Fighter Duels Over the central Zone

[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.