Help Finding Error In Car Design

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

I wonder if this has something to do with the discrepancy as no other design in that book seems to note the amount of power (or chassis weight) left - maybe the design was modified somehow (disallowed passenger equipment?) and the weight and cost were not updated.

Not the case -- in _CS_, every unit with "leftover" PFs has such noted.

If I had to guess: I'd say someone failed to carry a 1 in the third column somewhere (guilty as charged :) ).

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by owenmp

The Marksman in Combat Showcase 2037 is slightly different than the version reprinted in Car Wars Compendium 2.5.
...
Solid Tires were used in the Combat Showcase 2027 version. Puncture-Resistant Tires were used in the Car Wars Compendium 2.5...

That seems to be the major discrepancy, almost everything works out if you change the PRs to Solids. Someone must have changed them to PR when it was put into compendium 2 and failed to update the cost and weight or (more likely) the PR is a typo and it should have had solids all along (there is no good reason to change them).

I still noted a $50 discrepancy, but I suppose it depends on if you have a link between the RLs or rely on the LG link to TL to fire all 3 weapons. I suppose you might want a discrete link to allow firing of both RLs without using the laser (if there is smoke between you and the target). I wish the designs had been explicit in that regard, but there you go.

I hadn't realised Combat Showcase was so old (and so flawed). I only bought it for completeness, I don't think I ever used it for a game.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

I still noted a $50 discrepancy, but I suppose it depends on if you have a link between the RLs or rely on the LG link to TL to fire all 3 weapons.

That's one of the rules changes which cropped up between _CS_ and _CWC_ -- for some reason, one of the Gang Of Four decided something with the word "link" in it wasn't a link, and one needed an additional link to link the links to the other links....

Originally Posted by swordtart

I hadn't realised Combat Showcase was so old (and so flawed). I only bought it for completeness, I don't think I ever used it for a game.

_CS_ wasn't flawed until the Gang Of Four started fiddling with the rules.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

That seems to be the major discrepancy, almost everything works out if you change the PRs to Solids. Someone must have changed them to PR when it was put into compendium 2 and failed to update the cost and weight or (more likely) the PR is a typo and it should have had solids all along (there is no good reason to change them).

Funny you mention this -- one of my favorite _VG1_ combat cycles, the _Maxi_, has this very problem: If one runs the numbers on it, the PP should be a Super, not the Large as-printed.

[Magesmiley]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

That's one of the rules changes which cropped up between _CS_ and _CWC_ -- for some reason, one of the Gang Of Four decided something with the word "link" in it wasn't a link, and one needed an additional link to link the links to the other links....



_CS_ wasn't flawed until the Gang Of Four started fiddling with the rules.

I'd disagree. It was always needed and that was a clarification on terminology, not a rules change. A standard link allows multiple weapons to be triggered with a single firing action. A laser guidance link allows rockets to follow a laser. Nothing in the LGL description ever allowed you to trigger both weapons with a single firing action.

When you consider the behavior with multiple rocket weapons and a single laser and being able to fire different combinations of them (Laser + A, Laser + A + B, Laser + B, Laser + C), it becomes more apparent why the standard link isn't included in the LGL cost - what combination would actually be treated as linked?

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by Magesmiley

I'd disagree. It was always needed and that was a clarification on terminology, not a rules change. A standard link allows multiple weapons to be triggered with a single firing action. A laser guidance link allows rockets to follow a laser. Nothing in the LGL description ever allowed you to trigger both weapons with a single firing action.

Here we get into the "Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee" stuff -- one could as-easily argue [and it was] "the LGL handles the 'linking' function for the rockets itself".

It was this sort of thing which led NOVA to stick with RRs, BCs, and VMGs -- the laser-guidance rules were such an utter hash, it wasn't worth the bother.

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by Magesmiley

I'd disagree. It was always needed and that was a clarification on terminology, not a rules change. A standard link allows multiple weapons to be triggered with a single firing action. A laser guidance link allows rockets to follow a laser. Nothing in the LGL description ever allowed you to trigger both weapons with a single firing action.

When you consider the behavior with multiple rocket weapons and a single laser and being able to fire different combinations of them (Laser + A, Laser + A + B, Laser + B, Laser + C), it becomes more apparent why the standard link isn't included in the LGL cost - what combination would actually be treated as linked?

I am in agreement with the above. Tuning allows the rocket to follow the laser. You pay for that for each rocket and each laser. It doesn't fire a rocket as for that you need a firing action. If you want to fire two weapons in a single firing action they need to be linked.

Some interesting options here.

Rocket A is not Laser Guided. Rocket B is on the same facing but is Laser Guided and tuned to Laser L (which is tuned also)

Rocket A is linked to Rocket B with link AB.

If you fire link AB then Rocket A is normal aimed fire and rocket B automatically misses as it is has no beam to follow.

If you put in a link from Rocket B to Laser L then Link BL fires the laser and Rocket B only which benefits from laser guidance as normal.

If you put a link between Rocket A and Laser L then link AL will result in Rocket A being fired as if on "Automatic" (i.e. straight out) and the laser being fired at the target selected (might be slightly useful in an edge condition). Rocket B does not fire.

If you put a link between Laser L and link AB then Link ABL fires the laser, and both rockets. At this point per the ruling on linking non-identical weapons (CWC 2.5 p45) comes into play and the player decides which of the linked weapons is aimed.

If he aims the Laser then Rocket B is laser guided and Rocket A is fired on "Automatic".
If he aims Rocket A then the Laser L is fired on "Automatic" and Rocket B is Laser Guided to it.
If he aims Rocket B, then he is an idiot, Rocket A and the laser are fired on "Automatic" however, as the laser was fired, Rocket B is still laser guided. However it will only hit whatever the laser was pointed at, not necessarily what Rocket B was aimed at. This is a sub-optimal strategy.

If both Rockets are LG and are tuned to the same laser they can all be linked together with a single link ABL, however this removes the option of firing only a single rocket. If you want to option to fire Rocket A or Rocket B or both then you will need link AL, link BL and link ABL.

In practice however it is hard to see a benefit to linking A and B separately and then linking AB to L (versus just linking A, B and L in a single link) as the cost of the extra AB link only provides you with the ability to fire two unguided rockets that automatically miss -though I suspect some clever armchair warrior will be able to cite an example where it might be beneficial (possibly to get rid of them both if the car catches fire).

However since we are only talking about an extra $50 on a system that has already cost you at least $700 plus the cost of the laser and rockets, what's the diff :)

I suppose technically you could have two linked lasers each tuned to a different rocket and make things really complicated :)

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

However since we are only talking about an extra $50 on a system that has already cost you at least $700 plus the cost of the laser and rockets, what's the diff :)

That's why no one in NOVA used LG -- too expensive, and too complicated. Add to that the greater utility of RRs and such....

[swordtart]

I only tended to use LG with twin-linked AP HRs on tripods (with laser scope)*. The extra +2 for sustained firing the laser before letting rip was the prime benefit. After firing the tripod with laser scope was easily man-portable for a shoot-and-scoot. An extra $200 on a $300 AP HR is less profligate than $200 on a $53 RL round.

LG for smaller munitions made it all too expensive and if you are only getting 2d damage the cost of RL plus laser plus tunings is going to be higher than RR plus a HRSWC.

For the Shogun 250 for example if you replace the RL with AP plus LG and the Laser with a RR with HEAT plus a HRSWC for example you save 50lb and $550 if my maths is correct. That gives you a base to hit of 5 with the RR vs a base to hit of 6 with the laser (and of course if the RR hits, it hits, you don't need a second roll of 4+).

1" of smoke or paint will knock you down to base hit 7 with the RR, but the laser is stopped dead and you will automatically miss with the RL. You also can't defeat RR with anti laser webs and the like.

The only marginal benefit could be the ability to get sustained fire without using ammunition by dry firing the laser, but most people start firing live from the offing anyway so I suspect this is very situational and with 50lb and $550 is always useful.

There is also the slight benefit of being able to use smoke rockets, but of you are using LG you don't want to be adding smoke to the battlefield.

*This is set up to guard a long straight road. Painting the target at 150 yards gave 2 turns of sustained fire and meant 75% or better chance of hitting the front of a car moving at 60. Two such setup means 3 AP HR on the front with a likely D6 Hazard if the vehicle survived and even metal cars struggle to shrug off 3d6+6.

[Racer]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

Here we get into the "Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee" stuff -- one could as-easily argue [and it was] "the LGL handles the 'linking' function for the rockets itself".

It was this sort of thing which led NOVA to stick with RRs, BCs, and VMGs -- the laser-guidance rules were such an utter hash, it wasn't worth the bother.

Also HDSS with Hot Smoke : watching a guy with $34,000 of Laser Guided Ordinance rendered useless by two of these worth $2,250 had us chuckling & him almost weeping ... 😈