Workshop: Aero Dog Fights with BT's 'Cinematic' Ground Ranges!

[Daemion]

So, I have an interesting view on the 'Cinematic' ranges for the ground game, as some people call them.  For me, they're not cinematic.  For me, it's all technological.  And, with the magic nature of BT armor being an intrinsic part of that technology, it makes sense that it should apply to other similarly armored units, like Aerospace Fighters!

Now, AeroTech originally partially solved the interaction with ground units and air units by having the fighters make a quick stop at the ground map in question.  But, the space game, and now air game with AT2, didn't really follow the same paradigm.  AT1 has fighters dogfighting at planetary distances of 6500 km per hex.  AT2 has them fighting in ranges where G forces are more manageable without magic anti-grav tech hidden away on the designs with space hexes 18 km across.  And, it introduces atmospheric top-down engagements with .5 km per hex.

(Aside: People have an issue with how quickly the dropship approaches a new world in MW:5.  But, it has an origin point in AT:1!)

If there's one thing I can give credit to AT2 for, it's the establishment of realistic potential max ranges for the ground weapons, against anything other than BT magic armor.  If you could combine that with the infantry weapon ranges from AToW, you could get something interesting for real robot anime mecha combat.

But, that's not why we're here!

The problem is, even though the listed ground ranges for armored combat aren't the final max range for those weapons, it is the effective ranges for those weapons against armored combat units in the 31st millennium Century, and arguably for 300  to 400 years prior.

And, that leads to some interesting problems when it comes to dog-fighting aerospace and air fighters operating at Mach velocities. Especially in atmosphere where you actually have atmospheric friction to deal with at those speeds.

So!  Let's assume that Aero units are limited to the armored ranges of ground units because of motion control, EW, and the Magic armor.  What could we do to make dog fights in air and space playable with those ranges in mind?

Let's try to aim for some simplicity in resolution, and if we can take advantage of already existing scales for movement, that'd be great.

Let's start with in-atmospheric engagements, and then work outward to space.  Right now, this is AS Fighters and Aero Fighters only.  We can work in dropships and assault craft as we go, too.

This is a spur-of-the-moment idea, and I don't have any workable suggestions, yet. 

But, I have some interesting notions that I may flesh out:
Thunder Road engagements when a fighter is tailing another, and the set-up for these engagements happens on a larger scale map. 

Concept:  AeroFighters move on, say, the AT2 low-altitude map to get into potential firing positions on other ASF.  There is not ranged combat on this map.  They have to be attacking from an adjacent hex or inside the same hex.  (Alternate option for a map: The Abstract Radar map.)

People have complained about maneuver craft versus fast intercept, this could be a good place to suggest how to apply something like maneuver thrusters/wing surfaces.  Their application in construction has been suggested in another thread, but it might be something to reconsider, here.

Attack Phase:  Aero units that are in a position to attack, and the target, get a representation for the Attack Map.  This map is one or two Ground Scale Maps. (Or, it could be a radar map oriented on the target!)  placement is done based on the higher scale map orientation and initiative or a piloting Skill-off.  The attack phase has it's own movement and weapons attack phase.  The fighters maneuver for position, and weapon attacks are based on weapon ranges we all know and love.

That's my initial brain fart.  if anyone has another idea, or suggestions on how to refine this one, I'm all ears.

Discuss.

[Daemion]

Huh.  Surprised nobody brought up wing-mounted and bay-mounted missile artillery for range.  Literally use them like artillery on the ground.  They have a range on the low-altitude map.

I think it would be fun to allow choppers the capacity to do this, too.  Most modern Real Wrold (tm) Gun Ships carry hard points for ordinance.

[Daemion]

All right. Guess I'm the only one interested in this.   

[AlphaMirage]

Huh.  Surprised nobody brought up wing-mounted and bay-mounted missile artillery for range.  Literally use them like artillery on the ground.  They have a range on the low-altitude map.

I think it would be fun to allow choppers the capacity to do this, too.  Most modern Real Wrold (tm) Gun Ships carry hard points for ordinance.

Missiles on hardpoints are my standard air to ground ordnance for Aerospace fighters and VTOLs although you need a Hawk Moth or larger to mount a single Arrow IV (there are rules for external ordnance in the advanced rules). I dislike bay mounted ordnance because that would be literally one of the best choices and you wouldn't use any conventional weapons. Homing Arrow IV and LG-bombs rock although don't use you infantry to spot for artillery just in case they miss.

[Daemion]

 

I'm not talking about air-to-ground, but air-to-air.  I'm looking at a concept that the ranges you see on the ground for ground weapons apply in the air literally.  That means that dogfights in the air would be at WWII iron sights distances because whatever makes them that short for ground combat (armor & mobility & ECM) is across the board. I'm also assuming that the weapons used on tanks and Mechs are the same on Aerospace Fighters.

But, ASFs are moving at faster speeds that you can't resolve a dogfight on a standard 2x1 ground map layout. They'd be in and off and on with life.  The real maneuver has to be at a larger scale.  But the weapons fire has to be done in a snap-shot on a representative ground map.

The only way to go long would be to incorporate artillery.  Air-to-air artillery.

 

[Cannonshop]

I'm not talking about air-to-ground, but air-to-air.  I'm looking at a concept that the ranges you see on the ground for ground weapons apply in the air literally.  That means that dogfights in the air would be at WWII iron sights distances because whatever makes them that short for ground combat (armor & mobility & ECM) is across the board. I'm also assuming that the weapons used on tanks and Mechs are the same on Aerospace Fighters.

But, ASFs are moving at faster speeds that you can't resolve a dogfight on a standard 2x1 ground map layout. They'd be in and off and on with life.  The real maneuver has to be at a larger scale.  But the weapons fire has to be done in a snap-shot on a representative ground map.

The only way to go long would be to incorporate artillery.  Air-to-air artillery.

 

Okay, I'm going to point this out if nobody else does...

Aircraft are different from ground craft.  They're also different from seaborne vessels.  If you put the GAU-8 on a track, you might have one badass AAA platform, but against the front glacis of a tank? you're wasting your ammo on nothing.  it kills tanks, in the real world, because top armor on tanks is thin enough that a 30-37mm can actually hurt it.   Against the front glacis of even a last generation tank, you might as well call it a shot-peen, because that's all it's going to do.

This is the same reason you don't see Hellfires with ground mounts.  Aircraft, have specific vulnerabilities that something anchored to the dirt doesn't have, they also have specific issues that something anchored to the dirt doesn't have to deal with.

Among other things, with an aircraft, your bullets aren't having to fight with gravity nearly as much-your horizon is longer and so is your useful range (that is, the range at which a burst from,say, a .50 Cal can retain useful velocity-it's a lot further from an F-86 than it is from the turret ring of a HMMV.)

This is also true against other aircraft. It's physically possible to mount a 75mm gun in the nose of a B-25 for attacking ships, or tanks, or whatever, but it's not a great idea to try using it in Air to Air combat, and you don't want to see what trying to mount something that kicks that hard and suddenly in something like an F-101 Voodoo or F-22 or somesuch.

You're more likely to kill a tank with a GAU-8 than a 75mm, when firing it from an aircraft (hence, why they built the A-10 the way they did, instead of just shoving a 105mm gun in the nose, and kicking Sabot.)

Part of this (a big part) is that your aircraft is always in motion.  There is no 'hull down' pose for a jet, the closest you get is 'toss bombing' or similar fast approaches at low level.

Notice the word: approach, becasue the bird is in motion.

a LOT of motion.  It kinda has to be.  Some of those airframes only remain air borne, because they have shit-tons of thrust pushing them faster than gravity can pull them down.

when they stop doing that, they fall down, they go 'boom'.

Staying in the air is an active act, not like a tank, that can be a bunker if you knock the treads out.  Knocking out the engines and it stops flying, knock out the aerodynamic controls, it stops flying a little bit later, somewhere the pilot did not elect to point it.

thus, vulnerability, because you ahve lots of exposed moving parts that have to be exposed or you die, because you can't control where you're going or stay up in the air to get there safely.

Best way to describe this to the 'mech centric, is "what if you had to have gaps at every actuator and joint, and what if you can't protect those gaps, and every hit nearby has a chance of fouling it up?" tha'ts what life for an ASF is like-the flaps have to move, and when they move, they expose delicate surfaces because they can't NOT do that and still do their job.  Further using your 'mech analogy, what if instead of thin back armor, you had to have a direct HOLE in the back of your 'mech to vent through, and that hole leads right into your engine...and it's BIG, like 30-60% of your rear arc big?

Battlemechs and tanks do not have to deal with this, because they do not have to be throwing energetic mass behind them to move forward, and they don't fall apart explosively if they STOP mving forward unexpectedly.

[Daemion]

So, that's an argument for the current system. I'm okay with that. When it comes to air combat in BT, I cut my teeth on AT2 with some premature forays into BattleSpace beforehand.  So, this helps with that dichotomy and rationalizing the increased ranges in the higher atmosphere from fighter to fighter.

But, people fail to understand my headcanon.  Largely because I've tried to explain it, and it's lengthy and hard to grasp for people who are used to being in control of whatever they operate. They'll always want to emphasize the human's capacity in these situations.  But, for me, the human has very little to do with a BattleTech combat unit's operation.

If you've ever watched Star Trek enough, especially ones where there's a fair amount of starship combat, you'll notice that the helmsman has 'evasion patterns' to work with.  You'll only catch it in the dialogue, because the acting would have you believe the helmsman is doing a fair amount to control the ships motion.  But, 'attack patterns' and 'evasion patterns' are programmed. They're automatic. All the helmsman is doing is selecting the sequence he wants from moment to moment, and pointing out where he wants the ship to be at the end.

BattleTech's Tech is far enough in the future that this can easily apply not only to ships, but to fighters, to Mechs, to tanks, and even Battle Armor.  After all, if it were up to a person to react to a laser beam, they'd effectively be immobile and the firer of the laser could place that beam wherever they want, and expect to do damage that can be tracked on a record sheet.

But, there are high rates of failure, and to get that, the machine has to be reacting.  Sure, air craft are having to brute force their motion by manipulating the atmosphere's interaction with its surfaces or by blowing a huge amount of hot air in various directions, or maybe using a reaction wheel anchored to its internal frame. But, centuries of advancing programming based on live-fire experience would make for some scary machines in the future.

So, sure.  There are gaps.  But, with the right set of computers working with such advanced algorithms, the fighter will nominally be able to intercept a shot that would fly past the armor to the internals with protective plate. Nominally.  And, to varying degrees of success.  You might get shots that do no damage, or 'Misses'.  You may get shots that strike said armor and damages it because the shot was focused enough to do so, or 'Hits'.  And anything that does make that gap would be what the game calls TACs.

To me, the crew or pilot isn't doing a whole lot but hanging on for the ride, guiding the vehicle to a desired destination, and pointing out what the guns should be firing at, and maybe when.

That's what I'm working with.  And, in my mind, it makes modern shit, and any simple future extrapolations of modern shit very fragile in comparison.

So, that is the style guideline I'm working with for this look at applying that across the board to anything that carries BT armor. I'm assuming that level of automation has been applied across the board.  And, ASFs have been in the BTU for far longer than Mechs.  It's possible that some of the fly-by-wire tech that got advanced through the space age was probably expanded on to make the BattleMech a successful thing.  And, it then wouldn't take long to port that backward to ASFs and then creatively apply it to MBTs.

Aside: It is possible to argue under this paradigm that BT combat vehicles don't need crews or pilots to operate.  They're one step shy of being able to operate independently with the right set of decision parameters.  And, it's possible that at some point, someone played with that, but then the higher-ups freaked, and decided that slaving the machine to the whims of a human was the better option. 


Edit: [sigh] Spelling... 

[Cannonshop]

Daemion, Star Trek has two things we don't get to have with Battletech.

1. Controlled artificial gravity that makes aerodynamic surfaces irrelevant for flight controls and inertial dampening that allows for turns that would otherwise convert the crew to moaning meat salsa.
2. force fields that make aerodynamics irrelevant in atmosphere.

We don't get to have those, so we get to deal with things like "Aerodynamic forces" and "Wind resistance" and "fuel usage in a newtonian context" (Reaction thrusters).

Along with that, are the knock-ons when you can't use a magic energy field to remove turbulence or prevent friction heating or re-entry plasma (one fo these makes you blind, while making you easier to hit at a distance).

Little experiment for you: Take a buddy and a Flashlight out into the country at night, somewhere big and open.

Count how far you can see HIM with the flashlight on, versus how far he can see YOU using said flashlight.

This is sensors in space, or at night, or any time you're relying on active sensors.  Your radar signature is going to be visible to a reciever a lot further out, than it can provide you with a reliable return.

They figured this out a long time ago, which is why you don't see the big ass infrared spotlight on the turret of an Abrams.

for Aviation, it's even MORE like that.  the concept of the "Wild Weasel" revolves around picking up the emissions of a targeting radar, and homing a bomb onto it...and some countermeasures developed back in the seventies and eighties use this to distract not only infrared homers (Flares and chaff) but also to spoof track-on-signal intercept missiles.

Said tech happened early enough, that nobody builds AAMs that search for enemy radar-because the countermeasures already exist and work.

in Battletech your airframe decides how fast your turn rate is, because battletech's technomagical paradigm doesn't include the kind of Treknology that would enable what you're positing.

[DevianID]

Im a big fan of using aerofighters moving like mechs on the mech sheet, just at a high altitude.  So a shilone moves 6/9, pays for turns, everything like mechs.  For air to aircombat you just use normal btech ranges.  Any scale discrepancies is conveniently handled by the elevation.  So while moving 3 hexes is only 90 meters on the ground, at 10k meters of elevation a relative 90 meter distance change to 10090 meters is 1344 meters moved for the fighter.  A square + B square and all that.  So fighters in air to air combat duking it out 10k+ meters above played on the same map as mechs at the same time works fine.

Ground attack gets messy, in that if you try and make a ground attack while still in air to air combat you are a sitting duck for the enemy airplane above you.  The existing hit bonus in the game versus aircraft making a ground attack is pretty good for that.  As for ground units versus aircraft, you can only attack aircraft when they are making ground attacks.  For simplicity I'd assume +8 hexes to the range of ground attacks to simulate the penalty of shooting up versus the plane shooting down.

[Daemion]

Cannonshop, keep on pointing out real world issues like this.  It helps make me aware of issues I might not have thoroughly thought through.   

To the issue of mobility, what I'm proposing doesn't have to be very dramatic.  Simple micro-jinking and little twists and deviations is all that would be required to turn something that might run under your flap into the wing, into a glancing shot. Something that could be achieved with small shifts on the control yoke to give you the range of motion I'm talking.  Not wild weasel style aerobatics.   

Although, now I'm thinking there should be more control rolls, mostly for when you might hit a pocket of bad air at the wrong moment.  So, simply getting shot at whether the plane takes damage or not, should impart a check.

And, I'm not suggesting they can't see each other, either.  Chaff and flash are a thing.  Even small pointer lasers on the hull could allow for heat signature spoofing, or could be used to blind inbound missiles.  And, with the fusion engine's magnetic jar being a thing, it might be possible that small EM pulses could be generated to throw things off, as well. We get electronic malfunctions when a flare interacts with the planet's magetic field, after all.

Your points remind me that Aircraft are inherently unstable platforms.  All it takes is the slightest little turbulence and your shot's scribbling all over like a child with a crayon on their room wall.  Part of the lore behind BT armor post BattleMech is that it requires solid focus. (It's one of the reasons I believe that even AC munitions have homing capacity to get the solid, predictable damage groupings when they succeed in causing damage.)   

With that, it's not hard to imagine that MGs or ACs are not going to be doing precise damage out to 3km, but would require something more point blank to land that grouped shot.  Lasers are already looking at atmospheric interference and bleed at distances.  Not so much that you couldn't set some trees on fire, but probably enough that a craft moving fast enough through air would have fresh molecules to sweep at the beam like a water stream, causing some focus issues. That leaves Missiles and Gauss rounds. Missiles have already been tackled, especially the micro missiles that are depicted in art and implied by the rules. 

Gauss rounds might be a cool exception. I find this funny, because between Renegade Legion's Interceptor and Centurion, gauss rounds fired from grav tanks were considered 'too slow' for use on space craft.  But, gauss rounds under AT2/TW Aero are ridiculous fast.   But, then that begs the question how much of the AT2 ranges we should be looking at. 

edit: cleaning up some thoughts on the fly.

[Daemion]

So, when I'm looking at Air-to-Air 'artillery', I'm looking at practically cutting and pasting ground artillery rules. 

As I've proposed already, I'm looking at using the low-altitude map for the larger maneuver aspect of aerial dog-fights so that it's not immersion breaking.  We're still looking at the seamless interfacing of one hex being .5 km which equates to a ground map. 

So, artillery ranges in maps can be ported over pretty handily. 

And, unless a hex is crowded at the end of the larger movement phase, you really don't have to go to a ground-scale map to attack a unit with an 'artillery round' or hard point mounted missile.  You just assume you're targeting the ground-scale hex the target fighter is in, and roll to see if you hit, and if not, how bad the drift is. 

Artillery on the ground already functions with an AoE style of damage.  The Arrow IV will do 20 damage in 5-point clusters in a 'direct hit'.  If it drifts by one hex, it'll still catch a target with 10 points of damage, and depending on direction of drift, will apply that damage from potentially a different direction than from where the shot was fired.  Drifting any further would constitute a miss.

This brings up an interesting question for me regarding multi-ground-hex sized units like dropships.  Has anyone used them on the ground and fired artillery at them?  If the round lands center on a Union dropship, for example, do the rules apply the AoE damage to the ship in addition to the direct hit damage?  (I know that without looking, I'd apply that damage.  So a direct hit from an Arrow IV round would do 20 on the nose, and three groups of 10 to the left side and three groups of 10 down the left side.)   What about Orbital bombardment hitting a grounded Union square on?

And, now I have a rather simple question to add onto that: How would one go about inventing a missilized version of the Long Tom round, the Sniper round, and the thumper round?  Complete with matching ranges to the ground artillery.

And, now I'm thinking TAG for homing munitions should be open to the larger tactical ranges at low altitude.

Aside: It's exercises like this, combined with the Aero is Broken discussion in General Discussion that make me want aero-specific weapons to justify the ranges and range bands we see in the current set of rules.  And, different scales of damage between the different scales of ship, requiring different classes of weapons, too.   

edit: spelling.

[Cannonshop]

So, when I'm looking at Air-to-Air 'artillery', I'm looking at practically cutting and pasting ground artillery rules. 

As I've proposed already, I'm looking at using the low-altitude map for the larger maneuver aspect of aerial dog-fights so that it's not immersion breaking.  We're still looking at the seamless interfacing of one hex being .5 km which equates to a ground map. 

So, artillery ranges in maps can be ported over pretty handily. 

And, unless a hex is crowded at the end of the larger movement phase, you really don't have to go to a ground-scale map to attack a unit with an 'artillery round' or hard point mounted missile.  You just assume you're targeting the ground-scale hex the target fighter is in, and roll to see if you hit, and if not, how bad the drift is. 

Artillery on the ground already functions with an AoE style of damage.  The Arrow IV will do 20 damage in 5-point clusters in a 'direct hit'.  If it drifts by one hex, it'll still catch a target with 10 points of damage, and depending on direction of drift, will apply that damage from potentially a different direction than from where the shot was fired.  Drifting any further would constitute a miss.

This brings up an interesting question for me regarding multi-ground-hex sized units like dropships.  Has anyone used them on the ground and fired artillery at them?  If the round lands center on a Union dropship, for example, do the rules apply the AoE damage to the ship in addition to the direct hit damage?  (I know that without looking, I'd apply that damage.  So a direct hit from an Arrow IV round would do 20 on the nose, and three groups of 10 to the left side and three groups of 10 down the left side.)   What about Orbital bombardment hitting a grounded Union square on?

And, now I have a rather simple question to add onto that: How would one go about inventing a missilized version of the Long Tom round, the Sniper round, and the thumper round?  Complete with matching ranges to the ground artillery.

And, now I'm thinking TAG for homing munitions should be open to the larger tactical ranges at low altitude.

Aside: It's exercises like this, combined with the Aero is Broken discussion in General Discussion that make me want aero-specific weapons to justify the ranges and range bands we see in the current set of rules.  And, different scales of damage between the different scales of ship, requiring different classes of weapons, too.   

edit: spelling.

Compare the Arrow IV to the Long tom munition. (ammo tonnage)

Notice anything?

yeah, they're the same.   What isn't the same, is the installation.  The Arrow IV launcher weighs fifteen tons (the same as a gauss rifle) while the Long Tom Cannon weighs 30 tons.

Following along then...

Arrow III

based on Sniper munitions, each individual missile weighs the same as an individual round of Sniper ammunition, with the same blast radius in Aerotech hexes that a Sniper produces.

Arrow II;

Launcher weight is 7 tons, you get 20 missiles per ton.

of course, you're not going to be able to fire artillery from an aircraft in flight, right?  Well, Arrow IV's can be carried externally at one per five bomb slots under current rules.

math divided weights for Arrow II would be around about 20 kilograms per round (the same as a single round of Thumper munitions).

Note that, per Total Warfare/Tac Ops, this will be significantly more powerful than any equivalent air-dropped bomb five times the mass (because air dropped bombs were balanced against BMR(R) values, and Tac Ops values for artillery were increased significantly without making a similar back-check to Total Warfare.  200 kilograms of Arrow IV missile, is more powerful, with a wider blast radius, than 1 ton of dumb bomb that doesn't have to have a guidance system or engine or deal with propellant, and can be built out of nothing but casing and explosive filler.)

In the air-to-air context, a launcher will be necessary, because without it, every munition regardless of power, occupies multiple external hardpoint slots, and slows the aircraft down as if it were a one ton bomb.

which at least with the proposed lighter munitions, means they'll be doing about equal damage to that bomb, but to airborne targets.

OR, you can just use the existing rules for the special Air-to-air missiles that came out of the Jihad books.

[Daemion]

I'll have to look into the special Air-to-air missiles.  There's one Jihad book that I failed to get: 3072, I think, which had the more detailed rules for ManDom pilots and soldiers, as well.  So, it might be something I don't have access to at the moment.

And! I can take your suggested Arrow III and II missile suggestions, and apply them as alternate payloads for the Arrow IV with different range profiles.

I really hadn't meant for the blast radii to be in half-kilometer low-altitude hexes.  I meant for them to still be in 30m chunks.  I was just pointing out that you don't have to see it physically depicted in order to resolve it 'off map', if you will. 

[RifleMech]

I can't really see the increased range in air to air fighters being justified in an atmosphere. Gravity and Atmosphere are still things. Being higher up doesn't mean they stop working. AC and Gauss rounds are going to fall, Missiles will run out of fuel and fall, and energy weapons will get defused. Altitude isn't going to change that.  Put a VTOL at 500 meters and a ASF at the same Altitude. Then have both units armed with the same weapons. Why should the ASF have greater range over the VTOL? Why should a LAM's weapons change range when it changes modes?

If thinner atmosphere grants greater range do to less drag and diffusion, why doesn't that apply to a Mech parked on top of a mountain? The air is just as thin there. Shouldn't the mech's weapons should have the same range as the ASF's. The ranges should be the same. Hight shouldn't increase the range for one unit over another.

What height does is give rounds more distance to fall. A round fired from one ground unit at another that's out of range will hit the ground sooner than it would if fired at one air unit at another.  So I can see a MG having a "range" of 5 at altitude 2 when fired at a ground unit. When fired at another unit in the air, it should still have a range of 3. An enemy in the air at 4 hexes would be safe but the enemy ship at 4 hexes an altitude lower would be hit because the MG round has that additional altitude to fall. That should apply to all units at that height though. VTOLs, AirMechs, dropping ground units. Everything. That the rules don't do that proves that Aerospace is broken.

As for cinematic vs realistic ranges, unless ground mapsheet takes up an entire parking lot, the ranges for aerospace should be at cinematic ranges because ground and aerospace use the same weapons.

Now I can see increased ranges in space but again, it should apply to all units. A LAM's weapon shouldn't change ranges as it changes mode.

There's also something else odd in space. Mechs with jump jets get 2 Thrust points. Unless I missed something, it doesn't matter how many jump jets either. An UrbanMech with 2 JJ gets the same thrust as a Stinger with 6 JJs. I know there's some handwavium for why LAMs loose thrust when they change modes. I also know there's some "Because we said so" when it comes to frankenmeching jump jets. But all Mechs, and presumably vehicles with jump jets, having 2 Thrust regardless of the number of jump jets I could never figure out.

[Daemion]

You just reiterated the point behind why I'm working on this.   

All your points are why I'm trying to come up with a way to bring the fight back to the ranges we know for the ground and 'keep the speed'.  As it stands, I'm looking at the use of two map scales concurrently.  The only hang-up I'm left with is how much consideration I should put to limited play-space.  I've played many a game on a simple 2x6 folding table with not much else for a level surface around. 

Otherwise, having a dedicated ground map on the side for the short-range weapons attacks at ground distances, while the bulk of the flying is done on a dedicated Low-altitude map would be the ideal, in my mind. 

If you've ever watched History's DogFights series, you get an idea that aerial combat is more about maneuver and positioning with chance shots at a target's back or side, than it is a whirling, dancing Gundam gun battle in the air.

It's really like trying to emulate the 60s era dogfights with line-of-sight weapons used in the age of jet speeds.  And, it's the magic armor of 31st century combat along with maneuver, intentional or accidental, that makes this possible.  Wings of Glory with lasers at Mach.

One of the thing that is available for modern air fighters is the anti-fighter ordinance that's often strapped on for the 'just in case' moment while they're escorting a strike operation or part of a ground strike mission.  It's limited, which is fine.  And, it would be exhausted as an option first before resorting to the aerial song and dance of the dog fight.  Hence the idea of Air-to-air 'artillery', or missiles that use the artillery rules, map-to-map, hex-to-hex, depending on scale, to resolve.  That's how you get your range.

[Daemion]

I want to kind say this but, some of the places where it might be relevant don't feel appropriate.  Here, it's been brought up, and I'll go with it.

Part of the defense for AT2 weapons ranges in atmo is the idea that once you're going fast enough, fluid dynamics turns your armored craft into a flying immobile target.  It's one of the reasons even I feel there should be a point of no return or point of diminishing return for speed and Target Movement Modifiers even for ground units.

You can't pull quick or savage defensive motions without potentially going out of control.  A combination of large openings not protected by armor and the supposed sharp focusing technology BT is supposed to have means that it's easier to make ranged shots even against units protected by the magic armor of BattleTech. 

That's the argument.  I get it.  It does have its own problems, because ground units should be equally capable of the same ranges under that reasoning.  Following the reasoning to a proper conclusion, ASF ground strikes would force fighters to have to dodge a gauntlet of potential attacks from ground units as well as other air units on the low altitude map in order to get into the striking distance required for ground units who have the benefit of twitch defense.

The balance for balance sake when interfacing fighters with ground units was to keep the twain separate. I know that in some of my home campaigns, I have made exceptions for units dedicated to AA operations like the Partivan and Rifleman, to name a couple, and the Aesir in a Dark Age timeline game.

So, I get it.  I've been there.  Now, I'm taking the notion that even though a fighter has to be level, the magic nature of the armor and increased ranges in atmo combine with the unstable nature of even a fighter jet to make it nearly impossible to damage unless you're right up the jets ass when you go to pull the trigger for the laser/AC/LRM/PPC/MG/What-have-you.

The only reason I can potentially make an exception for Gauss is because it's firing a single, very heavy projectile at ludicrous speed.  No need for 'focus' there.  It really then becomes a matter of predictive FCS.  And then I have to decide what a good fall-off range should be. 

And, AA missiles.

[RifleMech]

To keep the same ranges most weapons would have a range of 0-2 hexes on the low altitude map. At higher altitudes they'd all be point blank.  Even giving ground units the same range as aerospace when doing AA attacks doesn't really work because then they end up having artillery weapon ranges so why use artillery for AA?

I don't think having having such a narrow amount of ranges for weapons would be a good thing. I think what needs to change is the size of the aerospace hexes. If we use ground hex sizes then we'd need a huge mapsheet but what if  the aerospace hexes were worth 4 ground hexes? So each thrust point is multiplied by 4 instead of 16 on the ground map. Then divide weapons ranges by 4 with rounding. That way MGs would have a range of 1. Medium Lasers a range of 2 LLasers 3 PPCs 4, LRMs 5 and so on. The map would still be bigger than an aerospace map but not as much as the ground map. The weapons ranges would also be more cinematic than realistic.


Another thing I've wondered about is aerospace using elevations. I believe each is 6 meters while a hex is 30 meters. So a hex is 5 times the distance of elevation. If we apply the same aerospace forward ground movement to elevations then 1 thrust would be 16 hexes forward or 80 elevations changed. or a combination like 8 hexes forwards while climbing 30 hexes. I think that would help integrate aerospace into the game better as everyone is using the same distances.

Weapons ranges would also be increased x5 for elevations. That way we don't have things like a tank shooting down a helicopter 2 hexes away at elevation 25 with a machine gun because the range would be a max elevation range of the machine gun would be 15 (3 hexes x 5 = elevation range). All Aircraft above a certain elevation would still add 2 hexes per each altitude. I think altitudes would need to be standardized for this to work though. I'm leaning towards 8 elevations per altitude. The first three altitudes are 50 meters each that's 8.33 altitudes. Just have each be 8 altitudes so Altitude 1 covers elevations 1-8, Altitude 2 elevations 9-16 and so on. We could also apply this to ground units at the same levels so a gun at level 10 would get +2 hex increase in range.

[Daemion]

That's why I'm looking at two different maps for the proposed Aerial combat.

I guess it's time to spell out what's been bouncing around in my head.

Turn Sequence
- Initiative
- Movement Phase
- Ranged Attack Phase
- Dog Fight Phase
- Heat Phase
- End Phase


Initiative, Heat and End should be obvious.

The majoity of the game will be played on the low-altitude Map. This map set-up is permanent for the scenario unless you're using rolling maps.

Movement Phase resolves on the Low Altitude Map.

Ranged Combat plays out on the Low Altitude Mpa.
Ranged combat is resolved only with weapons that have low altitude ranges. This would be where your F-14 Tomcat fires its AIM-9 Sidewinder at the MiG-29. 

Dogfight Phase is resolved on a separate map.  This map is a representative of the ground map, and is temporary.  It is placed and centered on one or more aircraft that are inside dogfighting range. That would be aircraft that are adjacent or inside the same hex. 

The Dogfight phase would be broken down into an initial Maneuver Step and Weapons Fire step. 

Dogfight: Maneuver - Based on a new initiative roll the occupants of this temporary ground map get a simple turn of 'movement' to avoid or line up shots from an aircraft's ground weapons.  (Lasers, PPCs, ACs, MGs, LRMs, SRMs, etc.) 

Dogfight: Weapons Fire - Any fighter that wishes to fire weapons goes through the declaration process as for standard weapons fire, and then rolls are made as normal.  The ranges for the ground weapons will be at their listed ground ranges on this map.  So, a Medium Laser firing at a target six hexes away will be at medium range while a MG will be out of range.

Once the Dogfight Phase is over, the temporary map is cleared and play is resumed on the Low Altitude Map.


Some details are still up in the air for me.  For instance, what kind of range bands should I be using for the Low Altitude Range Combat?  The AT2 bands? Or should each potential Artillery range missile have its own range bands?

Setting up the temporary Dogfight Map, I was originally thinking of centering on a fighter's target.  But, now I'm thinking it should be by hex occupied.  Those that occupy a hex that gets turned into a ground map should occupy near the center. 

(Aside:  I realize that this concept of mapping out close combat isn't new for me.  I had considered mapping out BT Mech Melee in a similar fashion for fun, where you have a little template representing two adjacent hexes, mapped out in 5, 7.5 or 10 meter sub hexes.)

[Cannonshop]

I can't really see the increased range in air to air fighters being justified in an atmosphere. Gravity and Atmosphere are still things. Being higher up doesn't mean they stop working. AC and Gauss rounds are going to fall, Missiles will run out of fuel and fall, and energy weapons will get defused. Altitude isn't going to change that.  Put a VTOL at 500 meters and a ASF at the same Altitude. Then have both units armed with the same weapons. Why should the ASF have greater range over the VTOL? Why should a LAM's weapons change range when it changes modes?

If thinner atmosphere grants greater range do to less drag and diffusion, why doesn't that apply to a Mech parked on top of a mountain? The air is just as thin there. Shouldn't the mech's weapons should have the same range as the ASF's. The ranges should be the same. Hight shouldn't increase the range for one unit over another.

What height does is give rounds more distance to fall. A round fired from one ground unit at another that's out of range will hit the ground sooner than it would if fired at one air unit at another.  So I can see a MG having a "range" of 5 at altitude 2 when fired at a ground unit. When fired at another unit in the air, it should still have a range of 3. An enemy in the air at 4 hexes would be safe but the enemy ship at 4 hexes an altitude lower would be hit because the MG round has that additional altitude to fall. That should apply to all units at that height though. VTOLs, AirMechs, dropping ground units. Everything. That the rules don't do that proves that Aerospace is broken.

As for cinematic vs realistic ranges, unless ground mapsheet takes up an entire parking lot, the ranges for aerospace should be at cinematic ranges because ground and aerospace use the same weapons.

Now I can see increased ranges in space but again, it should apply to all units. A LAM's weapon shouldn't change ranges as it changes mode.

There's also something else odd in space. Mechs with jump jets get 2 Thrust points. Unless I missed something, it doesn't matter how many jump jets either. An UrbanMech with 2 JJ gets the same thrust as a Stinger with 6 JJs. I know there's some handwavium for why LAMs loose thrust when they change modes. I also know there's some "Because we said so" when it comes to frankenmeching jump jets. But all Mechs, and presumably vehicles with jump jets, having 2 Thrust regardless of the number of jump jets I could never figure out.

Thing with the increased range? we actually SEE IT in the real world.  A 20mm vulcan cannon firing at ground surface targets from an aircraft has a significantly better range than teh same gun firing at ground targets from, say, a tracked vehicle.

I suspect in that case, it's gotta do with gravity and unobstructed sight-lines, maybe also the difference in horizon and 'cluttering'.
(Let's face it, a hill must be VERY TALL INDEED for it to block a Warthog's firing solution to any apprciable degree)

as for energy weapons in atmo, the range may be an artifact (as the fluff claims) of cooling rates.  YOu can dump more heat into moving air, than into stagnant air, and the air around an aircraft is moving significantly faster, so the increase in cooling efficiency for the radiators of your heat sinks is going to be significantly better, even as better and better cooling materials are developed, simply because the efficiency would scale. (*aka the percentage rate of calories dumped to the outside would go up some fraction of proportionally, meaning you can run the system 'hotter' without heat fracture or melting, because the cooling can handle it better, and you can have fatter cooling lines since less of the structure has to hinge or move, so you can have a more robust cooling and power grid on an airframe, than on a 'mech or tank, where you have to accomodate more flex in less space.)

IOW it may be structural.  the same gun reaches further because either it isn't having to fight gravity as much, doesn't have a close horizon to interrupt firing solutions, (or deal with ground clutter like hills and dips as much), and, because you can run it 'hotter' because the cooling is mechanically that much easier to achieve, since the weapons aren't turreted, they're fixed in place, allowing better and bigger cooling and power feeders per cubic centimeter of space involved.

(basically you aren't running hoses, you're running pipes, and since they don't have to flex, they can be bigger around and rigid while still being reliable, and the radiator surfaces can be larger, and dump more thermal energy, because they don't have to cope with needing to be mounted in a limb that has to flex and endure repeated ground shocks).

This doesn't adequately account for tanks, so it's maybe a nowhere idea.

[RifleMech]

That's why I'm looking at two different maps for the proposed Aerial combat.

Having to use two maps seems like it'd make things more complicated. I think I'd rather use one map using ground ranges than have to constantly convert back and forth.

Thing with the increased range? we actually SEE IT in the real world.  A 20mm vulcan cannon firing at ground surface targets from an aircraft has a significantly better range than teh same gun firing at ground targets from, say, a tracked vehicle.

I suspect in that case, it's gotta do with gravity and unobstructed sight-lines, maybe also the difference in horizon and 'cluttering'.
(Let's face it, a hill must be VERY TALL INDEED for it to block a Warthog's firing solution to any apprciable degree)

Sure and I don't have a problem with that as long as it applies to all units firing at that height. The rules only give the increased range to aerospace units though.

as for energy weapons in atmo, the range may be an artifact (as the fluff claims) of cooling rates.  YOu can dump more heat into moving air, than into stagnant air, and the air around an aircraft is moving significantly faster, so the increase in cooling efficiency for the radiators of your heat sinks is going to be significantly better, even as better and better cooling materials are developed, simply because the efficiency would scale. (*aka the percentage rate of calories dumped to the outside would go up some fraction of proportionally, meaning you can run the system 'hotter' without heat fracture or melting, because the cooling can handle it better, and you can have fatter cooling lines since less of the structure has to hinge or move, so you can have a more robust cooling and power grid on an airframe, than on a 'mech or tank, where you have to accomodate more flex in less space.)

IOW it may be structural.  the same gun reaches further because either it isn't having to fight gravity as much, doesn't have a close horizon to interrupt firing solutions, (or deal with ground clutter like hills and dips as much), and, because you can run it 'hotter' because the cooling is mechanically that much easier to achieve, since the weapons aren't turreted, they're fixed in place, allowing better and bigger cooling and power feeders per cubic centimeter of space involved.

(basically you aren't running hoses, you're running pipes, and since they don't have to flex, they can be bigger around and rigid while still being reliable, and the radiator surfaces can be larger, and dump more thermal energy, because they don't have to cope with needing to be mounted in a limb that has to flex and endure repeated ground shocks).

This doesn't adequately account for tanks, so it's maybe a nowhere idea.

I think that would allow weapons to fire more often than give them greater range. It could also be why aerospace fighters don't have to be heat neutral and ground vehicles do. ASF move so fast they can deal with built up heat. Ground vehicles are slower so can't deal with it. Although I do think they should since we have canon examples of tanks having heat problems. But that's another issue.

[Cannonshop]

Sure and I don't have a problem with that as long as it applies to all units firing at that height. The rules only give the increased range to aerospace units though.

Alas, we don't have slant/ranges in Battletech.  A 'mech standing on a level 1000 hill can be hit by a machine-gun in the next hex that's sitting at Level 0, at short range no less.

they just can't do physical attacks or swarm.

IOW it's more or less an artifact that goes both ways-the actual game doesn't account for angles of attack beyond some separations between the Air game and the Ground game.

but then, do you really want to calculate x²+y²=z² every time the targeting/firing phase comes up to do your ranges?  (aka do basic trig every time you need to determine your firing solution) or just count hexes (or inches for those freaks who play minis rules with inches?)

Wait, don't answer that, there are enough people who made that exact suggestion in the past...I honestly don't know if you're one, or if you want to be.

[RifleMech]

Alas, we don't have slant/ranges in Battletech.  A 'mech standing on a level 1000 hill can be hit by a machine-gun in the next hex that's sitting at Level 0, at short range no less.

they just can't do physical attacks or swarm.

IOW it's more or less an artifact that goes both ways-the actual game doesn't account for angles of attack beyond some separations between the Air game and the Ground game.

but then, do you really want to calculate x²+y²=z² every time the targeting/firing phase comes up to do your ranges?  (aka do basic trig every time you need to determine your firing solution) or just count hexes (or inches for those freaks who play minis rules with inches?)

Wait, don't answer that, there are enough people who made that exact suggestion in the past...I honestly don't know if you're one, or if you want to be.

Technically we do with Aerospace attacking ground targets receiving +2 hexes per altitude. We also have line of site rules which include angles. Most of the time a ground unit isn't going to be on a 1000 level hill firing down at other units. We could play around with it a little though. Aerospace does turn levels into altitudes so there's room to add it in. I think it'd end up needing multiple maps though.

I also think needing trig might be too much. I did suggest just a flat rate for height. Weapons would get a little extra range that way but there'd be less math. Although, I'd limit that to long range for ballistic weapons. For extreme and LOS range, the rounds would be on their way down so the targeting modifier would increase for every so many levels.  Considering all the math for advanced aerospace rules, I could see there being an option for using trig to determine ranges.

[Daemion]

Having to use two maps seems like it'd make things more complicated. I think I'd rather use one map using ground ranges than have to constantly convert back and forth.

Would you be open to rolling maps, then? It would still be hard to track if you're dealing with large forces and things split off in different directions.  But, I had originally thought about the thunder road style of rolling map for the speeds involved. 

Any units that split off with pursuers would have to become a separate game to be worked out after the primary one. 

And, if it gets too big, having a singular larger level tactical map would be helpful. So, you'd be back where I was thinking to begin with for large games.

[Daemion]

All right.  Thanks everyone for your help. 

Looks like if I'm gonna do this, and I will, It'll be something I complete on my own. Ping me if you ever want an udate.