The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

[B]Cobra by Swordtart:

Minor Nitpick: There's already a _Cobra_ midsize out there (_Combat Showcase_, p. 41).

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

Minor Nitpick: There's already a _Cobra_ midsize out there (_Combat Showcase_, p. 41).

We trust customers to be able to tell the difference (and if they can't maybe their targeting computers can sort it out for them).

There are only so many good names to go round. It's not like this problem doesn't exist in the real world (e.g. GMC Sierra, Ford Sierra). Where the great lead I can only follow ;)

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

There are only so many good names to go round. It's not like this problem doesn't exist in the real world (e.g. GMC Sierra, Ford Sierra). Where the great lead I can only follow ;)

I'd go with _Bushmaster_ -- a particularly nasty snake, and I don't believe the name's been used before. :)

[swordtart]

I was going to check, but I am out of area at the moment and I am only carrying the electronic CW products I own.

I never bothered buying Combat Showcase as a digital edition. It seemed expensive compared to other more useful supplements and to be honest I didn't like the format (compared to the VGs).

I am also not convinced the designs were particularly useful.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

I was going to check, but I am out of area at the moment and I am only carrying the electronic CW products I own.

I know the feeling -- which is why I have a thumbdrive with all the digital CW stuff I have on it. :) (I'm a Historian by training -- I *HATE* being away from my references.)

Originally Posted by swordtart

I never bothered buying Combat Showcase as a digital edition. It seemed expensive compared to other more useful supplements and to be honest I didn't like the format (compared to the VGs).

I agree with the sentiment -- I prefer "paragraph format"; I can scribble up the layout myself if need be.

Originally Posted by swordtart

I am also not convinced the designs were particularly useful.

Some of them were good; what killed _CS_ was the rules changes and interpretations which came after. Note how many designs try to use a smaller power-plant with HD Trans -- not quite understanding HD Trans only counts toward towing; one still needs 1/3 PF-to-weight in order to move. Then there's all the bikes and trikes with Thunderkits, all the RLs with the special rounds from _Uncle Al's 2036_ which got the kibosh....

[juris]

CS was more arena focused which is a very different style than a road car for 'mass production', which was the focus of the AADA VG1 and VG2 (we shall not speak the name of the third VG). There were definitely some road designs in it like Vlad the Impala, but it helped teach you how to design vehicles for the arena.

Can't remember the name of the 'champion' vehicle but I remember it had 100 points of front armor and 3 RLs front because the designer figured most shots would hit the front - he guessed correctly apparently. That design wouldn't work at all for the road but it was a brilliant build for that arena.

The fake ads were also excellent flavor text :)

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

Some of them were good; what killed _CS_ was the rules changes and interpretations which came after. Note how many designs try to use a smaller power-plant with HD Trans -- not quite understanding HD Trans only counts toward towing; one still needs 1/3 PF-to-weight in order to move. Then there's all the bikes and trikes with Thunderkits, all the RLs with the special rounds from _Uncle Al's 2036_ which got the kibosh....

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

... Note how many designs try to use a smaller power-plant with HD Trans -- not quite understanding HD Trans only counts toward towing; one still needs 1/3 PF-to-weight in order to move.

Hmmm, that's not my reading of the description.

Effectively doubles PFs for purposes of maximum load the vehicle can carry or pull, not maximum speed or mileage CWC 2.5 p 113

There is nothing in the description that says HD is only good for towing. What is a killer for the HDT is the fact your max speed may no longer be credible and your acceleration tanks. I'd also be interested to see of those tiny plant arena cars still conformed to the 200 mile range rule (if gas cars have got to stick to it, then so have electric designs).

I think Juris has it right, those one-trick pony designs may have worked for the arena they were designed for, but I don't need NPC vehicles for arena fights, (everyone will bring their own, customised for that arena or for the usual tactics of their opponents). I need them for road encounters where they need to be good all-rounders.

The only time I have actually used the book was for auction of ex-arena vehicles and the players preferred to wait for the shop to build their own design from scratch (which using the mechanic rule only took a few days).

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Effectively doubles PFs for purposes of maximum load the vehicle can carry or pull, not maximum speed or mileage CWC 2.5 p 113

There is nothing in the description that says HD is only good for towing.

Hmm - our interpretation back-when was:

"Effectively doubles PFs for purposes of maximum load the vehicle can carry or pull, not maximum speed or mileage." [CWC 2.5 p 113]

Max. speed is determined by Power Factors; if HD Trans doesn't affect top speed, it therefore does not affect the PF count. ("Carry or pull" is a bit confusing, as a load on a trailer could be classed as either.)

For ex.: An unmodified Large PP has 2,000 PF, so can haul a max. of 6,000 lbs.; with HD Trans, it could tow "6,000 lbs., times 2, minus the weight of the towing vehicle", but said towing vehicle would have to weigh 6,000 lbs. or less. A Compact with a Large PP and XH chassis fully-loaded, then, would be able to haul [6,000 - 4,440 =] 1,560 lbs., while the same Compact with HD Trans could haul [12,000 - 4,440 =] 7,560 lbs.

Originally Posted by swordtart

What is a killer for the HDT is the fact your max speed may no longer be credible and your acceleration tanks. I'd also be interested to see of those tiny plant arena cars still conformed to the 200 mile range rule (if gas cars have got to stick to it, then so have electric designs).

The arena-combat designs using HD Trans never much considered top speed; "we can't go much faster than 60 MPH anyway, so...." As to mileage: As the quote above says, mileage isn't affected by HD Trans either, so you contention about "minimum range" is valid (at least, for those of us who used it -- NOVA standard was "if the power plant can move it, it's legal; if it's a gasburner, 5-gal tank minimum"; so, if you'll excuse the pun, Your Mileage May Vary).

Originally Posted by juris

CS was more arena focused which is a very different style than a road car for 'mass production', which was the focus of the AADA VG1 and VG2 (we shall not speak the name of the third VG). There were definitely some road designs in it like Vlad the Impala, but it helped teach you how to design vehicles for the arena.

_CS_ was very much a book of two halves -- the first part was arena-oriented; but the second half did cover road vehicles (the _Cobra_ being one of these, in fact).

Originally Posted by juris

Can't remember the name of the 'champion' vehicle but I remember it had 100 points of front armor and 3 RLs front because the designer figured most shots would hit the front - he guessed correctly apparently. That design wouldn't work at all for the road but it was a brilliant build for that arena.

And that event -- a "Checkpoint Charlie", as we called them. With some alterations, _Navigator_ might have made a passable convoy point-guard....

Originally Posted by juris

The fake ads were also excellent flavor text :)

And how many of those survived the late-'80s Great Rules Reshuffle.... [bleh]

[ckosacranoid]

The car was built by grand-master mike Montgomery in the book and not sure the name off hand, but it predated the rules for arena combat that said you have to have crew, not any passengers which that carried.

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

Hmm - our interpretation back-when was:

"Effectively doubles PFs for purposes of maximum load the vehicle can carry or pull, not maximum speed or mileage." [CWC 2.5 p 113]

Max. speed is determined by Power Factors; if HD Trans doesn't affect top speed, it therefore does not affect the PF count. ("Carry or pull" is a bit confusing, as a load on a trailer could be classed as either.)

If you argue that HDT "does not affect the PF count" then it can't tow extra weight either (compare rigs). I can see what you mean though, power is work done over time and you are not changing that with HDT, you are delivering more work but taking more time to do it (lower Acc, lower top speed etc.). Whilst PF chimes well with HP (the usual means of describing vehicle power), we are considering different gearing as well with the HDT and the default CW speed calculation takes no account of gearing, just raw power.

That said my reading of the sentence highlighted (and that used by others in their vehicle design software) is that you always use the plant's base PF in the speed and range calculations. With HDT however you are now applying it to a vehicle that potentially weighs 6 times the PF (rather than a maximum of 3 without HDT). This generally means your top speed is about 55 mph at max loading. A non-HDT vehicle with a plant at max load tops out at around 90 mph. This has a knock on effect on range.

Whether that extra load is on the chassis or a trailer is immaterial.