Convoy question

[xavilongo]

Hello,

We are in the middle of the Convoy adventure. One important doubt has arisen: is the entire adventure played using the -3 fire modifier for night, or are the roads considered illuminated and then the -3 modifier is not used? Thank you very much in advance.

[Racer]

Very few Roads would be well lit at that time - remember this is less than 20 years after Grain Blight , Food Riots & limited nuclear exchange war .
Some well maintained Interstates may be well lit & patrolled to prevent damage to lighting etc . So darkness would only be -1 on those .

I've not read Convoy in years (my copy was stolen) but I'd reckon any hazardous noted areas - especially those with potholed Roads - would have poor or absent Road lighting , thus should be -3 penalty .
Car Wars setting , remember infrastructure was much worse than in 1980's when it was written . Some out of town US roads would probably worse than in 1940s .

I'm from UK and even in late 1980s in Rural areas , there'd only be one feeble street lamp ever two hundred yards or so .
Very scary walking along dark single track roads when a teen at boarding school in Kent !
Modern very bright LED streetlights make people forget how bad it was just a few decades ago .
Go back to before 1930s & people would often carry lanterns but being run down by even horse drawn vehicles was still huge hazard .

[xavilongo]

Hi Racer,

Well, as long as the Convoy rules do not give precise information, in absence of any other information perhaps it could be a a good idea to fix the level of illumination of each road type.

On the map there are the following types:

-Interstate Highway
-U.S. Highway
-Parkways

Perhaps a -1 for the first, -2 for the second and -3 for the third...

I wonder if this information could be found on some AADA Road Atlas supplement...

[kjamma4]

Originally Posted by Racer

in 1980's when it was written

One other way you can tell when it was written is the power usage rules where the "standard" speed is 55 mph.

It would have been much cleaner mathematically to use 60 mph as the standard so:

1 mile = 1 minute = 1 power unit

[swordtart]

Stuff that was in the ADQ version that didn't make it into the hard copy version.

2000-0559 = Night (-3)
0600-0729 = Drizzle (-1)
0730 onward = Heavy Rain (-3)

The quality of road wasn't a factor in the ADQ version other than for tyre damage (which was rather excessive).

The condition of the road in the printed book is explained in the relevant paragraphs if relevant. It also tells you when it starts raining etc. so in that version rainfall is based on where you are rather than when you are there (though there may be some paragraphs choices that are time dependent).

I think the baseline assumption for CW is that roads outside the fortress towns aren't lit at all. Driving after dark is risky (which is why you get $100000 for only a 400 mile journey).

The base assumption in the economics of trucking article of ADQ 1-4 was $2-3 per mile possibly increasing to around $4 for hazardous roads. So you should be getting much less than $2000 for the run.

For "normal" vehicles if both participants are in combat at -3 it won't make too much difference other than in ammunition consumed. If one or the other has a much lower to hit normally then the -3 might make a significant difference (i.e. the better shot could stand off to a range where they need 10's but their opponent need 12's say and the better shot they would hit 6 times more often, if it was day then at the same range they would hit on 7's and 9's respectively and the better shot would only hit 2.5 times as frequently).

[xavilongo]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Stuff that was in the ADQ version that didn't make it into the hard copy version.

2000-0559 = Night (-3)
0600-0729 = Drizzle (-1)
0730 onward = Heavy Rain (-3)

GREAT! Thank you very much

[xavilongo]

Originally Posted by swordtart

Stuff that was in the ADQ version that didn't make it into the hard copy version.

2000-0559 = Night (-3)
0600-0729 = Drizzle (-1)
0730 onward = Heavy Rain (-3)

The quality of road wasn't a factor in the ADQ version other than for tyre damage (which was rather excessive).

The condition of the road in the printed book is explained in the relevant paragraphs if relevant.

I think the baseline assumption for CW is that roads outside the fortress towns aren't lit at all. Driving after dark is risky which is why you get $100000 for only a 400 mile journey).

The base assumption in the economics of trucking article of ADQ 1-4 was $2-3 per mile possibly increasing to around $4 for hazardous roads. So you should be getting much less than $2000 for the run.

Please, could you tell me if entry number 40 is the same for both versions?

[xavilongo]

Never mind, I have ordered the PDF version of ADQ and I see the structure is very different in both versions.

[xavilongo]

Originally Posted by swordtart

For "normal" vehicles if both participants are in combat at -3 it won't make too much difference other than in ammunition consumed. If one or the other has a much lower to hit normally then the -3 might make a significant difference (i.e. the better shot could stand off to a range where they need 10's but their opponent need 12's say and the better shot they would hit 6 times more often, if it was day then at the same range they would hit on 7's and 9's respectively and the better shot would only hit 2.5 times as frequently).

That is the question...if you check paragraph 40 of the Convoy book edition and look at the AI of the enemy you will see why it is so important to determine if the -3 for night is used or not.

[swordtart]

Yes, it is a surprising attack choice. In my copy there is also discrepancy between the gunner skill in the paragraph and in the vehicle diagram. I'd be generous and allow him the better skill.

If I were him, I'd be opening fire much closer. Opening up the distance until he is at -2 to hit seems strange given his target of choice and the front aspect (or speed modifier if he tries to target the side), his inherently inaccurate weapon and the fact his DW suite is probably obscuring his own LOS. By my reckoning his is needing 10's before you take the night time (or any intervening DW into account). That means he is relying on sustained fire (and even then is very unlikely to hit at all).

That said assuming his DW are all linked he can really mess up the road (and he has the handling to easily cover all lanes). The direct weapon attack is just a bonus (and is probably mostly there for self-defence - if you have attacked before he got into position). On that basis his attack makes more sense as you are probably suffering so many penalties at that point that he is pretty safe just littering.

Personally I'd be aiming at a less difficult target and just stacking on hazards, but I'd also start dropping as soon as I passed and minimise your ability to dodge the litter. The links on his car are not specified, but lets assume they are linked to his direct weapon and each other and are set to automatic to allow him an extra round to build his sustained fire.

Of course this is also designed using older rules and the design isn't as optimised as it could be (and neither would the escort vehicles you would have designed) He is the aggressor and chooses to attack. You would think he would choose the correct tool for the job or choose not to attack if he realised he wasn't in the right fight. With his stat line he is experienced and so should have worked out what works by now.

In the original scenario he had a different car, a gunner companion and was peaceful. I suspect it was felt there wasn't enough challenge and he was modified to increase the danger. (and to fool people who may have played the original scenario). Given the rather foolhardy attack vector, he usually just ends up as loot and therefore a temptation to delay. Of course so early in the scenario you may be forced to decide between fixing up any damage he did cause (and loosing valuable time) or carrying it forward in the hope it didn't turn a later nuisance encounter into a deadly one.