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

[Mostro Joe]

  I'm cautiously optimistic about about future aerospace in Battletech.

The authors are right now studying a new Aerotech game that changes a lot of the rules.

[I am Belch II]

It just hard to combine rules for many different types of unit.
A warship vs warship only game is one thing but add the dropships that can be popped by one shot of a warship.
Then throw in the fighters and squadrons and that makes thing harder.

[CJC070]

It just hard to combine rules for many different types of unit.
A warship vs warship only game is one thing but add the dropships that can be popped by one shot of a warship.
Then throw in the fighters and squadrons and that makes thing harder.

I suspect that when it is released it emphasizes dropship and aerofighter combat.  Warships have never been plentiful in the Battletech universe.

[AlphaMirage]

As it should be CJC. I do think you'd need to include Moon Bases, Jumpships, Satellites, and Space Stations however as those are objectives for Aerospace missions. Destroying or Capturing those should be Day -3 Objectives for any ground campaign in order to clear the Battlespace of hostiles. It gives Battlemechs something to do in unison with Aerospace vehicles too which is key for the fiction and shows off why Battlemechs are so crucial to the House Militaries.

[BATTLEMASTER]

Looking at warships closely, I wonder if the original writers who designed the warships were right in creating them without construction rules.  They are big metal tubes that carry guns and cargo in zero gravity.  In that light I'd be fine with removing the construction rules for jumpships, warships, and space stations considering many of them as tangible fluff that you can play with at a table, maybe like a boss fight   Last I checked, Star Wars didn't have any construction rules for their capital ships, so why should ours? 

I'd keep construction rules for anything that can travel in atmospheres since they'll have to escape a planet's gravity to do stuff in space, so the mass of their equipment is more of a concern.  Also, I think their overall mass should affect how they move.  For example, an empty Union dropship can get to space faster than a loaded one as assumed in the construction rules.  This was a rule in AT2R for omnifighters not equipping their entire pod space.  Of course this can always be changed at the game table...

[Charistoph]

I suspect that when it is released it emphasizes dropship and aerofighter combat.  Warships have never been plentiful in the Battletech universe.

Not exactly true.  They've never been plentiful in the Eras people usually play.  Before the Mackie and the Ares Conventions, though, they were the main unit for projecting power.  The Clans even had a significant fleet, but between bidding after Turtle Bay and a certain tantrum even that was whittled away.

Last I checked, Star Wars didn't have any construction rules for their capital ships, so why should ours? 

I guess because everything else does.  In fact, we got Warship construction rules LONG before we got any Infantry construction rules.

[Maingunnery]

One of the core assumptions for BT is that the 'Mechs have reached the surface.

I guess that Aerospace can be abstracted to a degree as long as that core assumption isn't affected.

So a bad event would be like having ones supplies and 'Mechs scattered (like MW3 pc game), or that the opponent gets some orbital bombardment tokens/BSP.

[BATTLEMASTER]

I guess because everything else does.  In fact, we got Warship construction rules LONG before we got any Infantry construction rules.

That's what I figured!  BattleTech really has to take combat math all the way it seems 

Building further on my thoughts about doing away with capital ship construction rules, I wonder more-recent writers have considered that as well.  For example, we have no record sheets for the CCS Ancestral Home Texas-class ship, or the CSV Perigard Zalman Leviathan Prime-class ship, both being oddly superpowered ships which clashed during the Wars of Reaving.  I think it's possible that they haven't been built at all.

[Kit deSummersville]

In fact, we got Warship construction rules LONG before we got any Infantry construction rules.

I got the infantry construction rules in junior high.

[Cannonshop]

I got the infantry construction rules in junior high.

(Wincing) Kit, we had warship construction rules pre-BMR , If you got your infantry construction rules in high school, that means Companion, which was around 2002, or about five to ten years after warship construction was a thing.

[General308]

Here's the thing I see, and maybe I'm all wet in seeing it, but The Rules Aren't The Core Problem.  Indecision about how they were presented? sure, that's "A" problem, but it's also a symptom of the real problem.

We have all these different, conflicting, rulesets inside the same ruleset, because of the core problem.

We have the scaling issues ALSO because of that core problem, and the lack of fiction support is ALSO a symptom of the core problem.

The problem is, Aerospace isn't important enough to get right.

That problem, in turn, comes from a much bigger problem.

"We have this, what do we DO with it??" Says the generic dev, late (or early) on a weekend night, sitting at his macbook or desktop, with a deadline on Monday.

There's little to no consistency among the devs (or the fanbase) as to what it Should be.

Only that it's a sci-fi game without ground based Stargates, so logically this thing should exist.   Nobody can agree on what it should look like or be, so it gets an occasional rules polish from stuff that they didn't make go into another game, maybe add some fluff, and of course designs, but nobody can agree on how it should play out.

The handling of Aerospace isn't so much a system, as it is throwing whatever good idea happens to be mathematically somewhat sound on a page and hoping for the best, so you can go back to polishing the aspects that you already know works.

What's worse, is us.  WE, the Players and Fans, demanding contradictory things from those line developers, because we all 'think' we've got the ideal solution that will make it all make sense, but WE can't agree on what will work to do that, how can we expect THEM to?

You like Battlespace rules, consider why.

Battlespace is in the Battletech universe, but...it's internally consistent and was developed as its own game-it's not trying to patch across using paradoxes, and it failed commercially.

I got my copy from the 'half off overstock' bin at the game store.  I hadn't even known it was released before it had already failed commercially.

Think about that, think about what that means.

Well I think AT2 commercially failed two hence why FanPRO and CGL when they went to the Total Ware fare rule set didn't give it a stand alone rule set like in the past.

I think you are spot on that it is basicly and after thought and that creates a problem were nothing is really well thought out as to how all the ideals effect each other.

And because Battlespace existed you kind of have two styles of players  The ones that want the smaller scale and the ones like me that would just prefer to play fleet scale battles.  Which of course makes matters worse a split fan base.

Honestly I don't know what the solution is.  (which you point out the fan base doesnt'.)   But I do think if you had a novel or two focused on the areo tech side you might create a base that did care enough to figure that out.  Will that ever happen doubt it.    Space games don't seem to have longevity in the wargaming space anyways as a rule

[General308]

Honestly you know what I always thought would have made a good space system for Battletech.   Was the clicky tech.  Simplify the game for players they had those larger bases for other games that did dragons and what not for dropships and warships.   I think a clicky tech syle areospace/battlespace  game was the answer

[ColBosch]

I got the infantry construction rules in junior high.

You're that much younger than me? I am turning to dust as we speak.

Space games don't seem to have longevity in the wargaming space anyways as a rule

I don't know right now. Yes and no? Star Wars: X-Wing and Armada are still in print through Atomic Mass as boutique games and Wizkids is poised to release a new Star Trek fleet game. But there is definitely a lot of churn among both licenses, and on the gripping hand they're both much more popular than BattleTech. I've think I've been clear that I want to see new AeroTech and BattleSpace-style games, but they're going to need something to make them "pop." I have no idea what that could be.

[Kit deSummersville]

You're that much younger than me? I am turning to dust as we speak.

I think that joke was a little too subtle....

[General308]

You're that much younger than me? I am turning to dust as we speak.

I don't know right now. Yes and no? Star Wars: X-Wing and Armada are still in print through Atomic Mass as boutique games and Wizkids is poised to release a new Star Trek fleet game. But there is definitely a lot of churn among both licenses, and on the gripping hand they're both much more popular than BattleTech. I've think I've been clear that I want to see new AeroTech and BattleSpace-style games, but they're going to need something to make them "pop." I have no idea what that could be.

Right but they are exceptions that survive because of the Name Brand that Star Wars carries.   We will see how the Star Trek game does the last one Wizkids did didn't have legs.  Space Games based on wargames universes just don't  have legs that stand the test of time.  Even Games Workshop runs into the same problem.   And don't get me wrong I don't want it to be that way just seems to be the way it is.

But yea you are right to have any chance it needs something to make it pop.  Honestly probally needs to be an Xwing style game with ground attack rules to have much of a long term chance

[Xotl]

Making a successful all-new aero ruleset is an interesting dilemma because you have to consider before you even start what your goal is: to make a game that complements base BT well, or making something that is successful and thrives all on its own (like X-Wing, or Alpha Strike).  The two require very different approaches.

[ColBosch]

Making a successful all-new aero ruleset is an interesting dilemma because you have to consider before you even start what your goal is: to make a game that complements base BT well, or making something that is successful and thrives all on its own (like X-Wing, or Alpha Strike).  The two require very different approaches.

Heh. For the first time in years I wish I was still a dev, because I have IDEAS.

[glitterboy2098]

The authors are right now studying a new Aerotech game that changes a lot of the rules.

source? i've not heard anything of the sort.

[Xotl]

I'm not aware of that fact either (which is admittedly no guarantee of anything).  Offhand I'd guess it's the rumour spiral applied to Randall's casual comment from a half-year ago that aero is being reconsidered.

[SteelRaven]

source? i've not heard anything of the sort.

It's only been mentioned in passing from what I remember but every time someone brings up a new Aerospace or Battlespace, not until we get new rules has been the response. Now how much time has been out into the making of the new rules set with every other CGL iron in the fire, that's the real question.

[Charistoph]

I got the infantry construction rules in junior high.

That doesn't really tell me much.  I first saw Warship Construction rules in Battlespace, which was released in 1993.  I didn't see any Infantry Construction rules till the Tech Manual, but I was out of the loop from the late 90s till just the last decade or so.

[Cannonshop]

Heh. For the first time in years I wish I was still a dev, because I have IDEAS.

why not work up a proposal and send it in? the worst that can happen is 'no'.

[thedancingjoker]

Honestly what we are all referring to as Aerospace should probably be broken down into three seperate games / rules-sets.  Which I am aware is not remotely feasible in terms of investment.  But in my ideal world we have:
1: A functional and relatively easy way to handle 1-4 fighters on a ground attack run.  A decent way to do ground vs air combat tied into the core rules of Battletech.
2: A dogfighting game of ASF vs ASF, maybe going up to the occasional dropship.  If I'm being completely candid a Battletech reskin of X-Wing would probably work (they even had rules for things like the corvette that would serve for dropships).
and finally 3: a new incarnation of Battlespace focusing on Dropship and Warship combat.  In Ilclan era you don't have a ton of true Warships, but you do have well developed "Pocket Warships" which in some cases are basically full if small Warships that just don't have a Jump drive.  Once again, I would settle for a Battletech reskin of Star Trek Armada for this.

But this does serve to illuminate the true problem: "The Aerospace rules" are trying to do too much, and since they are an afterthought tacked onto the game/setting they have never been given the resources and time to actually make the three different games they really want to be.

[SteelRaven]

It arguably shouldn't be three different games, only reason to make that conclusion was Fasa couldn't decide which aspect to focus on: air to air? Air to ground? Air control? Fleet combat? Allot of examples of other games pick one, the BT community has a bad habit of saying 'all of the above!'

[mechasaurus]

I think that joke was a little too subtle....

For everyone replying to Kit, let's give it another try...

Construction steps for making infantry:
1) Find two consenting adults
2) Turn the lights down low...

As a prodigal son returned recently to Battletech and one-time Aerotech player, I was flipping through Total Warfare and found the aerospace rules discordant.  There's the section on Falling, then a short story, then aerospace rules.  Worse, check this out:

The most exciting way to use aerospace units in the game is to fly them directly onto the ground maps playing area...

... to use aerospace units directly on ground maps requires a very large playing area; ideally an arrangement of nine, twelve, sixteen or more mapsheets.

* blink blink *

Alright, then.

As a fan of large scale (and thus, pretty much failed) space battle games (RL: Leviathan being a favourite that comes to mind to this day, SFB, Battlefleet Gothic, etc.), I say, leave it out of Battletech.  There are other games for that.  The Battletech fiction gains strength and uniqueness from the idea of fragile jumpships delivering cocoon type dropships full of ground units.

[Aotrs Commander]

I don't know right now. Yes and no? Star Wars: X-Wing and Armada are still in print through Atomic Mass as boutique games and Wizkids is poised to release a new Star Trek fleet game. But there is definitely a lot of churn among both licenses, and on the gripping hand they're both much more popular than BattleTech. I've think I've been clear that I want to see new AeroTech and BattleSpace-style games, but they're going to need something to make them "pop." I have no idea what that could be.

Full Thrust is still very much available (and free, now) and still has a large fanbase.

(I feel obligated to mentioned Accelerate and Attack! is still very much in active support, too, though possibly only by the developer *cough* - least ways, nobody ever comes to me to talk about it.)

[Charistoph]

As a fan of large scale (and thus, pretty much failed) space battle games (RL: Leviathan being a favourite that comes to mind to this day, SFB, Battlefleet Gothic, etc.), I say, leave it out of Battletech.  There are other games for that.  The Battletech fiction gains strength and uniqueness from the idea of fragile jumpships delivering cocoon type dropships full of ground units.

There may be other games, but they aren't Battletech.  There are those who want those sweeping battlescapes and who would recreate either of the big Battles of Terra.  So let them.  That's what Strategic Operations: Advanced Space Rules is meant to address (for the most part).

The biggest problem with Aerospace right now is that they are approaching things from a poor direction with Total Warfare, which everyone has said.

The solution is to either, keep it to a total mimimum in any Total Warfare-style book with the simplified Radar map and ground effect only; OR do away with Total Warfare and embrace the Manual series, with Battlemech Manual, Combined Arms Manual, Aerospace Manual, and Fleet Manual.

[General308]

Full Thrust is still very much available (and free, now) and still has a large fanbase.

(I feel obligated to mentioned Accelerate and Attack! is still very much in active support, too, though possibly only by the developer *cough* - least ways, nobody ever comes to me to talk about it.)

Not a large enough fan base to be sold in stores same with Starmada (just put out a new rule set).   The reality if it isn't going to sell it is a waste of CGL's time.  (Full thrust and starmada are both fun games)

[mechasaurus]

There may be other games, but they aren't Battletech.

Ha ha!  You and I have said basically the same thing... but I suspect we have rather different meanings   

There are those who want those sweeping battlescapes and who would recreate either of the big Battles of Terra.  So let them.  That's what Strategic Operations: Advanced Space Rules is meant to address (for the most part).

I'd say, make fleet games a totally separate game then, for those few who want it (and I say that, again, having watched all my favourites either fail, or at least not significantly grow the fanbase), set in the same universe (although, again, I'd argue even those canon time periods are relatively niche compared to the flavour of Battletech).

The solution is to either, keep it to a total mimimum in any Total Warfare-style book with the simplified Radar map and ground effect only; OR do away with Total Warfare and embrace the Manual series, with Battlemech Manual, Combined Arms Manual, Aerospace Manual, and Fleet Manual.

Yup, at most, make it fighter scale to jive with the mechs, but boy I don't even know where I'd start the rework.  In the short term, before reworking, it'd be nice just to use strafing/bombing as battlefield support.  For one turn you can put your fighter figure on the map, to determine the strafing row, then pull it off, sort of thing.

[ColBosch]

Yup, at most, make it fighter scale to jive with the mechs, but boy I don't even know where I'd start the rework.  In the short term, before reworking, it'd be nice just to use strafing/bombing as battlefield support.  For one turn you can put your fighter figure on the map, to determine the strafing row, then pull it off, sort of thing.

I'm waiting to see how aerospace battlefield support is handled in the Mercenaries boxed set.

why not work up a proposal and send it in? the worst that can happen is 'no'.

Nah, I'm starting a new job next week and won't have the time nor energy to do that kind of game design again.