How would you change the Aerospace Rules?

[Psyckosama]

Just wondering what changes you'd do to the Aerospace rules to make them make more sense to you?

Note, this includes rewriting/retconning the units so feel free to go wild.

[Alsadius]

Oh god, what wouldn't I do? I tend to think more of JS/WS than fighters, so that'll skew this, but here's my short list:
- AMS is totally broken right now, and needs a major nerf.
- Armor values are stupidly low, as are weapon damages - the capital:standard ratio should probably be 100:1, not 10:1.
- Fire control weight is a terrible patch to try to fix the above.
- DropShip collars costing more than new ships is really odd. I'd probably make the mass of the DS count towards the jump drive's mass cap, instead of having the KF drive just take up 96% of the ship, and use that to limit parasite ships.
- FASAnomics is as much of a problem as ever.
- There's no reason for any ship to be anything other than a generalist. You should always throw a few fighters and a few DS collars and a few big guns and a few little guns on everything. The big ships have too much mass to allow for the design limits of Mechs(i.e., the fact that you can only mount a few main guns) to force them into roles. Give us reasons to specialize instead.

[SeeM]

I am still playing on gravity boards from Aerotech 1 boxes. Gravity arrows make Aerotech different from other space sims and adds many challenges for slower, or damaged vessels.

- Armor values are stupidly low, as are weapon damages - the capital:standard ratio should probably be 100:1, not 10:1.

I like when a Warship have some faster companion, for example Essex with Achilles. Even if Achilles is somewhat useless against Warship even at 10:1 ratio, 100:1 would make it a paperweight.

[Alsadius]

I am still playing on gravity boards from Aerotech 1 boxes. Gravity arrows make Aerotech different from other space sims and adds many challenges for slower, or damaged vessels.

Yeah, I like BT's orbit mechanics. That's genuinely good.

I like when a Warship have some faster companion, for example Essex with Achilles. Even if Achilles is somewhat useless against Warship even at 10:1 ratio, 100:1 would make it a paperweight.

Not if DropShips got the 10:1 ratio.

[AlphaMirage]

I'd first figure out what elements you want to keep as part of the main game.  As much as I like Warships it is tough to design such beasts without them becoming overwhelming.  I'd prefer they keep the Aerospace rules for Dropship, Aerospace fighters, and Space Stations/Asteroid bases only.  Jumpships are setting we don't need sophisticated rules for them.

[Kidd]

feel free to go wild.

Create a new ruleset that totally converts weapons and equipment to a new "Space-scale" that can scale up to handle massive naval fleet battles

Throw the entirety of Dropships and Jumpships, TRO: 3057r and TechManual out the window - make up new stats AND construction rules where the only thing preserved would be general unit flavour - an Invader still has 3 collars, a Black Lion still NAC-murders almost everything, Leviathans are still nearly gamebreaking god devices, etc.

Look, space warfare has minimal interaction with classic BT tabletop. Its the one part of the BT game suite that can and should be utterly retconned.

[Nemesis]

Range.
Completely eliminate the TW rule about aero ranges being standardized, and use the normal ground weapon ranges. IIRC that may be an optional rule somewhere, but it should be the official rule.

Why? Because the BV system wasn't designed for it.

Unless every weapon gets a separate AeroBV to take into account the new weapon stats, it completely breaks any battle between Clan and IS forces. With flat range brackets IS and Clan weapons get the same ranges without paying the BV for them, resulting in IS designs that cost a fraction of a Clan aero while having the same capabilities.

Take the Small Pulse Laser for example. Under aero rules both IS and Clan versions are 2 heat, 3 damage, short range. The IS version is 12 BV while the Clan version is 24, meaning with completely identical designs the Clan fighter will be at a 2:1 disadvantage in numbers.

[idea weenie]

Internal Structure is actually made of two types: Thrust Structure and Armor Structure
Thrust Structure - used to hold the ship together when performing maneuvers or bringing the engine to Overthrust.  You can install more structure, in case your ship takes damage
Armor Structure - determines threshold rating of armor, not armor tonnage alone

Armor pts per ton is based on a ship's surface area.  The more components you install over a certain amount, the more surface area the ship has, and the less armor points per ton you get.  You essentially take the surface area, convert that through an equation to get armor points per ton, and multiply that by tons of armor to get armor points.  You then allocate normally.

Instead of chart break points, you use equations.  Mass determines tons of fuel per burn-day, so no designing a ship 1 kton below the break point.  Due to Docking Collars having a limit of 1 per 50ktons, there will still be ships built near those values.

Give a reason for the civilian drives to be used.  Perhaps they only have a Thrust rating, but not Overthrust?  The advantage is that they might be smaller than military engines, about 5% of the ship's mass per Thrust point.  (So a 3/5 ship needs 19.5% of the ship's mass, but a civilian drive only needs 15%.  A 2/3 engine only needs 13%, so we would have to figure out what multiplier to fuel usage would be best so civilian ships would prefer to use Thrust 3, instead of going around at OverThrust on a 2/3 engine.)

Non-capital weapons cannot damage capital armor.  They can try for critical hits, and they can be used for damaging internal structure.  This makes fighters have to carry antishipping weaponry to harm Warships, but if the Warship's armor is gone from one location, expect enemy fighters to swarm that location.

Fighter squadron armor is based on the highest three locations, but the threshold is based on the average of the lowest 3 locations.  I also want to make it where fighters in a squadron are more effective than single fighters.  Perhaps a penalty based on the number of fighters less than 4?

[Nicoli]

Armor pts per ton is based on a ship's surface area.  The more components you install over a certain amount, the more surface area the ship has, and the less armor points per ton you get.  You essentially take the surface area, convert that through an equation to get armor points per ton, and multiply that by tons of armor to get armor points.  You then allocate normally.

Most likely armor on an object like a warship would not be uniform across the ship. Only the "important" parts would have any serious armor on them with the rest allowed to be damaged or destroyed. An example would be like most armored naval ship. Only the core or "Citadel" areas of a ship mostly the engine rooms and magazines get real armor. the rest can be as much as a 1/30th the thickness of the citadel armor.

[Flameblade]

My changes have no basis on physics or anything stupid like that.  I would desire to make things more fun.

I would change that non-capital weapons would have to do 10 points of base damage in order to do 1 point cap damage and it would round down.  No more large group of ML to strafe cap armor.

I would allow turrets to be placed on warships.  Allowing big guns to have many different facings.  And I would have more locations on a ship in general with random hit location like battlemechs.  These turrets would of course need to have their own armor like with Vee's. 

I would allow fighters to target specific locations.

I would have a shotgun like round for NAC's that would deal non-capital damage to all units in a particular hex or group of hexes.  Possibly a "wide angle lens" for lasers to do the same. 

I have a decent number of systems on a Cap ship that could damaged.  Targeting controls, drive, life support, bridge, engineering, doors, docking collars etc.  Damaging or destroy these system would impart penalties on the ship.   I would also be requiring different systems for non-combat operations.  So if you would want to do find units from orbit you would need to have systems in place to detect units from orbit.  If you wanted to detect ship's far away in space you would need systems in place to detect said units. Something like locations from mechs.  With things like engines must be located in the rear and bridge in a "center torso"  location. 

[ColBosch]

Throw out everything and start over. As Kidd said, keep the basic feel while ruthlessly making sure I'm making a fun game that isn't just 'Mechs in space.

[marcussmythe]

If were throwing out and starting over, FASA published a decent space warship game once upon a time.  It was a bit over-simplified but the bones of what Im sure were a really cool precursor that was abandoned for the simplified version could still be seen.

[Kidd]

I would allow fighters to target specific locations.


I have a decent number of systems on a Cap ship that could damaged.  Targeting controls, drive, life support, bridge, engineering, doors, docking collars etc.  Damaging or destroy these system would impart penalties on the ship.   I would also be requiring different systems for non-combat operations.  So if you would want to do find units from orbit you would need to have systems in place to detect units from orbit.  If you wanted to detect ship's far away in space you would need systems in place to detect said units. Something like locations from mechs.  With things like engines must be located in the rear and bridge in a "center torso"  location. 

I like this.

In my rules ASFs would only be nuisances but carry short ramged capital missiles (ie torpedoes) which can potentially destroy a medium sized ship in about 5 successful hits. At "Squadron" scale (medium battles) they would form squadrons of 6 to 10 and fight like BA squads - weapons aggregated into 2 to 3 individual attacks each, dealing random damage until structure points are gone or fatal crits are inflicted.

At "Fleet" scale (for really big battles) they would form in wings of 18 to 30 and fight more like infantry platoons, with more abstracted difference in damage and armour.

AMS, EW and ECM would be an integral part of the game, and installed on most if not all Warships. The map would have satellites of various kinds as "cover", cause action would mostly take place near the planet of course. Chaff would be deployable at a short and medium distance and last for about 2 turns, but take a turn to expand and fill the hex - so preplanning would be required.

Lasers would be weak and hot. Missiles the best ranged damage dealers, but vulnerable to ECM and AMS. ACs, highly inaccurate at long range.

Heading changes would not be as instantaneous as it is now. Naturally different designs and weapons would optimise different arcs. So the tactical challenges would be manoeuvreing into better firing positions/ranges using obstacles, planning chaff barrages to provide cover, using ASF-delivered capital weapons effectively, and using EW/ECM well... or just run up close and batter each other to death Age of Sail style, works too!

Optional rule - use levels to simulate 3d combat!

[Starfox1701]

 oh boy where to begin? let's see first off as time has gone on the BattleTech universe has advanced except warships. the naval autocannons you used a day are the same Naval Auto cannons used in the 24th century that means the weapon system has remained essentially unchanged for 800 years. that's BS. there's also a question of scale. Originally a space hex was 6500 km. currently they are only 18 km. that is a humongous difference in range and speed for warships and drop ships. Lastly as originally envisioned warships in BattleTech or more like pre dreadnought ironclads and early Cruisers and battleships. Currently they are equipped more like age of sail frigates and Men of War. both analogies actually lend two very different Construction and play styles. I find it highly unlikely that advanced space combat ships would be constructed similarly  to wooden sailing warships.

Development of space weapons technology and advancements in Naval Construction and Naval architecture has stagnated in the BattleTech universe and this is something that the game developers do not seem to have an interest in changing at this time even though it's pretty clear that a properly developed and supported BattleTech universe space combat simulator could and would sell well.

 in making changes  to the aerospace systems of this game the first thing needs to be making the ships actually work the way the written in the fluff. The second thing is technology must move forward. There are a large number of mechs scale advances that could be applied to spaceships.  Unfortunately they have missed a massive opportunity in the clan invasion to do this and while there was some progression during the jihad it was mainly aimed at rendering warships impotent or obsolete.

This leaves us in the following position, the year is 3150 and the whole of human civilization has an ageing fleet of warships most of which are 100 or more years old. Fewer than a handful are constructed each decade and by all appearances little or no effort is being made to rectify this state of affairs. To make matters worse humanity is more divided then they have been at any time in the last 1000 years.

However all is not lost. This so-called dark age is not like the self inflicted collapses of the past. The last 120 years has seen a technological revival that has seen mankind surpass the heights of the starleage era. The stage is set for the age of battleships to truly dawn if we have the courage to stay the course.

In my mind this will require a multidrectional approach. Obviously a rules overhaul is long overdue but I am unable to speculate on exactly what because I'm finding that getting a handle on the current rules set is very frustrating because of how they are divided up.  A single unified book is a must for aerospace players; something like the BattleMech Manual. The current setup doesn't suffer so much from rules blote so much as from just being really inefficient in its arrangement. After a several years long break from the game forced by real life I am appalled by how not user friendly this setup is. I think this was something that might have looked good on paper but in execution has become a nightmare for new players as they try to make heads or tails of everything. The rules don't need simplified or streamlined, they need rearranged to make stuff easier to find and use.

Fluff wise 2 major things need to be done. First the question of how the weapons are arranged on these ships must be settled. Are we dealing with fixed carronades like age of sail ships of the line or turrets, sponsons, and barbets like on warships at the dawn of the 20th century. A mixture of both is feasible but needs to be expressly stated so that the rules can then be written accordingly.  This means both an expansion of the fireing arc rules and going over every single cannon hull to apply them. Second the post jihad period and the early dark age needs the appropriate fluff to cover the new technology that will be added and be coming of age in this time period. This isn't really a retcon so much as just filling out the fluff since in game we only learn what each government or organization wants us to know when they want us to know it so its not like the writers haven't left the door open for this.

Construction rules that need to change are a quite a few. 1st off are jump cores. While having the core take up a fixed percentage of mass is neat and tidy its not very realistic from a in universe physics stand point. A given drive of a given mass should be able to produce a field of a given volume. There's also the fluffy factoid that early jumpships need to carry big transit drives, huge hangers, and massive cargo facilities as well as the huge fule tankage needed to feed these drives. Yet we are supposed to believe they did all this with ships. A half million tons or less and jump cores taking up 95% of the ships mass. You ever tried to build one of those things? It can't be done with the current rules yet we know they existed so something doesn't add up. There's also the fact that listed mass of the ship is not the actual limit of mass the core can actually move. Take the Leviathan iii, she has a core rated for 2.3 million tons but in actual fact will move 3.3 million tons under full drop load.  That's not a small difference. There's also the case of the Newgrange yardship that jumped a whole monitor to Tau Ceti from Sol. That was at least 450000 extra tons. So if the core can jump that much extra mass what is the actual limit? This component needs a complete rework because the rules don't line up with the history.

The second thing is weapons. To put it simply we need more variety in all sup cap and full cap weapons. It is also time to add super capital weapons and I don't mean mass drivers. Plasma cannons gauss and ppcs added to sub caps list. Capital plasma is also a must. At this point every weapons innovation made on mechs scale weapons should be evaluated to see if a sub capital and capital scale counterpart is feasible. Super capital weapons should include torpedos, ie big slow guided missiles, and at least one each of the following autocannon, ppc, gauss rifle. Naval lasers already do so little damage individually that I doubt scaling them up would provide damage on the same level as other super capital weapons. Autocannon, ppcs, and gauss are much easier to scale up. Especially autocannon.

Third time to add a new component of sorts. This is the citadel. Warships are big and expensive but the construction rules don't include all the logical viable options to enhance there survivability. The armored citadel would function basically like armored components on a battlemech except this would encompass multiple internal components like the jump core reactors and internal main drive components .

Fourth turrets. These are going to come in multiple types but need to be divided into three eras. To reflect the different weapons arrangements. Era one, traditional weapons bays which are arranged like ships of the line. Pros - traditional weapons setup essentially unlimited weapons in the traditional arc arrangement. Cons - these weapons require weapons ports. These compromise the armor integrity. These ships have a lower threshold. Era two, predreadnought ironclad type. These sweapons are arranged in barbets, sponsons, and small turrets. Pros - wider fields of fire than weapons bays. Traditional threshold levels. Cons - Barbets are litely armored. They take damage easily. All three require some extra equipment which means extra weight.  Era three, Dreadnought/Battleship type. All turret gun battery. Divided into 3 types of turrets. Main battery turrets, secondary battery turrets, and anti-aerospace turrets.  Pros - higher threshold due to improved armor integrity. Main battery is only type of turret that can mount super capitals. Secondary battery can have dule firecontrol. AA turrets get bonus to hit on small craft. Turrets have best foreign arcs and are the most efficient use of tonnage for weapons. Cons- main and secondary turrets can be truly massive constructs. Wide fields of fire open up turrets to equally wide counter batter fire making them more likely to get hit. AA turrets useless against capital ships due too a lack of firepower.

Adittional notes on turret weapons. Barbets lack fully in closed armor casemates. This is a weight saving measure but makes them very fragile especially when attacked by small craft. Sponsons are fully armored. Both amounted on a particular facing of the ship and have q maximum of 180 degree arc. Both have magazines inside the ship but these can be inside an armoured citadel. Small, main, secondary, and AA turrets are fully in closed self contained gun emplacements. They utilize maglev frictionless rotation and electromagnetic gforce compensation. All magazines are internal to the turret. Main battery and secondar guns habe multiple armor facings. I could go on for a while but this is turning into a book so ill come down off the sole box now.

[Red Pins]

Throw out everything and start over. As Kidd said, keep the basic feel while ruthlessly making sure I'm making a fun game that isn't just 'Mechs in space.

Basically.  Plus lots more.  There have been all kinds of ideas floated here, but whatever gets decided it needs to be consistent, well-reasoned, and written in stone.  Frankly, it seems so unlikely, I'd expect it to be part of a fan-driven effort to reboot the game rather than an official product.  A pipe dream, even if such an effort appeals to the masochist in me.  And that's before TPTB start howling and lawyers start getting involved.  I don't think it would end well.

[Hellraiser]

Just wondering what changes you'd do to the Aerospace rules to make them make more sense to you?

Note, this includes rewriting/retconning the units so feel free to go wild.

Both of my changes would be in the construction rules area and both result in more cargo space for Jumpships.

1.  I would change the KF Drives to be 90% & 45% respectively.
Both free up a small amount of room & they are a standard 2-1 size ratio like SFE/XL are.
This allows L1 jumpships to match the early DS/JS fluff of larger cargo bays along the spine.
Something can support an small taskforce w/o having to pack a Mammoth in every fleet.

2.  Allow Compact Cores in Jumpships.   Creating a Hybrid Jumpship/Space Station with massive cargo space for fleet support/colonization, etc etc.

[Andras]

If were throwing out and starting over, FASA published a decent space warship game once upon a time.  It was a bit over-simplified but the bones of what Im sure were a really cool precursor that was abandoned for the simplified version could still be seen.

If you are talking about Renegade Legion: Leviathan, I'm sorry to report it's probably more broken then Aerotech. In that game, fighters and missiles ruled supreme, and a flight of 6 fighters could cut a battleship in half in one turn.

Small craft took up that same construction units (bay factors) as a fighter, but you could design and carry small craft that each carried 12 fighters, giving you 12x as many fighters in the same space.

[marcussmythe]

As I said, there was the bones of a cool, and more complex, precusor under the published, over-simplified and somewhat buggy version.

Having only gotten one edition, it never got a chance to get fixed (and fighters were one of the things that badly needed fixing.  As were breakpoints for ship size.  And the FASA exponential engine size brainbug, and and and...

But, to take this back to battletech...  the real genius of BTech, IMHO, is heat.  It allows another resource to be managed, with pros and cons, allowing for more interesting decisions in combat rather than ‘shoot all the guns all the time.’

Heat is an even more pressing constraint for a space going vehicle.

If I did a ground up redesign, Id do a warship scale game with warship design and a rigid discontinuities between capital and non-capital scale.  Asrospace Fighters shoot at mechs and dropships and vice versa, so we probably cant change them.  Just do a game at warship scale and leave the fighters and droppers alone, with some rules for converting them into ‘warship scale’ behavior, much like mecha and vehicles are converted and standardized to function at a battleforce scale.

[Charistoph]

Both of my changes would be in the construction rules area and both result in more cargo space for Jumpships.

1.  I would change the KF Drives to be 90% & 45% respectively.
Both free up a small amount of room & they are a standard 2-1 size ratio like SFE/XL are.
This allows L1 jumpships to match the early DS/JS fluff of larger cargo bays along the spine.
Something can support an small taskforce w/o having to pack a Mammoth in every fleet.

2.  Allow Compact Cores in Jumpships.   Creating a Hybrid Jumpship/Space Station with massive cargo space for fleet support/colonization, etc etc.

What if dropship collar cost and mass was related to Core Size?  For example: For Compact Cores, only the first 2-4 would be "Standard", capable of being tied in to the Core with no difficulty, but any more would be "Extended" requiring extensive linkages and workings to tie the Collars in to the Jump.  For Standard Cores, there would be no limit due to its massive size generating a larger radius.  Extended Collars would cost as now, but the Standard Collars would be 1/3 to 1/2 the price (both C-Bill and mass) of what they are now?

Then add a Quirk for the Potemkin like a Collar Network which would treat its Collars like a Standard Core.

[Hellraiser]

What if dropship collar cost and mass was related to Core Size?  For example: For Compact Cores, only the first 2-4 would be "Standard", capable of being tied in to the Core with no difficulty, but any more would be "Extended" requiring extensive linkages and workings to tie the Collars in to the Jump.  For Standard Cores, there would be no limit due to its massive size generating a larger radius.  Extended Collars would cost as now, but the Standard Collars would be 1/3 to 1/2 the price (both C-Bill and mass) of what they are now?

Then add a Quirk for the Potemkin like a Collar Network which would treat its Collars like a Standard Core.

Interesting idea, but, instead, I'd rather just completely revamp the C-Bill costs for KF ships so that the Docking Collars were not so ridiculously priced to add on.

I'd like to the the Collars be a much smaller price increase, like 1/4 of what they are now, and instead see a SIZE multiplier for KF ships the same way Ground Units & ASF do it.

IDK, call it 5% per 50KT or something like that.

LFBs should still be pricey given what they do, but I'd like to see them cheaper by 25-50% or so.

[Charistoph]

Interesting idea, but, instead, I'd rather just completely revamp the C-Bill costs for KF ships so that the Docking Collars were not so ridiculously priced to add on.

I'd like to the the Collars be a much smaller price increase, like 1/4 of what they are now, and instead see a SIZE multiplier for KF ships the same way Ground Units & ASF do it.

IDK, call it 5% per 50KT or something like that.

LFBs should still be pricey given what they do, but I'd like to see them cheaper by 25-50% or so.

Both can still be done.

[beachhead1985]

Go to a movement/maneuver system similar to that seen in X-Wing and Armada, keep the combat system.

[Charistoph]

Go to a movement/maneuver system similar to that seen in X-Wing and Armada, keep the combat system.

That doesn't really work.  Battletech doesn't have the gear to do repulsor lift tech, or whatever the heck it is, that allows for ships to operate in vacuum like they were in air.  It operates more on the physics we know in terms of thrust vectoring, and that doesn't work with the Wings of Glory system very well.  It's a lot more convenient to operate on that system, not doubt, but currently the fluff just doesn't support it at all.

[Nicoli]

That doesn't really work.  Battletech doesn't have the gear to do repulsor lift tech, or whatever the heck it is, that allows for ships to operate in vacuum like they were in air.  It operates more on the physics we know in terms of thrust vectoring, and that doesn't work with the Wings of Glory system very well.  It's a lot more convenient to operate on that system, not doubt, but currently the fluff just doesn't support it at all.

depends on how you do the turns. If you do it so that you place the model sideways at the end of a turn you get fairly close. Would it be perfect no, but near enough to be functional.

[ColBosch]

I would be perfectly fine with changing the canon to fit new rules. It's been done before.

[Charistoph]

depends on how you do the turns. If you do it so that you place the model sideways at the end of a turn you get fairly close. Would it be perfect no, but near enough to be functional.

Not really.  How you do the turns has nothing to do with it.  If you are not taking inertia and momentum in to account, it stops being newtonian physics and becomes something else entirely.  X-Wing can work like Wings of Glory because their ships fly like they have resistance in turns and top speed to help them through their maneuvers.  Armada isn't much different, as they are still using engines which allow them to ignore those netwonian physics.  Battlespace is based on having to pay attention to those newtonian physics as much as the Honorverse game does.

It could be implemented, but it would change the game to being something completely different.

[Nicoli]

Not really.  How you do the turns has nothing to do with it.  If you are not taking inertia and momentum in to account, it stops being newtonian physics and becomes something else entirely.  X-Wing can work like Wings of Glory because their ships fly like they have resistance in turns and top speed to help them through their maneuvers.  Armada isn't much different, as they are still using engines which allow them to ignore those netwonian physics.  Battlespace is based on having to pay attention to those newtonian physics as much as the Honorverse game does.

It could be implemented, but it would change the game to being something completely different.

First, stop thinking you have to drop in a rule set in its entirety. When ever you apply thrust in aerospace you will always end up in the same location for that combination of initial speed and thrust. That means you can use x-wing style templates instead of calculating it every time. So we pull in the speed dial from Armada, ditch the movement dial from X-wing, make the facing of the ship separate from the direction of travel like the rotating turret arc in X-wing. Now your movement rules end up like this. Each turn you can spend a point of thrust to: Increase or decrease your speed by 1, increase your turn by 1(which determines your facing at the end of the move), or change your facing by 1 hex side after you move. One sentence and you can do everything you can do in the current rules except no math for the players.

[Charistoph]

First, stop thinking you have to drop in a rule set in its entirety.

I will when that is the suggestion given without any modifiers.  Beachhead1985 literally stated using the X-Wing/Armada "movement/maneuver SYSTEM".

When ever you apply thrust in aerospace you will always end up in the same location for that combination of initial speed and thrust. That means you can use x-wing style templates instead of calculating it every time. So we pull in the speed dial from Armada, ditch the movement dial from X-wing, make the facing of the ship separate from the direction of travel like the rotating turret arc in X-wing. Now your movement rules end up like this. Each turn you can spend a point of thrust to: Increase or decrease your speed by 1, increase your turn by 1(which determines your facing at the end of the move), or change your facing by 1 hex side after you move. One sentence and you can do everything you can do in the current rules except no math for the players.

The problem is that either A) makes the templates pointless, or B) ignores the conservation of momentum that is currently in place in the game.  X-Wing templates don't work for conservation of momentum at all, save for maybe the bootleg.  The Armada template is clunky and still won't take CoM in to full account.

If you're willing to get rid of the conservation of momentum to just have it considered to be accounted in the maneuver, that's fine, but call it for what it is, and that is dropping the current system completely in favor of another.

[Nicoli]

I will when that is the suggestion given without any modifiers.  Beachhead1985 literally stated using the X-Wing/Armada "movement/maneuver SYSTEM".

The problem is that either A) makes the templates pointless, or B) ignores the conservation of momentum that is currently in place in the game.  X-Wing templates don't work for conservation of momentum at all, save for maybe the bootleg.  The Armada template is clunky and still won't take CoM in to full account.

If you're willing to get rid of the conservation of momentum to just have it considered to be accounted in the maneuver, that's fine, but call it for what it is, and that is dropping the current system completely in favor of another.

Just as a heads up, current aerotech rules do not account for conservation of momentum. Because as is every person on a battletech warship dies the instant it fires its engines as the burn time for any maneuver is instantaneous. As for my suggestion it does keep conservation of momentum in place. If your trucking at 6 speed and you spend 3 thrust left or right your still burning at 6 speed. Just now in different direction. You want to cut tighter turn, you'd have to spend thrust to slow down and turn which is exactly what you have to do now. All this does is eliminate the weird hex movement system, and sacrifices some of the requirement to spend thrust to turn to apply thrust.

[Sabelkatten]

Instant burn time is arguably a reasonable sacrifice to keep the play area from needing to be 200x200 hexes minimum...

My personal goal is to get rid of WarShips, followed by uniform construction rules for all space vessels and (somewhat) realistic fuel consumption. I'll see if I can dig up my old outline for a new construction system.

[Charistoph]

Just as a heads up, current aerotech rules do not account for conservation of momentum.

Good to know.  I haven't reviewed the most recent rules, nor seen a reference to such a change here.  I just remember it from the original BattleSpace days, yes, the one that came after Aerotech 2!

Because as is every person on a battletech warship dies the instant it fires its engines as the burn time for any maneuver is instantaneous.

That's news.  The normal timeframe for Aerotech and Battlespace was a full minute.  Considering that most dropships, much less warships, don't pull that level of acceleration that you describe, I do think your math is a little off on that.  The Thrust Points used are levels of acceleration, which are easily converted to Gs, which carries no specific amount of time with it, and are quite tolerable by a ship's crew (passengers may not be as much).  In addition, we go through far more severe "instant" accelerations all the time and survive quite easily.

As for my suggestion it does keep conservation of momentum in place. If your trucking at 6 speed and you spend 3 thrust left or right your still burning at 6 speed. Just now in different direction. You want to cut tighter turn, you'd have to spend thrust to slow down and turn which is exactly what you have to do now. All this does is eliminate the weird hex movement system, and sacrifices some of the requirement to spend thrust to turn to apply thrust.

Momentum is conserved across vectors.  If you spend 3 Thrust to the left will not stop any of your momentum from going "forward" at 6 speed, you'll just also be going 3 speed to the left as well.  Until you actually direct thrust against the forward vector will it alter speed against that.

But more to the point, Aerotech/Battlespace should not be replicating Wings of Glory/X-Wing/SWArmada, partially because the tech medium they operate with are so separate and disconnected.

[ColBosch]

Good to know.  I haven't reviewed the most recent rules, nor seen a reference to such a change here.  I just remember it from the original BattleSpace days, yes, the one that came after Aerotech 2!

AeroTech 2 was published several years after BattleSpace.

But more to the point, Aerotech/Battlespace should not be replicating Wings of Glory/X-Wing/SWArmada, partially because the tech medium they operate with are so separate and disconnected.

If the game isn't fun to play, then who cares how true to "canon" or "realism" it is? Personally I'd prefer to use Triplanetary's pseudo-vector movement system, but I think Armada would work for miniatures play.

[Nicoli]

Good to know.  I haven't reviewed the most recent rules, nor seen a reference to such a change here.  I just remember it from the original BattleSpace days, yes, the one that came after Aerotech 2!

That's news.  The normal timeframe for Aerotech and Battlespace was a full minute.  Considering that most dropships, much less warships, don't pull that level of acceleration that you describe, I do think your math is a little off on that.  The Thrust Points used are levels of acceleration, which are easily converted to Gs, which carries no specific amount of time with it, and are quite tolerable by a ship's crew (passengers may not be as much).  In addition, we go through far more severe "instant" accelerations all the time and survive quite easily.

While the game attempts to account for it it accounts for it extremely poorly. Most of the burn times to get the change in velocity would be well in excess of a minute. and if you changed your momentum from 3 to 2 you should actually move about 2.6 hexes. That and the fact that to do a maneuver you are constantly changing your direction of thrust along the entire length of the burn.

Momentum is conserved across vectors.  If you spend 3 Thrust to the left will not stop any of your momentum from going "forward" at 6 speed, you'll just also be going 3 speed to the left as well.  Until you actually direct thrust against the forward vector will it alter speed against that.

That is a system designed because you are restricted by the hexes in only doing movement in 60 degree angles. Trying to pull off maneuvers that are common in space maneuvering using a vector maneuvering system in hexes are non-intuitive at best. Of course if your smart or just have a lot of experience you've spend time either created actually maneuver diagrams to pre-plan common maneuvers or you do it in your head. By creating templates available to everyone you make it so that you don't need to do that.

But more to the point, Aerotech/Battlespace should not be replicating Wings of Glory/X-Wing/SWArmada, partially because the tech medium they operate with are so separate and disconnected.

The interesting thing is that while each of those three games that you mentioned use a template style movement system, none of them use the same system. Wings of glory uses multiple cards which are also the template to plan a couple of turns ahead. X-wing uses multiple cardboard templates with dials to plan semi-simultaneous movement. Armada uses a flexible plastic template and speed dials to handle sluggish maneuvering of large capital ships. Part of using a template system is determining what needs to be baked into your templates and designing templates to cover those. You want Newtonian style movement from thrusting in different directions, not a problem I can create a templates system that handle that. It's actually one of the easier systems because the results are fixed. If going A speed in X direction and you want to apply B speed in Y direction you will end up going C speed in Z direction.

[Starfox1701]

Or ending up with a math mess like starfleet battles

[Sabelkatten]

The maneuver system you describe sounds awfully much like the original AT1/BS system. The game moved away from that because frankly it's not a very good idea.

[Nicoli]

The maneuver system you describe sounds awfully much like the original AT1/BS system. The game moved away from that because frankly it's not a very good idea.

The just looked at it, the original AT1/BS system used a weird hybrid thrust maneuver system. it didn't use templates for normal stuff and was really a starting point while being stuck with hex based movement which is really awkward for movement in a Newtonian environment as you don't burn in 60deg increments.   

[idea weenie]

Interesting idea, but, instead, I'd rather just completely revamp the C-Bill costs for KF ships so that the Docking Collars were not so ridiculously priced to add on.

I'd like to the the Collars be a much smaller price increase, like 1/4 of what they are now, and instead see a SIZE multiplier for KF ships the same way Ground Units & ASF do it.

IDK, call it 5% per 50KT or something like that.

LFBs should still be pricey given what they do, but I'd like to see them cheaper by 25-50% or so.

What about if you could put extra collar on (beyond the 1/50kton limit), but they got much more massive and expensive as you did so?  I'd also like to make it where instead of 50kton break points, you'd factor in total 'effective size (not phrasing this right, need to demonstrate)

So assuming a Jumpship of 330ktons, it could have up to 6 DS hardpoints at the base price.

If you are willing to pay the mass and tonnage for more, it can have up to a total of 13 DS docking points, and the extra 7 are at the doubled price/mass.

A proper equation would have a smooth curve for the mass/cost of the DS hardpoints, depending on the mass of the Jumpship.  For example, a 200kton Jumpship might have 4 Docking points, and the 4th would be twice as massive and expensive as the first.  A 400kton Jumpship would have 8 Docking points, and the 8th would be twice as expensive and massive as the first.  Essentially, the twice as massive Jumpship has twice the capacity for additional Docking Collars.

It also means that adding extra 2 Docking collars to the smaller one will require more mass/cost than adding 2 collars to the larger Jumpship.

This would be a fun equation to create, where you sum up the number of Docking Collars, apply it to and equation like this, and have to divide by the Jumpship's mass.  The real fun part is if you use the mass of the Jumpship to the 2/3 power, as a Jumpship 8* as massive will only have 4* as much surface area.

[Hellraiser]

What about if you could put extra collar on (beyond the 1/50kton limit), but they got much more massive and expensive as you did so?  I'd also like to make it where instead of 50kton break points, you'd factor in total 'effective size (not phrasing this right, need to demonstrate)

So assuming a Jumpship of 330ktons, it could have up to 6 DS hardpoints at the base price.

If you are willing to pay the mass and tonnage for more, it can have up to a total of 13 DS docking points, and the extra 7 are at the doubled price/mass.

A proper equation would have a smooth curve for the mass/cost of the DS hardpoints, depending on the mass of the Jumpship.  For example, a 200kton Jumpship might have 4 Docking points, and the 4th would be twice as massive and expensive as the first.  A 400kton Jumpship would have 8 Docking points, and the 8th would be twice as expensive and massive as the first.  Essentially, the twice as massive Jumpship has twice the capacity for additional Docking Collars.

It also means that adding extra 2 Docking collars to the smaller one will require more mass/cost than adding 2 collars to the larger Jumpship.

This would be a fun equation to create, where you sum up the number of Docking Collars, apply it to and equation like this, and have to divide by the Jumpship's mass.  The real fun part is if you use the mass of the Jumpship to the 2/3 power, as a Jumpship 8* as massive will only have 4* as much surface area.

Interesting but, This idea will really only effect Warhips IMHO.  Jumpships don't have enough space available to be doubling or tripling up on the standard # of collars.  (At least I don't think they do).

Really though, even if they did.  We have very few examples in cannon of ships with maximum #'s of collars as it is.

The original basic 5 JS from DS/JS were maxed except the Scout which could hold a 2nd collar since you round fractions.

Many of the newer JS sacrifice collars to have some bonus weapons/armor/LFB etc etc.

Warships which have plenty of space for collars almost never max them.  Even the Mighty Potemkin could have actually had another 5 collars on it.

I'd actually like to see more WS take advantage of max DS collars like the Tracker & Fox do.

[Starfox1701]

Besides dropship carrying capacity is assumed to be tied into the structure hence the 1 per 50 k tons rule. So in order for this to work you would need to beef up the ships structure not the additional collars.

[idea weenie]

Interesting but, This idea will really only effect Warhips IMHO.  Jumpships don't have enough space available to be doubling or tripling up on the standard # of collars.  (At least I don't think they do).

Jumpships normally have 95% their mass in KF core.  I was tossing ideas to go with Hellraiser's idea of regular core being 90% of the JS mass.    :thumbsup:

Though that would be fun, where various core percentages are available.  95% would be the dirt cheap KF style, little more than the KF itself, some controls, and a few Dropships on the outside.  90% would be a more frontier style Jumpship, with more onboard cargo/fuel capacity.  At ~50% you are getting into ships where the main hull is the transport, instead of the Dropships on the outside.  At 25% you are designing full-fledged warships.

Cost multiplier might be [ship mass/KF core mass]².  So 50% could have a x4 multiplier, 25% would be x16 multiplier, and Star League espionage ships at 10% (or less) could be x100 multiplier or higher.

Warships which have plenty of space for collars almost never max them.  Even the Mighty Potemkin could have actually had another 5 collars on it.

I'd actually like to see more WS take advantage of max DS collars like the Tracker & Fox do.

I believe most of that is due to the cost of the KF core being affected by the number of Docking collars.  The Collars might only mass 1 kton each, but imagine the cost increase for a McKenna (or Leviathan) using the max number of Docking Collars.

Besides dropship carrying capacity is assumed to be tied into the structure hence the 1 per 50 k tons rule. So in order for this to work you would need to beef up the ships structure not the additional collars.

I figured the additional structure would be part of the DS Docking Collar tonnage.  Structure used for supporting the Docking Collar isn't useful for acceleration, and it isn't helping support the armor for better thresholding.  Since it only affects the Docking Collar, I'd just put the tonnage for that structure as part of the heavier Docking Collars mounted on a ship.

[Charistoph]

AeroTech 2 was published several years after BattleSpace.

Really?  I could have sworn I got Aerotech 2 before getting BattleSpace, but that could have been on the provider part, or I could be mixing up a ForgeWorld book in to it.

If the game isn't fun to play, then who cares how true to "canon" or "realism" it is? Personally I'd prefer to use Triplanetary's pseudo-vector movement system, but I think Armada would work for miniatures play.

There is a good point there.  Fun should be the important factor.  And while I do know there are grognards who do enjoy all the finickiness of the ancient system, it can be a little hard for people raised on New Math (much less Common Core Math) to keep up.

That being said, SWArmada's (there are two Armadas out there, btw, and Firestrom Armada uses a Manuevering Template) wouldn't work unless you were going to actively encourage your player's to purchase your competitor's tool.  It is something that is rather complex and actually requires building a plastic link chain.  Considering how hard it is to get CGL to produce plastic models on a regular basis, this would not be a viable solution at this time.

And as bad as the vectoring systems are, they are actually more flexible then going by the X-W/WoG manuevering templates.

While the game attempts to account for it it accounts for it extremely poorly. Most of the burn times to get the change in velocity would be well in excess of a minute. and if you changed your momentum from 3 to 2 you should actually move about 2.6 hexes. That and the fact that to do a maneuver you are constantly changing your direction of thrust along the entire length of the burn.

In order to change direction reliably in space, one usually stops thrusting unless one is desiring to widen their turn to more closely resemble a drift then a controlled maneuver.

That is a system designed because you are restricted by the hexes in only doing movement in 60 degree angles. Trying to pull off maneuvers that are common in space maneuvering using a vector maneuvering system in hexes are non-intuitive at best. Of course if your smart or just have a lot of experience you've spend time either created actually maneuver diagrams to pre-plan common maneuvers or you do it in your head. By creating templates available to everyone you make it so that you don't need to do that.

So, why stick to hexes in the first place?  Hex-based systems are remarkably out of date at this point. 

And as I said above, templates tend to be restrictive, and unnecessarily so.  In addition, not all ships will have the same performance envelopes, which is one more reason I do not think that a universal template is a practical solution.  This would be more noticeable on the ASF level then the warships, but still it is a factor.

[ColBosch]

Indeed, why stick to hexes? And just because one system uses restrictive maneuver templates doesn't mean that ALL templates have to be the same. Car Wars used a "maneuver key" with different angles marked out on it. This is another form of template that allows for more freedom of movement.

Furthermore, I don't want people thinking about the math at all (or, at least, as little as possible). I want a game focused on tactics, where the key to victory is maneuver and concentration of firepower - like a real battle - not metagaming the numbers. Keep the math simple and intuitive, no matter what system you learned arithmetic under, and you've opened the game up to literally millions of potential players.

[Sabelkatten]

In space math isn't metagaming, it's realism... You've pretty much got the choice of math or "airplanes in SPAAACE!".

Of course as long as you've got a hex map the math is all of "add N to X and subtract M/2 from Y" before moving X hexes in the first direction and Y hexes in the second.

[ColBosch]

Please see my earlier comment: I don't care if it's realistic if it isn't fun. That little formula you posted is PRECISELY why I don't play "realistic" vector movement board games. Even if I could stomach it, I'm sure as hell not going to interest any of my friends in that BS.

[Charistoph]

Indeed, why stick to hexes? And just because one system uses restrictive maneuver templates doesn't mean that ALL templates have to be the same. Car Wars used a "maneuver key" with different angles marked out on it. This is another form of template that allows for more freedom of movement.

Those templates are just a different form of hexes, though.  Indeed, they can be even more restrictive if you limit ship classes to only using a specific set (see X-Wing). 

Firestorm Armada uses a Turning Template (provided free in every Patrol Fleet box), and ships have to move forward a certain distance before using it (called a Turn Limit).  The Template limits it to a maximum 45 degrees per turn.  So if a ship has a 2" Turn Limit, in order to turn 90 degrees: it moves forward 2", turns 45 degrees, then forward 2", then turns 45", adding a final inch to the manuever for the template.  It is closer to SW Armada's then X-Wing, but SW Armada is limited by the card and the tool.  But both are far less restrictive and flexible then X-Wing's template set, and less that CGL would have to develop and the players would have to carry.

Furthermore, I don't want people thinking about the math at all (or, at least, as little as possible). I want a game focused on tactics, where the key to victory is maneuver and concentration of firepower - like a real battle - not metagaming the numbers. Keep the math simple and intuitive, no matter what system you learned arithmetic under, and you've opened the game up to literally millions of potential players.

Sorry, space travel involves math, even if it is figuring out how far you should maneuver against how far you can maneuver.  Heck, math is involved in every day life, and I don't have a problem doing a little countdown to resolve a situation.  And, guess what some people actually find that more fun then templates.

[Nicoli]

So, why stick to hexes in the first place?  Hex-based systems are remarkably out of date at this point. 

And as I said above, templates tend to be restrictive, and unnecessarily so.  In addition, not all ships will have the same performance envelopes, which is one more reason I do not think that a universal template is a practical solution.  This would be more noticeable on the ASF level then the warships, but still it is a factor.

I think the hexes should go away in space. There are still some advantages on ground combat with lots of terrain as its easy to determine what terrain you cross, if you ignore the problems with height on a 2D map. With a wide open map that is less of an issue.

As for being restrictive that isn't a bad thing. The more options you have the greater chance of analysis paralysis in players, the longer it takes to reference and determine what options apply, and a greater wall of stuff that needs to be learned for new players.

Sorry, space travel involves math, even if it is figuring out how far you should maneuver against how far you can maneuver.  Heck, math is involved in every day life, and I don't have a problem doing a little countdown to resolve a situation.  And, guess what some people actually find that more fun then templates.

I'd point you to the game Kerbal Space Program as an example of what we should be look at toward a new Aerospace system. If your not familiar with it, it is a computer game where you get to run a Space agency where you build the rockets out of parts and pilot them on missions. While all of the game is based on math, and knowing how to apply it helps you if you get really into it, I can still teach a 10 year old how to plot a Mun (moon) landing mission. This is because the game has really great system that allows you to place a point on your trajectory for a burn then pull on nodes to apply thrust till you get a new trajectory that ends where you want it to. The game does the math and tosses up a marker on your navball for you to point to and gives a little meter and clock to shows how long you need to burn for. This allows the game system to very easily translate what you want to do into you doing it regardless of your background knowledge or abilities.

This is something that a template system done right handles very well.

[Charistoph]

As for being restrictive that isn't a bad thing. The more options you have the greater chance of analysis paralysis in players, the longer it takes to reference and determine what options apply, and a greater wall of stuff that needs to be learned for new players.

And the alternative is frustration when your templates do not allow for simple maneuvers that would be allowed in a Thrust Point system.

I'd point you to the game Kerbal Space Program as an example of what we should be look at toward a new Aerospace system. If your not familiar with it, it is a computer game where you get to run a Space agency where you build the rockets out of parts and pilot them on missions. While all of the game is based on math, and knowing how to apply it helps you if you get really into it, I can still teach a 10 year old how to plot a Mun (moon) landing mission. This is because the game has really great system that allows you to place a point on your trajectory for a burn then pull on nodes to apply thrust till you get a new trajectory that ends where you want it to. The game does the math and tosses up a marker on your navball for you to point to and gives a little meter and clock to shows how long you need to burn for. This allows the game system to very easily translate what you want to do into you doing it regardless of your background knowledge or abilities.

This is something that a template system done right handles very well.

That last sentence is the problem, "done right" is a difficult challenge to do.  Then there is the consideration that there is already enough stuff to put in the game's case without adding far more.  An X-Wing player's kit is usually 1 part models, 1 part cards, and 20 parts tokens and templates.

[ColBosch]

Well, you guys have fun here. I'm just going to go ahead and do my own thing.

[HobbesHurlbut]

That last sentence is the problem, "done right" is a difficult challenge to do.  Then there is the consideration that there is already enough stuff to put in the game's case without adding far more.  An X-Wing player's kit is usually 1 part models, 1 part cards, and 20 parts tokens and templates.

So. How many of those tokens have to do with the movement system AT all? Nevermind that the movement template can be used by ANY model.

[Daryk]

Almost seven years ago, I posted the below to try to rationalize the Small Craft construction rules:

"Small Craft"
The designation "Small Craft" now applies to any craft 500 tons or less.  This class is further broken down into "light" and "heavy" sub-categories, with "light" constituting craft 100 tons or less.  All Small Craft may be designed under either the Tech Manual "Fighter" or "DropShip/Small Craft" rules with the following modifications:
1) Craft designed under the "DropShip/Small Craft" rules have a minimum crew of:
     one at 50 tons and below,
     two at 51-100 tons, and
     three above 100 tons.
2) Non-pilot crew members of craft designed under the "DropShip/Small Craft" rules count as gunners when determining gunner requirements (i.e. a craft with a crew of two may have up to six weapons without incurring a requirement for an additional gunner, while a crew of three can handle 12 weapons),
3) Craft designed under the "DropShip/Small Craft" rules determine free heat sinks using the military or civilian DropShip entries in the table, depending solely on their military or civilian designation (i.e. only civilian Small Craft use the "Small Craft or DropShip (Civilian)" entries). 
4) Small Craft designed as "DropShips/Small Craft" may employ "bay" quality crew quarters (to a minimum of .25 tons).
5) Small Craft designed as "Fighters" may employ Large Fusion Engines as described in TacOps, to include XL and Light models, but not XXL.
6) Small Craft designed as "Fighters" have a minimum crew requirement of one per 100 tons (round up).  Each crew member requires a "cockpit" (3 tons) that includes an ejection seat and redundant life support systems.  Small Craft not designed as "Fighters" do not have ejection seats.
7) All Small Craft refer to the Aerospace Fuel table as normal (i.e. those 400-500 tons only receive 70 points per ton).  Those designed as "Fighters" do not dedicate weight to fuel pumps.
8 ) Military Small Craft designed as "Fighters" have one external hard point per five tons, to a maximum of 20.
9) Small Craft designed as "DropShips/Small Craft" have integral ECM capabilities as described for "Small Craft" in StratOps.  Those designed as "Fighters" do not.
10) Small Craft may not mount Capital weapons, but may mount Sub-Capital weapons.

With regard to movement and combat:
1) Light Small Craft may employ  "Squadron" deployment rules in appropriate combat situations (i.e. large numbers of units on either side).  Heavy Small Craft may not.
2) Small Craft designed as "Fighters" make use of the heat scale.  All others operate under the zero net heat principle.
3) The last two initiative sub-phases are modified to read: "7. Heavy Small Craft, 8. Light Small Craft"
4) Advanced Initiative Modifiers for Light and Heavy Small Craft are +3 and +0, respectively.  These modifiers replace the existing Fighter and Small Craft entries on p. 63 of StratOps.
5) Craft designed as "Fighters" use the "Fighter" rules for Vertical Landing and Liftoff.  All others use the DropShip/Small Craft rules (to include self-inflicted damage).
6) To hit modifiers for capital weapons are adjusted as follows:
     Light Small Craft +5 (+3 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)
     Heavy Small Craft +3 (+1 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)
7) To hit modifiers for sub-capital weapons are adjusted as follows:
     Light Small Craft +3 (+1 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)
     Heavy Small Craft +1 (+0 for Capital Lasers in AAA mode)

One later addition: "Light" Small Craft cubicles are identical to Fighter Cubicles.  "Heavy" cubicles are 50 tons plus the largest tonnage to be housed.

Since then, I'd have to add that Small Craft can use bay quality quarters (vice at least Steerage).  There was an errata that removed that capability from all ships, despite Small Craft being far more impacted by the change.

Separately, I've also toyed with reducing "Strategic" thrust down to 1/10 what it is now.  This would get it somewhere closer to what pure matter/anti-matter conversion can do.

[Charistoph]

So. How many of those tokens have to do with the movement system AT all? Nevermind that the movement template can be used by ANY model.

Straight 1,2,3,4,5,6 (also includes the Boot Leg maneuver).

Long Turn 1,2,3,4 (curved symbol).

Tight Turn 1,2,3  (right angle symbol).

And no, they can't all be used by any model.  Not every model can do the tight turns nor use the full extent of the straight lines.  Now, every model you bring to a fight might fit both of those templates you bring, but each ship has a limited selection of those templates they can use.  There is a huge difference in options between the A-Wing and the YT-1300, after all.

In Aerotech, we're looking at many different performance envelopes across the numerous fighters.  Then add in the Small Craft.  Then there are the Drop Ships.  Now, that's just using the "small" scale, without considering how Jump Ships and Warships work.  To go there, we go to a larger scale, and with that do we relegate fighters to fit within narrowly set bands of performance or allow them their full freedom?

Sure, templates can fit all that, but how many do you want to ask people to carry?  X-Wing got away with it because it is Star Wars, even though there was little difference from Wings of Glory.  CGL MIGHT be able to get away with it if it will actually draw in X-Wing players, but without the theatrical ticket draw, would it work?  In general, I don't think so (as a side note, it might if Disney releases another Last Jedi, and I'm saying this as a lover of Star Wars).  Battletech isn't quite a big enough name to provide the pull away from Star Wars.

And I will be honest, initially I didn't get in to X-Wing because I was concerned about the longevity of the game and the lack of factions.  Now, I'm still concerned about that, but I don't like their template and dice system.  It's great for getting that WW2 fighter feel that Star Wars has, but it is still an inflexible system that I don't feel fits in void combat of Battletech.  Atmospheric battle, maybe, but Aerotech/Battlespace needs to take both environments in to account.

[Maingunnery]

With the large scale differences in Aerotech, would a card game be the best way to play?

[Kidd]

With the large scale differences in Aerotech, would a card game be the best way to play?

Blasphemer! :D

[Starfox1701]

Has anyone looked at battletech's existing tabletop miniatures rules and considered using them as a basis for space movement?

[idea weenie]

Indeed, why stick to hexes? And just because one system uses restrictive maneuver templates doesn't mean that ALL templates have to be the same. Car Wars used a "maneuver key" with different angles marked out on it. This is another form of template that allows for more freedom of movement.

Hexes are easy because you can record locations as 'h0305-C', and know that the unit is in hex 0305, and the prow is facing direction C.  Easy to count with during the game, and good for checking in case you have to pick up the game for later.  A free-form map is harder to keep track of exactly where the units are, unless you want to use X and Y coordinates, measure to the nearest centimeter for sanity.  You then have to choose facing, and how much detail you want.

The other detail for space combat is that all weapons use the same range bands, so you can expect that as soon as 1 ship gets within the range band, all ships in range are going to fire as soon as it crosses, and not one bit earlier.

Furthermore, I don't want people thinking about the math at all (or, at least, as little as possible). I want a game focused on tactics, where the key to victory is maneuver and concentration of firepower - like a real battle - not metagaming the numbers. Keep the math simple and intuitive, no matter what system you learned arithmetic under, and you've opened the game up to literally millions of potential players.

Agree on this.  If we did make a system, we'd need munchkins to try and make min-maxed designs, so we can see where the errors are.  Designs or items that make a ship unbalanced get nerfed, and the munchkins go at it again.  We'd need to repeat this often, to make sure that a variety of designs are actually practical in combat, plus making sure that the sheets for the various units are easy to read.

We would also need to determine the main scale of the map.  For example, the BT board game has Mechs (and some vees) as the 'central' size range, with infantry treated as counters, and a Rattler scale unit treated as boss units.  Aerotech 3 would have Dropships as the 'central' size range, with ASF squadrons as the infantry unit, and Warships as the boss units.

Has anyone looked at battletech's existing tabletop miniatures rules and considered using them as a basis for space movement?

Surface movement has the detail of a surface to maneuver with, plus that if you turn the engine off, you will stop.  Space has the little detail of nothing to push on/against (meaning you have to thrust in order to start moving or change vector), and if you want to slow down you have to cancel your momentum, against using the engine.

Now what I would like to see is internal flywheels so a ship can change facing without burning fuel.  It will likely be slower than using thrust, does not change vector, but it uses zero fuel.  Lower mass fraction per flywheel arrangement means it takes longer to rotate the ship, but also means more mass available for cargo or weapons/defenses/sensors.

[beachhead1985]

That doesn't really work.  Battletech doesn't have the gear to do repulsor lift tech, or whatever the heck it is, that allows for ships to operate in vacuum like they were in air.  It operates more on the physics we know in terms of thrust vectoring, and that doesn't work with the Wings of Glory system very well.  It's a lot more convenient to operate on that system, not doubt, but currently the fluff just doesn't support it at all.

I'm sure the rules could be adapted. They would need to be. Can you imagine that licensing process?

And Attack Wing/Armada looks so damn GOOD on the table top that nothing else can compete with it.

[Starfox1701]

Assuming the miniatures rule don't already have a section covering space battles then obviously the rules will need some adaptation. I merely suggest that instead of trying to force a square peg into a round hole that we start with a rules set that already has much in common with the part of the game we are modifying and go from there.

[Charistoph]

I'm sure the rules could be adapted. They would need to be. Can you imagine that licensing process?

Another reason to avoid it.  If it even sniffs of WoG/X-W/SWA, CGL would be back in HG territory, but this time with Fantasy Flight Games.

And Attack Wing/Armada looks so damn GOOD on the table top that nothing else can compete with it.

While SWA looks great, most of Attack Wing needs a repaint due to the poor manufacturing standards used for the Star Trek Ship Clix game.  The ones that were made later are much more competitive.  But game-wise, I don't care for SWA's template, personally, and I haven't seen much of Attack Wing in play.  When painted up, Firestorm and DropFleet ships look pretty good, too.

[Hellraiser]

K-F Drive mass of a unit = that unit’s Total mass multiplied by light years multiplied by 1.5% to make JumpShips worth their tonnages.  Have a good day y’all.

HOLY 2 YEAR THREADCROMANCY!!    :o


I do like that formula though, with 1 additional note, 2x for Standard Core.

Allows for shorter/longer jump ranges with lower/higher core size.

It also matches perfectly with my thoughts that Compact/Standard cores should be a perfect 45/90% of each ship class.   (Assuming basic 30ly range)

Makes me wonder about some "Slow cargo/people movers" that could be built as Standard Core Jumpships but only jump 20LY.