Fighter Duels Over the central Zone

[Louie N]

Hello All,

Playing with opposing fighters for the first time and this question came up.

When a fighter enters the Central Zone on the radar map it must make a flight path across the playing surface.

If the intent of the Fighter is to engage an enemy fighter that is also in the central zone is there any requirement that it's flight path cross, or approach, the target fighter's flight path?

Can it be visualized that they simply fly over and the actual dog fighting occurs somewhere else?

Thanks

 

[ActionButler]

I don't know what the formal rule is (or even if there is one), but I would argue that the Central Zone is bigger than just the battlefield and that fighters could duel in the former without being in the latter. 

[nckestrel]

The flight path is just for air-to-ground (and ground-to-air). 

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I'd predict that if this were asked in the rules forum, the answer would come down that since the rules never state a requirement for flight paths to get within a certain distance of one another, there is no such requirement.

Taking it into a "what SHOULD the rule be?" dimension for this thread:

I don't think there should be a requirement.  Just like machine guns that only have a 90m range on the ground, those same machine guns suddenly can engage targets at 1500 meters when fired from an airborne fighter.  Whatever the in-universe reason(s) for that phenomenon is, it means fighters can shoot each other at ranges beyond what ground units can shoot each other.  The maximum shortest distance between any two flight paths on a 6'x4' table is 72", which is well less than the expansion in weapon ranges for weapons on a flying platform as seen in CBT.  And that's an extreme corner case... unless flight paths are parallel they'll likely cross over one another and achieve a distance of Zero at some point anyway.

Furthermore, dealing with the situation adds another step in the air-to-air engagement procedure that only serves to confuse things.  If the contested skill between the two pilots establishes the air-to-air engagement range as short/medium/long, measuring the distances on the table is at best a waste of effort and more likely a factor that tangles the process and brings in a requirement for house rules to reconcile.

[Scotty]

The flight path is just for air-to-ground (and ground-to-air).

To expound on this: the flight path is only utilized for air-to-ground and ground-to-air ranges and firing arcs.  All fighters that end their movement phase in the Central Zone must draw a flight path along the ground map.  These are not required to overlap or interact in any way, regardless of whether the two fighters are engaged (or even if one is trailing the other).

This is partly because it'd be entirely too easy to "lose" initiative and really end up controlling the entire Central Zone (by forcing enemy fighters engaged with your fighter to have a flight path along similar lines as yours), and partly because flight paths are drawn at the end of the movement phase, before air-to-air engagements are declared.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

... and partly because flight paths are drawn at the end of the movement phase....

Wait wait wait.

Is that the actual rule?  We've been playing it that way as a house rule, but I was under the impression it was that.. a house rule.

[Scotty]

That's been my interpretation of it.  It is definitely part of the fighter's moment.  You could make the argument that they should be drawn immediately, but that's a hard nerf to ASFs that they really don't need.

[Louie N]

The flight path is just for air-to-ground (and ground-to-air).

Ok so the flight paths don't have to interact.  But a fighter must still draw out a flight path even if it does not intend to engage ground targets. They just have to pick a nice safe flight path far away from bad guys and 24" long.   Am I clear on that?

Scotty

...and partly because flight paths are drawn at the end of the movement phase, before air-to-air engagements are declared.

Scotty,

This view allows fighters go last and position themselves very well after all ground units have moved.  I make them draw their flight path when they are activated in the movement phase.

Is there an official ruling, or does it have to be asked in the rules section?  It would make a big difference in their use and threat potential. 

Thanks for the replies.

[Scotty]

Probably needs a ruling.  My group also requires that fighters enter the ground map from the direction they entered the central zone, so it's not like a total carte blanche to set up a perfect path every time.  If you require fighters to draw a path immediately, they become hideously vulnerable to anything with any real movement options whatsoever, since they only get a flat +2 instead of a TMM.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Probably needs a ruling.  My group also requires that fighters enter the ground map from the direction they entered the central zone, so it's not like a total carte blanche to set up a perfect path every time.  If you require fighters to draw a path immediately, they become hideously vulnerable to anything with any real movement options whatsoever, since they only get a flat +2 instead of a TMM.

There's also the problem of the opponent "losing" initiative and opting to move a fighter... forcing the ground attack to move in response and have to declare an attack path before any ground units have moved.

[Louie N]

I have asked the question in the rules forum.

For the record here is my house version of the rules...  :)

Fighters move and select their flight path when they are activated in the movement phase. 

They can enter any side of the board regardless of what side they entered. I believe that is standard rules.

I increased the to hit mod from ground units to +4, from +2, and added the +2 for air to air combats as well.  I found that aircraft were too easy to hit otherwise.

Thanks   

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Nckestrel posted the clarification I expected.

So, house rules ahoy to put the flight path at the end of the movement phase! Of course, we can hope for erratum on this subject, as well.

[Scotty]

Since that was posted with little debate and fairly quickly, I don't think an errata is coming.  Sometimes being a demo agent sucks, because I can't actually use house rules in official games.  This has the (potentially deliberate) side effect of making your ASFs the units you want to move last, even after high speed scouts and strikers, unless you've got a good target lined up midway through the round that will be too difficult or too costly to divert units toward.

It makes ASFs require even more finesse to use.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but they're pretty firmly in the category of "not for beginners" at my tables.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Well there's also the use of the word "recommended" in moving a fighter in response to a fighter.

If the loser of initiative moves a fighter first in order to make you declare your ground attack before he moves any of his ground units, you can invoke the nonprescriptive nature of the word "recommended" to say "Nah, I'll move a ground unit instead of my available aerospace unit since you're just abusing the way initiative works to allow yourself to move any units out of my attack path."

[nckestrel]

If using the recommendation, I'd go further and say splitting up aerospace and ground, I'd have all ground move, then all aerospace, as separate movement phases (same order as Total Warfare).  IE number of units for unequal number of units would be calculated separately as well for ground and then aerospace.

[Scotty]

I like the idea in a vacuum.  Having initiative options in the air game was surprisingly useful, though, and I'll probably miss it quite a bit now that we have an official clarification.

[nckestrel]

I like the idea in a vacuum.  Having initiative options in the air game was surprisingly useful, though, and I'll probably miss it quite a bit now that we have an official clarification.

What do you mean by initiative options? 

EDIT: And I'm not sure how an official clarification changed things, I just literally read back what the rules already said.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

If using the recommendation, I'd go further and say splitting up aerospace and ground, I'd have all ground move, then all aerospace, as separate movement phases (same order as Total Warfare).  IE number of units for unequal number of units would be calculated separately as well for ground and then aerospace.

That last part would be a particularly valuable impact of making separate movement phases for ground and air units.  In my gaming circle we've had games where only one side brought aerospace, and that player felt disadvantaged for having them.  Even if they won initiative, sometimes they had to move their last ground unit before the opponent b/c they still had air units left to go (and couldn't move them due to being forced/recommended to move available ground units in response to ground units).

[Scotty]

The rules didn't ever explicitly mention that the flight paths must be placed immediately.  My group would declare flight paths at the end of the movement phase, essentially once all units that had ended their movement in the Central Zone had done so.  Effectively, this made ASFs very useful to have in terms of initiative sinks.  That increased utility made them pretty attractive options to bring, where otherwise their vulnerability to all kinds of ground fire and relative fragility made them unattractive.

EDIT: if it came down to a choice I'd rather have Aero units with a separate sub-phase for movement than to have the option to sink initiative with them.

[Weirdo]

Nckestrel posted the clarification I expected.

So, house rules ahoy to put the flight path at the end of the movement phase! Of course, we can hope for erratum on this subject, as well.

Our you can accept that sometimes losing initiative sucks, and take steps to prevent it. My recommendation is to bring a forward air controller or AWACS bird(translation: ground or air unit with MHQ) to reduce the odds of that happening.

Besides, there can be advantages to declaring a fighter's move first. Got a path or area you don't want the other guy using? Park a bomb truck over it before they move the relevant units.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Our you can accept that sometimes losing initiative sucks, and take steps to prevent it. My recommendation is to bring a forward air controller or AWACS bird(translation: ground or air unit with MHQ) to reduce the odds of that happening.

Besides, there can be advantages to declaring a fighter's move first. Got a path or area you don't want the other guy using? Park a bomb truck over it before they move the relevant units.

I'm not sure you understand the point I was making.  In the example I was using, winning initiative sucks.

[Weirdo]

Sometimes losing initiative is preferable. This is nothing new, and has been true since the beginning of Battletech.

[nckestrel]

I'm not sure you understand the point I was making.  In the example I was using, winning initiative sucks.

Yeah, I don't think the intention was that the Initiative Loser would then get to force aerospace versus ground, thus leading me to aero or ground being set ahead of time, which then lead to effectively separate phases of movement, ground then aero.  Ending up right where Total Warfare already was.

[Scotty]

Sometimes losing initiative is preferable. This is nothing new, and has been true since the beginning of Battletech.

I feel like there's a pretty big difference between having a situation where moving first is preferable in order to secure a position, and having a situation where "winning" initiative means that you still have to move all your ground units first because your air units are messing up the relative number of units and can't be moved out of turn according to recommendations included int he rules text.  That happens every turn.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Sometimes losing initiative is preferable. This is nothing new, and has been true since the beginning of Battletech.

True, but:

It's counter-intuitive for players learning Alpha Strike to grasp that particular survival from CBT.  Most games simply allow the winner to pick who goes first rather than needlessly insisting loser always goes first, even when it's advantageous to go first.  No reason Alpha Strike can't make that the way it works.  It's a separate issue from the timing of when a flight path is declared, but it can be highly relevant on interaction.  Like in my example.

Bonuses that are meant to represent tactical prowess only offer a bonus to initiative, rather than an optional penalty to your roll rather than a bonus for when you do want to go first.  If I want to go first and I have the BI bonuses from AS in play, I have to deliberately jam my own tokens to escape what amounts to a penalty against trying to lose the initiative roll.  That's just silly.  Especially when the game could otherwise say the winner of initiative decides who goes first, as would be sensible.

I feel like there's a pretty big difference between having a situation where moving first is preferable in order to secure a position, and having a situation where "winning" initiative means that you still have to move all your ground units first because your air units are messing up the relative number of units and can't be moved out of turn according to recommendations included int he rules text.  That happens every turn.

Completely agreed.  If you follow Weirdo's advice and bring some extra fighters to escort your bombers, you're even worse off.  It's not because his advice is bad (and it isn't), but because the way the recommendation works.  If I have 4 fighters and you brought none... whether I win or lose initiative I still have to accept moving my last ground unit while my opponent will get not one but a few moves of ground units in response.

Illustration: I brought 4 mechs and 2 fighters, you brought 6 mechs. 
You win init:  I move a fighter as initiative sink.  You have to move a fighter, but you don't have one, so you move mech 1.  I now have to move a ground unit in response, so I move my first mech.  And back and forth, with my other fighter stuck in initiative limbo until its the only thing I have left.  So opponent moves 2nd mech, I move 2nd mech.  3rd to 3rd, 4th to 4th.  I've now moved all my mechs and you still get to reply with 2 more mechs.  It's twice as bad as having lost initiative had I not brought any fighters at all when all you'd get is one mech to move after I moved my last one.

But even winning init doesn't help.  Other guy has to move a ground unit since that's all he has. I have to respond in kind.  He does mech 1, I do mech 1, and so on through mech 4.  He still gets two more moves on the ground after my last ground move, and I won initiative. 

[nckestrel]

True, but:

It's counter-intuitive for players learning Alpha Strike to grasp that particular survival from CBT.  Most games simply allow the winner to pick who goes first rather than needlessly insisting loser always goes first, even when it's advantageous to go first.  No reason Alpha Strike can't make that the way it works.  It's a separate issue from the timing of when a flight path is declared, but it can be highly relevant on interaction.  Like in my example.

Bonuses that are meant to represent tactical prowess only offer a bonus to initiative, rather than an optional penalty to your roll rather than a bonus for when you do want to go first.  If I want to go first and I have the BI bonuses from AS in play, I have to deliberately jam my own tokens to escape what amounts to a penalty towards my initiative roll.  That's just silly.  Especially when the game could otherwise say the winner of initiative decides who goes first, as would be sensible.

Completely agreed.  If you follow Weirdo's advice and bring some extra fighters to escort your bombers, you're even worse off.  It's not because his advice is bad (and it isn't), but because the way the recommendation works.  If I have 4 fighters and you brought none... whether I win or lose initiative I still have to accept moving my last ground unit while my opponent will get not one but a few moves of ground units in response.

Illustration: I brought 4 mechs and 2 fighters, you brought 6 mechs. 
You win init:  I move a fighter as initiative sink.  You have to move a fighter, but you don't have one, so you move mech 1.  I now have to move a ground unit in response, so I move my first mech.  And back and forth, with my other fighter stuck in initiative limbo until its the only thing I have left.  So opponent moves 2nd mech, I move 2nd mech.  3rd to 3rd, 4th to 4th.  I've now moved all my mechs and you still get to reply with 2 more mechs.  It's twice as bad as having lost initiative had I not brought any fighters at all when all you'd get is one mech to move after I moved my last one.

But even winning init doesn't help.  Other guy has to move a ground unit since that's all he has. I have to respond in kind.  He does mech 1, I do mech 1, and so on through mech 4.  He still gets two more moves on the ground after my last ground move, and I won initiative.

I think you added something that isn't there (admittedly the whole recommendation is "fuzzy" to begin with, so not blaming you, just sorting through this).  Player 1 moves fighter, player 2 has no fighter so moves a ground unit.  Player 2 is the response, there's no response to the response. 
But the main point of your intent still stands.  Whoever goes first (loses init), can force which units the other moves.  If the loser moves an aero first, then the init winner must move an aero. 

And my suggestion is back to the separate phases.  All ground must move first, then all aero.  So in your example of 4 'mechs/2 air versus 6 mechs.
Player 1 wins init.
6 ground versus 4 ground.
Player 2 moves a 'mech.
Player 1 moves a 'mech.
5 ground versus 3 ground.
Player 2 moves a 'mech.
Player 1 moves a 'mech.
4 ground versus 2 ground.
Player 2 moves two 'mechs.
Player 1 moves a 'mech.
2 ground versus 1 ground.
Player 2 moves a 'mech.
Player 1 moves a 'mech.

Then player 1 moves both air. Ouch for Player 2, that might be too much.  (Player 1 gets last three moves in this example).  but I'm not sure there's a better way?  If it's just all ground must move before air, Player 1's ground forces have to move before Player 2's ground forces (most of them), the air going last doesn't help much?

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Air going last is super important during the turn they make an attack run.  So long as attack paths are declared as part of an aerospace unit's movement, it doesn't matter if it's going last via how initiative plays out or by there being separate subphases of the movement phase.  All that does matter is that ground units don't get to move with the knowledge of where the attack path lies.  They'll be able GTFO and/or move themselves into perfect firing ranges, and it's already hard enough for an ASF to damage a target (or survive an attack run) as is.

Whether attack paths are laid down at the end of the movement phase (like Scotty's house rule) or movement phases are broken up into subphases, either way it's a house rule.  Are these ideas on the table as possible errata?  I hope so.

Player 2 is the response, there's no response to the response.

That's an interesting way to interpret the rule, and tbh it never occurred to me to look at it that way.  Obviously, I've been understanding the rule as the response is in of itself being the next prompt for what has to be moved next.  Breaking the move sequence into binary pairs instead of one continuous chain is something I'll have to think about.

Still, the intent of the recommendation seems to be against using an advantage in ASF numbers as initiative sinks.  If the prompting move is an ASF, clearly the response should be ASF if possible.  But if the next prompting move is another ASF when the responder didn't have an ASF to respond with, isn't that a violation of the recommendation?

[nckestrel]

Air going last is super important during the turn they make an attack run.  So long as attack paths are declared as part of an aerospace unit's movement, it doesn't matter if it's going last via how initiative plays out or by there being separate subphases of the movement phase.  All that does matter is that ground units don't get to move with the knowledge of where the attack path lies.  They'll be able GTFO and/or move themselves into perfect firing ranges, and it's already hard enough for an ASF to damage a target (or survive an attack run) as is.

Whether attack paths are laid down at the end of the movement phase (like Scotty's house rule) or movement phases are broken up into subphases, either way it's a house rule.  Are these ideas on the table as possible errata?  I hope so.


That's an interesting way to interpret the rule, and tbh it never occurred to me to look at it that way.  Obviously, I've been understanding the rule as the response is in of itself being the next prompt for what has to be moved next.  Breaking the move sequence into binary pairs instead of one continuous chain is something I'll have to think about.

Otherwise the chain would never end.  Once somebody moved either an aero or a ground unit, all of that type would have to move.  I moved an air unit, you must move an air unit.  Since you moved an air unit, I'd have to move an air unit.  So on until there were no air units left (or no ground units).

Other than repeat what's listed in the book, I'm not sure how the recommendation is supposed to work, that's why I'm in this discussion (along with everybody else).  What does the recommendation mean?  If it's "only" a recommendation, how should it be decided if/when it's used? 

I believe the intent is that ASF should move as much as possible like other units.  Generally the first unit(s) moved are not in a great position.  But with aerospace, it's generally even worse.  It's not difficult to avoid a 2" wide flight path if you move after. All the issues are arising from the flight path "forcing" aero to move last.  And then how does that affect the overall force initiative.  Aero are like the ultimate 3025 Charger.  You have to move it last to have any hope of hitting anything, but being forced to use your init just to position the Charger feels like a waste of winning initiative.  If you have to move your aero last in order to make them effective, they don't feel like they're worth bringing along.  A Locust at least has the option of hitting a target at 24".  Even if that's not the best use for it and you'd rather have it move last and hit something in the back at short range. 

Brainstorming options
1) Separate phases: All ground move, all air move.  Unequal forces calculated separately for each phase.  Init swings can be even more pronounced than before depending on force composition (earlier example where init winner got to move three units last).
2) Init winner picks air/ground for each set of moves.  As long as the Init Winner has a mix of forces available, they pick air or ground for each set of moves.  When the Init Winner only has one type left, the Init loser is then free to move whichever units they want.  Drawback here is in the delay in having the Init winner declare each set of moves.
3) Ignore unit type.  You want your air to have a flight path that crosses something, save it for after your target moves.  My hesitation on this one is that you pretty much have to move air late, making them feel like (if not actually being) a drawback to have. Your ground forces will hate it.
4) Ignore unit type.  Flight path declaration separate phase after movement.  Hesitation here is that it makes air init sinks, move them first, it doesn't matter because the flight path won't be declared until later.  So there's little reason not to have them be free init sinks.
5) Ignore unit type, make attacks from a flight path an arc. So flight path is the line, but then the strike can be a template drawn from the flight path.  Ie. make them even more like normal units where their movement isn't as directly tied to their attack.  Flight path is here, attack is drawn from the flight path but doesn't have to be exactly on it.  Drop bomb within 12" of flight path, strike at unit within 12" of flight path, etc.  Problem here is number of new rules/changes, and would players accept a "strafe" line that is not directly on the flight path line?.  Or a bomb being dropped away form the flight path (it was lobbed, or aero did a quick adjustment?)
6)  I don't have a 6. 

[Scotty]

I like 5) the best, with the caveat that I think bombs and strafing should still be restricted to the flight path based on what they actually represent in terms of maneuvers.  Strikes may be made against units within normal weapon range (with the 12" addition for outside of the flight path included).  Aerospace units may not use Extreme Range weapons unless the scenario already includes their use.

Alternately, keep Strikes how they are, and include a fifth Aerospace attack that is not a Strike, but functions in such a way to allow an ASF to attack a unit not along the flight path at a slightly higher modifier (+3).

[nckestrel]

I like 5) the best, with the caveat that I think bombs and strafing should still be restricted to the flight path based on what they actually represent in terms of maneuvers.  Strikes may be made against units within normal weapon range (with the 12" addition for outside of the flight path included).  Aerospace units may not use Extreme Range weapons unless the scenario already includes their use.

Alternately, keep Strikes how they are, and include a fifth Aerospace attack that is not a Strike, but functions in such a way to allow an ASF to attack a unit not along the flight path at a slightly higher modifier (+3).

But if you are strafing and or bombing, we still have the same problems?

[Scotty]

You might be able to expand it to 4" from the flight path.  Strafing, as it stands, is just plain not good whether the fighter has a perfect run set up or not, and you'll have to figure out some other way to delineate the strafe path that isn't the flight path.  Bombing is probably a bit easier, but I can't imagine dive bombing happening outside of the flight path unless you want to call it something else.  Altitude bombing could be further away, with the implicit assumption that these bombs are at least somewhat guided.

[Weirdo]

I feel like there's a pretty big difference between having a situation where moving first is preferable in order to secure a position, and having a situation where "winning" initiative means that you still have to move all your ground units first because your air units are messing up the relative number of units and can't be moved out of turn according to recommendations included int he rules text.  That happens every turn.

A recommendation is not a rule. If following it hurts you, that's your fault. You're still moving a unit last, thus it's a win.

[Scotty]

A recommendation is not a rule. If following it hurts you, that's your fault. You're still moving a unit last, thus it's a win.

That's entirely too callous for me to support considering that this recommendation comes straight from the opening paragraph of the rulebook on the aerospace section.  How would a new player look at it?  How would you respond to a new player dissatisfied with it?

"Sorry buddy, but it's your own fault for listening to the rulebook."

[Weirdo]

No, I would calmly explain to a new player that that part was a recommendation, not a hard rule. I expect more of veteran players like the folks in this thread.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

The problem with a recommendation, as opposed to a prescriptive rule, is that a recommendation is rarely in both players' tactical interest.  If following the recommendation is good for one, it's probably bad for the other. 

And that's not even getting into whether or not the recommendation in this case even makes any sense (which has been discussed upthread).

[Weirdo]

Forgive me if my posts sounded curt. My default reaction is to have no patience when a conversation goes along the lines of "This rule is weird, it must be broken!" instead of "This rule is weird, how can we turn this to our advantage?"

I step out of the thread for a while.

[nckestrel]

No, I would calmly explain to a new player that that part was a recommendation, not a hard rule. I expect more of veteran players like the folks in this thread.

Tactics are only being discussed in so far as how the potential rules interpretations might work.  Nobody knows how the existing recommendation works.

As demo agents/game organizer/the person players turn to resolve disputes, how should they deal with a question from players about how initiative order should go?  That's why I don't like a recommendation.  A rule should be something that is known, not something that is fought over.  Is it an optional rule?  I'm fine with optional rules.  If we didn't agree ahead of time, the optional rule isn't in use, options must be specified up front, they're not the default.  Is it a rule that's only used while both players agree, and either player can decide not to follow it at any time?  That seems to be broken, in the since that this specific recommendation only means something when one player doesn't want to do it.  If either player can break it at any time, it would never happen and it's a waste of space in the book. 

Even if its an optional rule, there are questions about how it works.  What triggers it, how long is in effect, what happens when there are different numbers of units of a particular type.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

Is it perceived to be a problem where a player uses his ASFs as initiative sinks when the other player didn't bring any?  I figured preventing that from happening was the entire (and only) reason for the recommendation.

If that's not a problem to be avoided, I don't see why the recommendation can't just be completely ignored/removed.  If I'm free to save my ASFs for moving last so that I can minimize the number of units that can still move after declaring a flight path, great.  If I want to use ASFs as initiative sinks as part of a combined air/ground force total, great.  I'm free to weigh pros and cons of either choice without having the choice dictated to me by what my opponent moves.

[The Wayfarer]

It's been my experience that there is no difference in game play regarding initiative for aerospace units vs. ground units.  The whole point of having initiative is that you get to manage your resources as you see fit, countering your opponents moves or making him rethink his next one.  All I see here is a layer of complexity that doesn't need to exist and robs players of choice.  The rulebook makes a recommendation on initiative but otherwise says you can mix it up.  I think its pretty clear and wonder what the fuss is about.

Its also been my experience that once air power makes it to the ground map they don't last that long.  Sure they can deal damage but they aren't real good at taking it considering they often have to make control rolls and risk crashing.  Not to mention the flight line typically exposes them to a lot of fire if they want to deliver any damage.

Getting back to the original post, my follow-up is not about initiative at all but the result of the air-to-air engagement in the Central Zone/Ground Map.  The errata document says that "Any unit that ends its movement in the Central Zone must be assigned a flight line across the ground table," (Alpha Strike Errata 2.1, p. 5).  So what happens when one air unit (Ace) is attempting an air-to-ground attack and an opposing air unit (King) is attempting to engage Ace.  Both have to make flight lines over the ground map but you also have an air-to-air engagement in the Central Zone/Ground Map between Ace and King.  According to the rules, in the End Phase of the turn both Ace and King must decide whether to continue the engagement or end it.  Ace wants to break the engagement; King wants to continue it.  King wins the engagement control roll per the rules and chooses to stay engaged.  Both units stay in the Central Zone/Ground Map and as a result, have to retrace new flight paths over the ground map.

Unless I made an error.....

Mike

[Tai Dai Cultist]

It's been my experience that there is no difference in game play regarding initiative for aerospace units vs. ground units.  The whole point of having initiative is that you get to manage your resources as you see fit, countering your opponents moves or making him rethink his next one.  All I see here is a layer of complexity that doesn't need to exist and robs players of choice.  The rulebook makes a recommendation on initiative but otherwise says you can mix it up.  I think its pretty clear and wonder what the fuss is about.

Its also been my experience that once air power makes it to the ground map they don't last that long.  Sure they can deal damage but they aren't real good at taking it considering they often have to make control rolls and risk crashing.  Not to mention the flight line typically exposes them to a lot of fire if they want to deliver any damage.

Getting back to the original post, my follow-up is not about initiative at all but the result of the air-to-air engagement in the Central Zone/Ground Map.  The errata document says that "Any unit that ends its movement in the Central Zone must be assigned a flight line across the ground table," (Alpha Strike Errata 2.1, p. 5).  So what happens when one air unit (Ace) is attempting an air-to-ground attack and an opposing air unit (King) is attempting to engage Ace.  Both have to make flight lines over the ground map but you also have an air-to-air engagement in the Central Zone/Ground Map between Ace and King.  According to the rules, in the End Phase of the turn both Ace and King must decide whether to continue the engagement or end it.  Ace wants to break the engagement; King wants to continue it.  King wins the engagement control roll per the rules and chooses to stay engaged.  Both units stay in the Central Zone/Ground Map and as a result, have to retrace new flight paths over the ground map.

Unless I made an error.....

Mike

There's upcoming errata that states engagements in the Central zone automatically end.

[nckestrel]

The rulebook makes a recommendation on initiative but otherwise says you can mix it up.  I think its pretty clear and wonder what the fuss is about.

The major question is how the recommendation works.
We're supposed to move the same unit type.  Ok, who decides what unit type we're moving?  The initiative loser moves first, do they really get to dictate that the Initiative Winner has to move the unit type they move?  What if only one side has mixed unit types?  I lost Initiative, I only have ground units, so I move one.  Are you forced to move a ground unit next?  And will continue to move grounds units until you have no ground units left?
How does this affect unequal number of units?  If we reach the point where I have to move two units, can I move two different units types? If yes, how does that affect who moves next?

[The Wayfarer]

There's upcoming errata that states engagements in the Central zone automatically end.

Uhg.  Once again, the Central Zone/Ground Map breaks the rules.  Thanks for the update Tai Dai.  I'm not a regular here.

nckestrel, I understand the question is about how the recommendation works.  The recommendation works under the assumption that both players agree to coordinate moving types of units in sequence.  The questions being asked illustrate why the recommendation is not always ideal to follow and why it is best just to move whatever type of unit you choose.  After all, one player can legally bring nothing but air power to the table.  What do you do in this case?  Create another rule?  It is my opinion that the KISS method works best here.  Move the unit you want, when you want.  There are plenty of counters to air power in Alpha Strike, even more in the Companion. 

My suggestion:  Remove the recommendation wording on page 54 in its entirety because its not a good recommendation.

Mike

[Louie N]

Well that was a lot of reading. Thanks for all the replies.

For my own clarification I cannot find in the rule book where a aerospace movement just be countered by an aero unit or a ground with a ground. Can the page number please be provided.

I was ok with the ruling on flight paths.

It would be simpler to me, if all units could be used for initiative regardless of type.  Along with that only units attacking ground units or attempting to land would have to make a flight path.  This way special rules for the central zone would not be needed.

Thanks

[GoldBishop]

...For my own clarification I cannot find in the rule book where a aerospace movement just be countered by an aero unit or a ground with a ground. Can the page number please be provided.

AlphaStrike p.54, right beneath the big "Abstract Aerospace Gameplay", start of second paragraph.

To me, its pretty straight forward, so I'd call this "a rule".  Fits right in with Standard gameplay.  I think maybe it was the "recommended" part that previous posters had gone off tangent on and possibly lost you? (not trying to sound like a dick, but its right there in the unmodified publication).

Players on each side may move their aerospace units at any time during an AlphaStrike Turn sequence, but for the most balanced gameplay, it is recommended that players alternate the movement of aerospace and ground units evenly.

[nckestrel]

Yeah, how the recommendation should work is my question.  Trying to figure it out.

[Tai Dai Cultist]

I suppose another way to look at the recommendation is at a player's force rather than what the opponent did.

If you have aerospace units and ground units, it is recommended you alternate your own moves between air and ground units.

Obviously that recommendation can't be prescriptive, but can be viewed as a sort of a frame work of what is "fair play": moving both air and ground units in a steady ratio throughout the movement phse.

[Weirdo]

That actually makes a lot of sense, especially during turns when your fighters must move away from the central zone, when aside from random dogfights they serve no purpose except as initiative sinks. I'd call that good sportsmanship, with the full understanding that the player has the right to throw that out the window any time the tactical situation demands it.

[Louie N]

Thank you for providing the reference.

It seems to me the writers of that line had nightmare visions of players brining drone Crop Dusters with the sole purpose of using them as initiative sinks for the ground units.  It could happen.

I guess they were saying "Hey, Don't be a jerk about it." Hence the recommendation. 

Of course that can be done with any unit type.  An Infantry force can be used that way.  Bring a bunch of militia and park them in the backfield.  I live in fear of Savanah Masters, myself. :)

I know of no way to truly remove that possibility, fighters or otherwise, and this is truly the qui est la guerre of Battletech.

A random initiative draw removes that but that takes away much of the BT tactical flavor. 

Take Care

[Weirdo]

The reason for that line as opposed to addressing ground-based initiative sinks is that if a ground unit is in the game, it is on the table and thus can be shot at. Might not be easy or worth it, but the opportunity to eliminate that init sink is there. If I am a jerk and bring a handful of dirt-cheap aeros, knowing you're not usually in the habit of using air support, I can have those guys orbit in the outer ring forever, and there is literally nothing you could do about it without your own aeros. This impossibility of response is what that recommendation is trying to mitigate. It's also the reason why I tend not to bring orbital assets to pickup games, despite the fact that BattleSats cost less than your typical medium mech. Winning is fun, but there's no fun to be had when the other guy literally cannot hurt you.

[GoldBishop]

Tactically speaking, losing init to ASF isn't the end of the game - there are still plenty of defensive measures that can occur to prevent them from getting a clean shot at a lone target.  Lines must still be drawn from respective approach sections, so entry points are still predictable; move units you think will be targeted into the general area you think a flight path will be drawn (granted, this is purely situational but so far, it's worked really well for me).

As far as "initiative sinking"?  There are far cheaper ways to do that (infantry, mounted BA, gun trailers, etc).  Also remember that PVs spent on ASF takes away from the total PVs spent on Ground Forces.  ...If your opponent has 100% PV on Ground Forces, one would have to live with whatever margin was spent on putting resources in the air....

[GoldBishop]

The reason for that line as opposed to addressing ground-based initiative sinks is that if a ground unit is in the game, it is on the table and thus can be shot at. Might not be easy or worth it, but the opportunity to eliminate that init sink is there. If I am a jerk and bring a handful of dirt-cheap aeros, knowing you're not usually in the habit of using air support, I can have those guys orbit in the outer ring forever, and there is literally nothing you could do about it without your own aeros. This impossibility of response is what that recommendation is trying to mitigate. It's also the reason why I tend not to bring orbital assets to pickup games, despite the fact that BattleSats cost less than your typical medium mech. Winning is fun, but there's no fun to be had when the other guy literally cannot hurt you.

I think that's way too meta for new players for players new to playing with Aerospace.  You get it.  I get it.  I get that you get it.  Reasonably speaking, everyone posting in this thread is above the newbie-level, but I think there is nothing wrong with the line.  "Recommended" is merely that: a soft suggestion to keep things fair and keep the game moving along.

*edit* I didn't start playing with ASF until AlphaStrike, and I never looked at ASF as being initiative sinks until I actually started fielding them.  I understand how they can be, but that's not why I'd want to field them.

[nckestrel]

Clan Kirghiz's being punished for being "init sinks" doesn't make sense to me.  I need to be punished because my Kirghiz has to leave the combat area for every other turn?  While the other player could have 9 PV artillery behind a hill, in a building, tapping as an init sink every turn?

Air units are no more init sinks than any other unit.  Units are init sinks.  There are 146 units in the MUL with 1-5 PV. Zero of them are aerospace or even conventional fighters.  The cheapest conventional fighter is 8 PV.  Aerospace fighters start at 12 PV.  You can have four infantry init sinks (2 PV) for a single conventional fighter (8 PV).  And six infantry for a single aerospace fighter.

I don't see an issue with aerospace units as init sinks.  There are cheaper, more effective and still legal init sinks out there.