AC/2 and AC/5 bonus against air units -- location of rules?

[abou]

For the life of me, I can't find the rules describing the bonuses given to lower caliber autocannons against air units such as VTOLs and aerospace fighters.  If anyone can point me in the right direction with a book and page number, I would be very appreciative.

[Weirdo]

I forget the page numbers, but if you read the AA rules in Total War, you'll see that the biggest difficulty in hitting aircraft is in the range penalties their altitude adds to the shot, even if the plane directly overflies you. Small-caliber ACs are usually long-ranged, therefore they automatically make good AA weapons.

Then look up flak ammofor ACs, which gives a -2 bonus against airborne targets. Combine that with the long range of smaller ACs, and by default anything with an AC/5 becomes a good AA unit, and any AC/2s automatically makes it a great AA unit.

[SCC]

LB-X's are better, Cluster ammo adds another -1 and longer range

[TigerShark]

Aero-on-Ground isn't really balanced unless you use the Strategic Operations Anti-Aircraft rules. They make much more sense than Total Warfare and give the Aero some much-needed weaknesses. Otherwise a smart Aero player can simply remain un-hittable.

[Goose]

Wasn't there something, also in SO, about needing enough damage to get through the threshold? One point of damage from an LB-2-X doesn't seem threatening …

[ANS Kamas P81]

Wasn't there something, also in SO, about needing enough damage to get through the threshold? One point of damage from an LB-2-X doesn't seem threatening …

Thresholding gives you extra crit checks, but IIRC any damage at all forces a PSR for the fighter - and that means risking losing as many as six levels of altitude. 

[GOTHIK]

Thresholding gives you extra crit checks, but IIRC any damage at all forces a PSR for the fighter - and that means risking losing as many as six levels of altitude.

ADVANCED ATMOSPHERIC CONTROL ROLLS
"The standard aerospace rules as presented in Total Warfare require any unit to make a Control Roll in the End Phase of a turn in which it is damaged while in atmosphere. Under the advanced rules, such rolls are still needed. However, rather than for every turn in which it takes damage, Control Rolls are made in every turn where a unit takes an Avionics or Control critical hit (per standard rules) or where a unit sustains a hit that exceeds its Damage Threshold. If a threshold-exceeding hit occurs that also causes critical damage, two individual Control Rolls are made. The +1 modifier for 20 points of damage does not apply when using advanced atmospheric Control Rolls." (SO p.97)

I hope that helps.

Aero-on-Ground isn't really balanced unless you use the Strategic Operations Anti-Aircraft rules. They make much more sense than Total Warfare and give the Aero some much-needed weaknesses. Otherwise a smart Aero player can simply remain un-hittable.

I've used the Advanced Atmospheric Control Rolls rules that I quoted above before, but I was never quite sure how to read the Advanced Anti-Aircraft rules from SO p.94.  Hopefully you can help Me understand them better:

ex. A fighter flies by a mech at a velocity of 3 and a distance of 4 hexes at altitude 5.
Is the range calculated as 4 hexes + 3 velocity for a total range of 7,
or is it calculated as 4 hexes + 10 (altitude 5 x 2) + 3 velocity for a total range of 17?

[Greywind]

Aero-on-Ground isn't really balanced unless you use the Strategic Operations Anti-Aircraft rules. They make much more sense than Total Warfare and give the Aero some much-needed weaknesses. Otherwise a smart Aero player can simply remain un-hittable.

I disagree.  Aero-on-Ground make lovely stationary targets for MechWarriors to blow up.

[Orin J.]

LB-X's are better, Cluster ammo adds another -1 and longer range

i'd say a normal AC/2 with flak is a bit better than than a LB-X AC/2 with cluster, myself. i suppose we'll just have to agree to shoot down a lot of aerospace for funsies to disagree.

[wundergoat]

Wasn't there something, also in SO, about needing enough damage to get through the threshold? One point of damage from an LB-2-X doesn't seem threatening …

Like mentioned above, it was an optional rule.  Personally, I think while it is pretty neat to be able to make heavily armored ground attack ASF resistant to ground fire, it just about invalidates lighter autocannons, LBX, and LRMs for anti-aircraft duty when those weapons are known for their usefulness in the role.

Now if the rule allowed for flak attack weapons (i.e. weapons designed to be good vs aircraft) to cause control rolls anyways, I could get behind it.

[GOTHIK]

That's a great point, wundergoat!  I've had the same thought too.  What good does it do Me to have an AA 'Mech with LBX enter the battlefield only to deal damage in 1pt increments that will NEVER be able to exceed the Damage Threshold? 

For that matter, b/c the rules state that any damage that gets applied to Structural integrity is divided in half and rounded down that means that LBX can't damage Structural Integrity at all!

[Weirdo]

I hope that helps.
I've used the Advanced Atmospheric Control Rolls rules that I quoted above before, but I was never quite sure how to read the Advanced Anti-Aircraft rules from SO p.94.  Hopefully you can help Me understand them better:

ex. A fighter flies by a mech at a velocity of 3 and a distance of 4 hexes at altitude 5.
Is the range calculated as 4 hexes + 3 velocity for a total range of 7,
or is it calculated as 4 hexes + 10 (altitude 5 x 2) + 3 velocity for a total range of 17?

To clarify, it'd be 4 + 10 (5*2) = 14. The +3 for velocity would get added to the to-hit calculations, not to the range. I also don't think it's a flat +1 per point of velocity, but I use the standard AA rules so I could be wrong.

[ThelVadam]

Wasn't there something, also in SO, about needing enough damage to get through the threshold? One point of damage from an LB-2-X doesn't seem threatening …

Yes, but multiple pilot checks make raking through a cloud of autocannon fire from a Partisan or Pike extremely dangerous  two failed pilot checks can easily mean a crash.

[TonUp]

I disagree.  Aero-on-Ground make lovely stationary targets for MechWarriors to blow up.

I really enjoy reading about those of you who use ASF on the BT tables. I love both games separately but for me, putting them together induces mental intimidation, thoughts of clearing the table with screaming, and abdominal cramping. Fortunately for my sanity, the abstract rules from SO help with most of my symptoms.  ;D
 
The more I play this game, the more I realize that my sweet spot is being a “dumb” mech jockey at the lance/star level and less the combined arms regimental strategist I once thought I’d like to be. Of course, I think BF/QS is amazing, so go figure.

Sorry – I'm a bit rambling this morning...   ;)

[Weirdo]

To each their own, and Battletech has room for everyone. 8)

[abou]

Appreciate the info guys.  I'll check out the relevant pages in Total Warfare, TacOps, and StratOps.

The main reason I asked about the AC/2 and AC/5 is because that's the era I'm planning on playing in.  Of course I know about the cluster bonus of LB-X cannons, but that does me no good in the late 3rd Succession War.

How much I'll be incorporating aerospace into the game, I don't know.  VTOLs are a definite.  If things go to plan, I'll GM while my friends are part of a small merc unit.  That means lots of vehicles for the OpFor, but I'll also try to mix it up as much as I can --meaning hang on to those machine guns!

One of the scenarios I was thinking was POW extraction.  It would be set across three maps end-to-end-to-end with the center map being one of the canyons.  Blocking vehicle access would be heavy woods along the canyon floor, which means extraction would have to be via VTOLs such as the Karnov.  Of course, the players would need to work their way to the enemy area and destroy the various Partisan tanks and other guards before calling in the VTOLs.  Although, maybe they'd need to watch out for the hidden Rifleman or Jagermech.

Stuff like that is what I'm getting at.

[Weirdo]

Sounds like fun! O0

[pensiveswetness]

To clarify, it'd be 4 + 10 (5*2) = 14. The +3 for velocity would get added to the to-hit calculations, not to the range. I also don't think it's a flat +1 per point of velocity, but I use the standard AA rules so I could be wrong.

Now, for that 4 hexes of movement, it that the standard 90'm-Hex Battlemech-sized hexes or the 3x3 square sized map that is each of those 4 hexes? where to exactly place the aerotech fighter mini on the mech-scale map for determining who shots at him, how far the distance from each unit able to return fire, how much of a penalty to-hit that areotech, etc... has alway vexed me enough that i was reading the particular rules with clarity.... of course i could be mearly ******  O:-)

[GOTHIK]

We're refering to using Aerospace Units on Ground Maps (TW p.91).

[Weirdo]

First off, you mean 3 hexes of movement, not 4.

For calculating range, standard rules always treat fighters as if they were in hex 0909 of whatever mapsheet they end over. You calculate the range to there, then add 2 for each level of altitude. The exception is if the ground unit was directly attacked by the fighter, in which case you only look at altitude, since you're assumed to fire as the plane passes overhead. The only standard modifiers for hitting a fighter are the normal ones at your end(your movement, any relevant crits, etc), range, and the angle of attack, which you can find on page 237 of TW. If you notice, the target's speed does not matter at all under normal rules. That modifier for velocity is an advanced and optional rule in StratOps.

We're refering to using Aerospace Units on Ground Maps (TW p.91).

I use those exclusively as well, though to avoid confusing pensiveswetness I'm only describing the standard rules here.

[Kit deSummersville]

Yes, but multiple pilot checks make raking through a cloud of autocannon fire from a Partisan or Pike extremely dangerous  two failed pilot checks can easily mean a crash.

I was under the impression that the number of failures didn't matter. Once a pilot check was failed, 1d6 levels were lost and the ASF lived or died. Am I mistaken?

[Weirdo]

No, you are correct. Once hits force a piloting roll on you, there's only the one roll in a turn, unless other circumstances which force rolls happen, such as certain critical hits.

[Goose]

[tries to form question about MoF and altitudes lost] [metalhealth]

[pensiveswetness]

First off, you mean 3 hexes of movement, not 4.

For calculating range, standard rules always treat fighters as if they were in hex 0909 of whatever mapsheet they end over. You calculate the range to there, then add 2 for each level of altitude. The exception is if the ground unit was directly attacked by the fighter, in which case you only look at altitude, since you're assumed to fire as the plane passes overhead. The only standard modifiers for hitting a fighter are the normal ones at your end(your movement, any relevant crits, etc), range, and the angle of attack, which you can find on page 237 of TW. If you notice, the target's speed does not matter at all under normal rules. That modifier for velocity is an advanced and optional rule in StratOps.

I use those exclusively as well, though to avoid confusing pensiveswetness I'm only describing the standard rules here.

please.... the polite term is PW :D... i just unfolded a map to visualize it. and it does help me understand it better. I assume similar positions occur if your playing using tabletop mini rules (slightly off center of the table for location of the fighter)?

[Weirdo]

I actually have no clue how minis rules treats fighters...

[pensiveswetness]

the last time i used aerospace was over a decade ago with friends back in Norfolk/Virginia Beach. I was the arsehole who brought to the table 20 Boeing Jump Bombers to the table in one VERY long round. Jaws dropped when they saw all the minis pop into view.... but again i dont recall how we ruled it (though i know i lost 1/2 of them outbound of the board)

[GOTHIK]

where did you get Boeing Jump Bomber minis?!

[Sami Jumppanen]

To clarify, it'd be 4 + 10 (5*2) = 14. The +3 for velocity would get added to the to-hit calculations, not to the range. I also don't think it's a flat +1 per point of velocity, but I use the standard AA rules so I could be wrong.

BTW. What kind of target numbers we would be looking at on the return? That is for the ASF? Are the ranges same for ASF?

[Weirdo]

As in ASF shooting at the ground unit? It varies depending on the kind of attack you're performing, but in all cases, range presents no modifier while target movment does generate modifiers. In the end, the odds are pretty similar most of the time.

[Sami Jumppanen]

range presents no modifier

Does that mean that ASF uses the same ranges as ground units use on them?