Is it Alpha Strike, or is it BattleForce 3.5?

[Weirdguy]

I have all of the BattleForce games.

BF-1 was weird.  It can basically be described as four mechs blended together/averaged, then printed onto a small game shield with full stats, 3/4 damaged, 1/2 damaged, 1/4 damaged, and no need for zero as it was dead.  You keep the little game shields facing you at all times so the enemy player cannot see your stats.  Facing was unnecessary.  Did I mention these little game shields with the stats printed on the backs are you hexmap playing pieces?   Yeah, not a fan.

BF-2 I don't really know that well.  I do own it, but never played it.  It does have the familiar stats similar to Alpha Strike.  However, short range is the same hex, aka 0 hexes, medium range is 1-4 hexes, and 5-8 hexes is long range.  Except they call it Point Blank, Medium, and Long.  I think Aerospace fighters just move in a straight line, period.  To turn, you wait until next turn, pick a direction, and go in a straight line up to maximum thrust.    Also, the game has all the stats for all the units in the back of the book, so no need to look it up online or buy cards.  However, you move a full lance as the smallest playing piece.  The difference between BF-1 and -2 is that this time the units are treated individually.  They all move together as a group, pick another enemy lance to attack as a group, but are individual mechs and such when it comes down to it.

BF-3 is found in the Strategic Operations rulebook.  It is actually like BF-2 by quite a bit.  Some of the ranges change slightly.  Short range is now 0-1 hex, medium range is 2-4 hexes, and long range is 5-8 hexes.  The other big change is that Aerospace Fighters now can turn after traveling "X" amount of hexes when flying over the ground terrain map.  In Space it is a different, much shorter scale.  Overall, it seem just a marginally changed game over BF-2.

And then we get to Alpha Strike.  The 3 major changes are:  1.  The range of weapons are MUCH longer.  2, the units are no longer groups of 4 mechs as a single lance.  Now, granted, in BF2 and BF3 track each mech separately, just not for movement.  They move as lances. 3rd, the game is re-rigged to be hex-less.  The default way to play is on a model table using tape measures or rulers. 

Overall, I think BF-2 and BF-3 are still viable games.  However, Alpha Strike is the current version of BattleForce.

Why the name change?  Probably a marketing thing.  Renaming it makes it seem like a new game, when really it is the 4th BattleForce game.

[Zematus737]

As someone who has looked over most of the current Battleforce iterations and, consequently having to study its off-shoot, Alphastrike, I would say that these both stand alone, though they are pretty much based on the same system of conversions.

Alphastrike is meant for tabletop with models and rulers and hexless terrain.  There are many people who play Alphastrike on hex maps with the simple 1/2 movement reduction to make it compatible.  In my opinion, anyone playing Alphastrike on hex maps should just be playing Battleforce.  Battleforce does give the opportunity to fold into the higher scales of the SBF and ACS systems, which make planetary assaults viable within the time frame of a single evening or as part of an over-arcing campaign with a planetary assault being parceled out into separate scenarios within the Battleforce scale once logistics are figured, if that is desired.  You are never going to play anything on a tactical scale, which in Battletech parlance refers to individually represented units on the board, with more than a dozen units efficiently.  Battleforce, on the other hand, can, by comparison, play well with up to battalion sized forces or even beyond without littering the table or filling binders with AS cards. 

Alphastrike may be less intimidating due to the presence of less units being managed, but SBF and ACS also greatly reduce details of units and weapons and abilities that allow Combat Teams and Regiments to become manageable.  I maintain that Quick/Alpha Strike has become its own thing and arguably better known than its originating system, Battleforce.  It is, ultimately, the players ambitions for combined arms play and large scale forces that will help make them decide between the two systems that have become distinctly their own thing now.

[Weirdguy]

Yeah, I was looking at Battleforce-2 rulebook to refresh my memory when I wrote this. 

It struck me that you can just play BF-2 with either 1 or 4 mechs per hexmap playing piece.  If it’s 4 mechs (which each have their own stats FYI), then that’s playing BattleForce as it was written.  If you play BattleForce-2 or -3 with every mech is solo, then you’re essentially playing a proto-Alpha Strike game.  The main difference seems to be how far the ranges are.

[Hellraiser]

I never did BF-2, (or 3 for that matter).

BF-1 is Lances as Stats

So to me, its Alpha Strike  (Or I like to still call it Quick Strike which was way more fitting)

TW is Mech Scale w/ Intricate Detail

AS is Mech Scale w/  "Overhead" view & less detail.  Its still Mech on Mech, just a lot easier to do Lance or Company sized engagements.

BF has always been Battalion/Regiment level games, and I'd never try that in AS.
Even as simplified as it is, I'm not moving 108 pieces per side.

[Zematus737]

One of the biggest differences in the BF2 to the current version of Alpha Strike and Battleforce conversions is the issue with aerospace SI conversions making their way into the current conversions at inflated values.  It truly breaks combined arms play between aero and ground units as they function in BF3 and AS.  I would go back to the conversions of BF2 in this case and maintain all other updates in conversions and special abilities.

One other thing I would carry over from BF 2 is the campaign and Planetary Assault information.  IO:BF insists that you refer to the Campaign Operations rule book for campaigns, but it is really over complicating so many things that you are losing the inherit value of Battleforce in simplifying tactical details into a more streamlined manner of playing.  Besides, the campaign values in BF2 were tailored specifically for Battleforce and I do think they play better than a lot of the CO stuff that has to do with repairs and refits.  I recommend having both at hand for a good campaign experience. 

I have a separate post on the structure issue that gives an alternative conversion rate that will bring them down to what the BF2 values were, which I feel were more correct. 
I have not read BF1, but merely breezed through it.  I really like the abstract system in place of the layered map segments used for indicating incoming reinforcement positions.  The only major flaw in the most current system, I believe, is the SI and CF (construction factor) conversions.  That's saying a lot for over 400 pages of rule book evolution.  I hope this was helpful.

[Weirdguy]

I never did BF-2, (or 3 for that matter).

BF-1 is Lances as Stats

So to me, its Alpha Strike  (Or I like to still call it Quick Strike which was way more fitting)

TW is Mech Scale w/ Intricate Detail

AS is Mech Scale w/  "Overhead" view & less detail.  Its still Mech on Mech, just a lot easier to do Lance or Company sized engagements.

BF has always been Battalion/Regiment level games, and I'd never try that in AS.
Even as simplified as it is, I'm not moving 108 pieces per side.

If I’m remembering correctly there was a completely second game in the back of the BattleForce-2 rulebook.  It was called Planetary Assault.

It was an even larger scale game that had a company sized unit as its basic playing piece.  There were light mech companies, heavy tank companies, and so on.

The map was an unfolded icosagon (a 1D20 dice in other words).  It was the entire planet, overlaid with a hex grid, and each hex was a biome like desert, mountains, tundra, or oceans.  The boxed set included one double sided planet map, with Earth/Terra on one side, and a blank planet map on the other side. The USA is about 4 hexes in size to give a sense of scale.

Actual fights between units was played out on a 5x5 grid board. 

All the various company unit stats were in the rules for units with four numbers.  Movement points, attack firepower, defense rating, and toughness.  An Inner Sphere Upgraded Mech Company stats are Move 3, Attack 2, Defense 7, and Toughness 7 for example. 

I have not seen a similar game, but I admit to not owning Interstellar Ops book.

I do know that BattleForce-3 did not include a Planatary Assault revamped as part of it.

I’m beginning to think if you want to play mech regiment vs regiment sized games, then going backwards to BattleForce-2 is the way to go.

[Weirdguy]

Also, it appears that BattleForce-1, and BattleForce-2 rulebooks PDF’s are for sale as a bundle on the Catalyst Game Store.  Only $5.  I would say that’s $2.50 each, but remember that BF-2 includes the Planetary Assault game.  Planetary Assault is 100% it’s own game that has nothing to do with BattleForce, so really this is a bundle of three games. 

https://store.catalystgamelabs.com/products/battletech-battleforce-bundle-pdf

Like I said the rules for BattleForce-3 are in the Strategic Operations book, but sadly no stats for any units.  You download those separately on a PDF spreadsheet sort of thing (which I have), but I don’t know what that link is these days. 

I bought the bundle so I can have the PDF’s on my phone. 

[Richard S.]

Like I said the rules for BattleForce-3 are in the Strategic Operations book, but sadly no stats for any units.  You download those separately on a PDF spreadsheet sort of thing (which I have), but I don’t know what that link is these days. 

The current rules for BattleForce 3 are in Interstellar Operations: BattleForce, which also includes several further scaled out rules like Strategic BattleForece, where lances are abstracted into a single statblock, the Abstract Combat System, used for planetary assaults, and Inner Sphere at War, which is something like the old Succession Wars board game. The BattleForce rules in IntOps are fundamentally the same as the ones in the old StratOps afaik.

Stats for BF elements are exactly the same as for Alpha Strike units, save for a few special abilities that get changed or nixed according to the rulebook. Alpha Strike - and thus BattleForce - stats for all units except for spaceships can be found on the Master Unit List for free: http://www.masterunitlist.info/. Most of the missing space ship stats are available as a free download as a combined pdf, though I forget the exact location.

[Zematus737]

I have not seen a similar game, but I admit to not owning Interstellar Ops book.

I do know that BattleForce-3 did not include a Planatary Assault revamped as part of it.

I’m beginning to think if you want to play mech regiment vs regiment sized games, then going backwards to BattleForce-2 is the way to go.

The conversions from Battleforce 2 are nearly identical to most of the conversions in the current Battleforce and Alphastrike conversions.  The armor is 30% across all units, whereas BF2 had CV armor and structure combined and divided rather by 40.  In all ways the entire idea has seen many updates and I would recommend adopting the most recent, as you don't have special abilities in BF2.  These by themselves are very useful for multi-target and indirect fire options.  There are too many differences to point out, but you get the idea, I hope.

There are about 4 scales to Battleforce found in Interstellar Operations: Battleforce.  Those of the normal Battleforce where a single model is a lance/lvl2/star.  The scale above that is Strategic Battleforce, which uses full companies as the unit that is represented on the map known as a Combat Team.  Above that is Scaled Strategic Battleforce for Battalions as 'Combat Units' followed by the Abstract Combat System ACS Formations comprised as an entire Regiment per unit icon.  Though each system may appear as its own different game with rules particular to that scale, it is really the same game.  It is all still Battletech but with a method that makes the large scale forces manageable within the time constraints of a normal human being that lives to about 80 and doesn't want a 1st Succession War's game that would outlive him if played in the tactical scale.

So, to sum up, you got:
single unit (Alpha Strike and TW Core)
Lance (Battlefoce)
Company (SBF Formation/Combat Team)
Battalion (SBF Combat Unit)
Regiment (ACS Formation)
Brigade
Division
Corps
Army

You adopt the rules appropriate to the level of scale that would be the most convenient, pretty much.

CGL is pretty generous with a lot of resources in this link below that are at your disposal.  I truly recommend the IO:BF rulebook alongside the BF2 book for the campaign information.  You do have a large list of rosters in BF2 that make it more convenient to use over the MUL, but the stats are going to be a little different.  The new SI conversion I'd go so far as to say is game breaking, but there are work arounds for stuff like that and the CF if you plan to use structures.  There is a Planetary Assault Map included in the product Battletech Battleforce: Counters Pack.  It comes with most of everything you'll use for all 4 scales, Command tokens for Advanced BF and includes a large hex PAM map that has earth on one side and a clear map on the flip side.  You'd be about $60 bucks in if you get the physical copy of IO:BF.  But you won't be sinking your wallet with the countless types of figurines that most people are doing back flips over with AS and Core.  I print out most of mine through the pdf's and a black and white toner printer.

Lastly, I recommend the Strategic section of the forums for a lot of resources in Battleforce that are useful there.

https://bg.battletech.com/downloads/

[Zematus737]

I should add that both Campaign Operations and IO:BF have resources for Combat Commands stats.  The source books for the era you're interested also have these.  Particularly the first and 2nd Succession Wars source books, which were designed with Battleforce in mind.  CO has Combat Commands break downs for SBF and ACS play with the 3025 era in mind.  Anything else you will have to use the conversions given to you in IO:BF to scale up from tactical and on up.  Most of the time the values are the mean divided by 3 of the aggregate unit in question as you climb in the scale conversions.  It's easy to allow yourself to get overwhelmed, but take it in bit by bit.  I didn't even bother to mention Inner Sphere at War content, which is the most massive of the scales.  Just take it as you go and have fun.  You're more than welcome to check out my own posts for useful information.  I don't see many other people actively working with IO content these days.

[Weirdguy]

I am tempted to buy Interstellar Operations to get the newest Planetary Assault rules?  Are they worth it?

Also, I was wrong about the Aerospace movement rules.  It is BattleForce-1 that has Aerospace Fighters that move in straight lines. 

I think this rule should be reinstated.

There don’t seem to be any good Aerospace rules in any of the later games.  BattleForce-1 was extremely simple, but effective.  The fighters can face any direction at the start of their turn and then move straight up to their maximum speed.

It is tracked on a separate map. 

Would that be a good way to handle Aerospace fighters?

[Zematus737]

I would say that BF 2 has the most substantial examples and detail for Planetary Assault Maps.  There is some in IO:BF (I'll just call it BF3 like you), but it is barely a single page's worth. 
There is, however, a lot of information on how to use aerospace in the BF3 rule book that I find is the most digestible of all the aerospace rules.  I find I prefer the Battleforce scale aerospace rules with a mixture of the low altitude map AND the outward expanding Abstract Atmospheric, Capital and Solar System Radar maps.  I've made several player aids on how the transitions between abstract and ground map movement might -- will -- work well and I enjoy it.  The movement that you refer to is normal for aerospace movement over the ground map, as they are going so fast, hex-count wise, that they pretty much are snipping over between air-to-ground actions.  Only in some low velocity situations can they maneuver even while remaining over the ground map for several turns.  The additional aerospace movement outside the ground map playing area came into play later with Aerospace 2 and other rule books and its final manifestation is hammered out pretty well in IO:BF3.  I would say it's a golden age for aero if you can eliminate the bloated Structural Integrity issue with the bad Alpha Strike conversion that went wrong after BF2.  Everything else is simply great stuff.  I hope the player aids help.  Aerospace movement is the most difficult of all the rule sets to get a grasp on, imo.

PS. The single pass rules for Aero have actually been resurrected in the Battlemech Manual in the Battlefield Support rules on page 75.  The idea is that aero only appears as a special action and you use the strike, bombing, or strafing aspect of the unit without having to manage it after all of it is done.  It eliminates having to learn the aerospace rules but gives you all the benefits of air strikes.  It's popular with many players and goes good with the support deck that uses mines, aero, and artillery in much the same kind of limited power action you can use during a game.