Convoy question

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by xavilongo

He did not have the time to do this. We destroyed his rear while he was vainly trying to hit our tires.

Like a say, it's a poorly thought out encounter.

We scragged him as I forgot the night penalty and I had a gunner +3 with +2 computer firing several pairs of linked Vulcans (my escort was a flatbed truck). Even with the night penalty we had a fair chance of hitting him with at least one gun.

He did exactly as 43 suggested and thus was unable to hide behind his paint. After he made the first 45 (D3), as he needed to be doing over 60 to stay in front only 3 inches later he needed to make another D3 just to straighten. It was just as he reached here that a couple of bursts hit him for some damage but more importantly another D3 hazard, he minor fishtailed onto his own oil and mines (and the shoulder if memory) and was at -6 HS before phase 5. He never recovered and rolled soon after (maybe whilst straightening out the fishtail) over the mines and oil still spewing from his side mounts which were still on auto. It got messy really quick.

We had plenty of space to stop before we even reached his mines and could clear them by hand to continue. I don't think there was anything left to salvage.

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

He did exactly as 43 suggested and thus was unable to hide behind his paint.

You're partially correct -- the design is Not Good.

For one: Running the numbers, it appears the MDs and OJs on the sides *aren't* linked to begin with....

For another: As noted, the one PS isn't in a position to do any good against attack from anywhere except due aft. I'd swap the side OJs for PSs; add an OJ B; drop 10 pts. armor to keep it under weight; and link all the DWs. Someone hits the mines, there's the Oil as well to deal with.

[swordtart]

One of the problems of trying to run contemporaneously is that the version control is so difficult.

We ran the encounter using 2.5 rules.

Convoy suggests that Truck Stop is optional. Checking Truck Stop I notice this is where side mounted droppers were first permitted (previously DW could only be mounted on the back). Interestingly oil was originally laid out perpendicular (rather than the current parallel configuration). Also a vehicle had to be going faster than 30 or it would trigger its own ordinance.

I note that the vehicle has side mounted DW and so requires the use of Truck Stop or the vehicle design is illegal anyway. If you were using 3rd edition you will get a very different play experience than if you ran it with Truck Stop vs running it with B&W Deluxe (the version I started out with) vs running it with compendium 2.5 vs 2.5 with UACFH "corrections".

This is the main reason I prefer to run with the current rule set, assume the designs are legal and just get on with it. This also means the player can use designs from the existing campaign rather than having to try to find obsolete rule sets or reverse engineer everything.

The point of a published scenario is to reduce the work on the referee, not increase it (and if you are playing it solitaire and need to tune the baddies it is harder to remain neutral). CW takes long enough without having to re-engineer every design in the book just to see if it is correct to your rules (or even the rules it was theoretically designed against).

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

You're partially correct -- the design is Not Good.

For one: Running the numbers, it appears the MDs and OJs on the sides *aren't* linked to begin with....

For another: As noted, the one PS isn't in a position to do any good against attack from anywhere except due aft. I'd swap the side OJs for PSs; add an OJ B; drop 10 pts. armor to keep it under weight; and link all the DWs. Someone hits the mines, there's the Oil as well to deal with.

Side PS wont help as it is dropped when you move so half your counter is out of the cloud. I have never found difficulty tracing LOS in a stern chase to that part of the counter. A PS front corner might do it, but for that you need to be using the latest rules.

And what do you mean by partially correct? I don't recall you being there ;) My post was 100% correct. Your mileage may vary, but then it often does.

The attack vector is wrong for the design. The better tactic is once past, brake hard, start coating and drift (or D1 bend) across your opponents path. That gives the best chance of keeping paint between you and the opponent, reduces their opportunity to stop (and avoid connecting with any of your DWs), gives you point blank on your direct weapon and and means you don't run out of HS as you cross the road and take the inevitable return fire.

A lone DW vehicle crossing at 45 might work in checkpoint track events as there is no option to stop - even then I am doubtful despite 43's unswerving faith in the "checkerboard of doom". On stern chases where the opponent can stop and shoot you from range, drive on the shoulder or pick the least coated path through at low speed it is ineffective. Where it might work is when you have support (such as hidden infantry) because the minefield is performing it traditional role of shepherding the target where you prefer to engage it (i.e. moving slowly so you can shoot out it's tires with handguns).

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

And what do you mean by partially correct?

You wrote "the encounter is poorly thought-out"; from this chair: It's not the encounter which is poorly thought-out, it's the vehicle design used in the encounter. Hence my suggestion for a somewhat-better design for the encounter.

Originally Posted by swordtart

The attack vector is wrong for the design. The better tactic is once past, brake hard, start coating and drift (or D1 bend) across your opponents path. That gives the best chance of keeping paint between you and the opponent, reduces their opportunity to stop (and avoid connecting with any of your DWs), gives you point blank on your direct weapon and and means you don't run out of HS as you cross the road and take the inevitable return fire.

Indeed -- I'd go with the bend rather than the drift, to make sure I don't get tripped up by my own DWs.

Originally Posted by swordtart

A lone DW vehicle crossing at 45 might work in checkpoint track events as there is no option to stop - even then I am doubtful despite 43's unswerving faith in the "checkerboard of doom". On stern chases where the opponent can stop and shoot you from range, drive on the shoulder or pick the least coated path through at low speed it is ineffective. Where it might work is when you have support (such as hidden infantry) because the minefield is performing it traditional role of shepherding the target where you prefer to engage it (i.e. moving slowly so you can shoot out it's tires with handguns).

As long as I've been playing, the "checkerboard of doom" has stood me in good stead -- minimum two 1-4 detonation rolls, plus however many 1-2s.... (I really need to get a website up; "CoD" is very much a "show, rather than tell" piece.) And it's definitely a "supporting player"; maybe 98% of my kills have been direct-fire, but there's that 2% which weren't. :)

[swordtart]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

You wrote "the encounter is poorly thought-out"; from this chair: It's not the encounter which is poorly thought-out, it's the vehicle design used in the encounter. Hence my suggestion for a somewhat-better design for the encounter.

Ah. I was treating the "encounter" holistically i.e. covering the vehicle, the specified tactic, the environment and the intended outcome (which is set out in the designers notes at the back of the book) etc.

The specified tactic could work with a different vehicle, the vehicle could work with a different tactic, vehicle and tactic could work if the circumstances were different (not at night, against a different opponent or a different stage in the scenario - say after damage to the convoy from an earlier encounter) etc.

So the "encounter" is poorly thought out as all those elements need to gel for it to produce the intended outcome (to cripple one of the convoy vehicles so it can be stripped by the rest of the gang when the convoy abandons it).

What we don't really see is any indication of how the encounter is supposed to fit into the whole story (i.e. if it is there as a nuisance, an opportunity for loot or whether the loss of a vehicle is supposed to be a real possibility). We are told what the planned outcome is from the NPC viewpoint, but not what it is from the scenario designers viewpoint. That would be far more helpful as the stated aim of the designers notes at the back is to generate material for SJG to produce further products of that type (since they didn't we must assume that it wasn't that successful in that respect).

[43Supporter]

Originally Posted by swordtart

What we don't really see is any indication of how the encounter is supposed to fit into the whole story (i.e. if it is there as a nuisance, an opportunity for loot or whether the loss of a vehicle is supposed to be a real possibility). We are told what the planned outcome is from the NPC viewpoint, but not what it is from the scenario designers viewpoint. That would be far more helpful as the stated aim of the designers notes at the back is to generate material for SJG to produce further products of that type (since they didn't we must assume that it wasn't that successful in that respect).

No disagreements here.

[swordtart]

With the power of the internet we now have the option of "enhanced reality". Whilst everyone else is obsessing about pokemon go and the like those of us of a more venerable demeanour can still have some fun.

I had a quick look at google maps (the satellite image) at the Western Kentucky Parkway 10 miles from the cloverleaf junction south of Elizabethtown.

The highway there is 2 lane. There is actually a rig being overtaken by a car on the image. To the south (beyond the other lane) there is a business called Modocks 24 hour road service.

This delightfully serendipitous configuration gives us a way of extending the scenario beyond that which was possible when it was written in the 80's. Now the positioning all makes perfect sense.

Grabbers accomplices are based out of the former Modocks close enough to salvage wrecks but far enough away and out of sight that they can claim to be unconnected. They don't get involved personally and have paid the grabber in gold to "generate some custom". They can claim they just heard the fight and claim salvage on any wrecks (including the Grabber if he loses).

They are a 24 hour operation so a night attack is as good an option as any. They probably have a spotter in the ditch to keep an eye on things but no more. If a car wrecks and is abandoned the lights of the garage just visible through the trees would be a perfect beacon to the stranded motorist.

The 10 yard median is currently fairly well kept (though there looks to be quite a dip and the ground there is liable to be marshy - given the prevalent weather at the time the scenario is set). By 2030's it will likely be a lot more scrubby (small trees that you would prefer to have a brush cutter to deal with). It wouldn't be difficult to cross from one carriageway to the other under normal circumstances but it will be more of a problem in combat or at speed. The west bound lanes are bordered by a low rocky outcrop at this point and thus there is no-where to go off that shoulder (basically it would be a collision with an immoveable object with infinite DPs). However at this point in the road the rocks that have been bordering the road on the eastbound lanes gives way to a treeline and a ditch. You can see a point where a car could be gingerly manoeuvred off-road here over the fields to the parallel Star Mills road (and thence to the garage).

If the wreckers are lucky, you will only have lost a wheel, minimal damage (and maximum salvage value) but effectively making your vehicle un-useable - you might be able to limp out of the arena with one wheel down, but driving 10 miles back to Elizabethtown is impractical. In the times I have run this people have seldom considered a spare tire to be worth the effort.

We can only assume the relationship between Grabber and his accomplices is casual and neither are that bothered about the welfare of the other.

[xavilongo]

Originally Posted by swordtart

I had a quick look at google maps (the satellite image) at the Western Kentucky Parkway 10 miles from the cloverleaf junction south of Elizabethtown.

The highway there is 2 lane (...)

Good point. I have checked googlemaps and it seems that currently every road on the map is 2-lane except Interstate 65 and the last 40 miles of Interstate 64 from Lexington to Louisville, that are 3-lane. Besides, Road 231 is just 1-lane in each direction of travel.

[swordtart]

The preference for three lanes by default in the scenario is a gaming one rather than a reflection of reality (we try to to that as little as possible in CW). Three lanes gives a bit more space for turning around (though that only happened once in all the highway scenarios I have played).

Of course the default highway map provided with the game is three lane, so this may also be a contributory factor.