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 05-07-2021, 05:23 PM   #1
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

In another thread, discussion turned to "how do I correct a design which is Illegal" -- that is: What is my policy when making corrections?

The short version: I try to stay as close to the original design as possible, both in actual parts used, and in "intent" of the design (as best I can figure).

Example: The infamous _Pop-Cart_ from the equally-infamous _Vehicle Guide 3_; not only is the design spectacularly overweight, it also violates 1/3-spaces (4-sp. BC on a 10-sp. Compact).

So, what are we looking at, in terms of design? "Division 15: Really big gun on a slow-moving hull." Let's run with that.

First: The BC gets removed. It's a 4d6 burst-effect weapon; what comes closest to 4d6 BE which will come in under 1/3 spaces? An ATG with HEAT ammo -- that +3 is about equal to a d6 average roll. So, we add it.

Design is still overweight, though -- even more so, as the ATG is 100 lbs. heavier than the BC. But, we've lopped nearly $3,000 off the cost; we can upgrade the chassis to XH from Heavy, and remain under Division limit, so delete Hv. chassis, and add XH chassis.

We're now "only" 5 lbs. over our XH-chassis weight cap. What can we do about that? Well, an easy way to deal with that is to downrate the gas tank to Racing from Duelling; that frees up a bit of weight, and with two spaces free, and some cost to work with, we can drop the Multi-Carb, give the driver 5 pts. Component Armor, add a SWC to bring the ATG's to-hit down to 7 (same as the BC), and add Sloping to the main-body armor. Cost comes in at $14,384; weight at 4,440 lbs.; accel., top speed, and handling all remain the same. Voila -- now it's legal, and it still fits its intended role.

"And there you have it."
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.

Last edited by 43Supporter; 05-07-2021 at 05:52 PM.
43Supporter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2021, 03:17 PM   #2
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

If you use the Duel Track version of the 150 cid plant and omit the ramplate the numbers are as written for weight and cost.

The design is a space under max. The duel track plant takes up 1 more space than the current version. The old plant is 125lb lighter.

The armour summary indicates ramplate, but the description says nothing about it (and a ramplate on a compact is a silly idea).

The 1/3 space violation however is insurmountable (and the HC should be 3 not 2).

Considering 43's design, I'd suggest a few amendments.
Lose the ramplate as I think it is a typo.
Replace Heavy chassis with Extra Heavy as suggested.
Drop Suspension to Improved to match the stated HC 2.
Replace the BC with ATG and HEAT as suggested.
Fit a HRSWC to restore the to hit number of 6.
Swap 5 points of front armour from plastic to metal.
Leave the duelling tank. You need all the help you can get.

That leaves you $672, 25lb and 2 spaces for personal kit or component armour etc.

You could spend $600 on upgrading the carb, but it only gets you an extra 5 mph top speed.

Last edited by swordtart; 05-08-2021 at 04:29 PM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2021, 03:55 PM   #3
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
If you use the Duel Track version of the 150 cid plant and omit the ramplate the numbers are as written for weight and cost.
I'm wondering if that's part of why the design is so out-of-whack -- someone used _DT_ instead of _CWC_.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
The armour summary indicates ramplate, but the description says nothing about it (and a ramplate on a compact is a silly idea).
Not too silly -- if the compact weight over 4,000 lbs., it inflicts full damage in rams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
The 1/3 space violation however is insurmountable (and the HC should be 3 not 2).
Hence the change to a 3-sp. weapon.
__________________
"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 05-10-2021, 12:43 AM   #4
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
Not too silly -- if the compact weight over 4,000 lbs., it inflicts full damage in rams.
Guilty - I am conflating sub-compacts.

I think I had lost the plot by that point after trying spinal mounts, uplifting the chassis to midsize and playing tunes on the whole design.

I think the bottom line for me is that pre-generated designs are for NPC use or rare games where the the players are given no choice about the vehicles they are given (am night, trying to replace a convoy vehicle at 3am in a none horse town etc.). In that case you may as well just use the design as written and accept that sometimes luck is for you and sometimes it is against you.

Once you change anything it is no longer that design and you'll be tempted to add things that were never there (htms are a good default). So neither of our designs is a "Popcart" they are just custom compacts that share some design criteria (but given that criteria was fit a big gun in a compact, it's hardly exacting).

In games where they players were given no choice of vehicle, it was ME who gave them the bogus design (just like I gave them that +3 weapon that they hadn't really earned that time). If they got to choose it, I gave them the option so it still isn't "not fair".

As we have proven you can design an as-good (or given the space capacity in budget and space we both ended up with arguably better) without breaking the rules, is this rule breaker at a real advantage?

So, you can you fit a BC into a compact?No Sir, they won't fit (unless you go spinal).
Can you buy a compact off the lot that happens to have a BC mounted? Actually, yes you can, it was a limited edition but they don't make it anymore.
BUT if that BC gets shot to hell, just remember that they don't make them any more and the BC's you can get these days won't fit. Neither can you move that "custom" BC to another facing (they moved a bulkhead to fit it in). Oh and that gas plant. Yeah, they don't make that anymore either. The newer ones are more compact but heavier.

With the joy of owning an "illegal" comes pain. You might apply a 10% surcharge to any repairs to reflect having to hand fettle bits to fit (every component carries the reto-fit surcharge)

So if you want a stock "Popcart" you can buy one, but don't expect a warranty ;)
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 05:30 AM   #5
kjamma4
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
So, can you fit a BC into a compact?
I seem to recall this being done on a Weekly Caripper's Telemanual with old Ev Kelly.

[Kudos to anyone who can identify the source of that one.]
kjamma4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 01:54 PM   #6
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
As we have proven you can design an as-good (or given the space capacity in budget and space we both ended up with arguably better) without breaking the rules, is this rule breaker at a real advantage?
I'm not sure about "rules-breaking for advantage" -- put politely, _VG3_ hacked off a bunch of people back-when for designs like the _Pop-Cart_, or the Lux with *two* F-mount BCs; but it was never established *how* such designs slipped the editing process.

Hence my policy of "what are the fewest adjustments needed to bring the unit into line with the rules as-published" -- the vehicle should still be recognizable as what it was before the "corrections". Another example: _Challenger_ from _Combat Showcase_ -- when the (unfortunately-necessary) change to Component Armor rules was made, the design became illegal, as it had CA around the six spaces of RLs Forward. The simplest change was to delete the CA from the RLs, and put that cost and weight into something else (in this case: An Extra Mag for the SD B).
__________________
"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 05-10-2021, 04:12 PM   #7
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by 43Supporter View Post
Another example: _Challenger_ from _Combat Showcase_ -- when the (unfortunately-necessary) change to Component Armor rules was made, the design became illegal, as it had CA around the six spaces of RLs Forward.
That is legal in 2.5 as linked sets of identical weapons can be component armoured together.

I just can't get the cost or weight to match. Did the HD transmission have different rules at any point?

EDIT:
By my calculations the design is 40lb and $100 off the published numbers. The weight isn't really a legality issue as the design is already 25lb under the max. The $100 is an issue for a Div 15 vehicle. Take off the drivers component armour and the design matches the published numbers exactly (and is div 15 legal again).

43: perhaps you mis-remembered which CA was illegal?

A less intrusive way to make it simply legal (ignoring the actual numbers given) is to remove 3 rounds of RL ammo.

RE-EDIT
Duh! you mean the fact that CA now counts against the 1/3 rule. Gotcha. Was that rule in place at the time or is the design only retrospectively illegal in that regard (not withstanding the fact the calculations were wrong to start with).

Since it only protects from damage to the front (or I suppose the rear once the car is gutted) you would be better with 10 points of plastic front armour instead. It costs $20 per point vs the $30 for the CA and weighs 10lb per point vs 12lb for the CA. That leaves you 45lb and 1 space spare. Whilst you can't use this in Division 15 it does mean you have space for your trophy on the drive home (maybe in a bulk ammo box in the boot as a damage sink).

Last edited by swordtart; 05-11-2021 at 02:06 AM.
swordtart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 05:51 PM   #8
juris
 
juris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: CA
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Let's just pretend the VG3 never happened.

There's only the 'black' VG1 and the 'blue' VG2.
juris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2021, 08:00 PM   #9
kjamma4
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chicagoland Area, Illinois
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by juris View Post
Let's just pretend the VG3 never happened.

There's only the 'black' VG1 and the 'blue' VG2.
At this point, with the Combat Garage available, correcting designs is pretty much an exercise in futility as it's way easier to just design a vehicle from scratch.

That being said, I agree with the suggestions in this post *IF* you want to take on the task of correcting published designs.
kjamma4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2021, 01:44 AM   #10
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: 43's Truck Stop: When Designs Go South...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kjamma4 View Post
At this point, with the Combat Garage available, correcting designs is pretty much an exercise in futility as it's way easier to just design a vehicle from scratch.
Tuning illegal designs is useful practice for seeking efficiency and variety.

As many of the most contentious designs were entries into tournaments it could be cathartic as a participant in those tournaments as you can identify if the error was due to an external rules change (like the gas plants stat changes or the turret revisions) a single (and therefore likely accidental) oversight (like the CA in the Challenger) or a complete mess that should be wholly ignored as an urban myth (just as the joke vehicle in "...and course it was black" and most of VG3).

You can also judge the legal version against the illegal version to see if it would have made any difference to the ultimate outcome (assuming you were there). In the case of the Challenger, if the CA was never damaged then it's inadvertent inclusion did not affect the outcome and therefore the original outcome is probably fair.

The purpose of these books was to give us ready made vehicles to use in the game and to provide inspiration. I paid for them and I am going to flippin' well use them! Taking them as read (or adding minor corrections against the entries in the books) for minor oversights allows them to fulfil the first purpose. Redesigning the more cheat... er... unique designs fulfils the second.

Finally whilst there are theoretically infinite variations of vehicles you quickly realise what the "workable" configurations are. As a competent player many of my designs end up similar (why wouldn't you fit HTMs for example). Having oddball vehicles designed by someone else with a different perspective creates greater variety. It also keeps things honest as it stops me designing specifically against the players current vehicle set. Even an illegal vehicle is fairer than a custom PC killer.

If the PCs can buy one as well, albeit with a punishing maintenance overhead, balance is maintained.
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 09:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.