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

[monbvol]

I'm sorry but that isn't what I was referring to. How many standard scale weapons can be used for anti-missile defense?

Ah.  Okay.  My bad.

Under the less permissive optional rule set: Small Lasers, Flamers, Machine Guns, Heavy Machine Guns, and probably a couple others that I am not able to remember off the top of my head and don't have my PDFs handy to double check.  Under this rule set these weapons have their damage halved and can only engage one missile volley per turn.  Actual AMS under this rule set does not have either limitation.

Under the most permissive optional rule set: All of them.

[CarcosanDawn]

I think you can't abstract an elegant rule system without first understanding the reality underneath it.

If you mean "ignore the reality and build the elegant gameplay abstraction first, then just "make it so" in the lore/reality of the setting" .... well that's how you get Warhammer 40k, where mechanics in the game are so distant from reality you can find better simulation in MTG

[Maingunnery]

i wasn't suggesting an overall reduction including space stats, just a recognition that bombardment as it is currently written is a little overpowered? going by the rules for it, a naval weapon that is an order of magnitude or more weaker than the official nuclear ordinance stats in a space battle, suddenly becomes a near peer to a nuke in terms of damage and area of effect when fired at the ground of a planet.

which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. energy weapons are going to be weakened by the passage through the atmosphere (as the gases of the atmosphere absorb energy from the beams and heats up, the matter diffracts the light of N-lasers, and atoms absorb charged particle from NPPCs), and naval autocannons, naval guass, and naval missiles normal munitions are going to have been designed for penetrating the armor and structure of other warships. not really designed for area effect attacks against small targets. when you look at the design of real world warship guns and missiles, munitions designed for fighting other ships tend to have their explosive payload surrounded by thick metal housings designed to penetrate stuff (or use shaped explosive charges designed to punch through stuff), while the ones designed for use in shore bombardments are usually thin metal skins around a lot of explosive, sometimes with some added shrapnel. which can't penetrate worth a damn but blows up with way more force and area effect than the penetration focused shells.

if we fix the bombardment rules so that naval guns don't gain that leap in power just because they're pointed down at a planet, some of the problems with the idea that warships would just be a 'delete' button agaisnt ground forces gets fixed. and by making special munitions for bombardment that offset the reduction a little (but not to the same near-nuke levels as currently) we preserve the existing examples of bombardment being used to cause heavy damage to ground targets.

it does help that we've only rarely seen an orbital bombardment "up close" in the fiction. most of the time it tends to happen either 'just off screen' or as a reference to a recent event. and with those we rarely get told how long it took for it to occur.. even with this change, you could still level a city like the jaguars did Turtle Bay, it's just going to take a prolonged time of sustained bombardment to do so instead of it being something that occurs rapidly. hours, instead of minutes.

Most BT nukes are pretty tame, in fact I see them as being overpowered in space (for their low yield). That capital weapons are able to wipe islands out of existence (McKenna's coup) put them pretty much in the same ball park as nuclear weapons. However I do understand the need to limit the influence of WarShips on a planetary surface.
   I think that the aim should be centered around the fact that orbital bombardment creates a big stable target in low orbit. In principle the defenders should be able to discourage bombardment with special anti-WS capital missiles.
   For example a defender sees a WarShip positioning itself for bombardment and orders the launch of a missile from somewhere on the planet (possibly from the other side). The missile picks up speed until it goes so fast it can only really hit a warship in that bombardment position. Then the enemy either noticed the missile in time causing the WS to back off, or they don't notice it in time and the WS gets hit by a high velocity missile. The end result will be that WarShips will mostly stay away from planets, while DS can still do their job.

[Church14]

In less words, you’re looking for the setting to come out with a reasonable smaller scale ground based anti-warship measure that might not be enough to kill warships outright, but is high enough risk to a warship to make approaching the planet need a lot more justification.

[Cannonshop]

I'm not sure a 'gear' solution is the right answer guys.

There's a habit pattern that is somewhat concerning, in Battletech-a niche is identified, a new piece of hardware pops up-that should've been there all along, and was implied as there from the start, or was silent but assumed (ECM being an example, also rocket launchers and various weight Machine guns).

"Why wouldn't you use a Warship for that?"

that's our question, if I'm reading the last few posts right.

It's a decent question.  the answer that comes to mind for me, is something more fundamental than "New and improved ADA defense tech that the Clans get first!!! and bEST!!!"

or you can say "...clans get the best of after examining one and doing a better version" if you start it in the Inner Sphere.

Two ways I see to go with it; Orbital Bombardment is DESTRUCTIVE, and as we see with aerial bombing and with artillery, it's likely to be somewhat to very inaccurate.

Instead of a dinner plate blast diagram, you're dropping Turkey Platters on the mapsheet, but randomly.

That's consistent with both tube arty, and with aerial bombardment (bombs dropping on level bombing, as opposed to strike).

Basically, if the target is city-sized (or Island size, as in the Admiral McKenna story) it's the beez neez, but if you're trying to hit something small and mobile, through atmospheric lensing, pollution, smoke, clouds... well...if you don't mind a footprint the size of a medium sized county? then it's alright, but not ideal-your odds of hitting your own guys are too high and to limit that, you gotta get down where you're burning fuel just to keep from crashing...which makes you vulnerable to pretty much everything since you're not going to have much potential energy left to maneuver.

Makes your indomitable warship a kind of fat, slow moving (if it moves at all) target for everything in range.  Not just special missiles, but fighters, fighters with bomb loads, fighters who can release bomb loads in a toss-bombing, bigger field artillery, and so on.

about the only tweak I'd use, is to require a PSR for every combat round your warship's doing that, with increasing difficulty reflecting the fun of trying to hold something decidedly non-aerodynamic that was never meant to be that close to a gravity well, steady while your crew try to parse through atmospheric noise and ground clutter (and frantic calls for support from your ground units) to try not to hit the friendlies while playing 'erase the enemy'.

that vibration should probably also impose a targeting penalty, since you're trying to hover in turbulence that's going to get worse over time.

IOW nobody said the Smoke Jaguars aren't good shots, just that they chose a city as both target and backstop, which is a moral, not technical, choice.

The alternative is, hanging back and hoping volume of fire gets your shots 'kinda close' to the target.  Ship sensors are made to look out across vast distances of hard vacuum.

[AlphaMirage]

A 'gear' solution could exist however, change large vehicle rules to make actually good wet warships and remove the non-missile cap fire rules. If you could threaten a Warship via a wet battleship your coastal areas are securish, if the ships are present. However the interior is at risk and would need either surface to space bunkers or a space based deterrent (such as PWS). This would dissuade smaller warships and put bigger ones at actual risk while providing objectives for ground forces

[Aotrs Commander]

As my Dad (a former aerospace engineer who did simulatins for a living) a simulation is only as good as its weakest point. BattleTech's aerospace in particular is really a bit too fragile (given the lore was not really thought through in those terms;, likely because, not unreasonably, the original writers weren't quite so pendantic as to be the sort of person that will spend ten hours parsing through 750 record sheets nitpicking for consistency[1].

Come to that, to trot out another one of his other favourites "all simulations are wrong; but some simulations are useful."

Aerospace either needs to get more abtract, or pick which bit it wants to simulate that is useful to the game and abtract the rest away. (You can't simulate capaital staship combat with the same set of rules as fighter combat- well, you can, but that's part of the problem, here, right?)



[1]Frag-damn Thunderbolts and their "no, this missile launcher's CLEARLY on every model and image from unseen onwards on my left shoulder, but I say it's on my my right" that I had to fix for my own satisifcation. Special frack-you to the 11SE, I think it was, that was the only one so full of bits to make it impossible to actually swap the launcher's side...)

[Prospernia]

In a number of threads over the years, I hear people describe the Aerospace side of BattleTech as things like "Deeply flawed" "Barely functional" and other, similar comments. I have played it in the Total Warfare form, and have had little issues with it, even when using the fighters interacting on a standard BattleTech map with ground units. It just adds a little extra book-keeping in those areas.

If I were to say that it had any real issues, it would be the Space Map using Vector Movement vs Atmospheric Map using maneuvres and such, with limits based on Structural Integrity, so that you are using two different sets of rules based on where you are fighting. However, again, that doesn't seem that big of a deal to me.

So...why does Aerospace seem to get as much hate directed at it as Dark Age?

I've played the original  old-school Aerotech, it was fun, and like Battletech, but in space; most players didn't realize the goal was to get behind your enemy so you can fire, but they can't; then we got Interceptor and that's that.

[paladin2019]

Damage flowcharts FTW!

[Daemion]

It's a balancing act that's hard to get in Battletech as Warships where original written as this force from a bygone age. Now warships are back, plugging them into the ground game without those ships becoming a beast is a challenge. Not to mention that sci-fi loves the 'do everything' ship so you need to justify Warships not replacing existing ships the universe has been built on.

Well, here's an interesting thought:  Why not make something new for the WarShip class for the new age.  What if WarShips could land?  They become the new DropShip?  Once on the ground, you now have what amounts to a fortress from which to launch ground forces, and fall back to if things go sour.

This is technically something I wish for for DropShips on the ground map, but with a little more logic and detail brought into how you demolish them. (IE - You shouldn't have to demolish them, just pluck their wings and claws.)

It's one of the reasons I'm surprised that there aren't DropShip modifications with Artillery weapons bays for use as ground support on the ground.  Technically, I suppose that's what a Union's Fighter Bays are for.  The fighers can deploy with off-board artillery missiles to support your ground company, although in limited supply.  But, what about eras where the Arrow IV missile was in very short supply?

After all, the DropShip doesn't want to act as air support for the ground forces, so that plethora of standard weapons really doesn't function except for when the ship is under way.  Or should it?  Under the current rules, as far as I can tell, once landed and on the ground, an air unit becomes a ground unit, and is subject to the ground rules, which includes the ranges.  But, what if that range restriction didn't have to be turned on for grounded dropships?  Logically, it makes sense, and that aero units still in the air could counter fire at the aerial ranges.  A landed DropShip is still a big, now immobile, target.  But, it still has that huge bridge with all that computing capacity as well as huge weapons bays with all the support structure required for precise aiming at BVR engagement. 

It would be kinda fun to be able to call in AC/5 or Gauss or Large Lasers from off-board as artillery support.  Barring LoS on the Low Altitude map, of course. 

But, this goes back to the lack of fleshing out a proper vision for how things are supposed to work, and then applying that across the board.  So, I hope the Devs come up with a vision with the new Aero rules.

[monbvol]

Well, here's an interesting thought:  Why not make something new for the WarShip class for the new age.  What if WarShips could land?  They become the new DropShip?  Once on the ground, you now have what amounts to a fortress from which to launch ground forces, and fall back to if things go sour.

This is technically something I wish for for DropShips on the ground map, but with a little more logic and detail brought into how you demolish them. (IE - You shouldn't have to demolish them, just pluck their wings and claws.)

It's one of the reasons I'm surprised that there aren't DropShip modifications with Artillery weapons bays for use as ground support on the ground.  Technically, I suppose that's what a Union's Fighter Bays are for.  The fighers can deploy with off-board artillery missiles to support your ground company, although in limited supply.  But, what about eras where the Arrow IV missile was in very short supply?

After all, the DropShip doesn't want to act as air support for the ground forces, so that plethora of standard weapons really doesn't function except for when the ship is under way.  Or should it?  Under the current rules, as far as I can tell, once landed and on the ground, an air unit becomes a ground unit, and is subject to the ground rules, which includes the ranges.  But, what if that range restriction didn't have to be turned on for grounded dropships?  Logically, it makes sense, and that aero units still in the air could counter fire at the aerial ranges.  A landed DropShip is still a big, now immobile, target.  But, it still has that huge bridge with all that computing capacity as well as huge weapons bays with all the support structure required for precise aiming at BVR engagement. 

It would be kinda fun to be able to call in AC/5 or Gauss or Large Lasers from off-board as artillery support.  Barring LoS on the Low Altitude map, of course. 

But, this goes back to the lack of fleshing out a proper vision for how things are supposed to work, and then applying that across the board.  So, I hope the Devs come up with a vision with the new Aero rules.

Which sometimes the fluff does suggest Dropships are already something of fortresses and thus do take some concentrated effort to take down.

But yeah that we don't see more designs like the Fortress class Dropship with it's built in artillery support is a bit strange.

[Daemion]

This is what makes System Defense very difficult-difficult enough, that the writers ignore the elephant in the room created by their own fictional physics and model everything on Salamis or close coastal riverine warfare-which is the only way a Dropship can make any sense as a SYSTEM defense asset, as opposed to a close orbit planetary defense asset.

How close? Luna would be too far away for a triple of Castrums to defend to that orbital plane...or even the stable L1 point between Luna and Earth.

Y'know, this wasn't exactly as big an issue under the AT1 ranges.  Sure this brings in other technical issues with the tech as--written, such as potential anti-grav in limited capacity to keep crews and machines from crumpling under the g-forces.  And, the gravity rules were something I would've personally ignored for the sake of gameplay.

But, 6500km hexes is a huge 'point blank' range. 

[Lance Leader]

  Just to add a side note to this discussion, I just got a chance to use Aerospace in an Alpha Strike game and the currents rules worked really well IMHO.  Aerospace didn't feel overly complex or overpowered.  The only thing I wish is for higher thrust fighters to get a little bit more of an advantage in air-to-air engagements (like adding thrust/2 to engagement control rolls or something).   

[SCC]

Well, here's an interesting thought:  Why not make something new for the WarShip class for the new age.  What if WarShips could land?  They become the new DropShip?  Once on the ground, you now have what amounts to a fortress from which to launch ground forces, and fall back to if things go sour.

This is technically something I wish for for DropShips on the ground map, but with a little more logic and detail brought into how you demolish them. (IE - You shouldn't have to demolish them, just pluck their wings and claws.)

It's one of the reasons I'm surprised that there aren't DropShip modifications with Artillery weapons bays for use as ground support on the ground.  Technically, I suppose that's what a Union's Fighter Bays are for.  The fighers can deploy with off-board artillery missiles to support your ground company, although in limited supply.  But, what about eras where the Arrow IV missile was in very short supply?

After all, the DropShip doesn't want to act as air support for the ground forces, so that plethora of standard weapons really doesn't function except for when the ship is under way.  Or should it?  Under the current rules, as far as I can tell, once landed and on the ground, an air unit becomes a ground unit, and is subject to the ground rules, which includes the ranges.  But, what if that range restriction didn't have to be turned on for grounded dropships?  Logically, it makes sense, and that aero units still in the air could counter fire at the aerial ranges.  A landed DropShip is still a big, now immobile, target.  But, it still has that huge bridge with all that computing capacity as well as huge weapons bays with all the support structure required for precise aiming at BVR engagement. 

It would be kinda fun to be able to call in AC/5 or Gauss or Large Lasers from off-board as artillery support.  Barring LoS on the Low Altitude map, of course. 

But, this goes back to the lack of fleshing out a proper vision for how things are supposed to work, and then applying that across the board.  So, I hope the Devs come up with a vision with the new Aero rules.

Which sometimes the fluff does suggest Dropships are already something of fortresses and thus do take some concentrated effort to take down.

But yeah that we don't see more designs like the Fortress class Dropship with it's built in artillery support is a bit strange.

Yeah, the problem here is more the existing designs then anything else, a DS is many things but the overriding thing is a landing craft in the vein of a Higgins boat while the big inspiration for BT's travel system is Dune, so the DS sphere should include massive ships, but it doesn't, because takes away from lance based play.

  Just to add a side note to this discussion, I just got a chance to use Aerospace in an Alpha Strike game and the currents rules worked really well IMHO.  Aerospace didn't feel overly complex or overpowered.  The only thing I wish is for higher thrust fighters to get a little bit more of an advantage in air-to-air engagements (like adding thrust/2 to engagement control rolls or something).   

This will be because you'd have been using the in-atmosphere rules, I'm pretty sure that the exo-atmospheric rules are the problem (because they work on Newtonian physics)

[idea weenie]

Pirates do attack smaller towns. The thing is one attack can wipe out a town. Enough towns get wiped out and there won't be anyone living in rural areas. That leaves the bigger towns, cities, and installations as targets and with increase ground defenses you get increased space attackers. How long would it be before Pirates used capital missiles to bombard the SDS? How SDS will die not do to weapons fire but lack of money for upkeep, or were stripped by the pirates because the locals surrendered rather than risk being nuked? Worse, how many pirates will set up shop on the planet and use the planet's SDS for their own defense?

The key with pirates is that they raid the smaller towns, rather than completely wiping them out.

Imagine a planet with 100 million people, of which 90% live under the SDS 'umbrella'.

That still leaves 10 million people that are available to be raided, in a variety of town sizes.  How often do pirates raid the single planet?  How big are the pirate raids that occur?  Will the pirates really be able to depopulate 10 million people?

If pirates are using Capital missiles, the question should be 'where did they get those missiles from'?  Any House employee that is providing capital missiles or nuclear warheads to pirates should be asked, "why are you giving these pirates something that could hurt us too".  Other pirates would be going after the nuke-happy pirates, to prevent anyone from thinking of performing such reprisals.  The last thing pirates want is for all the Houses to put their wars on pause because one pirate group used nuclear warheads, and the Houses decide to make a clean sweep of their border regions.

The SDS facilities would be very rare, and the critical ones would be kept in operation.  Defining 'critical' would be based on the House Lord or other similarly high-ranking nobles.

If a pirate force decides to set up shop, how big will the House response be?  The House has likely been trying to find this pirate group, and now the pirates are in a known location.


Smart pirate groups raid and shear the populations, then get out before retaliation.  They don't hang around for reprisals from angry House forces, and they definitely don't use weapons capable of provoking such a House response.  I'd almost see a pirate group deciding to turn over nuclear warheads to the local planet's military, to establish their 'honesty'.  Or at least establish that "we could have used this, we didn't, give us the stuff on this list and call it a finder's fee".

[RifleMech]

Ah.  Okay.  My bad.

Under the less permissive optional rule set: Small Lasers, Flamers, Machine Guns, Heavy Machine Guns, and probably a couple others that I am not able to remember off the top of my head and don't have my PDFs handy to double check.  Under this rule set these weapons have their damage halved and can only engage one missile volley per turn.  Actual AMS under this rule set does not have either limitation.

Under the most permissive optional rule set: All of them.

No worries. :)

So a few more to a lot more.  Thanks. :)

The key with pirates is that they raid the smaller towns, rather than completely wiping them out.

Imagine a planet with 100 million people, of which 90% live under the SDS 'umbrella'.

That still leaves 10 million people that are available to be raided, in a variety of town sizes.  How often do pirates raid the single planet?  How big are the pirate raids that occur?  Will the pirates really be able to depopulate 10 million people?

If pirates are using Capital missiles, the question should be 'where did they get those missiles from'?  Any House employee that is providing capital missiles or nuclear warheads to pirates should be asked, "why are you giving these pirates something that could hurt us too".  Other pirates would be going after the nuke-happy pirates, to prevent anyone from thinking of performing such reprisals.  The last thing pirates want is for all the Houses to put their wars on pause because one pirate group used nuclear warheads, and the Houses decide to make a clean sweep of their border regions.

The SDS facilities would be very rare, and the critical ones would be kept in operation.  Defining 'critical' would be based on the House Lord or other similarly high-ranking nobles.

If a pirate force decides to set up shop, how big will the House response be?  The House has likely been trying to find this pirate group, and now the pirates are in a known location.


Smart pirate groups raid and shear the populations, then get out before retaliation.  They don't hang around for reprisals from angry House forces, and they definitely don't use weapons capable of provoking such a House response.  I'd almost see a pirate group deciding to turn over nuclear warheads to the local planet's military, to establish their 'honesty'.  Or at least establish that "we could have used this, we didn't, give us the stuff on this list and call it a finder's fee".

With 10 million people, the pirates would have a target rich environment. And with that many people they could easily depopulate a small town. Doing so may even be better for them. No witnesses. With a smaller population the pirates may leave some of the population or take all depending on their requirements and capabilities. They need to make the raid worthwhile.

If SDS is that rare, it's only going to be over vital targets such as capitals and major manufactures. Neither of those places are a likely target for pirates as they're already heavily defended.

Where would pirates get any military equipment? They either steal it, buy it on the black market, or get lucky and find it. That would include nukes. And they don't have to use them, just threaten. Even if they did, how would the Houses know? There likely wouldn't be any survivors. The planet would have to send out an alert saying they'd be attacked just to get a response and not every planet has an HPG. With limited space traffic it could be months before anyone finds out the planet was raided or nuked. That gives the pirates plenty of time to get away and make it harder to identify who did it. Having to land further away though increases the time that defenders have to gather what forces they have on planet and call for reinforcements. That makes for a more difficult raid. The more difficult the raid the more they take it out on the defenders.

[Daemion]

I thought every planet that has a dot on the map has an HPG, with maybe some exceptions in the periphery.  Periphery is not part of the IS houses.

[Cannonshop]

I thought every planet that has a dot on the map has an HPG, with maybe some exceptions in the periphery.  Periphery is not part of the IS houses.

There's been a lot of different interpretations for that, it might even be worth asking on the Errata or the Help boards to see what the current interpretation is.

[Prospernia]

Damage flowcharts FTW!

That was in RL: Interceptor.  2nd-edition changed that to the same charts grav-tanks used, but, IMHO, made aerospace-fighters more powerful, so I still use the 1st edition flow-charts.

[idea weenie]

With 10 million people, the pirates would have a target rich environment. And with that many people they could easily depopulate a small town. Doing so may even be better for them. No witnesses. With a smaller population the pirates may leave some of the population or take all depending on their requirements and capabilities. They need to make the raid worthwhile.

I was referring to the 10 million people being the planet's 'available' population, not that the pirates had that many people.  Also that there are still targets for pirates to raid even with an SDS surface to orbit weapon setup.

If SDS is that rare, it's only going to be over vital targets such as capitals and major manufactures. Neither of those places are a likely target for pirates as they're already heavily defended.

Because as you also pointed out here: "Enough towns get wiped out and there won't be anyone living in rural areas. That leaves the bigger towns, cities, and installations as targets and with increase ground defenses you get increased space attackers"

The SDS systems would be rare, but since they would only be over a few critical locations it is still possible to have pirate raids occurring.  The pirates won't need to find Capital Missiles or nuclear warheads.

Where would pirates get any military equipment? They either steal it, buy it on the black market, or get lucky and find it. That would include nukes. And they don't have to use them, just threaten. Even if they did, how would the Houses know? There likely wouldn't be any survivors. The planet would have to send out an alert saying they'd be attacked just to get a response and not every planet has an HPG. With limited space traffic it could be months before anyone finds out the planet was raided or nuked. That gives the pirates plenty of time to get away and make it harder to identify who did it. Having to land further away though increases the time that defenders have to gather what forces they have on planet and call for reinforcements. That makes for a more difficult raid. The more difficult the raid the more they take it out on the defenders.

Unless the pirates are killing everyone on the planet, I'd expect that planets worth the time for pirates to raid would have some way to record transmissions.  If nothing else the local medieval noble sends out several dozen messengers on horseback whose orders are to hide until the pirates leave.  With additional messengers/spies/runners/hiders whose only job is to keep the message safe.  Those messages will be explaining who attacked the planet, what the pirates threatened the planet with, and will have some sort of signet ring that states the noble verifies the text on the paper is correct.  Even if only one messenger survives, the House will know which pirate attacked, that the pirate had nuclear weapons and threatened to use them, and the date of the attack.  Even if it is months later, another IS noble will notice that the tax payments have not yet arrived and will send a ship out of financial concern.

If the planet is small enough that no House controls it, then the pirates may just take over.  They land on another part of the planet, and raid the existing people for resources.  The problem comes when the pirates are not getting enough technical material to maintain their Mechs, and the mechs (and Dropship) start breaking down.

The difficult raid also imposes a harsher question on the pirates: are they going to get enough loot to make up for their losses.  They might want to go after the main jewelry store for the gold/diamonds present, but if all they can get is the smaller town's jewelry store then that is what they will have to settle for.  They might want to pick and choose from the warehouse of computer components, but may have to settle for the small town's IT center.  The pirates have to survive to take their revenge on the defender.

[thedancingjoker]

From the Adepticon livestream summary:
"From the chat with Ray, Brent, Bryn and Mike:
-When asked about the hurdles to making a new aerospace game, Ray said the first one is that they would not be relying on an existing system, they need a ground-up game that is fun and engaging.  After that is making it work within BattleTech as a setting."

This is probably a good decision, make it fun and useable, the rest will follow.

[BrianDavion]

Agreed. and this is actually pretty big when you think of it, it means that to produce an aerospace game they're willing to kill some sacred cows

[Nerroth]

Historically, it's noted that the Outworlds Alliance had always relied heavily on its aerospace forces, to the extent that its fighter pilots had the kind of prestige which in most other known realms has accrued to MechWarriors.

Even as if the "current" era, the AMC portion of the Raven Alliance armed forces appears to continue this trend; indeed, with the provision of more advanced fighter designs from Clan Snow Raven (albeit as "cast-offs" from the Snow Raven touman), the militia regiments compare favourably to any known Inner Sphere or Periphery aerospace force to be found beyond the Alliance's borders - even if they are a distant second from the standard set by the Snow Ravens themselves.

Speaking of which, the Snow Ravens might be most (in)famous for their comparatively large WarShip fleet - but they are also renowned for their aerospace fighter presence, even if they do not neglect their ground forces to anything like the extent seen among the Outworlder regiments.

-----

So, if one was to split the implementation of Total Warfare-scale Aerospace into three separate systems - one for ground support, one for dogfighting, and one for WarShip fleet battles - I would still hope that the first of those three would stay in the same "starter" rulebook as BattleMechs and other ground units. If only to enable would-be Outworlds and/or Snow Raven players to account for this aspect of their preferred tactical doctrines in as close to a "core" rule set as possible.

Similarly, since Alpha Strike: Commander's Edition is already set up to integrate the ground support role in a relatively concise (by TW standards, at least) rule set, I"d hope that any plans to re-jig the TW-scale way of doing things won't have too much of an impact on how AS is set up to handle that side of things.