What is the issue with Aerospace? Why is it supposedly "unpopular" with players?

[butchbird]

In this day and age, I would actually hazard the thought that there can be no "casual-players" as far as CBT or aerotech rules are concerned if there are no battletech afficionado in their social circle (said "social circle" to include such things as work and other activities with a social level).

Defining casual player can be a doozy but I consider to deal only with such for my CBT gaming and will attempt a definition (with case subject being a CBT casual).

The casual player will have a basic grasp. They will master movement and GATOR, but it'll stop there. The rules for falling are unknown to them, as are a few more basics. They might know of DFA, but never use more then kicks and punches. The booklet inside the box is more then enough for them.
If talked of the lore, most will have little interest (as in: a little bit but just as a little interesting quip) as they know nothing of the lore, 'xcept for a few cases that will have watched part of the tex talk video (I think?) explaining the basics of the BTU (interestingly, my one core player who has done so has become a Taurian, I found it amusing but can't comment further as I've never watched them myself).

They WILL want to delve ever further into the rules, but can't take much more in each session (keeping what they had, past movement and attack, is already a challenge), and always need the BTU afficionado for said dive.

While I can wholly see a casual-player or casual-player-to-be going as far as buying AGoAC for himself (but more probably the intro box for a nephew or something), going as far as buying the BMM or TW is impossibly improbable.

Now I've never played aerotech, but I know enough to sumise that its more complicated then CBT and that there are already plenty of simpler dogfight miniature wargames on the market. Even in my neck of the woods, where the FLGS is host to CCG and WH40K games only, there's a bit of star wars franchise products if that spins your fancy. So bottom line of my limited opinion is: no casual-player gaming group will take on aerotech, just the same as CBT, 'spescially as there are more "popular" space opera franchises clogging the market.

As far as BMM and TW debate is concerned, BMM is more concetrated, being with rules only, covers intermediate rules that TW glosses over or simply forgets about (fire!fire!fire!) and can even fit in some of the CBT boxes. For casual players, 'mechs are already too complicated to use all the options, the BMM is simply the best thing to start with if your getting rules. I just don't see a way that I could someday bring aerospace rules (as per TW, battlefield support might be possible) on my table.

Not having the BMR (or not prefering the "vees and PBI go "pop!" when properly heated rules" of BMR), I wonder what road I would've chosen for combined arms... Do think, considering that my players are casuals, I still would've gone with BMM first, then seen my options much later (like when the mercKS hits the shelves).

 

[Charistoph]

So, I see you look at it from a "casual vs regular" player as opposed to a "casual vs tournament/professional" player angle?

A lot will depend on why a person is "casual vs regular", which will color what they will get.

If a person is "casual" because they don't get a chance to play often, they still might prefer to be a collector and reader, so they are prepared for when they can become a "regular" player.  This was largely me until I could find a group to play with about 3 1/2 years ago.

If a person is "casual" because they are just so busy that even learning what they need to play with in-depth rules or learning the Falling rules, then they will only collect as little they need for the occasional chance they do get to play.  These likely will not master Movement or GATOR.  (I've not known someone who has mastered Movement and GATOR and NOT also learn Falling).

If a person is "casual" because it's only an occasional social time for them, then they won't be much different from the one who is too busy.  They still might collect on the side, but it won't be as dedicated as a "regular" player might.

So it's very presumptive to state that all "casual" players are casual by choice or just casual in interest such that they can't figure out Falling rules but master Movement and GATOR.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

Battletech is about MECHS.

This was more obvious when the original game was called "Battledroids", but even so, it's the big stompy robots that brings people in.

Battlemechs have a visceral charm and swagger that the bland Aerotech units will never have.

All of which means that Aerotech units are bit-players in the overall scheme of the game. They basically appeal to the hardcore wargaming grognards that want to have EVERYTHING at their fingertips.

But the casual Battletech player just wants Battlemechs and barely tolerates vehicles and infantry (mostly because they offer a target for those otherwise useless machineguns).

I mean, there's a reason the Battlemech Manual is a thing; lots of players want to play with ONLY mechs.

So Aerotech would have a HUGE uphill battle, even if the rules were perfect AND the fluff made them of equal importance to the Battlemechs.

Which is why FASA, Wizkids, Catalyst, etc haven't invested much effort in improving Aerotech. It would take massive efforts with very little return on the investment.

Honestly, the best possible future for Aerotech would probably be a fan-built system (and fluff) that was built by passionate fans out of love, because the money just isn't there.

"Oh neat robot" might get people in the door, but you need to have more to it than that to get people to stay there. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what kind of metal box the pilots are in as long as the players are invested in the outcome of the battle. Simply saying "they aren't mechs so nobody will care" isn't just untrue, it would also make for lazy game design.

[Charistoph]

Part of the response to Mercenaries demonstrates an interest in tanks, too.  So, yeah, the "Mechs only" concept flies about as well as an Annihilator with broken Hip Actuators.

[Aotrs Commander]

"Oh neat robot" might get people in the door, but you need to have more to it than that to get people to stay there. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what kind of metal box the pilots are in as long as the players are invested in the outcome of the battle. Simply saying "they aren't mechs so nobody will care" isn't just untrue, it would also make for lazy game design.

But it is true in some cases. I personally, I'm not playing with mechs... I don't play BattleTech, simple as. (I might occasionally sprinkle a couple of the cooler-looking Clan vehicles in and a few of the missile carriers as of the kickstarter but in very much an ancillary roie; but that's as far as it goes.) If I want to play with fighters, starship or tanks instead of mechs, I play other rules which I find more suited to them. I am essentially only here for the mechs, I'm afraid. (And when the new stuff arrives, I wlll have the better part of 500 mechs, so it would be difficult to say I'm not invested in BattleTech.) I play BattleTech with the mechs because Maneouvre Group doesn't play well with mechs. (Hell, strictly, even when I actually play BattleTech, I still play with half Maneouvre Group...)

Now, I don't have any feelings towards aerospace personally and I absolute see the value of having it for at least a sporting attempt at fully integrating everything for those wanting the option to go right into the nuts and bolts, or as a themed-aerospace game. But there just aren't that many folk that fall into the category.

Ultimately, I could go to a lot of other games for aerospace or starships or tanks; what differentiates BattleTech as a set of rules is the mechs. Strip those away and what you have is a slightly above-average set of rules. Certainly better than most, granted: BattleTech at least understands the concept of dead ground, for example. But I think that's the problem. Aerospace BattleTech doesn't offer anything (aside from a bit of theme) you can't get from any number of other aerospace games whose mechanics aren't now hampered by the legacy of the fluff from the early BT Aerospace rules.

[Caesar Steiner for Archon]

But it is true in some cases. I personally, I'm not playing with mechs... I don't play BattleTech, simple as. (I might occasionally sprinkle a couple of the cooler-looking Clan vehicles in and a few of the missile carriers as of the kickstarter but in very much an ancillary roie; but that's as far as it goes.) If I want to play with fighters, starship or tanks instead of mechs, I play other rules which I find more suited to them. I am essentially only here for the mechs, I'm afraid. (And when the new stuff arrives, I wlll have the better part of 500 mechs, so it would be difficult to say I'm not invested in BattleTech.) I play BattleTech with the mechs because Maneouvre Group doesn't play well with mechs. (Hell, strictly, even when I actually play BattleTech, I still play with half Maneouvre Group...)

Now, I don't have any feelings towards aerospace personally and I absolute see the value of having it for at least a sporting attempt at fully integrating everything for those wanting the option to go right into the nuts and bolts, or as a themed-aerospace game. But there just aren't that many folk that fall into the category.

Ultimately, I could go to a lot of other games for aerospace or starships or tanks; what differentiates BattleTech as a set of rules is the mechs. Strip those away and what you have is a slightly above-average set of rules. Certainly better than most, granted: BattleTech at least understands the concept of dead ground, for example. But I think that's the problem. Aerospace BattleTech doesn't offer anything (aside from a bit of theme) you can't get from any number of other aerospace games whose mechanics aren't now hampered by the legacy of the fluff from the early BT Aerospace rules.

And if you only have mechs then bad mechs are just bad and it doesn't make any sense why there's some prestige attached to having one instead of people only caring when you have a mech that doesn't suck. If mechs are the knights of the battlefield, you have to have men-at-arms, yeoman, guys with bows, peasant conscripts, all that good stuff.

[butchbird]

So, I see you look at it from a "casual vs regular" player as opposed to a "casual vs tournament/professional" player angle?

A lot will depend on why a person is "casual vs regular", which will color what they will get.

If a person is "casual" because they don't get a chance to play often, they still might prefer to be a collector and reader, so they are prepared for when they can become a "regular" player.  This was largely me until I could find a group to play with about 3 1/2 years ago.

If a person is "casual" because they are just so busy that even learning what they need to play with in-depth rules or learning the Falling rules, then they will only collect as little they need for the occasional chance they do get to play.  These likely will not master Movement or GATOR.  (I've not known someone who has mastered Movement and GATOR and NOT also learn Falling).

If a person is "casual" because it's only an occasional social time for them, then they won't be much different from the one who is too busy.  They still might collect on the side, but it won't be as dedicated as a "regular" player might.

So it's very presumptive to state that all "casual" players are casual by choice or just casual in interest such that they can't figure out Falling rules but master Movement and GATOR.

Well, the "presumptive" part would be a semantics thing. It all depends on what you intend with "casual player". For my metrics of the terms, I'm neither, strictly speaking, a casual, as I have at least a vague notion of nearly all intermediate rules and know a fair deal of the lore and other gaming systems set in the BTU, but neither am I a regular as I lack the time. I might sometimes denote myself as a casual but that is more through the reality of my gaming group and haven't been a regular for...already many years now. People who go beyond the "casual" status in involvment (like collecting), shouldn't be seen as the same "demographic" then the real casuals. CGL can still make money with a "non-regular/non-casual" player (a "wishful-regular player?), but you get to the treshold pretty fast with a real casual player.

Again, the casual player or a potential casual player might buy AGoAC, but it'll stop there. But those guys are important for "word-to-mouth" in the buisness part of the deal. If he goes beyond the AGoAC box (meaning: buys more BT stuff), then he's already too involved to merely be considered casual.

So then, by "casual", I mean a player that sees it merely as a very complex board game. A sci-fi miniatures wargame that doesn't take much investment to have fun with, that fits in a box and is self contained. Strictly speaking of CBT, the thrill of critical hits will stimulate anyone who cares to play, at the very least.

Our days, with such "swift-swissknife" rule systems as "Fistful of Lead" (extreme example, even if its far less "filling" then CBT) or even most other modern wargames, CBT with more gadgets then the basics and other more complex systems will have a hard time imposing themselves on the casual players.

As for not knowing anyone having mastered movement and gator but not the falling rules, you should see us go. My players KNOW the rule and vaguely what it entails (one of 'em has played enough through the years to deal with a simple 20+ damage fall in the same hex), but not the specifics...mind you only half of our "core" can read the rules since they're in english and I just don't take out the french 3rd edition booklet anymore, it clogs up the table and everyone just depends on the english reading players anyway.

[Col Toda]

It has only one glaring flaw that stafes and bombing runs are simultaneous with ground base flack or anti air fire . So the enemy  can calulate how much is need on average to permanently  ground an enemy dropship . Sure if properly defended you shoot down 3 -6 enemy bombers after they finish breaking the dropship. A house rule we put in Tube Artillary shoot HE in Flack mode has a chance to  shoot down incoming aircraft the turn before the bombing run and Anti air Arrow IV ammo can do so 2 and one turn before a bombing run .

The ground combat without the simultaneous weapons phase fire is Less an issue but can be in such instances as hover tanks loaded with a bunch of rocket launchers the target has a choice of shooting at the tank in short range that due to simultaneous fire has already did all the damage it is going to or shoot at a harder target at medium to long range that is going to shoot you with everything the next turn . Or the mech goes around a corner and comes across a hidden unit tank with a trailer with 10 SRM  6 iOS launchers . They can shoot at the tank or at an empty trailer which a small exposition blows the hitch connection so the tank can move at full speed in the movement phase .

The house rules against aerospace takes care of my biggest objection to using aerospace / conventional air assets.  And a well equipped mature tactical doctrine can mitigate the ground combat issue .

[Kit deSummersville]

If mechs are the knights of the battlefield, you have to have men-at-arms, yeoman, guys with bows, peasant conscripts, all that good stuff.

Sure, but you don't need in-depth rules for cleaning the latrine to enjoy the other stuff. The boring stuff (ymmv) happens off stage.

[Aotrs Commander]

Sure, but you don't need in-depth rules for cleaning the latrine to enjoy the other stuff. The boring stuff (ymmv) happens off stage.

Exactly.

And if you aren't really interested in the rooted-in-the-early-game feudal knights aspect of BattleTech (and being ot the Clan generation, I'm really not), bad mechs are just that: bad. The same way loads of real-world military vehicles are and have always been just sometimes bad. (See - at the extreme end - K-Boats for example, because more topical example would be skirting the board rules.)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules for those - that BattleTech tries to have a complete package and campaign system is a definite point in its favour overall, even if that part doesn't personally interest me.

But, my point is that the BattleMechs is front an centre and everything else is, essentially ancillary. Which is why aerospace struggles, because for the vast majority of BattleTech players (including the silent majority that Don't Post On Forums, let alone this one); it's even more ancillary because of the nessecary removal from the immediacy of the tactical battle. It's not something that in BattleTech particualrly stands on its own, except for the very, very keen BY universe fans and there are decidedly finite numbers of those.

(Maneouvre Group, WW2/Cold War/onwards militatic tactics simulator makes no even pretense of having aircraft and I believe treats airstrikes as basically as a funny sort of off-table artillery. And I say that, because I'd have to look it up, because despite playing MG since before it was even puiblished and personally writing the sci-fi expansion, I haven't even really used artillery, let alone airstrikes mnyself!)

[Charistoph]

It has only one glaring flaw that stafes and bombing runs are simultaneous with ground base flack or anti air fire . So the enemy  can calulate how much is need on average to permanently  ground an enemy dropship . Sure if properly defended you shoot down 3 -6 enemy bombers after they finish breaking the dropship. A house rule we put in Tube Artillary shoot HE in Flack mode has a chance to  shoot down incoming aircraft the turn before the bombing run and Anti air Arrow IV ammo can do so 2 and one turn before a bombing run .

The ground combat without the simultaneous weapons phase fire is Less an issue but can be in such instances as hover tanks loaded with a bunch of rocket launchers the target has a choice of shooting at the tank in short range that due to simultaneous fire has already did all the damage it is going to or shoot at a harder target at medium to long range that is going to shoot you with everything the next turn . Or the mech goes around a corner and comes across a hidden unit tank with a trailer with 10 SRM  6 iOS launchers . They can shoot at the tank or at an empty trailer which a small exposition blows the hitch connection so the tank can move at full speed in the movement phase .

That's actually one of the things I LIKE about Battletech.  One of the things I hate about the Warhammers and WarMaHordes games is when someone can wipe out a unit with narry a response from you.

In fact, that's one of the things I hate about the BSP Air Strikes.  The other is that they can hit you with the same value no matter how you moved or what you're standing in, unlike the standard rules for it.

Sure, but you don't need in-depth rules for cleaning the latrine to enjoy the other stuff. The boring stuff (ymmv) happens off stage.

Running tanks, infantry, and aircraft are no where near latrine cleaning duty when it comes to a presence on the stage.  Running tanks and aircraft isn't boring unless you choose to make it so.  Infantry can be a different story, depending on their mobility and Anti-Mech capability.

Exactly.

And if you aren't really interested in the rooted-in-the-early-game feudal knights aspect of BattleTech (and being ot the Clan generation, I'm really not), bad mechs are just that: bad. The same way loads of real-world military vehicles are and have always been just sometimes bad. (See - at the extreme end - K-Boats for example, because more topical example would be skirting the board rules.)

I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules for those - that BattleTech tries to have a complete package and campaign system is a definite point in its favour overall, even if that part doesn't personally interest me.

But, my point is that the BattleMechs is front an centre and everything else is, essentially ancillary. Which is why aerospace struggles, because for the vast majority of BattleTech players (including the silent majority that Don't Post On Forums, let alone this one); it's even more ancillary because of the nessecary removal from the immediacy of the tactical battle. It's not something that in BattleTech particualrly stands on its own, except for the very, very keen BY universe fans and there are decidedly finite numbers of those.

So how does including aircraft such that they can shoot and be shot at conceptually take away from the Battlemech being the center?  Heck, we have 2 Mechs from TRO: 3025 that are dedicated AA units, another coming in with TRO: 2750, and a couple more from those that were retconned with having AA Quirks.  In fact, it is taking away aircraft which makes the Rifleman and JagerMech appear even worse as they get stuck in Direct Fire Support Role.

Locally, we've been using the Abstract rules that use the Radar Map when using Aerospace, and it is really nice and simple for including aerospace assets without really taking much away from the ground game.  If anything, it helps keep the focus on the ground game even more.

[Kit deSummersville]

Running tanks, infantry, and aircraft are no where near latrine cleaning duty when it comes to a presence on the stage.  Running tanks and aircraft isn't boring unless you choose to make it so.  Infantry can be a different story, depending on their mobility and Anti-Mech capability.

YMMV is an acronym for Your Milage May Vary, in that if it is boring to you, you don't have to include it. The BattleMechs can be the knights without having to deal with the tanks and infantry on the table. Or you can bring them all to the merry party. That's the great thing about the game, whatever the players want.

[Charistoph]

YMMV is an acronym for Your Milage May Vary, in that if it is boring to you, you don't have to include it. The BattleMechs can be the knights without having to deal with the tanks and infantry on the table. Or you can bring them all to the merry party. That's the great thing about the game, whatever the players want.

I'm familiar with FLA.

But here's the question, how can Mechs be kings of the battlefield when there are no peasants for them to lord over?  When everyone is a king, does it really matter?

These support units aren't RPing latrine duty.  Not even close.  In fact, it is because I play those other units that I truly understand just how powerful 'Mechs can be.

You know what IS interesting, seeing if that Hovercraft that is sprinting across the field to get behind a 'Mech will flub its Driving Skill and Slip in to some Woods or a Hill.  How long that Patton can survive oncoming fire, even when its track is blown off.  How my opponent reacts when I put out 10 Protomechs along with 3 'Mechs.  What will my opponent do when I race a Dragonfly up and drop off Elementals within Jumping distance of his Assault.

So, yeah, it's only as boring as you make it.

[Kit deSummersville]

You know what IS interesting,

The answer to this depends on every person. Those who think they know the answer for everyone are wrong.

If you want to blow up tanks, good on you. If someone else wants them to flee in terror before the battle starts, good on them.

[Aotrs Commander]

So how does including aircraft such that they can shoot and be shot at conceptually take away from the Battlemech being the center?  Heck, we have 2 Mechs from TRO: 3025 that are dedicated AA units, another coming in with TRO: 2750, and a couple more from those that were retconned with having AA Quirks.  In fact, it is taking away aircraft which makes the Rifleman and JagerMech appear even worse as they get stuck in Direct Fire Support Role.

Locally, we've been using the Abstract rules that use the Radar Map when using Aerospace, and it is really nice and simple for including aerospace assets without really taking much away from the ground game.  If anything, it helps keep the focus on the ground game even more.

But that was kind of my point. You're saying you use the abstract rules for airstrikes and it keeps the focus on the ground battle. Those rules are an ancillary set of rules to the ground battle, not an aerospace game in its own right, yes? (Having such rules is, as I noted, A Good Thing for Battletech.)

My contention is simply that there are not terribly many people (I would never dare say "none") who will come to BattleTech as a set of rules to play air combat games, or ground combat games without mechs, because there are more optimal sets of rules for those aspects. BattleTech is centred around the mechs, and while you certainly can play games like that with BT with the exhaustive sets of rules (again, Good Thing), I don't really see many folk (though, again, number could well be none-zero) other than people ALREADY interested in BattleTech as either the lore or the sets of rules itself playing that way. (Aerospace being, aside from the ground interface rules as air support, even more removed than vehicles or infantry in that regard.) Which is why BT aerospace has always struggled and has been heavily revised several times.



As I say personally, I am one of the people who plays with mechs only (not-quite entirely, but I've probably genuinely only used vehicles three-four times?), and I don't think I've ever used infantry even then. I don't feel I'm lacking anything.

(I mean, frack, aside from some 6mm MLRS I co-opted to Custom Arrow IV vehicles (which I have used once and notably the only time I beat my one mate), it'll be the kickstarter stuff arriving before I even HAVE any IS vehicles, and I am afraid I literally only bought the clan vehicles I have because I thought they looked cool, something I decidedly didn't about the initial art of the 3025/3026 TRO vehicles.)

When I do play games with tanks and infantry, as I say, I use a different set of rules at a different scale (in a different universe); one in which walkers are definitely NOT the kings of the battlefield and in fact even at half the relative size of Mechs are actually difficult to keep from being shot at by everyone and killed outright. But that's a very different sort of game to the games I play of Battletech. (I'm not playing solo, for one...)

[Charistoph]

The answer to this depends on every person. Those who think they know the answer for everyone are wrong.

Except that's what I'm arguing against.

If you want to blow up tanks, good on you. If someone else wants them to flee in terror before the battle starts, good on them.

No, I'm going the other way.  If someone wants to see tanks to run in terror before the battle starts, they're saying I can't use them so they can blow them up.

But that was kind of my point. You're saying you use the abstract rules for airstrikes and it keeps the focus on the ground battle. Those rules are an ancillary set of rules to the ground battle, not an aerospace game in its own right, yes? (Having such rules is, as I noted, A Good Thing for Battletech.)

Never said it was its own game.  Never said I expected it to be its own game.

My contention is simply that there are not terribly many people (I would never dare say "none") who will come to BattleTech as a set of rules to play air combat games, or ground combat games without mechs, because there are more optimal sets of rules for those aspects. BattleTech is centred around the mechs, and while you certainly can play games like that with BT with the exhaustive sets of rules (again, Good Thing), I don't really see many folk (though, again, number could well be none-zero) other than people ALREADY interested in BattleTech as either the lore or the sets of rules itself playing that way. (Aerospace being, aside from the ground interface rules as air support, even more removed than vehicles or infantry in that regard.) Which is why BT aerospace has always struggled and has been heavily revised several times.

A rather non-sequitur point.  Who has argued that Aerotech should be a concept that should attract people on its own?

As I say personally, I am one of the people who plays with mechs only (not-quite entirely, but I've probably genuinely only used vehicles three-four times?), and I don't think I've ever used infantry even then. I don't feel I'm lacking anything.

Sounds like you're taking a stance on something you haven't tried.  I get the same thing from my kids about dinner often enough.

(I mean, frack, aside from some 6mm MLRS I co-opted to Custom Arrow IV vehicles (which I have used once and notably the only time I beat my one mate), it'll be the kickstarter stuff arriving before I even HAVE any IS vehicles, and I am afraid I literally only bought the clan vehicles I have because I thought they looked cool, something I decidedly didn't about the initial art of the 3025/3026 TRO vehicles.)

The first vehicles I used were Shaltari hover-tanks from DropZone Commander.  Since then I've gotten 15 units through Etsy, 2 Wheeled APCs from Core Metal, and that's not including the dozen Battle Armor, 15 Conventional Infantry, 4 ASF, and 8 tanks produced by IWM I've gotten since.  That doesn't include the 32 tanks and 4 ASF I'm getting through the KS pledge.

For Protomechs, I used the old FASA-style plastic miniatures I bought off our local Demo agent over a decade ago out of a grab bag he was selling at a local gamer's market.  I found them interesting enough when I tried them out, that I got 10 metals to put on the field.

When I do play games with tanks and infantry, as I say, I use a different set of rules at a different scale (in a different universe); one in which walkers are definitely NOT the kings of the battlefield and in fact even at half the relative size of Mechs are actually difficult to keep from being shot at by everyone and killed outright. But that's a very different sort of game to the games I play of Battletech. (I'm not playing solo, for one...)

Why?  You only want to play a unit when they can dominate all they survey?  One of the scariest combos I faced was 2 REALLY fast VTOLs with TAG and 2 LRM Carriers with Semi-Guided Ammo.  I was effectively running a Level 2 with 3 Celestials, a Wobbie Avatar, and a point of Protomechs.  My 'Mechs got destroyed by them.

Tanks, Infantry, Protomechs, and Aerospace are part of the world of Battlemechs.  To casually wave them off simply because they aren't the acknowledged kings is rather arrogant.

[Kit deSummersville]

Except that's what I'm arguing against.

Who made you the lord high decider of how everyone should play BattleTech?

[monbvol]

The plain simple fact is the majority of people who play Battletech will only ever play with mechs.  It is the simple law of consumerism.

Most customers will only buy the basic product.  In this case either the introbox or the A Game of Armored Combat boxes.  The next drop off point will be the Battlemech Manual.  And these are not small drop off points either when looking at how pretty much any business operates and studies in marketing tend to confirm.

Now I will grant Battletech is likely to buck certain trends and skew the odds.  But not outright break them.

At no point have I suggested people are wrong to add vehicles, infantry, or aero to their games.  Just that most people aren't going to.  And that as forum goers we do skew towards the end of the spectrum of those who do add such things to our games.

And in the case of Aero there's an extra hurdle for a lot of people: It's only good if overly abstracted.

For those of us who want something more to sink our teeth into, that's just not going to cut it.  I just don't know how to save Aero without completely re-doing it.

[Charistoph]

Who made you the lord high decider of how everyone should play BattleTech?

Who said I was?  Did you bother reading the second sentence prior to what you quoted?

The plain simple fact is the majority of people who play Battletech will only ever play with mechs.  It is the simple law of consumerism.

Most customers will only buy the basic product.  In this case either the introbox or the A Game of Armored Combat boxes.  The next drop off point will be the Battlemech Manual.  And these are not small drop off points either when looking at how pretty much any business operates and studies in marketing tend to confirm.

People will only buy what they know of or have access to.  With Mechs being the only thing most LGS stock up until the Battlefield Support Packs become available for retail, that would be the nature of things. 

I've only known 3 locations in the Phoenix Valley to hold IWM skus.  One is out of business (for other reasons), one retired and sold it to another group (and I haven't checked on them since), and the third has let it drop off as they aren't having competition in that area any more.  There could be more (there's a fair few LGS across the Phoenix Metro), but most are so small or far away from the third, that I just don't see it happening a lot.  Since IWM has been the only way to have access to those skus (aside from 3D printing), why would people look to getting them when just browsing?

In other words, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy as much as no one wanted to buy Sisters of Battle because no one carried those expensive boxes of metal.

Now I will grant Battletech is likely to buck certain trends and skew the odds.  But not outright break them.

We'll see as the Battlefield Support and Mercenary Boxes come in to play.

At no point have I suggested people are wrong to add vehicles, infantry, or aero to their games.  Just that most people aren't going to.  And that as forum goers we do skew towards the end of the spectrum of those who do add such things to our games.

Someone referencing them as the equivalent of representing latrine duty (along with someone agreeing with it) is what set me off on this.

And in the case of Aero there's an extra hurdle for a lot of people: It's only good if overly abstracted.

Combining it with the ground game is only good if it is somewhat abstracted (i.e. the offboard movement is abstracted).  It's overly abstracted in the Battlefield Support Rules, and those might as well be minefields or artillery for all the representation they actually provide.  That's not good.

For those of us who want something more to sink our teeth into, that's just not going to cut it.  I just don't know how to save Aero without completely re-doing it.

That's why I posted the idea of restarting Crimson Skies as a way to look at the High Altitude side of the game on the side.  Use that to work out the kinks before applying it to the much higher speed of fusion rockets that Battletech commonly use.  Of course, that assumes Topps/CGL has access to the tabletop side of Crimson Skies...

[Hellraiser]

And in the case of Aero there's an extra hurdle for a lot of people: It's only good if overly abstracted.

For those of us who want something more to sink our teeth into, that's just not going to cut it.  I just don't know how to save Aero without completely re-doing it.

I'm not sure you have to re-do it, but, I will just say that the old methods of blending AT w/ the Mech Board were always overly complicated IMO.

AT by itself seemed like a lot of fun really.

The BT Universe actually has some interesting things that I don't actually see in things like Starwars, Startrek, BSG, or, 40K.
They seem to have more detailed rules for combat, I think its the RS w/ all the dots, BT has always been big on Dots.
But also the different classes of ships, we don't see Jumpships & Dropships really in the stuff I mentioned above, just lots of Warships & Shuttles basically.


I don't really care for the abstract way Vees & Infantry are now done since Vees/Infantry rules blend right in with TW rules just fine IMO.
But, the way Air Support is done, yeah, I honestly find that works as a way to show which side has some extra cover & would allow me to keep my Aero battles restricted to just the Aero setting.

I'm really keen on the idea of having a WS+DS+AS/Squadrons battle in black space.  (To get DS into Orbit?)
Then an Individual Fighters (squadron sized?) battle in the atmosphere.  (To gain Air Superiority)
And based on those outcomes you get access to some Artillery or Air strike cards for your later Ground/Mech battles.

Not to mention the horrible GW company but they seemed to do fine with their 40K + Epic + BattleFleetGothic lines of different scales of combat.
BT has dabbled in that with BF/AS & AT but short of AS now days I never saw the support for the original BF or AT nearly as much.

[Scuttlefish]

Personally I just think that Battletech weapons are almost uniquely badly suited to air combat. Generally you’re going to have rapid-fire machine guns or powerful long-range missiles, both of which are things Battletech is almost uniquely bad at making works as primary systems. I’d want a system that actually feels like an air battle and not ice skaters trying to punch each other.

[butchbird]

The plain simple fact is the majority of people who play Battletech will only ever play with mechs.  It is the simple law of consumerism.

Most customers will only buy the basic product.  In this case either the introbox or the A Game of Armored Combat boxes.  The next drop off point will be the Battlemech Manual.  And these are not small drop off points either when looking at how pretty much any business operates and studies in marketing tend to confirm.

Now I will grant Battletech is likely to buck certain trends and skew the odds.  But not outright break them.

Now, I know I'm weird and I guess I deal with weird people, but the possibility of combined arms has always been a big selling point of CBT (and AS, but that's another story) with everyone I've played with.

The last two major "complete rulebooks" (by this I mean BMR and TW) had all the infantry and vehicle rules included. I've gotten there before (happy days), and I always get pressure to include them. Heck, when we were regular enough to use vees and PBI, we used hand made cardboard cutouts (praise the merc KS). The battletech franchise having that whole "use whatever you want to represent a unit" thing going on and that we are all awkwardly proud of, I've always felt that expresses itself to its fullest with the "non-mech units".

Now I know we're here for the 'mechs first and foremost, but the very possibility of including combined arms (and with quite the variety too) is a big thing, isn't it?

And since this thread is supposed to be about aerotech...while I'll never use it, I'd be very interested to try if only that was possible.
But looking forward, I can't help but think that something more along the lines of AS in terms of "simplicity per unit" would be more accessible to he-who-lacks-the-time-to-invest-in-yet-another-wargame.

Never tried battlespace but something like that might be a reasonable ticket. Its been talked before, but a "battlespace 2.0" with cardboard counters and other cheaper materials to make a trifty priced boxed-game could very well be a good way to promote the aerospace aspect of the BTU. Pure Aerotech should stay..really, there'd be something rather big missing without it...but time is scarce and the BTU is about big clumsy bipedal warmachines above all.

[Hellraiser]

Generally you’re going to have rapid-fire machine guns or powerful long-range missiles,

Maybe in air, but in space across thousands of kilometers, a laser is far more likely to hit I would think, since the target won't even be there by the time the bullet/missile does.

[DevianID]

I like to say Brym really nailed my feelings on the matter.

I tried a sample solo game in space and found that my biggest pain point was the need to keep track of thrust expenditures and velocity expenditures (spaces moved) in my head simultaneously while planning out a move.  Much harder than just keep track of one number (MP expended) when moving a ground unit

The movement rules are not comparable, (its ok to be different), but they also arnt different in a fun way, like the movement of the Xwing or Armada game is with movement dials and momentum based movement sticks.  I personally just dont have fun tracking thrust and velocity, and I really hate that I need a huge board to actually thrust around or I fly off the map accidentally, either on the ground game (where 1 velocity is 16 hexes of movement) or in space where even a mere 5 thrust per turn covers the entire 2 paper map wide board in only 3 turns.  I know after playing aerotech in the past that when I play now, its only with the free alpha strike cards, and with normal ground alpha strike movement and not thrust and turning vectors.

Thrust per the base game rules in space isnt even realistic, turning and acceleration and distance traveled are all wrong.  It 'looks' realistic at a glance with acceleration and velocity vectors, but pretty much every part of it has the math wrong other then velocity 'x' moves 'x' hexes.  So its complicated movement, but not actually realistic even for a 2d plane let alone 3d space, thus its complicated for complicated sake.  Its complexity makes it hard to function in actual tabletop gameplay as I struggle to spend thrust without overshooting and its complexity is not realistic.  Poor gameplay and poor realism but complicated in the name of realism is lots of strikes against the game.

[Kit deSummersville]

Who said I was?  Did you bother reading the second sentence prior to what you quoted?

Yeah, I wrote it. "The answer to this depends on every person." Which you stated you were arguing against. With an attitude like that one must wonder if your day job is as an elected official.

[Aotrs Commander]

Sounds like you're taking a stance on something you haven't tried.  I get the same thing from my kids about dinner often enough.

Mate, I'm 45. I'm old enough I am perfectly capable of evaluating whether or not I like something without having to try it. For example, I know without having to try I wouldn't like 40K, Rapid Fire, World of Warcraft, Game of Thrones (any version), bungee-jumping, rugby or any form of alcohol you would choose to put in front of me, to pick a selection of random stuff.

Why?  You only want to play a unit when they can dominate all they survey?  One of the scariest combos I faced was 2 REALLY fast VTOLs with TAG and 2 LRM Carriers with Semi-Guided Ammo.  I was effectively running a Level 2 with 3 Celestials, a Wobbie Avatar, and a point of Protomechs.  My 'Mechs got destroyed by them.

Because I want to play with my BattleMechs.

That's it.

If I didn't want to play with giant stompy robot toys, I would not be on this board or a BattleTech fan at all.

Sorry, mate, it's just that simple.

My choice of mech purchases has always been 99% based on "do I think the model looks cool?" (The new plastic resculpts are, by and large Much Cooler, and so my selection of mechs has expanded to include mechs I would never have bought the metal sculpt of.) That is why I have not until the kickstarter bought any IS vehicles, because I didn't think the old art looked cool. I am unlikely to ever have a protomech, because I've never seen one I think looks cool. I only have a few Clan vehicles because I thought They Looked Cool (and most of 'em are lights), and only have about a pack of vehicles from the Mercs kickstarter because they have missile launchers that I thought were Cool Enough. (If I ever wanted to use infantry or BattleArmour, I'd be using old Space Marine (from Before It Was Epic) infantry.)

I'll go further and say, I'm sorry, but I don't even take BattleTech particularly seriously. Frack, mate, everytime I play Clans I roll two D100 on a table of made-up adjective/noun and play them almost as a parody of the worse Jade Falcon steriotypes. (I mean, there's a whole thread called "Bleakbane Ruins BattleTech" in the fan rules section is you wanted to see how seriously I take it all.) I play it because occasionally, I want to play with cool-looking giant stompy robots.



I hesitiate to say it, but when I want to play a game that behaves as a reasonable facsimile of real-world warfare tactics[1], with vehicles and infantry, I play (sci-fi) Maneouvre Group. (In which walkers struggle to survive on account of them simply being too visible even at half the relative height of a BattleMech.) I simply don't look for that out of BattleTech.

Again - and I feel I really must emphasise this again, especially in light of that previous paragraph - that BattleTech does try to have comprehensive rules for everything is a strong point in its favour and I would never advocate it didn't. (Hell, as I've said to people, BattleTech has oddly more in common with Maneouvre Group than either do with most other wargames.) That has an appeal to a lot of folk, and that's cool. And I like that, even if I choose never to exercise those options, it is there if I ever changed my mind.

But I really am evidence that part of the fanbase is genuinely just here for the cool giant stompy-robots and everything else is secondary to that.



Does that make me a Filthy Casual? I mean, prob'bly? I only get to play solo once, maybe twice a year these days? I don't really play "six-pack and boldy-go" as Full Thrust so elegantly described itself once, but BT is as close as it gets for "casual". I'm invested in the lore really only insofar as it informs the Techinical Readouts (which I love), but really not giving much of a frag about the characters or anything. Does that meet the criterion? You decide.

But, like, at least it makes me an informed filthy casual with 500-odd mechs and about a foot's worth of BT rulebooks. I am well aware of what is on offer and an engaged enough to read the main forums. And, here getting back to topic, I bought both BattleSpace and Aerotech 2 played the latter once and decided, nope, too much like hard work, Full Thrust was still better and I didn't think BT's ships and fighters didn't look particularly cool, so I went back to FT (until I ended up writing my own sets of fighter and  starship rules.




[1]Standard proviso: All simulations are wrong, some simulations are useful.

[Brym]

I like to say Brym really nailed my feelings on the matter.

The movement rules are not comparable, (its ok to be different), but they also arnt different in a fun way, like the movement of the Xwing or Armada game is with movement dials and momentum based movement sticks.  I personally just dont have fun tracking thrust and velocity, and I really hate that I need a huge board to actually thrust around or I fly off the map accidentally, either on the ground game (where 1 velocity is 16 hexes of movement) or in space where even a mere 5 thrust per turn covers the entire 2 paper map wide board in only 3 turns.

I will say that I have now tried a sample game in atmosphere as well, and I found that to be much more playable. The mostly free turning means that you mostly don’t have to try to count thrust and velocity in your head at the same time. You can plan out your thrust expenditures at the start of your turn, and then count your spaces.

That said, it seems like winning initiative is an even bigger factor than it is in regular Battletech, and the increased number of control rolls (and their increased difficulty) in atmosphere makes the game even more chaotic than regular battletech too.

 I could see myself playing with these rules to have each side bring a fighter or two along with our mechs in the future, but I don’t know that the fun factor is there for me to ever want to play it as a standalone game. And if using it for combined arms, I don’t know that actually having the low altitude map really adds anything compared to the system currently used for Alpha Strike.

I wonder if it would be fun to adapt a system that uses simultaneous secret maneuver planning (similar to X wing) but otherwise mostly kept the record sheets and shooting rules from Aerotech as it exists now. Seems like that would solve the initiative issue, and make moving quicker and simpler, but still retain the core battle tech flavor and compatibility with existing units. You just need to come up with some hex-based maneuver templates (maybe on cards), and find a way to give the existing units a list of maneuver options, likely based on their current thrust values.

[Charistoph]

Yeah, I wrote it. "The answer to this depends on every person." Which you stated you were arguing against. With an attitude like that one must wonder if your day job is as an elected official.

That was the first sentence, not the second.

The answer to this depends on every person. Those who think they know the answer for everyone are wrong.

Second sentence bolded and italicized.  Who's acting like a politician here?

Mate, I'm 45. I'm old enough I am perfectly capable of evaluating whether or not I like something without having to try it. For example, I know without having to try I wouldn't like 40K, Rapid Fire, World of Warcraft, Game of Thrones (any version), bungee-jumping, rugby or any form of alcohol you would choose to put in front of me, to pick a selection of random stuff.

Sorry, no.  I'm pushing 50 and still run in to things I wouldn't have tried earlier because I thought I knew better, but I still give them a shake and found out differently.  It's called the scientific method.  I may be to old to volunteer for the Army, but I'm still young enough to learn from experience.

Because I want to play with my BattleMechs.

That's it.

But you said it was because they are the "kings of the battlefield", denoting that as the specific reason you play them and nothing else.

If I didn't want to play with giant stompy robot toys, I would not be on this board or a BattleTech fan at all.

Wanting to play with Tanks, Infantry, aircraft, and Protomechs doesn't mean I don't want to play with giant stompy robot toys, either.  I usually pick said based on what type of support they will bring to said giant stompy robots.  I've only played without 'Mechs twice. 

Once I was playing the OpFor in a field of tank drones and drone towers while the other players raced through it to try and access some sunken Battlemech bunkers.  It was part of a Christmas gift thing in which I was giving away Bull Shark prints, and since there were 2 kinds, this was to determine who got to pick first.

The second was just me wanting to explore the capacities of the units without support.  They didn't as far as I liked, partly because of the terrain, and partly because of accurate fire.

Heck, running an Operation Revival campaign for a local group who are playing on the Clanner side means I'm going to have to do it again as not all militia forces had 'Mech units, or if they did, they were focused elsewhere.

My choice of mech purchases has always been 99% based on "do I think the model looks cool?" (The new plastic resculpts are, by and large Much Cooler, and so my selection of mechs has expanded to include mechs I would never have bought the metal sculpt of.) That is why I have not until the kickstarter bought any IS vehicles, because I didn't think the old art looked cool. I am unlikely to ever have a protomech, because I've never seen one I think looks cool. I only have a few Clan vehicles because I thought They Looked Cool (and most of 'em are lights), and only have about a pack of vehicles from the Mercs kickstarter because they have missile launchers that I thought were Cool Enough. (If I ever wanted to use infantry or BattleArmour, I'd be using old Space Marine (from Before It Was Epic) infantry.)

Funny.  You say that as if other people also don't make their picks on the same standard.

I'll go further and say, I'm sorry, but I don't even take BattleTech particularly seriously. Frack, mate, everytime I play Clans I roll two D100 on a table of made-up adjective/noun and play them almost as a parody of the worse Jade Falcon steriotypes. (I mean, there's a whole thread called "Bleakbane Ruins BattleTech" in the fan rules section is you wanted to see how seriously I take it all.) I play it because occasionally, I want to play with cool-looking giant stompy robots.

The more I've played Battletech, the less serious I take it (outside of a certain biweekly campaign where decisions have long-lasting consequences).  That's part of why I do bring tanks, Protomechs, and Infantry.  They aren't the kings of the battlefield, and I have no problem bringing bishops, knights, and jesters to the field.

But I really am evidence that part of the fanbase is genuinely just here for the cool giant stompy-robots and everything else is secondary to that.

Okay, but then the question is if you're just here for the giant stompy war-crime robots, why are you bothering to commenting on a thread on Aerospace that's pushed well past the original question?

Does that make me a Filthy Casual?

That's a question trying to engage a strawman argument, as no one has made it.

I mean, prob'bly? I only get to play solo once, maybe twice a year these days? I don't really play "six-pack and boldy-go" as Full Thrust so elegantly described itself once, but BT is as close as it gets for "casual". I'm invested in the lore really only insofar as it informs the Techinical Readouts (which I love), but really not giving much of a frag about the characters or anything. Does that meet the criterion? You decide.

But, like, at least it makes me an informed filthy casual with 500-odd mechs and about a foot's worth of BT rulebooks. I am well aware of what is on offer and an engaged enough to read the main forums.

I don't see how the frequency in which you play with yourself determines your level of casualness.  How often you get to play at all would more likely do it, and if the only time you get to play is solo, and that infrequently, then yeah, you probably are 'casual'.

But I don't think the level of one's casualness makes them a poor player, or one who shouldn't have an opinion.  Poorly informed, or unable to have a good basis for decision-making, maybe.  But I was the one warning against using the term "casual" too casually.

On the other hand, when I first started playing regularly 3 1/2 years ago (the first time in 3 decades I could find a stable group), I was mostly in it for the Battlemechs, mostly because that's the core of the game, but also learning those rules covers the basics for most everything else.  Maybe if you had more opportunity to play, you'd have more interest in other unit types.

And, here getting back to topic, I bought both BattleSpace and Aerotech 2 played the latter once and decided, nope, too much like hard work, Full Thrust was still better and I didn't think BT's ships and fighters didn't look particularly cool, so I went back to FT (until I ended up writing my own sets of fighter and  starship rules.

I bought BattleSpace and Aerotech 2nd Edition back in the 90s, and read through them.  I never had a chance to try them (working full-time with 12-hour shifts doesn't leave a lot of time with meeting up with anyone), but I agree with you, it presented itself as a game system with a lot to track.  Not as much as Starfleet Battles, mind you, but far more than the ground game ever did.

segue
Even with Total Warfare, the interface with the ground game it presents is too dependent on large amounts of table space that most people will not want to work with.  90% of its rules in Total Warfare should be swapped with the Radar Map rules from Strategic Operations.  It's an easier transition, and allows the "Advanced Aerospace" rules to actually feel... "advanced".

As it is, with our main LGS closing its doors and transitioning to a new shop, we have had less space to play, which means that experimenting whole hog with the space-side of the game just isn't in the cards because so few people actually have a collection of aerospace assets at all.

[ActionButler]

That's enough of that for now.