29 on: 22 July 2017, 12:24:57 »
Oh, where do I begin? You know what, I'll make it simple: everything. Everything about BattleTech's space combat rules are terrible and deserve a complete re-imagining.
oh. I came too late. Nothing to add here. And that's considering I *love* the aerospace aspect of BT.
If you appreciate how I’m doing, send me a tip: ko-fi.com/rayarrastia
fb.com/battletechgame
@CGL_BattleTech

 

Register