Likes / Dislikes of Battletech Space Combat

[Khymerion]

I'm new and I am finding space battles a lil frustrating, in the fiction the dropships were soemthing to be feared but in my first match 6 Stuka's basically raped my union, I will be the first to say my inexperience had to contribute but dang...instead of buying mech mini's I am getting some fighters next.

The right dropships are to be feared.   Remember, the Union is primarily a troop ship... an LST...  not a direct combat vessel.   6 Stukas...  nasty fighters that have few rivals short of dedicated assault dropships or other heavy fighters...  can tear apart a good deal.   Especially troop ships.   Probably safe looking into other fighters.

[Weirdo]

I'm new and I am finding space battles a lil frustrating, in the fiction the dropships were soemthing to be feared but in my first match 6 Stuka's basically raped my union, I will be the first to say my inexperience had to contribute but dang...instead of buying mech mini's I am getting some fighters next.

Yeah...basically, your fight was pitting an old minivan against 6 flying psychotic chainsaws. Like Phymerion said, the right DropShips are to be feared. By and large, those scary ones are not the ones that transport ground troops.

[guardiandashi]

Yeah...basically, your fight was pitting an old minivan against 6 flying psychotic chainsaws. Like Phymerion said, the right DropShips are to be feared. By and large, those scary ones are not the ones that transport ground troops.

agree but I would actually argue that squadron rules makes fighters stronger (IMO) than they should be... I think a union should be able to smash 1-2 stukas with ease, 3-4 be a challenge, and 5-6 be a tossup which side will win

[Weirdo]

...you've been looking at a very different Union than I ever have...

Also, I wasn't judging that on squadron rules. 6 Stukas flown individually will tear the guts out of almost any transport and fail to notice.

[FedComGirl]

Just curious but when it comes to Aerotech 2 or even Battlespace what are some of the things that people enjoy and what are things that you think could be better in terms of game mechanics or fiction or whatnot.  Having played a lot of other space combat games, combat in Battletech is a quite a bit different from most other space combat games.

I didn't like the reduction in hit locations from Aerotech to Aerotech 2. It made it harder to kill fighters, even with lawn darting. I also didn't like the change of weapon stats. I can see getting added range for height when attacking ground units but the same weapons should have the same ranges. Only right now they don't. The newer strafing rules are a tad better though.

I don't like that VTOLs can now never attack aeros from above even if they're higher in elevation than aeros are in altitude. It shouldn't matter that VTOLs are "ground" units. If they're above aeros they should be treated so. I also think there should be some kind of conversion between thrust points and elevations. Other than for LAMs in airmech mode I don't think their are any. But admittedly it's been while since I looked. Maybe that's been changed?

Are there rules for up and down in space? From what I can tell there aren't any unless you're in orbit attacking the surface.

Turrets would be nice. They're in the art and fluff and were used historically.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Check out the attached after action report. AMS would have made the Taihou more competitive, but it still would have died, probably around 14 hexes with the Oozes being targeted early.

That AAR has me drooling! What program is that you're using?

[Akalabeth]

I'm new and I am finding space battles a lil frustrating, in the fiction the dropships were soemthing to be feared but in my first match 6 Stuka's basically raped my union, I will be the first to say my inexperience had to contribute but dang...instead of buying mech mini's I am getting some fighters next.

You have to bear in mind that the Union is essentially a transport. Not a warship.
If you had an Achilles go up against those fighters the story might play out a little differently.

[Jellico]

That AAR has me drooling! What program is that you're using?

Megamek

You have to bear in mind that the Union is essentially a transport. Not a warship.
If you had an Achilles go up against those fighters the story might play out a little differently.

But not much. In simple count the guns, 6 average ASF will have most DropShips outgunned and out armoured.

[Euphonium]

I've only played space combat with fighters, and the occasional dropship. I've played under original AeroTech, AT2, and most recently under what might have been TW, but wasn't obviously different from AT2.

I've only ever played with vector movement, and I liked how it worked.
We played with S/M/L/E range brackets once, and the rest of the time with individual weapon ranges. Both worked OK as rules systems, but the fixed brackets lead us to want a totally different construction system.

I'd like to play more aerospace stuff, but I think we'll probably redesign every single DS and WS from the ground up first. They just don't make sense to us is so many ways.

[Wrangler]

I've only played space combat with fighters, and the occasional dropship. I've played under original AeroTech, AT2, and most recently under what might have been TW, but wasn't obviously different from AT2.

I've only ever played with vector movement, and I liked how it worked.
We played with S/M/L/E range brackets once, and the rest of the time with individual weapon ranges. Both worked OK as rules systems, but the fixed brackets lead us to want a totally different construction system.

I'd like to play more aerospace stuff, but I think we'll probably redesign every single DS and WS from the ground up first. They just don't make sense to us is so many ways.

Why the redesign?  I'm curious.  Have you and your group used Strategic Operation book which has other Aerospace options? 

There was also version of AT2 called Aerotech 2 Revised that came just before rules were split up between TW and StratOps.

[Euphonium]

Why the redesign?  I'm curious. 

I like killing Catgirls.

More seriously, for the most part we feel DS and WS stats don't match the fluff well enough, and being old-timers, we like the WS fluff from TRO2750.

Then you get things like you can supposedly carry out an effective objective raid with a single Union, but if you look at the stats it can barely support itself away from base, let alone steal a meaningful cargo.

Have you and your group used Strategic Operation book which has other Aerospace options? 

There was also version of AT2 called Aerotech 2 Revised that came just before rules were split up between TW and StratOps.

We have not used StratOps. I've got the PDF, but our usual GM doesn't yet. I haven't had time to give it a proper read yet.

I think we were using AT2r, but couldn't be certain - it's been a while since we played.

[Bedwyr]

Mod request. Please drop the 'rape' line of chatter. That stuff's real to some people.


Thanks.

[Hairbear541]

Well I see I'm not the only one faced with the dilemma of to many competing sets of space combat rules. It presents quandary to chose which to use, and which really work well. But since I got this computer I have found a really good space combat engine that really works when used with the BattleTech/BattleSpace universe ships. Attack Vector is its name. Since most space combat even in the BT universe is reminds one of naval engagements from the age of sail, though with roll, pitch &yaw thrown in for good measure. Instead of wind for motive force, advanced fusion rockets and reaction control thrusters to achieve said roll, pitch or yaw maneuvers. IT works just great.

[Kovax]

I never cared for the Aerotech system, because there was no real "movement" modifier for fast, maneuverable fighters compared to slow and less-agile gun platforms.  To me, it removes half of the point in maneuvering.  In most cases, the biggest guns win, unless the more agile ships can win initiative repeatedly and stay out of the bigger ships' firing arcs entirely.

On the other hand, the light fighters have so much Structural Integrity that it takes more time to destroy the internals than the thin armor.  On the bigger ships, the armor holds out close to forever, but once penetrated, the Structural Integrity is gone in a couple of hits.  It makes very little sense in more than a few respects, and I don't like it.  Maybe it's changed since I last played it, but it never really kept me interested.

I'm somewhat more fond of the "Full Thrust" rules, at least for capital ship actions.  That game's handling of fighter combat is kind of simplistic, but the capitals seem to work well.