The StratOps AA rules are completely unnecessary for balanced game play. Fighter attacks are already the ultimate in risk vs reward, fitting in perfectly in Battletech which encourages you to take risks and push your machines past their limits for victory. You can drop mind-boggling amounts of destruction on any location you choose, but in return, it can take very little damage to bring you down.
I disagree. Try using a Conventional fighter. You'll attack once every 3 turns and, if you fail a PSR, lose 500 - 1,000 BV when it crashes. Also, "risk vs. reward" only counts when the "reward" is equal to the risk. Not every fighter is a
Lightning LTN-G15 with an AC/20. Some, like the
Sabre SB-26, have only a few, pitiful lasers. Others, like the
Chippewa, are only designed for play in a vacuum, since it has equal weapons on both wings which cannot fire in the same turn, due to poor bracketing.
Chippewa CHP-5W: (3) Large Lasers + (2) Small Lasers + (1) Medium Laser = 29 heat (+4) and 35 damage for 1,554 BV
If this thing takes a single hit, it takes a PSR at a target number of 6 (5 piloting + 1 for Atmospheric Ops). If it fails, 33% chance of losing 1,554 BV in a single turn.
Meanwhile, an
Archer ARC-2R can deliver 40 damage (average 24) to the Chippewa, at a THN of 7 to the front, 6 to the rear, if standing still and if the
Chippewa is at Altitude 5. If it's at Altitude 3 or 2, it needs a 5 or a 4 to hit the
Chippewa.
This isn't "balanced," in my opinion. No BattleMech has a 33% or worse (Alt 4 has a 50% probability) chance of dying with a single PSR. I've played well over 500 games with Aero-on-ground rules in the past 10 years. I would never field Aero if forced to use TW rules.