Decisive Battle Theory

[Challenger]

Most Battletech games I have watched are fairly inconclusive with both sides prioritising defence over offence, resulting in some fairly ineffectual skirmishing at best and a slow battle of attrition at worse. This is somewhat a function of the game’s design where it is a lot easier to make yourself hard to hit, than it is to get yourself into a position where you can reliably do damage.

Which got me thinking, in the BT Universe/Game, how do you force a decisive battle on an enemy that doesn’t want to fight one?

My personal approach can be summed up as ‘Get Close’ a only slightly measured rush to melee range with everything that doesn’t directly contribute to that attack ruthlessly discarded from my force. A policy that has led me to pretty much abandon the use of fire support units and assault mechs in general.

It seems unlikely (also egotistical and boring 😜) to suggest that is the only path to victory. So, how do you do it?

How do you bring an enemy to battle who will not attack, how do you force the engagement and then strive to secure victory?

Challenger

[Syzyx]

This is a great question! I think it depends on what kind of games you play though.

I am primarily a campaign player. So for me the answer to a foe who won't attack or commit is to thank them, ignore their forces, and go take whatever my objective is. I have had a few players like that in my group over the years and they tend to learn the lesson of offense very quickly.

In a pickup or one off game, I'd say you're on the right track. About the only thing I'd look to add is maybe some high-speed artillery. That way they can't even effectively hide from you and you can corral them into places where you can commit them to battle.

[Greatclub]

Most Battletech games I have watched are fairly inconclusive with both sides prioritising defence over offence, resulting in some fairly ineffectual skirmishing at best and a slow battle of attrition at worse. This is somewhat a function of the game’s design where it is a lot easier to make yourself hard to hit, than it is to get yourself into a position where you can reliably do damage.

Which got me thinking, in the BT Universe/Game, how do you force a decisive battle on an enemy that doesn’t want to fight one?

My personal approach can be summed up as ‘Get Close’ a only slightly measured rush to melee range with everything that doesn’t directly contribute to that attack ruthlessly discarded from my force. A policy that has led me to pretty much abandon the use of fire support units and assault mechs in general.

It seems unlikely (also egotistical and boring 😜) to suggest that is the only path to victory. So, how do you do it?

How do you bring an enemy to battle who will not attack, how do you force the engagement and then strive to secure victory?

Challenger

pulse lasers, tarcomps, precision ac ammo, buying better gunners (Although that's risky, as you're increasing the amount you pay for defences for no benefit.)

I think that your players might be unusual, as most games I've played are quickly decisive. For fire support, I'd suggest something heavily armoured enough that it can park on a hill and survive for a while. Archers are classics for a reason.

[Charistoph]

This is a great question! I think it depends on what kind of games you play though.

I am primarily a campaign player. So for me the answer to a foe who won't attack or commit is to thank them, ignore their forces, and go take whatever my objective is. I have had a few players like that in my group over the years and they tend to learn the lesson of offense very quickly.

In a pickup or one off game, I'd say you're on the right track. About the only thing I'd look to add is maybe some high-speed artillery. That way they can't even effectively hide from you and you can corral them into places where you can commit them to battle.

Pretty much.  If they will not engage, they've completely given up initiative.

Artillery is one way to do it, as is aerospace assets.  Aerospace has the advantage of being able to provide pressure in situations your ground units may not be able to keep up.  Now, this could be just plain fighters, VTOLs, as well as doing hot drops with dropships to cut off lanes of travel and forcing the engagement that way.

Objectives help in one off games, but usually for me one-offs are more or less Solaris VII, so it can depend on what I'm carrying as to how I prefer to engage.

[worktroll]

Two thoughts.

In a simple standup game, it can be difficult to force the issue. So try experimenting with different types of games - breakthrough, scouting, objective raid, etc. If you can win because the other guy fails to achieve his victory condition, it tends to force people to act.

Second thing, be clear on what your victory condition is. In one of the old MW2 computer games, there was a mission where you had to scout a power generator. You could take any Clan OmniMech you wanted. So I'd choose the Dire Wolf, and die. Because no matter how many enemies you killed, there were always too many more. Finally I got the point the scenario was meant to teach - focus on your mission goals. So I took a lighter, jumping 'Mech, and avoided the enemies, did a speed run to the generator, and then gout the heck out of Dodge before I got caught. Mission wasn't to be "Eternal Warrior" - it was to achieve an objective. Always remembered that (and the look of that power generator!)

So in a breakthrough, you may get bonus points for wiping the floor with the enemy, but you can waste time trying to achieve that, when you could have gotten units off the map and won that way for sure.

[Minemech]

 It sounds like you are dealing with an issue of players playing to not lose. Players with this problem may be afraid to run up their heat, even when the risk can be exceptionally advantageous, they can be afraid to expose parts of their formations to open opportunities, they may stick to safe choices in unit selection, and demonstrate exceptional reverence for advantageous terrain, to the point of fearing to seriously challenge units in it.

 One trick would be to force them to use random sets of units for a few games. In particular, units outside of their comfort zone.

 Another would be to get them to play in canyons, or lakes, where such advantages are inverted.

 Be ready to engage them with an aggressive play style that takes risks, and reaps rewards.

[Natasha Kerensky]

Some of this is driven by the nature of damage and unit destruction in the game.  Unlike the real world, there are no practically one-shot-kill weapons in BT armored combat.  But you can get closer with higher caliber ballistics (AC/20s, Gauss), massed crit-seekers (lots of LB-X), certain TSM monsters.  Running some games that avoid lots of smaller weapons and sandpaper attacks in favor of these faster kills might help the players recognize the value of offense and aggressive play.

[Challenger]

It sounds like you are dealing with an issue of players playing to not lose.

That is basically it.

However, I’m not looking to change the way they play. At the end of the day, they are happy playing their way and I’m happy playing the way I play, I don’t feel I should be telling them to change the way they have fun. (I don’t mean to dismiss any of the above suggestions, they are all things that I have used in the past and they work well, but not everyone wants to play with objectives etc)

What interests me is solutions to the tactical problem of destroying an enemy who must be engaged, but who has no intention of allowing a decisive engagement to happen. They don’t necessary need to be passive, they might just go out of their way to keep the range open and the TMM high preventing either side from doing much damage before they run out of ammo. But, they are not going to break cover and come at you.

Artillery is effective, particularly against an enemy who prefers to camps rather than be illusive. But, it is advanced tech. If you don’t mind me moving the goal posts a little, how would you approach the problem if you only had access to tournament legal tech?

Challenger

[Cannonshop]

That is basically it.

However, I’m not looking to change the way they play. At the end of the day, they are happy playing their way and I’m happy playing the way I play, I don’t feel I should be telling them to change the way they have fun. (I don’t mean to dismiss any of the above suggestions, they are all things that I have used in the past and they work well, but not everyone wants to play with objectives etc)

What interests me is solutions to the tactical problem of destroying an enemy who must be engaged, but who has no intention of allowing a decisive engagement to happen. They don’t necessary need to be passive, they might just go out of their way to keep the range open and the TMM high preventing either side from doing much damage before they run out of ammo. But, they are not going to break cover and come at you.

Artillery is effective, particularly against an enemy who prefers to camps rather than be illusive. But, it is advanced tech. If you don’t mind me moving the goal posts a little, how would you approach the problem if you only had access to tournament legal tech?

Challenger

LRM indirect fire, fast moving spotters, or air strikes.  (ASF aren't advanced, they're basic rules now.)

others are 'harassment' units like good VTOLs (don't waste the ink on anything slower than 8/12) to keep them running away or off-balance...

those are all ways. Other ways include vise-pressure.  Keep advancing, with overlapping fields of fire, don't stand there at medium playing their game-if he won't engage, then engage in terrain control and push him off the mapsheet by reducing the room he has to manuever.  (one of the very few times I'll advocate for 'wall of steel' tactics.)

Basically, even with the guys who want to be 'illusive' your best move to force engagement is to force the engagement.  plan your moves ahead of the initiative roll, decide "this unit will be in X hex/at x location by turn y"  this takes a lot of the initiative away from your 'refuses to engage' opponent, because you're not letting him refuse to engage.

one of the things about doing a lot of old-school vehicle tactics using the less cheesy units, was learning how to eat damage in exchange for working the nerves of my opponents.  (this was back in the dark days of the BMR hit locations on tanks)  the basic thrust, was keep moving forward.

back then, it was because a stationary tank was a dead tank very very quickly.  In modern Battletech, the 'shield' side has gotten so predominant that you don't have to worry about parking-except that parking gives over the initiative (the REAL initiative) to the other side even when you've won the die roll.

so press him into reacting instead of acting.  Ideally, what you want to do, is create a mental situation where even when he wins initiative rolls, he's still trying to react to you.  If his typical reaction is to avoid confrontation, then forcing confrontation will throw him off, which can let you win a tabletop scenario even while taking more damage.  (if you push him off the edge of the map, you've effectively won, if you are using scenario rules with missions, you've prevented him from achieving his mission. in a king-of-the-hill, you've taken the hill and so on.)

Might suggest as a warmup, taking an equal BV in tanks, nothing below 4/6 (tracked), and expect to lose several before you even begin.  *don't take anything without a decent main gun, either. no Scorpions for this.*

and practice 'pushing' your opponent into a corner, or across the map. he wants to avoid confrontation, then put him in a position where he is facing nothing BUT confrontation.  Push forward, don't stop, use lost initiative to position units to channel his retreat, use won initiative to push more force into his weakest elements.

[Weirdo]

Another good way to force an engagement is with infantry or battle armor, deployed in this part of the map in superfast VTOLs, APCs, or ASFs. Drop those troops off and secure the good cover in his part of the map before he can get to it. This is particularly good against players that like to pick two woods hexes and just yo-yo between them every turn for max TMMs. Once his defensive options become limited, he'll have to advance or be picked apart by your main force.

[Kovax]

All too well acquainted with the situation.  Played one tournament where the opposing player managed to score an extremely lucky 3 point LRM hit at terrible odds during the first round or two, then spent the rest of the game running/jumping away, because in his mind, he had already "won" (technically legal, but in clear violation of the DbaD rule).  There is no fun in chasing some jumping 'Mech back and forth, around and over a hill, time and time again for the rest of the game, without another shot fired.  At one point where I lost initiative, I even gave him a chance to jump behind me, and he chose to jump away instead.  It did not sit well with me at all to be eliminated from a tournament with only 3 points of damage, by a "victorious" opponent who was clearly running away from me.

Unless you have enough movement to control the choice to engage or not, it's mostly up to the other player.  That's a big part of why navies built Battlecruisers: something that could outgun anything that could catch them, and outrun anything that could outgun them.  I prefer to take at least one relatively fast unit with decent armor to tie up opposing units long enough for my slower/heavier elements to engage.  That may mean following and forcing them to waste a point to turn at the end of movement to avoid back-shots, or running/driving past them and blocking the easiest line of retreat or taking the best cover.  A vehicle may be a good choice as a cheap speed bump for forcing combat; just be aware that the vehicle is expendable in this situation, and that the safest place for the enemy is ON the vehicle (neither can shoot at 0 range, but the 'Mech can stomp the vehicle in the physical phase).

I've played "bug" fights before, and with competent players they normally go for 10-30 turns before someone gets that one lucky hit and does enough serious damage to decide the rest of the match.  I recall one match that we called an effective draw after around 3 hours of maneuver and occasional Hail-Mary shots at 11 or 12; 5 damage (one ML hit) to 4 (two MG hits), and no breached armor in either case.  With high enough TMM modifiers, beyond some reasonable skill level, unless somebody makes a mistake, the outcome is almost entirely due to luck.

[Colt Ward]

Lol, I thought you were talking about the WWI/WWII naval decisive battle theory in the strategic sense.

BUT . . . some of this is about taking too focused a force to a battle.  As has been mentioned, with force selection you can bring the tools to box in your opponent where they have to pick from bad choices.  This is why my preference is for cavalry with long ranged multi-purpose weapons (why I have been sad we never got a hover veh w/Thumper or Sniper artillery) along with BA options.  Games theory talks about controlling the center of the board/map to seize initiative and limits your opponent's choices.  The choices get even MORE limited if I send half dozen BA squads in cheap hover APCs or VTOLs to drop them in a cluster of terrain that makes it painful for your opponent to bypass- the so called BA 'Bubble of Doom' sort of like a AC/20 bubble.  Cover the other flank with fast hovertanks or cavalry mechs like Blitzkrieg or Ice Ferrets . . . and finally start tossing Thumper shells where they might shelter to trade long range fire with your shooters in the center.

Rush the center?  the wings will fall on the flanks to envelope.  Rush the BA flank?  Get bogged down by the BA as the center shifts and the hovertanks hook around behind the attacking line.  Rush the cavalry/hovertank wing?  Center shifts in that direction while the cav slips around for backshots or pick off weaklings.  I have played the Clans for years, and while I may usually have the range advantage I generally lack the armor of IS forces, you have to pull them from defensive positions to fight a running battle.  I have also played low-IS tech against Clan invaders- give me the artillery and light hovertanks to support my slower gun line.  Honestly, IS vs Clan it really helps for the IS to have artillery to trump the Clan range advantage and force them from partial/woods . . . it was always fun to beat 'Dire Wolf As are the bestest ever, ROARH!' players with 4/6 IS heavies, tanks like L1 Pattons, light hovertanks, BA and artillery.  One I remember the guy got is pair of Dire Wolf As and a Stone Rhino hammered in the trees from A4 and Snipers while my gun line set up out of his range and the cav spread to the flanks.

[Nikas_Zekeval]

It sounds like you are dealing with an issue of players playing to not lose. Players with this problem may be afraid to run up their heat, even when the risk can be exceptionally advantageous, they can be afraid to expose parts of their formations to open opportunities, they may stick to safe choices in unit selection, and demonstrate exceptional reverence for advantageous terrain, to the point of fearing to seriously challenge units in it.

While I find "Turrettech" equally boring and frustrating to play against?  I think there are meta reasons that help drive the loss adversness of players.

Over on the BV tolerance thread, I mentioned in refering to unit caps, there are only so many units that you can keep in your head, or even with extensive turn notes on paper, before the game starts bogging down as you have to stop to work out what you did, and what you meant to do with a particular unit when you get back to it.  In larger games players naturally split up the load, say three or four running a company between them.

What happens if one of 'your' units gets destroyed, crippled, or even just damaged to the point another bad exchange will make it either?  Suddenly you have less to do in the game, and if you run out, unless someone is willing to give up part of their initial force, you might be stuck twiddling your thumbs.

So players get a starting force in a game, and get obsessed with having to preserve that through the entire game, to avoid being knocked out and loosing some of their engagement and participation in the battle.

Not sure how to fix this, if it is a fixable problem.  But thought I'd bring it up for why it might happen and see if others have ideas to deal with it.

[Kovax]

Personally, I don't see that as a problem.  In the BT universe, you go out of your way to avoid becoming dispossessed, so the forces involved generally DON'T fight to the destruction of one side or the other.  When one side starts taking serious damage, they withdraw or sue for terms, which are usually kept lenient by most parties because you might be on the losing side next time, and paybacks suck.

[Vonshroom]

Most Battletech games I have watched are fairly inconclusive with both sides prioritising defence over offence, resulting in some fairly ineffectual skirmishing at best and a slow battle of attrition at worse. This is somewhat a function of the game’s design where it is a lot easier to make yourself hard to hit, than it is to get yourself into a position where you can reliably do damage.

Which got me thinking, in the BT Universe/Game, how do you force a decisive battle on an enemy that doesn’t want to fight one?

My personal approach can be summed up as ‘Get Close’ a only slightly measured rush to melee range with everything that doesn’t directly contribute to that attack ruthlessly discarded from my force. A policy that has led me to pretty much abandon the use of fire support units and assault mechs in general.

It seems unlikely (also egotistical and boring 😜) to suggest that is the only path to victory. So, how do you do it?

How do you bring an enemy to battle who will not attack, how do you force the engagement and then strive to secure victory?

Challenger

From my understanding of things the overcautious conservative play-style of many players echoes the canon universes caution with mechs. Specifically during the 3025 era mechs were very rare and expensive and repairs were few and far between. As such I always felt  like this cautious playstyle was an aspect of the game for most scenarios. This coming from primarily a '25 era player.

Assuming a limited amount of mapsheets (So they can't just keep running) LRM fire is a good way to goad your opponent into a fight. Light fast spotter / harasser units can spot for indirect and eventually your opponent is going to have to deal with it. Using units that give you a mobility advantage are also a way to force the fight. This would be a viable in universe tactic as well. In universe ambushes would be a good way to kick things off. Unless you have a numerical advantage though the last thing you are going to want to do is "force a fight" with a tougher enemy.

Depending on what size of forces you are playing with using lighter faster harassers to entertain the enemy while your heavies close is a good strategy as well. You have to make your opponent nervous about taking their avenues of escape.

[Weirdo]

Have you run these players through the Diminishing Returns scenario that was published through the Kickstarter? It seems like it'd reward very conservative play like this, so I'm curious how they'd fare with it.

[Wolf72]

... In one of the old MW2 computer games, there was a mission where you had to scout a power generator. You could take any Clan OmniMech you wanted. ...

Was the mech they originally offered you a Jenner IIC? I seem to remember hitting the JJs for some much needed speed to get away from everyone.

[Vonshroom]

Two thoughts.

In a simple standup game, it can be difficult to force the issue. So try experimenting with different types of games - breakthrough, scouting, objective raid, etc. If you can win because the other guy fails to achieve his victory condition, it tends to force people to act.

Second thing, be clear on what your victory condition is. In one of the old MW2 computer games, there was a mission where you had to scout a power generator. You could take any Clan OmniMech you wanted. So I'd choose the Dire Wolf, and die. Because no matter how many enemies you killed, there were always too many more. Finally I got the point the scenario was meant to teach - focus on your mission goals. So I took a lighter, jumping 'Mech, and avoided the enemies, did a speed run to the generator, and then gout the heck out of Dodge before I got caught. Mission wasn't to be "Eternal Warrior" - it was to achieve an objective. Always remembered that (and the look of that power generator!)

So in a breakthrough, you may get bonus points for wiping the floor with the enemy, but you can waste time trying to achieve that, when you could have gotten units off the map and won that way for sure.

This is one that sticks with you. That and that thrumming sound the generator makes....


I did the same thing, think I managed to do it with a Stormcrow.

[massey]

Unless their mechs are significantly faster than yours, or they park in single hex water spaces, I don't understand how people are preventing engagement.

A fast backstabber can flush people out of most cover.  Nobody wants a Jenner on their back.

[Colt Ward]

3025 Spider 5V duel . . . or someone playing keep away with a OTT-7K against a beat up slow machine.

What the OP is talking about is basically someone using McClellan's manual.  You have never played someone who when you hit them, retreats back into cover and tries to turtle?  I had someone like this playing 10k Clan vs IS . . . they should have spent the whole time bum-rushing me, but instead the green player retreated back behind buildings and into woods trying to play sniper games between . . . 2 AWS-8Q, Firestarter OC, 2 Panther 8R, Banshee, and Cataphract vs a Dire Wolf Widowmaker (first time putting the mini on the table in 15 years), Timber Wolf C, and Mist Lynx C with some Elemental support.  He kept shifting the Awesomes facing the DW, so I did not kill them both but the Firestarter, a Panther, and Cataphract.

Tried to explain after the fight that when facing the Clans he could not fight a ranged battle and would instead need to close in so the weight of his armor had a impact.  He still mostly turtled next time.

[massey]

The bot in Megamek does that sometimes.  I just don't see it as a viable strategy.  I have seen new players do this in other games, where they're afraid to get their characters killed.  But in Battletech I've never seen it work.  As in, people who try it get stomped.

That's what I don't understand.  I never needed a strategy to deal with people who turtle, because I've never seen it work.

[Colt Ward]

It does not work in the long run b/c you surrender initiative . . . but how fun is it when you have 4 or at most 5 hours for game night when you have to chase someone across the map for 75% of the time and then get in position to tackle their defensive position?  The game I was discussing had a 3 hour hard time limit . . . which made my Dire Wolf run across the map for most of the time- walked to keep range at 14-13 against the Awesomes as much as possible, though he did close at one point to eat some UAC/20.  Which sent him scampering back for cover when both shots connected.

[massey]

I've never had a human player act like that.  Everybody always wanted to get in and blow stuff up.  I can see how that would be frustrating though.

[Challenger]

It can be a surprisingly effective tactic if you’ve got the patience for it and your opponent lacks the tools to make you move.

I’ve played people who have selected a force that is best at medium/short range brawling then moved straight to the map sheet that offers the best LOS blocking terrain. Once there they refuse to come out and forced me to wade in after them (or be very bored anyway)

It is true, they are sacrificing the initiative, but if my objectives require me to destroy the enemy force, they gain a significant advantage by fighting on ground and at a range of their choosing.

Thus my original question.

Challenger

[Retry]

I’ve played people who have selected a force that is best at medium/short range brawling then moved straight to the map sheet that offers the best LOS blocking terrain. Once there they refuse to come out and forced me to wade in after them (or be very bored anyway)

I got a good friend named "Thumper" who's pretty good at solving these problems.

[Challenger]

I got a good friend named "Thumper" who's pretty good at solving these problems.

It is rarely that simple though.

If you’ve got advanced rules in play, you might have double blind, in which case you’ll have to guess where to aim. Even if not, how much ammo have your brought? Will you do critical damage before running out? What will you do if your opponent brought more artillery than you did?

I think its interesting that most of us have a fairly common approach, Indirect Fire to throw the enemy off balance, use flankers to fix/disorder them and then follow up with a deliberate attack with your main force.

This does however imply a need to be able to close to point blank range and physically dig your enemy out of whatever hole they have dug themselves into.Almost the mech answer to a bayonet charge?

Challenger

[Retry]

It is rarely that simple though.

If you’ve got advanced rules in play, you might have double blind, in which case you’ll have to guess where to aim. Even if not, how much ammo have your brought? Will you do critical damage before running out? What will you do if your opponent brought more artillery than you did?

You don't have to guess in double blind.  In this scenario, you do have a general idea where the player is (a mapsheet with heavy LoS restrictions).  Normal max visual range is 60 hexes, so you can dispatch about a lance or so of scout battlemechs outside of firing range but inside visual, you can narrow down where they may be located (you won't see all of the mapsheet due to LoS issues, but you'll be some, and they'll have to be in one of the places you can't see).  If you have VTOLs, it's even better, since you can simply fly high and ignore virtually all of the elevation-based blocks, so you will be able to visually spot them.

Almost all vee-based Thumper designs have at least 2 tons of ammo, only exception is the Jihad-era Danai.  That's a good 40+ shells per gun, plenty of shells to cause problems.  Either you'll flush them out of their cover, or the Thumpers'll soften 'em up real good before you head in.  Either way, the edge is yours.

Arty vs Arty is more complicated, but you may still have an advantage even if his guns outweigh yours.  What's their platforms?  If the guns are infantry-based field artillery or gun trailers, you can probably knock them out with counter-battery fire easier than they can hit you, even if they have more guns or their guns are Long Toms.

If it's vee-based, then where are they located?  Are they on-map bunkering down with the rest of the group?  Your arty has an advantage.  Your guns have a decent idea where they are, down to a mapsheet (and if they want to stay in their LoS restricted cover, they don't have much wiggle room), but their guns have an entire battlefield that your guns could be hiding.  Line of Sight works both ways in BT: If you can't spot them, they can't spot you, but since you have a better idea of where they are at, that gives you the edge.

Alternatively, are the guns off-map, or on-map but a ways from their brawling friends that are hunkered down in that mapsheet?  In either case, that'd be a good time to hunt down the less-defended artillery guns.  Either the brawlers have to come out to protect their artillery assets (losing their cover), or they stay holed up in their citadel (losing their artillery), either of which puts you ahead of where you started.

[Daryk]

This thread is very interesting, and reflects the difference in philosophies between me and Tinyozora… We're playing a Warchest campaign right now.  I'm the more conservative player, and just realized he's selected his forces after me in the battles we've fought so far.  Charge in and kill 'em tactics absolutely work against forces designed for long range fire support as long as you select forces suited to that.  It's another level beyond tactics, really.  The operational level of warfare has always been misunderstood to some degree or other.

Rochambeau lives at all levels of warfare!  :D

[General308]

It can be a surprisingly effective tactic if you’ve got the patience for it and your opponent lacks the tools to make you move.

I’ve played people who have selected a force that is best at medium/short range brawling then moved straight to the map sheet that offers the best LOS blocking terrain. Once there they refuse to come out and forced me to wade in after them (or be very bored anyway)

It is true, they are sacrificing the initiative, but if my objectives require me to destroy the enemy force, they gain a significant advantage by fighting on ground and at a range of their choosing.

Thus my original question.

Challenger

I find people who do this hate FAST mobile units. That can flank and get behind them.  Which I tend to be find with be cause I love fast mobile Jumping units.  That tend to do good at getting in behind people

[StoneRhino]

Being aggressive isn't exactly decisive. All you are doing is forcing a short ranged fight at best. I have had people try that and lose even though they picked the maps and picked a force for a short ranged fight. The individual suggested we play on a small map "this time" and thought that it was going to net him a win. What it did was net him a bruised ego by getting smacked around when he was given all of the advantages.

The problem that you are having is that their style has already frustrated you enough to change your play-style. By rushing them you are ensuring that they are not going to change. You might get a win or two, but they are likely to adjust to make it harder to rush them. Something as simple as a few ac20s can really bump up that short range threat.

In a tournament legal game you can always bring in aircraft to drop bombs on them if they are using slow moving units. Indirect LRM fire is one of my favorite things to use on people who want to stand around. It could also be used against those that simply want to run around and hide behind cover. Add in a few vtols and infantry platoons to keep their units under observation and your lrm carrying units will have a high chance of taking shots at them most of the game even if they are running about. If they are more campers then runners then you can slowly squeeze them scraping armor off with the lrms without risking return fire. It forces them to come out and attack the lrm carrier or to go after the spotters.

If you use units with jumpjets then you can force the other players to either bunch up or spread out depending upon what works for you.

I have played against several people that would prefer to stay on their home map edge since it gives them a wall to their back, which makes it easier for them as it reduces the demand upon their attention span and reduces the potential for risks. With players like that you want to force them to move up. Artillery, bombs, indirect lrm spam helps with that. Boredom also helps since they will want to shoot something, even if its on a 12+ so they should move up if you offer them nothing to shoot at their preferred position. What you want to do is to annoy them into changing their style by avoiding what little fight that they offer. At some point the game will become 2 sides sitting behind hills and the one that has the least tolerance for boredom will be forced to make a move.

[Minemech]

 Part of this discussion is going to depend upon what you have seen players employ, or what you yourself have used as an aggressive force. To me, an aggressive force is an offensive style, one designed to take risks, and reap awards for pushing into the enemy. At times, its moves may appear to open vulnerabilities, but these moves are very much by design. Sure it may employ mechs like PHX-1s, and/or HER-2Ms, but it will also have its share of mainliners, and possibly LRM support. Aggressive forces may seem reckless to someone who cannot see the logic behind the risks they take. They may also employ fighter,  armor, and even infantry support. Staying against the edge is not typically a safe strategy for the entire force.
 As noted earlier, many aggressive players try to inflict maximum damage as swiftly as possible, but that is not the only way to play aggressively.