Author Topic: What is the issue with Aerospace? Why is it supposedly "unpopular" with players?  (Read 8194 times)

Lance Leader

  • Corporal
  • *
  • Posts: 88
  I can add a little personal experience to the mix.  I tried bringing some aerospace to a game group and the guy I ended up playing against was fully convinced Aerospace was overpowered but was kind enough to humor me for a game.  In any case I had brought a 3k BV Eisenstrum fully loaded with bombs that knocked out an assault mech with its first bomb run which didn't change his opinion on aerospace in the slightest.  It also didn't help that I was absurdly lucky before the big bird even made it the fight. :rolleyes:  If I could do it over again I wish I had brought something a little more fragile like a Lucifer and ditched the bombs.

  There was definitely some interest in the group but most people felt the rules were too hard to understand as written.  I totally agree with this and I think the only reason I could work through them was that I was already familiar with the old rules Aerotech 2 that they are based off of.  The biggest problem IMHO is that Total Warfare is really describing two different rulesets for using Aerospace on Battletech map sheets (the Flight Path ruleset and the Aerospace on Ground Maps ruleset) and oscillates between these two rulesets throughout the book without being explicitly clear which one is being described at a given time.  Another major hurdle is the need for two maps to use aerospace properly.  Battletech already takes up a lot of room and clearing the space for a whole other map, even the small radar map from Strat Ops, can pose a challenge depending on the venue. 

paladin2019

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 592
My $0.02x is that the scales are confusing.  Is it:
  • A side game adding strikes and strafes to Battletech
  • Atmospheric Dogfights ala Wings of Glory
  • Space Fighter Combat ala X-Wing
  • Capital Ship Combat ala Armada
All but the last. That's the purview of BattleSpace.
<-- first 'mech I drove as a Robotech destroid pilot way back when

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3648
Agreed Lance Leader,

I think the all damage is resolved simultaneous is the thing that bothers me most about how Aerospace are handled on the map. If Anti-Air was resolved first, Attacks by Fighters were more difficult (because they are actually reasonably easy), or Fighters more fragile (like by engine mass and fuel intake per turn going up limiting the war-load) that might even it up a bit.

SteelRaven

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9597
  • Fight for something or Die for nothing
    • The Steel-Raven at DeviantArt
I'll agree with AlphaMirage that having anti-air resolved first would change up the dynamic a bit. Mechs wouldn't feel like setting ducks and the fluffed anti-air mechs like the Rifleman and Jagermech would actually feel more important in those rolls.

Aerospace as a whole is in a weird place as a after thought in the base game of armored ground combat. I can appreciate Fasa was trying to expand and add layers to the game but getting it to gel together is a bit of a headache. Total Warfare kind of proves this; we can reformat the book or give Aerospace it's own book but how aerospace units work vs how ground targets work will always be a little wonky.

Warships are whole other can of worms. I always felt the BTU having minimal reliance on space battleships gave it a unique feel but space dreadnoughts and space gallons have become so ingrained into the sci-fi genre as a whole, every one wants to see the biggest ships duke it out. Changing the cost so relying on Dropships and aerospace fighters becomes more practical as in universe would help but I really think it comes down to everyone wanting to see 2 Leviathans trade nukes.       
Battletech Art and Commissions
http://steel-raven.deviantart.com

Mostro Joe

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 458
I totally agree with this and I think the only reason I could work through them was that I was already familiar with the old rules Aerotech 2 that they are based off of.

Based off of? They don't seem so different!

I agree anyway, even being a fan of Aerotech, that to have multiple maps on the table to play atmospheric actions can be a problem.

thedancingjoker

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 364
I know it would be unpopular with the current fans, but I feel like a Aerospace game focused on getting drop ships to/from the planet, and gaining local air superiority, would be more interesting entirely because it could cleanly connect to the other stories we play and tell.

Honestly, if it played like Dropfleet Commander where your fleets maneuver and fight but victory conditions are based on troops delivered and/or bombardment I'd be fine with that.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10499
I don't think that holds up if you look past just physical game titles.  While there's certainly a big market for 'Mech games like Battletech and Armored Core, there's huge markets for both terrestrial and space combat: Star Wars alone has a ton of titles that focus on dogfights or space combat in general, the Ace Combat franchise is huge, there's no shortage of strategy games where the Space War is the primary (or even only) theatre you play in.  I don't think most of these can be said to have niche appeals, at least not compared to 'Mech games, but of course they're not going to be sampled when only considering physical game titles.

Of course, limiting it just to physical hex-based games, you're absolutely right: In that particular area, fighter & fleet hex games are quite niche.

My guess as to why BT Aerospace is relatively unpopular is:

1. Battletech, the Board Game of Armored Combat is, first and foremost, a Battlemech centric setting.  Consequentially the 'Mech part of the rule set is very polished, and other areas tend to be less polished the further from 'Mechs you get.*  No one really gets attracted to the setting just for its space battles; if people get interested in that part it's usually because they were also interested in the 'Mechs which drew them in first.  So there's a minimum of two different areas you have to be interested in before you can even begin to consider playing a Battletech Aerospace game: Aerospace Fighters / Warships AND Battlemechs (arguably 3 things, if we include the Battletech setting itself).  That by itself is going to be a higher bar than settings or game that are fighter-centric or warship-centric, in which case there's only 1-2 bars of entry: Being interested in dogfights, and possibly the setting itself.

*ASF and Warships in general suffer from this to some extent.  A simple example is how BV doesn't reflect weapon utility in space nearly as well as it does on the ground, and the primary culprit is simplified range brackets.  For instance: Clan Heavy MGs have a BV of 6, while Clan AP Gauss Rifles have a BV of 21.  Both have 3 points of damage, and the HMG deals 3D6 vs infantry while the AP Gauss does only 2D6.  The BV difference is justified on the ground because the AP Gauss has nearly 5x the effective range of the HMG, but in space both occupy the Short range bracket and perform identically (except the HMG strafes slightly better).  That is, an ASF AP Gauss costs 3.5x more BV than a ASF HMG for identical performance.  This is a clear artifact of the Battlemech-First setting.

2. Battletech, the Setting, is, first and foremost, a Battlemech-centric setting.  Compared to the ubiquitous Battlemech ground battles, there's not a ton of in-universe places where Warships actually play a role beyond plot-necessary orbital bombardment, and even fewer places where the Warship engagements are meaningful.  In fact, in some eras they're all but written out: The IS Warships get obliterated during the Succession Wars and the Houses don't/can't rebuild them, so the Clan Invasion era starts with the Clan warship fleet having totally free reign besides the occasional IS pocket warship or planet-based fighters.  In the Dark Age they're basically gone again, with IS powers having low single-digits of warships at best and the Snow Ravens possessing the lion's share of humanity's warship power with maybe a dozen, mostly in mothball?

This is a major hurdle for me.  I really can't run a canonical Dark Aged aerospace game.  I can't run something like the Draconis Combine Invasion of the Federated Suns because DCS Draconis Wind is more than half of their entire Warship strength.  It'd be at best a Pocket Warship slugfest, and the players I have that are conceptually interested in fleet battles and enjoy them in other settings or mediums are not interested in such a campaign even if the Aerospace portion of the game was mechanically flawless because they're interested in ships, not boats.
 
3. The physical game style generally doesn't lend itself very well to simulating atmospheric or space fighter dogfights or fleet battles.  There are some, but they're not common and generally not as well known, or popular.  Hence, the group that are interested in such things go to the mediums that do have them and do them well, like the video game format.  This factor probably heavily influences physical, hex-based, fighter-based or fleet-based games being very niche.

sad part here, is that the best, cleanest dogfight I ever played in Battletech, didn't have proper aero units at all-we took canon VTOLs selected from the faction lists and played chopper-on-chopper using the VTOL rules from Total Warfare.

it was exciting, fun, required cleverness...but same group couldn't get the feel we got using choppers, when we tried it again using ASF under the same ruleset.

(what do I mean by 'fun'? chasing a Donar around the map with a Mantis.  Little pop-guns..)

This, I think, encapsulates part of the problem.  We could do that because unless you sideslip off the map-edge, it's hella easier to HOLD that dogfight than it is using ASF's.

There are, I think, conceptual issues that the mechanics have a hard time handling without needing a lot of extra maths, or House Rules.

and then, there's the scaling issue you pointed out, because Warships are almost their own thing entirely-the BV price alone makes them impractical for modeling out something like the major warship battles of the Reunification war, Amaris-Kerensky conflict, age of war, or first succession war.

and very little motivation to develop that, when the present makes them the sort of asset you can better do without, just on costs.

Battletech is, at its heart, a tactical game, Naval warfare is Strategic, and Warships are strategic assets more than tactical ones, which makes integration even MORE difficult for the purposes of play than it looks with even a cursory glance.

"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10402
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
But a fighter is a pointy tube with wings

You could call it a wingstube....
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Geg

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1271
    • Jade Corsair
All but the last. That's the purview of BattleSpace.

I mean sure, but its usually less than a page talking about aerospace before someone bring up Warships and capital weapons.

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10499
I mean sure, but its usually less than a page talking about aerospace before someone bring up Warships and capital weapons.

Which kinda brings up the problem, doesn't it?  The scaling gets so horribly out of whack once a discussion gets going, never mind trying to build a playable scenario.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

BATTLEMASTER

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2347
  • Hot and Unbothered
I feel like making aerospace the most useful on a BattleTech board needs more abstraction.  Playing it mainly via MegaMek, I hate having to time flying on and off the map and plotting attack courses.  It's especially bad if the map space itself isn't big enough to make any use of aerospace units at all. 

I think aerospace attacks on ground maps could benefit from being treated more like artillery strikes with either guns, bombs/missiles, or both, with the chance of being attacked by AA fire and shot down.  The tradeoff is that they're more precise than regular ground-based artillery.  Stand-off attacks with both smart and iron bombs and missiles would basically be off-board artillery attacks and don't even need aerospace units on the map at all, which can be useful for units in a campaign that lack ground-based artillery assets but have aerospace fighters that can carry internal or external ordnance.

Now the space game itself?  I agree that it can be a bit boring because there isn't much to space combat at all, even with playing with the realistic Newtonian movement rules turning Aerotech into the board game adaptation of Asteroids.  Compared to BattleTech, space isn't as interesting as a ground map where units can use terrain to their advantage to get the best shot or to avoid attack. In space, there are many times where as long as you're in range of targets you can shoot with a chance to hit.  I don't think tweaking movement path relative to the target is enough of a challenge to make the space game interesting.  Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas right now :( 

Every once in awhile I do have fun playing space battles just to imagine the big ships on the board blowing each other up like I see happening with capital ship duels in Star Wars.  To me, warships are the 'mechs of space, with dropships being the vehicles, and fighter squadrons being the infantry platoons.

I also wouldn't mind ship construction and fluff getting an overhaul considering how it's been discussed on the forum many times how the density of BattleTech ships is unrealistic, even for a universe with super-efficient fusion engines and FTL travel.  The arbitrary weapon limits and fire control penalties are also bothersome, and I think point defense weapons could be integral to large craft construction and not necessarily statted out.
BATTLEMASTER
Trombone Player, Lego Enthusiast, Engineer
Clan Smoke Jaguar, Delta Galaxy ("The Cloud Rangers"), 4th Jaguar Dragoons
"You better stand back, I'm not sure how loud this thing can get!"
If you like Lego, you'll like my Lego battlemech projects!

Cannonshop

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10499
I feel like making aerospace the most useful on a BattleTech board needs more abstraction.  Playing it mainly via MegaMek, I hate having to time flying on and off the map and plotting attack courses.  It's especially bad if the map space itself isn't big enough to make any use of aerospace units at all. 

I think aerospace attacks on ground maps could benefit from being treated more like artillery strikes with either guns, bombs/missiles, or both, with the chance of being attacked by AA fire and shot down.  The tradeoff is that they're more precise than regular ground-based artillery.  Stand-off attacks with both smart and iron bombs and missiles would basically be off-board artillery attacks and don't even need aerospace units on the map at all, which can be useful for units in a campaign that lack ground-based artillery assets but have aerospace fighters that can carry internal or external ordnance.

Now the space game itself?  I agree that it can be a bit boring because there isn't much to space combat at all, even with playing with the realistic Newtonian movement rules turning Aerotech into the board game adaptation of Asteroids.  Compared to BattleTech, space isn't as interesting as a ground map where units can use terrain to their advantage to get the best shot or to avoid attack. In space, there are many times where as long as you're in range of targets you can shoot with a chance to hit.  I don't think tweaking movement path relative to the target is enough of a challenge to make the space game interesting.  Unfortunately, I don't have any better ideas right now :( 

Every once in awhile I do have fun playing space battles just to imagine the big ships on the board blowing each other up like I see happening with capital ship duels in Star Wars.  To me, warships are the 'mechs of space, with dropships being the vehicles, and fighter squadrons being the infantry platoons.

I also wouldn't mind ship construction and fluff getting an overhaul considering how it's been discussed on the forum many times how the density of BattleTech ships is unrealistic, even for a universe with super-efficient fusion engines and FTL travel.  The arbitrary weapon limits and fire control penalties are also bothersome, and I think point defense weapons could be integral to large craft construction and not necessarily statted out.

One of the major conceptual balancers for Air-drop munitions vs. Artillery, is risk.  YOu can site an artillery piece well out of range of conventional reply and shell from relative safety.  An Airstrike has to include putting the airframe doing it (and the pilot) at risk.

THAT part, is at least partly addressed in the game rules, though they did, *(MY OPINION ONLY) overcompensate by making bombs incredibly mass inefficient compared to artillery projectiles, which do significantly more damage at much smaller investment in both risk, and mass.

IMHO, on the ground map, airstrikes should be both very powerful, And very risky.

aka something you use, and it can turn a battlefield, but you can also lose the airframe in the same moment for no effect at all.

That's how it should work-every attack on ground units with the kind of tech Battletech has, should present a high risk of losing the aerofighter, bomber, etc. to ground fire. (But when it succeeds, it should be more effective than a successful indirect artillery shot taken from higher relative safety...)

Obviously, not everyone agrees with my point of view.

To me, the problem is they made Orbital Bombardment too safe, reliable, and convenient, then compensated by trying to make warships extinct instead of addressing the imbalance. (again, this is MY OPINION.)

In my view, Warships should be of limited relevance by optimizing their rules to keep them out of low orbit as much as possible.  How to do this I'll leave up to someone smarter than I am, but the ongoing paranoid trope about playes just 'resorting to orbital bombardments' has hampered Aerospace development in the game for decades.
"If you have to ask permission, then it's no longer a Right, it has been turned into a Privilege-something that can be and will be taken from you when convenient."

AlphaMirage

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3648
I just put a fan rule design concept in that forum about making Wet Navy Vessels a threat to Space Warships by putting them on a similar scale that would keep them out of orbit which is one way to do it. Both of those do however take away from the principal setting builder though so I don't actually know if I'd want them to be made canon but I do look forward to gaming out a capital scale sea Carrier Task Force against an orbiting Warship.

TheOldDragoon

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 111
  • From Royal With Love
    • TexMechs - The Home of the Royal Dragoon Guards
We played our first game in around 13-15 years with aerospace a couple of weeks ago. We have an ongoing RPG campaign in which the PCs are mercs in a 'Mech unit, like you do. A returning player from years ago asked if he could play an Aerojock. He created the character, got himself a fighter, and wingman in a matching fighter, and the company commander had the unit purchase four Mechbusters to deploy once in atmosphere. We decided we would use the "Radar Map" rules.

To keep things simple for the first game, the scenario was a surprise attack on an outlying outpost where the Kurita defenders didn't have time to scramble any air cover in response. It was on its way when the scenario ended. Due to the rules for movement on the radar map, starting the fighter's approach on the outer ring, the aerospace forces got two passes before the PCs pulled out, having accomplished their objective of hitting the outpost hard enough to force the Kurita defenders to send more forces to garrison it later.

Those two passes went like this: ASFs strafed, and missed. Two Mechbusters, all they brought in, leaving the other two back in the cargo hold, executed a strike. One miss, one hit... and rolled a 12 for location. BOOM. Headshot. This made all the PCs sit up and take notice of what enemy air power could do to them if and when it showed up. The funky rules on counterfire meant the one Kurita anti-air 'Mech, a Rifleman, was unable to hit the fighters as they flew over due to it being on the other mapsheet, and altitude adding to range.

After they turned around for another pass, the fighters all missed their attacks, but the Rifleman scored a hit with a single AC/5 thanks to the Anti-Air quirk. The 5 points was above the threshold, the pilot made his pilot check, failed, and rolled for altitude loss. LAWN DART. The PCs now took notice that even hitting most aircraft with a relatively light smack could immediately end them. The PC involved burned an edge point to re-roll, but the point was made to the players.

Our consensus after this trial game was that aerospace added a lot to the feel of the battle, but did take a bit of emphasis off 'Mechs. This was counterbalanced by the fighters being just as fragile as they were hideously effective when they actually hit. We discussed how things could have been more complicated by enemy aircraft, underwing ordnance, etc. and how the full-on mapsheet-for-fighters game would have worked. We talked about anti-air, and how to try to defend against fighters. The fighter player brought up fuel expenditure and loiter time over the battlefield, which he found shockingly limited for an ASF, but adequate for the air-breathing Mechbusters. I need to re-read these rules myself.

The debrief resulted in the players wanting to keep aerospace as part of our games, but stick to the radar map to keep the rules overhead as light as possible. The fighter player agreed.

I'd say the lack of popularity is more due to the rules complexity, and fragility of aerospace for the person playing them. If you want to be low enough to strafe or strike, you're risking being a lawn dart if anything bigger than an SRM hits you in most locations. The rules are also scattered, and in some cases make little sense, like the hex you count range to if you're not in the line of flight if you're conducting ground-to-air fire.

We had fun, but man, it's taking a while to knock all the rust off the rules.
JEFFREY A. WEBB
Colonel
Regiment Commanding Officer
The Royal Dragoon Guards

SCC

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8392
So let me quote myself the the last time this, or something like it came up:
So if Aero has a flaw in BT it's that it, like basically EVERYTHING in the setting, bends the knee not only to the 'Mechs, but also a 'Mech only game that players can knock out in an afternoon, and so everything exists to support that, the pre-dominate way to move forces around is in DropShips sized for games of this size (Lance to Company) and this is done because raids, which explain (but not really) why there is fighting going on, and anything that threatens to make raids difficult or not make sense isn't allowed, change that and things might change.

So you want to fix this you have to explain why raids keep getting through, despite the fact that ASF can shoot down DS.

thedancingjoker

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 364
So let me quote myself the the last time this, or something like it came up:
So you want to fix this you have to explain why raids keep getting through, despite the fact that ASF can shoot down DS.

You will never get a satisfactory believable answer to this.  Becuase the honest answer is: "but then we wouldn't get mech on mech combat."  The core premise of this setting is giant stompy robots.  Against all logic about why this is not the optimal method of waging war.

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1712
Well to SCC, mechs being dropped in orbit is a thing that happens to get mechs, even those without JJ, to the battlefield without much risk to the dropship in space.  So they do have a delivery method that gets mechs where they need to be by brute force/handwavium of drop cocoons.

The space battles around a planet tend to be interesting enough, much more interesting then the deep space battles.  I love my neoprene space/planet map, and when playing about the extent of our games is getting the dropship to the dropsite in orbit.  So we do simple crossing engagements or 'hold the dropship at x' objective missions, where you score points for every mech you kick out in orbit.  The mission is based on the attacker having more cargo/mech bays then the defender destroys.

This mission doesnt solve my issues with 6+ different ways to play the same aerotech stuff, all with different scales and movement types and unique balance concerns.  But from a fluff POV, I havent had an issue with aerospace taking over for mechs, simply because in more then half the different ways you can play with aerotech stuff the mechs dont even factor--the game is like a completely separate one.

And when air and mechs do factor together, the lore isnt what is holding that back, but game mechanics.  Attacking a grounded dropship is a fun and lore friendly mission for a mech force, it was even in some video games, its just the game mechanics and book cross referencing and tracking different kinds of special effects that burden that.  IE, 12s TO HIT now matter instead of 12s for location, so the btech players used to batch rolling attacks now have to stop and slow down cause of a different kind of rule interaction with hit rolls and damage v armor values.  And the return fire by bay with different range bands makes the dropship shoot weird from a mech players point of view, unless they use the OTHER rule for shooting, which is weird for the aerospace player, because even shooting has at least 3 different ways for the same dropship and you need to decide which way to play.
« Last Edit: 01 March 2024, 04:58:31 by DevianID »

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3623
So let me quote myself the the last time this, or something like it came up:
So you want to fix this you have to explain why raids keep getting through, despite the fact that ASF can shoot down DS.

You mean like the time that happened to the Gray Death Legion in Mercenary's Star or the Falcon Guard in Bloodname?

ASF can shoot down DS, but they often pay a price for it.  Also the Dropships usually bring ASF cover if they are invading. 

In the scenarios above, the GDL had minimal ASF cover and were trying to sneak in, while the Falcon Guard were in the middle of a transfer and not anticipating a need for such protection from an invading force.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40841
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Honestly, if it played like Dropfleet Commander where your fleets maneuver and fight but victory conditions are based on troops delivered and/or bombardment I'd be fine with that.

There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing this. Hell, I can remember from memory two canon scenarios that work exactly this way. There's probably more.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Geg

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1271
    • Jade Corsair
There is literally nothing stopping anyone from doing this. Hell, I can remember from memory two canon scenarios that work exactly this way. There's probably more.

Where are these?

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40841
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
The first one is the the Northwind Highlanders scenario pack. The second is in The Dragon Roars.

The latter one at least does include some "Aero unit X survives, you get VP" in the victory conditions, but if the attacker successfully lands all of the DropShips while also losing all of their dedicated aero combat assets(a Warship among them), they will win the game.

And if you don't want to play a pregen scenario, just build a Breakthrough or Hold the Line scenario where the objective map edge is the planetary surface. Done. Everything you need to play these kinds of games is already at your fingertips.
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Mostro Joe

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 458
Breakthrough or Hold the Line scenario

We played the Breakthrough scenario with the Battlespace maps a lot of years ago.

It was unsatisfing, because the speed that aerospace fighters can have resulted in an easy victory for the side that had to reach the opposite edge. We have not tried again anyway.

General308

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2221
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?

My number one problem with it is a really enjoyed Battlespace a lot more and would have rather seen battlespace 2 than an second areotech game and so forth. 

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Major General
  • *
  • Posts: 40841
  • We can do it. We have to.
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
We played the Breakthrough scenario with the Battlespace maps a lot of years ago.

It was unsatisfing, because the speed that aerospace fighters can have resulted in an easy victory for the side that had to reach the opposite edge. We have not tried again anyway.

This is why I specified having the planet's surface on the map. The Velocity limits in atmosphere will take care of that in a gif. :cool:
My wife writes books
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

abou

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1897
Having recently dedicated some time to learning Aero out of Total Warfare, I have to admit that it was a rough experience. Splitting up the rules for movement and combat: awful idea -- especially since those rules are so drastically different from ground combat. Furthermore, TW has been written in a way that can't seem to decide on whether something should or should not be explained in detail. Sometimes, I just want key points bolded or with bullet points. Just some sort of formula that eases the parsing of the rules across systems. Nothing seems to be where you would think it would be.

Once you understand the rules, it's fine. It is just that getting there is a slog. Unfortunately, I haven't used the rules enough to really understand the application of it and speak about other points further up this thread.

Oddly enough, I do have AeroTech, BattleSpace, and AeroTech 2, but have never played them.

Charistoph

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3623
I need to take some time to do that and construct a self-designed Quick Guide.  That usually helps me figure out things, especially if few/no one locally knows how and we can't use it often.  Helped out with Protomechs.
« Last Edit: 01 March 2024, 20:52:49 by Charistoph »
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Quote from: Megavolt
They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.

Charistoph's Painted Products of Mechanical Mayhem

Dapper Apples

  • Master Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 256
TBH I think the common pitfall new players (new to aero anyway) is that they try to approach aerospace the same way they probably already approached every other unit type: they tried to incorporate aero into a normal ground mech game.  Really aero is almost entirely its own game/ruleset that you could staple onto a ground game but really it's written as pure air games first and ground operations third.

As mentioned TW's air rules are a mess.  Air movement and air combat are at opposite ends of the book.  Most of the movement section is layered like an onion, space first then atmos then maybe on-ground-mapsheet.  Small craft, aero, and conventional movement exist in a soup with each other, maybe it should've had all the small craft stuff in the back ("here's how these are different").  Aero heat is with the rest of the heat rules.  Air combat covers ground strikes, but shooting back is in the normal combat chapter.  Control loss is in the movement section, though most control loss is probably from getting shot at.

So, if you wanted to learn how to add air support to your mech game without already knowing the rules, you'd need to learn space movement.  Then how atmos movement is different, but also there's high and low altitude atmos.  Then maybe consider the optional on-ground-mapsheet movement.

For one side to have bomber support in a mech game, suddenly you have a second side map for the airplanes, and in the movement phase I play a second game figuring where the plane's going- though in spite of the time taken all my opponent really cares about is if it flew over the ground area or not.  The plane makes maybe two passes in a 8 turn 4 hour game; a strike easily hitting and either nuking a BA squad to non-existence or heavily crippling a mech for just Being There, meanwhile the plane gets pinged by an LRM 5 for like 3 damage, fails the roll and lawn darts to dust rendering the armor diagram irrelevant.  The flyover paths don't quite add up cleanly because the ground map is square but the air map is hexes.

The air rules are complex enough (again, its a separate game) that I haven't braved teaching my friend it for air-to-air or ground games with air support on both sides.

I've done some solo matches of pure atmos air to see what's up.  The actual air-to-air combat is almost too simple compared to ground.  There's some interesting maneuvers but they all need pilot checks to risk.  Shooting is really easy compared to ground, there's range and facing, that's about it, so everything tends to just hit.  I guess it's up to positioning and maybe the evasive maneuvers ability.  Ground cares about speed and terrain.  As an atmos fight well over half the planes are going to either lawn dart or fly off the map accidentally due to control loss.

The guns are all universalized so they lose a lot of character.  Everything uses the same set of range brackets, all cluster weapons group into 5s, alternate ammo doesn't exist.

I haven't considered space games, warship scale operations don't really interest me.

ColBosch

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8709
  • Legends Never Die
I need to take some time to do that and construct a self-designed Quick Guide.  That usually helps me figure out things, especially if few/no one locally knows how and we can't use it often.  Helped out with Protomechs.

I actually wrote an "official" AeroTech QSR a long time ago - back when I had a gold BattleMaster - that was meant for a Clan expansion boxed set to BattleTech's 30th Anniversary edition. But plans changed and it was never used. Sadly, I think it's now lost.
BattleTech is a huge house, it's not any one fan's or "type" of fans.  If you need to relieve yourself, use the bathroom not another BattleTech fan. - nckestrel
1st and 2nd Succession Wars are not happy times. - klarg1
Check my Ogre Flickr page! https://flic.kr/s/aHsmcLnb7v and https://flic.kr/s/aHsksV83ZP

beachhead1985

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4076
  • 1st SOG; SLDF. "McKenna's Marauders"
    • Kilroy's Wall
Well, these days; fighter combat as depicted in the rules is clunky and vastly out-moded when compared to the fun and easy-to-use systems they now have out there in various games built as dog-fighters.
Epitaph on an Army of Mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,      Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
The hour when earth's foundations fled,         They stood, and earth's foundations stay;
Followed their mercenary calling,               What God abandoned, these defended,
And took their wages, and are dead.             And saved the sum of things for pay.
     
A.E. Housman

DevianID

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 1712
It's been a while, but before x-wing fasa had crimson skies which might have bleed rules and dogfighting into an aerotech rule.

I don't think it was the whole maneuver stick, but i do remember something about setting speed for all craft before moving, so there was some planning that went into the movement. 

With aerotech air duels, its very deterministic; if you lose initiative you can try and climb into a blind zone, but its pretty binary if you can or can't be hit all based on just the init roll, as usually there is some combination of thrust that gets you in ideal arc.

The radar map, another way to play, has pilot skill plus thrust in place of initiative, so a better pilot or a fast pilot has the edge in "initiative" instead of it being so yes/no.  Its my personal preference, but the radar map makes air power a tiny minigame compared to ground combat and not a game in its own right.