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 01-07-2020, 01:09 AM   #11
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

"All DWs are nixed" referred to the fact that if you can go off-road, you have far more space to drive round the DWs, not that they failed to operate.

If there is an option to go off road, that should be what your bikes are doing by default (and if your scouting identified this as valid your bike should have OR tyres). Very few vehicles can match a bikes performance off-road even without OR tyres other than specialist off-roaders. Those vehicles can still be disadvantaged by the ability of bikes to slip through narrow gaps (note the rules regarding vehicle size vs counter size).

The shoulders of the road are not classed as "off-road" according to the off-road rules.

Like the -6 you would get from doing 2 x D3's in quick succession plus likely 2 doses of gunfire HS loss ;) Most pursuit vehicles have a gunner and a turret as well as front weapons operated by the driver. These are often capable of inflicting an average of 7 points on a car for at least a D2 each. That is why I think the paint remains appropriate.

Actually I thought originally that you were flicking back into another diagonal and would need a D6. Going straight is less of a risk, but you have only dropped half your mines in that case and you need to time it carefully or you'll need a weapon timer to avoid wasting mines.

Solids remain effective vs spikes. I was simply positing plasticores (or the deprecated METAL tyres) as logical extensions.

Sadly CW scenarios are not version controlled, so we can sometimes not be be quite sure which scenarios and supplements take account of which version of the rules.
swordtart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 05:39 PM   #12
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
"All DWs are nixed" referred to the fact that if you can go off-road, you have far more space to drive round the DWs, not that they failed to operate.
OK. Thanks for the clarification.

That said: That isn't always the case. For one: I have some PB _CW_ road sections where the runoff isn't even 1/4" wide. For another: Is the shoulder flat, or (like around here) is it a ditch? These are questions one needs answer for when the scenario is being set up. (There was one adventure I was in where the GM didn't realize the road he was using had a cliff face on one side, and a sheer drop on the other; this had a catastrophic effect on the Bad Guys when they tried to go around a vehicle which had just blown up....)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
If there is an option to go off road, that should be what your bikes are doing by default (and if your scouting identified this as valid your bike should have OR tyres). Very few vehicles can match a bikes performance off-road even without OR tyres other than specialist off-roaders. Those vehicles can still be disadvantaged by the ability of bikes to slip through narrow gaps (note the rules regarding vehicle size vs counter size).
[nod] There's a couple articles about "biker tactics" in _ADQ_ which discuss this -- I recall one of them talking about how "The Brotherhood? They never saw us; as soon as a semi, appeared, we headed for the roughest ground we could find".

That said: There was the biker gang which learned in the worst of ways "a semi *can* mount OR suspension and tires", but that's a bit beyond the purview of this discussion -- as the bike I described came from _ADQ 1/2_, I'm trying to stick with "tech which was available at the time" to indicate if it's useful, or not. (I mentioned Trikes as an example of how that tech *wasn't* available to bikers of the time.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
The shoulders of the road are not classed as "off-road" according to the off-road rules.
True -- but most road-shoulders are considered Gravelled (+D1 hazard), so they're not *totally* without risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Like the -6 you would get from doing 2 x D3's in quick succession plus likely 2 doses of gunfire HS loss ;)
Oh, definitely -- the TEC is nice, but he does require fire-support to get the most out of him. This is why most TECs have a hazard-producing DW; Oil is nice, Oil Plus Gunfire is Even Nicer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Actually I thought originally that you were flicking back into another diagonal and would need a D6. Going straight is less of a risk, but you have only dropped half your mines in that case and you need to time it carefully or you'll need a weapon timer to avoid wasting mines.
Yes -- the driving pattern looks like this:

-\_ .

If one is able to generate a "three-deep" checkerboard, the diagonal becomes far more viable. This is what the designer of the bike in the OP was trying for, I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Sadly CW scenarios are not version controlled, so we can sometimes not be be quite sure which scenarios and supplements take account of which version of the rules.
I go by Publication Date -- as I said above: The bike in the OP dates from _ADQ 1/2_; to my thinking, then: Anything which was available prior to _ADQ 1/2_ may be considered in one's tactics and design. By the same token, if I were describing something from "Grand Theft Autoduel" (_ADQ 3/1_), then anything predating that issue is "legitimate" to use. One cannot merely drop Heavy X-Ray Lasers into any old scenario.... :)

Example: Playing the "Crusaders" scenario in the first edition _Deluxe Car Wars_ is appalling easy for the bikers to win; a bunch of Light Cycles with 1 sp./50 lb. cargo spaces, and a bunch of FO Grenades, and Midville burns. Playing it with PB tech, it becomes much harder for the bikers....
__________________
"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 01-08-2020, 12:42 AM   #13
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

You mention 50lb & 1 Space Cargo for the FO Grenades ?
I know it's still says in CWC 2.5 , but do you guys still use very old 'Box of 12 Grenades is 50lbs & takes 1 Space' Rule ?
As apposed to a Bulk Ammo Box with 12 Grenades weighing 22lbs & 1 Space & has 5DP ?
Our 'Rule of Logic' Ruling is a box of 12 Grenages is 15lbs (Plastic or lightweight Metal container) & takes up a Space . This has worked incredibly well in our Military type Campaigns , as a Character in 'normal combat gear' can easily carry two of these at a time - which is realistic with Real Life .
__________________
Five Gauss Guns on a Camper !!!
The Resident Brit .
Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 02:12 AM   #14
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

If I had an option to use a component that had better stats than another I would use that.

The historic "box of grenades" was problematic as it wasn't clear how the box was accessed in battle, how it was affected by gunfire etc. I think this is one of the reasons the bulk ammo box was introduced.

I use them a lot as they make perfect sense for courier operations or break-bulk cargo missions. A 40' van trailer can carry 80 of them and that means 400 points of extra armour at a fraction of the cost and weight of sticking it on the sides of the trailer. We extend their utility by allowing larger ones (at proportional weight and cost) for bigger stuff (basically Peli cases)

I think the best carry option for bikers is the battle vest as (in the alternative encumbrance system) it can carry 10 grenades that can be instantly used (rather than having to waste one firing action just getting the grenade out and a second to actually throw it).

You might also consider the backpack as a model for non-armoured equipment stowage, IIRC this sits well with your 1/2 space argument. EDIT: 1/2 space, 25lb, 20 grenandes (by the alt enc rules)

Sadly we are badly nobbled by CW deciding to fudge the whole "how big is a space" from day 1 (well to be fair probably several days after day 1 as it was only after contact with the gamer community that anyone cared). It's somewhere between 5 and 15 gallons plus the space an armoured container to hold that amount of fluid would take up. It's 1/80th of 8 x 8 x 40 ft. It's as big as as a fitted MG, but half as big as a fitted VMG. It's as big as the space required for a person to be able to sit in a vehicle. It's as big as the space required for systems to control aimed weapons. It's as big as the space required for the systems to control aimed weapons and the extra controls to drive a vehicle. It's 12 grenades. It's 2 hand held fire extinguishers. It's.... Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

If they'd said it was a cubic yard we could have all gotten on with our lives. When some smart arse came up with "how come an MG takes up 1 cubic yard, the XXX machine gun has an overall volume of only YY cubic feet" the answer should have been. "Oh yeah, show me the blueprint for the domestic car it is fitted to, including all the servos, ammunition, recoil compensation, telemetry, targeting systems and empty space required to make it traverse through at least 45 degrees in all axes, under armour, and I'll consider amending it to a more 'realistic' value"* as well as the standard and evidently more acceptable answer "well this ain't one of those machine guns!". That would have made it an MG space question rather than something that messes up everything from Jet Fighters fuel consumption to the number of cases of beer I can carry in a van trailer when recreating Smokey and the Bandit.

*I could also now answer that question (but not at the time, I hadn't done much weapon system engineering when I was in my late teens).

Last edited by swordtart; 01-09-2020 at 12:17 AM. Reason: Ranting - I can;t help it I'm ill today and cranky ;(
swordtart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2020, 02:47 PM   #15
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer View Post
You mention 50lb & 1 Space Cargo for the FO Grenades ?
I know it's still says in CWC 2.5 , but do you guys still use very old 'Box of 12 Grenades is 50lbs & takes 1 Space' Rule ?
At the time _DCW_ came out, that was the rule; Alt. Encumbrance wouldn't come until quite a bit later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
I think the best carry option for bikers is the battle vest as (in the alternative encumbrance system) it can carry 10 grenades that can be instantly used (rather than having to waste one firing action just getting the grenade out and a second to actually throw it).
Not quite the case -- the BV can carry "one pistol, two grenades (of any type), two hand-weapon magazines of any type, and one knife" [_CFH_ 139].

I suppose one could argue for a variant which *did* have "six generic GEs" (thinking of Randall "Tex" Cobb's character in _Raising Arizona_); but that's not how the BV was written, so we're stuck with what was described. (Also: I don't remember when the BV first came out, but I'm pretty sure it antedates _DCW_.)
__________________
"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 01-08-2020, 04:05 PM   #16
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

43: Under the alt encumbrance rules the carry capacity for a lot of load bearing equipment was redefined, the Battle Vest for example was amended to allow 10 lbs of 1 or no handed equipment. CWC 2.5 p66 (top of no-handed items table).

It should be noted that the GE version allowed two hand weapon mags of any type. An extended SMG or GL mag is 2 GE and so under the right circumstances your BV could fit 8 GE of equipment. Nor bad for 3 GE total, even better the armoured version which is still 3 GEs.

Under the alt encumbrance rules you have to add the 10lb weight of the ABV to the 10lb weight of the equipment you are carrying (and it all counts against your vehicle weight limit). If you tool the same loadout as the GE equivalent above i.e. heavy pistol (3lb), 2 grenades (2lb), Bowie knife (1lb) you only get 2 lb for each of the magazines. Extended mags weigh 30% of the weight of the weapon they are used in and I think this could take you over the 10lb maximum allowance of the alt enc. version.

Last edited by swordtart; 01-08-2020 at 05:01 PM.
swordtart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 12:44 AM   #17
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
43: Under the alt encumbrance rules the carry capacity for a lot of load bearing equipment was redefined, the Battle Vest for example was amended to allow 10 lbs of 1 or no handed equipment. CWC 2.5 p66 (top of no-handed items table).
2.5 is the "black cover", right? My copy has the alt-enc rules on p.49; same phrasing, however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
It should be noted that the GE version allowed two hand weapon mags of any type.
True -- which led to some goofiness (AVR on person, w/ ext. mags on BV). See next remark.

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Under the alt encumbrance rules you have to add the 10lb weight of the ABV to the 10lb weight of the equipment you are carrying (and it all counts against your vehicle weight limit). If you tool the same loadout as the GE equivalent above i.e. heavy pistol (3lb), 2 grenades (2lb), Bowie knife (1lb) you only get 2 lb for each of the magazines. Extended mags weigh 30% of the weight of the weapon they are used in and I think this could take you over the 10lb maximum allowance of the alt enc. version.
(Let's hear it for PDFs, he said, pulling up his e-copy of _CFH_. :) )

True enough -- but perhaps that was the idea; see earlier remark for an example of the kind of silliness resulting from the phrase "magazines of any kind". "Sure, you can have those two AVR extended mags on your BV -- but it's gonna cost you the ability to carry much of anything else." Now, if one was using a more-conventional hand-weapon like a Rifle or Shotgun, those spare mags are just at the 2-lb. level.

But since alt-enc didn't exist at the time of _ADQ 1/2_, "the plumage don't enter into it". :)
__________________
"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 01-09-2020, 06:07 AM   #18
Racer
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London, UK
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

Think it's time Uncle Albert starts offering 'Battle Trenchcoats' - possibly Armoured - to provide Pedestrians with a whole new range of options in Grenade , Magazine , Sword & Pipe Bomb carrying ... ;-)

Will also give a 'certain' player the chance to be mistaken for a flasher in game , as well as in real life ...
( *bad racer* *bad racer* )
__________________
Five Gauss Guns on a Camper !!!
The Resident Brit .
Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 06:37 AM   #19
swordtart
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

Just for laugh, how about carrying (well lugging) a HAVR. The normal magazines weight 6lb each. Extended ones a whopping 9lb.

The alt enc ABV is only marginally more effective in this regard than a simple pouch which weighs far less.

Of course as a pillion rider, you can carry a backpack, BA, ABV, 6 pouches and 2 slung weapons (which could each be an extended mag HAVR with scope and UGL) and take up ZERO space on a bike ;)

EDIT: Oh my lord, how could I forget that you don't even need a holster for a no-handed item so we can add a gas mask, goggles (IR for preference then we can use an IR laser scope and add a suppressor to the HAVR and get sustained fire without the enemy noticing), fireproof suit and body armour with helmet cam. Of course I can save 6 lb by fitting folding stocks to the HAVRs.

Hmmm, so I can theoretically carry the max 200 lb of equipment, and staggering 1 space every other turn and fit it all in zero spaces. On the upside I can lie up in cover and fire off 160 rounds of D6+3 and 30 grenades with a fair chance of success at sensible ranges.

JOY!!

Last edited by swordtart; 01-09-2020 at 01:36 PM. Reason: I got silly
swordtart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2020, 02:28 PM   #20
43Supporter
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: Odd Designs: The "Tail-End-Charlie" Cycle

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Just for laugh, how about carrying (well lugging) a HAVR. The normal magazines weight 6lb each. Extended ones a whopping 9lb.
I hate to tell you this, but: When I was with NOVA, a HAVR *was* my go-to hand weapon... >:)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
Of course as a pillion rider, you can carry a backpack, BA, ABV, 6 pouches and 2 slung weapons (which could each be an extended mag HAVR with scope and UGL) and take up ZERO space on a bike ;)
There's another "oddball" cycle-with-sidecar design like this in "Grand Theft Autoduel" -- the cycle component has a 1-sp./320-lb. cargo area on it (the "main guns", a pair of linked MGs with 10 shots each, are on the sidecar), which is enough for *two* passengers -- one in the cargo space, one "on the rat-trap". :)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swordtart View Post
EDIT: Oh my lord, how could I forget that you don't even need a holster for a no-handed item so we can add a gas mask, goggles (IR for preference then we can use an IR laser scope and add a suppressor to the HAVR and get sustained fire without the enemy noticing), fireproof suit and body armour with helmet cam. Of course I can save 6 lb by fitting folding stocks to the HAVRs.
Yup -- my tendency to have my duelcar's driver well-enough-outfitted to take on a Division 5 car is what finally got me thrown out of NOVA.... (Apparently, they didn't take kindly to the idea of me winning a duel by blasting a crew out of their now-crippled car.)
__________________
"Dale *who*?"

The Jeremy Clarkson Debate Course:
1) I'm Right. 2) You're Wrong. 3) The End.
43Supporter 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 11:25 AM.


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