Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Board and Card Games > Car Wars > Car Wars Old Editions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2019, 03:03 PM   #441
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
OK, to be fair, I'll start with a non-smart-alec-y answer: _Metal Magnum_ semi-tractor, with WGs converted to Metal, and 240 lbs. hull armor converted to FPP hubs (not like it's going to hurt handling any); _Hellfire_ trailer, also with WG to Metal, and FPP hubs. Sub-$200K; essentially invulnerable to non-AV weapons; the only drawback is, of course, pre-laid dropped weapons, and that only because there are no rules for clearing the things (a *major* flaw in the rules, BTW).
Would you really take metal WGs by default or are you min maxing this for a pedestrian assault (which whilst a threat isn't the most usual one faced by a convoy).

That not withstanding this is a good choice if it is travelling solo. If all armour facings on the vehicle have a metal skin then I wouldn't choose to attack it directly as I couldn't make a profit by doing so. I might put in a cursory burst as it passed in the hope of stripping a point of metal to inflict an economic loss on you and encourage you to be less stingy, but frankly Brotherhood solo truckers are not my preferred target.

If you had any escorts, I would engage them in the hope of cutting one of them out and wait until you either had to get out to make repairs (and then attack the foot sloggers) or you chose to abandon him.

One of the ADQ&A did provide rules for clearing dropped solids using gunfire, but you wouldn't expect that to help vs flame clouds or flaming oil for example.

EDIT:
To be clear does your vehicle have FPP all over? That seems hellish expensive, no wonder your convoys got over priced quickly. How did they ever make a profit transporting anything? One point of damage and you are paying hundreds for armour repairs. None of my convoy jobs ever earned more than $5 per mile. I think Convoy set the bar a little too high (but it was supposed to be a special mission not a routine run).

Last edited by swordtart; 06-17-2019 at 08:16 AM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2019, 03:09 PM   #442
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
...Or, another possibility, the "sauce for the goose" approach: Load the _Aerohauler_ with 17 Infantry...
Agreed infantry vs infantry is a better way to go. I think they are over equipped to be cost effective vs a similar number of just SMG troops, but that's a wargames exercise not a attack philosophy conversation.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2019, 03:28 PM   #443
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
Here's a pic of CBs in a test operation -- note they detonate well above ground: http://www.army-technology.com/wp-co...-DoD-large.jpg -- the detonation expands spherically; so if one goes off above a trench, a berm is not going to help

Ah, yes -- that old argument. I suppose one could add Proximity Fusing if one assumes CBs are ground-contact; but I don't subscribe to that. (I figure a large part of the expense and loss-of-damage-potential for CBs is that they *don't* detonate on-contact, but have to scatter bomblets from on-high.)

As to Scatter: That's why there's a guidance package on the bombs -- as Billy Connolly put it, "Bomb-O-Gram". (Believe it or not: This is the result of a rather spectacular T-H failure -- uncorked a CB1500 from a mile up at 300MPH, and rolled a perfect 2. After that, guidance packages became standard-operating-procedure.)

IRSS v. Thermograph: Annoyingly, T-G is Military-Only, which is why I left it off; this would be a heck of a surprise to my local outdoor-supply stores, who have man-portable thermographs in stock. (How times change....)
I'll have to take this as one chunk as it takes too long to strip out each sub-para.

Clearly the bomblets are released above the ground, it is whether they detonate in the air (and therefore need some clever fusing) or are simply impact fused (which is the default for all other bombs). Different weapons do it differently, they are all "CBs", but work differently. I can see the example in your picture would send fragments in all directions but can that be adequately represented by the CW implementation. What do the 2d6 in 3" radius of a CB150 represent. 2 x 1d6 (and thus potentially wholly negated by 6 points of metal) or 2d6 as a single chunk and thus only able to damage a single component of a motorcycle? CW needs more granularity if CBs are to be treated that way (in effect a number of air burst munitions). There is absolutely nothing that implies that CB sub-munitions are air burst. If you choose to think of them as that in your game, it is of course between you and your opponent to agree. I'd prefer a better weapon description but it maybe that CS wasn't too bothered.

Not sure what you meant by your scatter comment. Guidance doesn't prevent scatter (in CW) it just reduces the effect of it by increasing your chance to
hit.

I wouldn't prevent anyone from using a thermograph if they were willing to pay. Much of the "military only" is clearly nonsense. IMG maybe, but some of this stuff isn't even military surplus, it's basic sporting goods (telescopic sight for example).

Last edited by swordtart; 06-16-2019 at 04:01 PM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2019, 05:41 AM   #444
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
You put some deep thought into your setup.
To be honest 1/4 hour max. I just asked the obvious questions, and responded to the obvious answers. There is nothing there that hasn't been done a million times in a thousand conflicts since infantry have been subjected to artillery or air bombardment.

I haven't read Aeroduel in any great depth, so I am sure there are some subtleties that I will have missed.

I am not sure about Aeroduel in general. If we are forced to accept that a/c are vastly superior to ground vehicles (since they can attack from great height with no range penalties), seem capable of extraordinary carrying capacity etc. I am not sure why ground vehicles would ever be used. As the name of the game is Car Wars I am looking to find where the flaws need to be to make the game work.

One of the major aspects that is overlooked in the whole game is the the cost (and time) for general maintenance (not repair or replenishment which are covered as they are extras that fall-out from combat). In one-off games this is an irrelevance, but the cost of servicing a/c should be extortionate (at least if our support costs are anything to go by). The simpler the machine, the easier the maintenance and the lower the cost. This should mean that ground vehicles (whose service intervals are measured in years) should be cheaper to operate than aircraft whose service intervals are measured in hours. Pedestrian equipment may credibly never need significant maintenance.

A few percent of the original equipment cost per year should suffice (maybe increasing by 1% every year after manufacture to represent the fact that eventually it all becomes too hard to fix). Of that a third will be labour and $50 per hour gives you how long it all takes. That $200K rig needing $4K and 26 man hours per year doesn't seem unreasonable.

Aircraft seem to need an hours maintenance per 10 hours use (ROM). Cars maybe 1 hour per 20 (based the service schedule on my car and an average speed of 40 - according to my cars computer). Gun maintenance is more a function of how often I have fired it, it can go all year with a 1 hour service if it hasn't been fired, but I spend at least 30 minutes after every shoot (but mine is a musket and they seem to need a lot more cleaning than a modern gun).

EDIT:
I had a dig into Aeroduel and I note that there are indeed additional maintenance rules. Unfortunately a/c still seem massively unbalanced compared to ground vehicles. Why use anything other than airships - 100 tons of load allowance! The Anti-Aircraft rules introduced there hardly offset the massive penalties you will suffer firing at high altitude aircraft (you need Tanks to get stuff like long barrels and stabilised mounts and even that only gets you so far). As a/c don't suffer an equivalent penalty with bombs (which can be pin-point accurate - unless you rolled 12, even grenades that hit could scatter a bit) and it doesn't seem to matter if you drop a bomb from 1000 ft or from orbit, the scatter doesn't get any worse, it seems a bit biased. It seems the only way to take out aircraft is with other aircraft, and I cannot be bothered with that (and I'll play Wings of War if I do).

I can probably stay safe regardless of whether I agreed to your interpretation of CBs as I would just adjust my foxhole design to have a roof by using 8" log supports and a sandbag and earth roof (which would also completely foil your IR) and provide almost total immunity to any BE. I would probably be more careful in selecting my site so that I could use existing hedges and trees to effectively hide from enemies miles above (2" concealment wholly blocks both optical and IR spotting) and maybe utilise existing animal burrows to speed setting up (though I can really spend as long as I want if I choose my ground carefully).

But, I guess if you are using exclusively aircraft, I'd rather not play.

Last edited by swordtart; 06-17-2019 at 03:27 PM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 01:22 AM   #445
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Culled from the "*REALLY* Low-Tech Design" file:

Luxury; Std. chas.; Lt. susp.; Large PP [2,000 PF]; 4x PR tire; Driver. 2-sp. Turret; 2x 2-sp. Rocket EM [Tu.]; 12x HR [6x F; 2x Tu.; 4x REM], 4x Link [1 ea.: 6 HRs F; ea. pair Tu. HRs]. Plastic Armor: F, B, T: 20; L, R: 15; U: 9. Acc.: 5; TS: 95; HC: 1. $9,780; 5,500 lbs.

Slow, clumsy, inaccurate, and a bigger target than the compacts and subcompacts it will most-likely be fighting; but if it can score hits, it will do some serious damage.
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.
43Supporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 04:50 AM   #446
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
Culled from the "*REALLY* Low-Tech Design" file:

Luxury; Std. chas.; Lt. susp.; Large PP [2,000 PF]; 4x PR tire; Driver. 2-sp. Turret; 2x 2-sp. Rocket EM [Tu.]; 12x HR [6x F; 2x Tu.; 4x REM], 4x Link [1 ea.: 6 HRs F; ea. pair Tu. HRs]. Plastic Armor: F, B, T: 20; L, R: 15; U: 9. Acc.: 5; TS: 95; HC: 1. $9,780; 5,500 lbs.

Slow, clumsy, inaccurate, and a bigger target than the compacts and subcompacts it will most-likely be fighting; but if it can score hits, it will do some serious damage.
Yoiks! A real eggshell armed with a hammer approach.

I am unsure about the links. Do you need links for the rockets in the rocket magazines? (I am assuming here REM is rocket magazine as I haven't seen REM as an abbreviation before) I understood that the magazines fed into the launch tubes in the turret and only the tubes need to be linked.**

With no dedicated gunner (and such poor HC that you are going to need lots of skill points in driver), no electronics and really inaccurate weapons (with the majority with no hope of getting sustained fire) the IF in "if it can score hits" is a biggie. You need to be very close before the engagement starts, otherwise even a single MG will likely chew through your armour before you get close enough to stand a reasonable chance of hitting with the HRs*.

I think this demonstrates why a standard chassis is seldom worth the saving. A heavy chassis only costs $400 but would allow you to use the extra 500 lb still left in the plant which is an extra 50 points of armour.

*I might be inclined to replace the HRs mounted front with mini-rockets to save weight and cost ($300 and 240 lb). You would at least then be launching a volley of 18 from the front which increases your chance of a lucky hit. It's a more difficult choice with the turret as you could choose a number of configurations for the rocket magazine if you use MNRs rather than HRs.

You could even squeak a light chassis (and thus be able to get away with a medium plant with PC's) add a little armour and save even more money. This would of course be a death trap ;)

EDIT:
** Your cost seems under by $100 so I suspect that you included only 2 links after all.

Last edited by swordtart; 07-09-2019 at 07:12 AM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 05:35 AM   #447
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Bad Lux 2 by Swordtart:
Luxury; Light chassis; Light suspension;
Medium PP w/PCs, SCs;
4 PR tires
Driver
2s Turret T and 2 x 2 Spc Rocket Magazine and 18 AP Mini Rocket (T)
18 AP Mini Rocket (F).
Link all rockets in turret. Link all rockets front.
Armour: 99 pts. Plastic (F: 20 R: 15 L: 15 B: 20 T: 20 U: 9).
Cargo 1 spc, 10lb.
Cost: $9,620, Wgt: 4,820, HC: 1, Top Speed: 90, Accel: 5.


Not the best car, but the fireworks display sure is pretty ;)

A saving of $160, 1 space and 10 lb over the Lux above. This might be enough to buy a couple of dischargers or maybe an empty bulk ammo box to put in the trunk as non-AADA approved armour.

At first sight, the average damage from the front volley is the same as the version above but with the added risk that it won't go through metal armour as well. As a trade, the chance of missing with everything is lower, which in other than the most favourable circumstances will probably result in a better outcome, the chance of hitting with everything is also lower, we just flattened the probability curve (which with a small magazine is a GOOD THING).

The damage from the turret will clearly depend on circumstances and whether a pair of low-probability hits doing 3d6 each over 3 turns is better than four/six low-probability hits doing 1d6 each over 4 turns. Clearly the fact that the chance of hitting increases significantly with sustained fire after the first shot may have beneficial effect which will be more pronounced in the 12 MNR vs the 4 HR shots.

EDIT:
I noticed an oversight in that there are only 4 rocket magazines (each holding 4 rockets for a total of 12 in addition to the 6 on top) - Rocket Magazines are not fully integrated into CWVD. Ideally we would have 6 magazines of 2 shots, but that isn't possible under the rules. So we have 6 tubes of MNRs with only 4 of them fed from magazines holding an additional 3 shots each (maintaining our overall magazine of 18 shots). So our first volley will be 6 rockets and each subsequent one will be 4 (as the link dry fires 2 empty tubes). For the cost of an extra link you could save the unfed pair for when you wanted (i.e. when have acquired a sustained fire bonus).

It's not an ideal configuration, but I don't think there are any rules against it.

Last edited by swordtart; 07-09-2019 at 08:14 AM. Reason: No 2/3rd space Rocket Magazines ;(
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 11:20 AM   #448
juris
 
juris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CA
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Why go with single shot rockets?

Just as much damage (overall), more accurate (esp with sustained fire), harder to hit, cheaper. Go with explosive rockets against metal/peds (use ripple fire and overlapping burst effect targeting the ground which is just apocalyptic)

Rockethead -- Heavy Cycle, Heavy suspension, Small Cycle power plant w/SC, 10-pt CA (Power Plant), 2 Motorcycle Heavy-Duty tires, Cyclist w/SWC and BA and 10-pt CA, Variable-Fire Rocket Pod Front w/30 shots Armor-Piercing, Plastic Armor: F15, B10, 2 5-pt Cycle Wheelguards, Gear Allocation: [5 lbs.], Acceleration 5, Top Speed 90, HC 2, 1295 lbs., $7025
juris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 02:42 PM   #449
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
I am unsure about the links. Do you need links for the rockets in the rocket magazines? (I am assuming here REM is rocket magazine as I haven't seen REM as an abbreviation before) I understood that the magazines fed into the launch tubes in the turret and only the tubes need to be linked.
I wasn't sure whether the REM (and yes, that's "Rocket Extra Magazine") HRs required separate links, so I included them (or tried to -- I used Combat Garage for this, instead of books and a calculator...).

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
With no dedicated gunner (and such poor HC that you are going to need lots of skill points in driver), no electronics and really inaccurate weapons (with the majority with no hope of getting sustained fire) the IF in "if it can score hits" is a biggie. You need to be very close before the engagement starts, otherwise even a single MG will likely chew through your armour before you get close enough to stand a reasonable chance of hitting with the HRs*.
Back when I was in NOVA, there was discussion of "punishment designs" -- cars designed with serious flaws, for use in events featuring Known Cheats, or "felons fighting for freedom" events. This design would fit among that lot.

Oddly: If one goes with Metal armor instead of Plastic, survivability *improves* a bit (unless, like NOVA, one sees a lot of HESH-loaded RRs in Div. 10...).

I see this as a vehicle for a highway or dreg-zone looter -- pull out, cut loose the rockets (as that's all he can afford), pick over the remains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
I might be inclined to replace the HRs mounted front with mini-rockets to save weight and cost ($300 and 240 lb). You would at least then be launching a volley of 18 from the front which increases your chance of a lucky hit. It's a more difficult choice with the turret as you could choose a number of configurations for the rocket magazine if you use MNRs rather than HRs.
One of my personal designs, the _ZBP-1A_ does exactly this: 6 spaces of AP MNRs F, plus a 2-sp. turret with AP MNRs and REMs (it's a Div. 30 design, however, so there's also the Ob150cidwithTurbo, and a HR computer). However, for this, I tried to stick as closely to "basic set" components as possible (the REMs are a bit outside that, to be honest, but I couldn't get C.G. to use "regular" EMs).
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.
43Supporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2019, 02:49 PM   #450
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: The Unoffial 2056 Vehicle Guide

VFRP is quite expensive for cheap vehicles, but a rocket or missile launcher is generally better if you anticipate surviving for more than a few volleys. Of course even with the VFRP you can only loose 6 rockets at once, you can link all 18 MNR's and let them all go at once.

3 MMLs linked is $150 cheaper, have a +1 better to hit and weighs 50lb less than a single VFRP. You can only fire 3 shots at a time and you don't get to spread your attacks (but often that is just a way of wasting ammunition more quickly). The reload cost is also $15 less per rocket.

If you need more than 30 shots you need an extra magazines per MML which eats into your space budget, but it still ends up lighter and cheaper than the VFRP with a single magazine with the same 60 shots.

It is hard to rationalise a single light rocket costing $75 and weighing 25 lb when a single round from the MML which has slightly better performance costs $20 and only weighs 2.5 lb. Single shot rockets get a bum deal in CW ;)
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.