Car Wars / Road Warrior

[jygro]

Conversationally...

I think it's gonna be cleaner to have a list of maneuvers that players can choose from rather than assign them to the vehicles. Any vehicle can attempt any manuever, but it's going to be up to the skill of the driver and the maneuverability of the vehicle itself that is gonna determine success or not...as modified by by speed of course.

When I said 'acceptable list' of maneuvers, I was talking that all vehicles would have a list of manuevers available that cost 1 (or 2) maneuver points (turn, slide slip, bootlegger etc) and not saying that all vehicles would have their own list.

I was envisioning a way to make all manuevers cost the same for all vehicles at 30 mph and have the speed add MP to the cost. For example, lets say the following are a list of manuevers that any vehicle can take:

Turn (45 degrees): 1 MP
Tight Turn (90 degrees): 2 MP
Drift (0.5 car length): 1 MP
Bootlegger: 2 MP*
Braking: 1 MP

Now, when a vehicle wants to perform a manuever it cost the above MP plus 1 for every 20 mph over 30.

So, a sports car with 7 Manuever points (MP) going 70 mph wants to try a tight turn, looking at the chart of manuevers, it would cost a total of 4 MP (2 for the manuever and 2 more for going 70 mph). Since the sports car has 5 MP, the manuever is completed successfully. Now the same car needs to perform a drift to get out of the way of a wall. This would cost 3 MP (1 for the manuverm, again 2 for speed). It still has 3 MP left so it performs the drift with no problems. Now if the car has to perform an additional manuever, it will have to make a control check since it is at 0 MPs.

Second example: Lets say a Jeep with only 4 MP is going 50 mph, to get a shot on a car, it will need to make a couple of manuevers, the first is a turn costing 2 MP (1 + 1 for speed), It then performs a drift (also costing 2) and finally a turn. the Jeep has no more MP to spend, so after announcing the manuever, it rolls a control check to see if it stays in control.

Now, the number of MP that are returned at the beginning of the game round are equal to the driver's skill. So using all your MP in a game round for a highly manueverable car doesn't bring you back to full. It depends who is behind the wheel.

Did I clear things up?
-Bren

[middenface]

On a different note.

I have some cracking Matchbox/Hotwheels/Other cars I have converted.
Added guns, ramplates, extra armour etc I would love to show and tell.
Cracking mustang with a 30 cal on side etc.. Some Tamiya Ertl military stuff fits ok on them..

Sold some on ebay. Sold quite well. Still got some left.

Awkward thing is bikes... None really at that scale, I have one dark future street fighter style bike and thats it. You can still find DF stuff on ebay.

Now if some one knows an easy way and I can show you fellers them let me know!

You will be glad to know at least one person this side of the atlantic is into the whole Road Warrior idea

[underling]

When I said 'acceptable list' of maneuvers, I was talking that all vehicles would have a list of manuevers available that cost 1 (or 2) maneuver points (turn, slide slip, bootlegger etc) and not saying that all vehicles would have their own list.

Gotcha...

I was envisioning a way to make all manuevers cost the same for all vehicles at 30 mph and have the speed add MP to the cost. For example, lets say the following are a list of manuevers that any vehicle can take:
Turn (45 degrees): 1 MP
Tight Turn (90 degrees): 2 MP
Drift (0.5 car length): 1 MP
Bootlegger: 2 MP*
Braking: 1 MP
Now, when a vehicle wants to perform a manuever it cost the above MP plus 1 for every 20 mph over 30.
So, a sports car with 7 Manuever points (MP) going 70 mph wants to try a tight turn, looking at the chart of manuevers, it would cost a total of 4 MP (2 for the manuever and 2 more for going 70 mph). Since the sports car has 5 MP, the manuever is completed successfully. Now the same car needs to perform a drift to get out of the way of a wall. This would cost 3 MP (1 for the manuverm, again 2 for speed). It still has 3 MP left so it performs the drift with no problems. Now if the car has to perform an additional manuever, it will have to make a control check since it is at 0 MPs.
Now, the number of MP that are returned at the beginning of the game round are equal to the driver's skill. So using all your MP in a game round for a highly manueverable car doesn't bring you back to full. It depends who is behind the wheel.
Did I clear things up?
-Bren

The above helped.
I guess one (potential) problem I can see with this is that a vehicle/driver with a lot of maneuver points could conceivably execute a maneuver at a very high speed by sapending a lot of maneuver points and not fail. Now this might be in the spirit of the game.
But in my way of thinking, for any maneuver there's got to be some speed at which it's going to be alomost impossible to execute it, no matter how maneuverable or good the driver is.
For example, you typically think of a bootlegger reverse is being executed at speeds from say 20 mph to 50 mph. At speeds much faster than 50 mph a vehicle will probably roll, no matter how maneuverable it is. Or how good the driver is for that matter.
In using your suggestion, a vehicle could simply burn the maneuver points and be impervious to failing the maneuver. I really believe each maneuver should have a "safe" speed, and some kind of test should be taken when trying to execute a maneuver above that safe speed.
Kevin

[go0gleplex]

My thinking is to not use points at all if possible. A vehicle may move so many 'units' at a scale speed per se...and as Kevin said...attempt whatever manuever the driver may wish with a simple die roll test. In using the 5d10 system, a Bootlegger for a corvette at 80 mph may only be a 3/7 test whereas the same manuever for a tractor trailer is obviously going to be a 5/10 test. (the first number is the number of the second number needed to equal or exceed on the roll)

[Ironchicken]

To get your juices going if you have not seen them before try... http://www.stanjohansenminiatures.com/Road.htm and

http://www.stanjohansenminiatures.com/Road%20cars.htm

These are minis, bikers and bolt on bits designed to be used with hotwheel type cars.

[go0gleplex]

I like the car conversions...neat stuff. Some good info Iron.

[Ironchicken]

I have lurked on this thread with interest. I like a lot of the ideas. Generally car games lack the flavour of driving. CarWars never felt like you were driving a car, it was too robotic. I think you have some gems of ideas here.

I am going to try and dig out the stuff I was doing a few years ago (little more than a load of principles) and build on some of the excellent stuff suggested above. Hopefully crystalising some of the ideas swimming around in my head into a sensible structure.

[go0gleplex]

Just to throw additional subject matter into the discussion...

I'm thinking for combat there will need to be two rolls made. The first is for the hit...the second to see if damage is inflicted. Ignoring the 'to hit' mechanic for the moment (another 5d10 mag./target roll I'm thinkin)...

I see the Armor Rating being the actual target number needed to beat in order to inflict actual system damage. Something along the lines of what I'm doing with Wardogs. If you manage to hit the target, any roll equaling the armor rating will do -1 damage to the armor rating. Any roll exceeding the armor rating will do -1 damage to armor as well as gain a systems damage roll. To me this seems to show armor as protective, yet itself subject to damage in stopping more serious damage.

For weapons damage scale...examples (subject to changes )...

small arms= d4
shotguns, assault weapons= d6
mini-guns, machine guns, RPGs= d8
20mm cannon, LAWs, 10mm rockets= d10
50mm recoiless, Dragon Anti-armor missiles, etc.= d12

I seriously don't see anything short of an armored car mounting something like a 88mm cannon or such.

[Ironchicken]

Just to throw additional subject matter into the discussion...

I'm thinking for combat there will need to be two rolls made. The first is for the hit...the second to see if damage is inflicted. Ignoring the 'to hit' mechanic for the moment (another 5d10 mag./target roll I'm thinkin)...

I see the Armor Rating being the actual target number needed to beat in order to inflict actual system damage. Something along the lines of what I'm doing with Wardogs. If you manage to hit the target, any roll equaling the armor rating will do -1 damage to the armor rating. Any roll exceeding the armor rating will do -1 damage to armor as well as gain a systems damage roll. To me this seems to show armor as protective, yet itself subject to damage in stopping more serious damage.

For weapons damage scale...examples (subject to changes )...

small arms= d4
shotguns, assault weapons= d6
mini-guns, machine guns, RPGs= d8
20mm cannon, LAWs, 10mm rockets= d10
50mm recoiless, Dragon Anti-armor missiles, etc.= d12

I seriously don't see anything short of an armored car mounting something like a 88mm cannon or such.

That was one of my fundermental questions... Is the aim carwars2 with a broad range of weapons upto and including light cannon as suggested above or road-warrior esk game with lighter weapons and defenses (pipe bombs, harpoons, shotguns etc)? I think in terms of mechanics it makes little difference except in a scaler form. It is a question of flavour tho'.

[go0gleplex]

The goal is to be able to do either one... harpoons and pipe bombs can be added in easily enough, it's just a matter of 'scale' after all. So a harpoon may be a d4 where as the pipe bomb a d8....then again, we might just go an open weapon design system too. It's all up for discussion after all yet.

[underling]

I have lurked on this thread with interest. I like a lot of the ideas. Generally car games lack the flavour of driving. CarWars never felt like you were driving a car, it was too robotic. I think you have some gems of ideas here.

Well hopefully we'll end up with a system where there's enough detail so that you'll feel like you're maneuvering a vehicle, but not so much detail that you can't run several vehicles in a reasonable amount of time.

I am going to try and dig out the stuff I was doing a few years ago (little more than a load of principles) and build on some of the excellent stuff suggested above. Hopefully crystalising some of the ideas swimming around in my head into a sensible structure.

Dig 'em out.
The more input we have the better off the rules will be.

Kevin

[go0gleplex]

Definitely!!!

Next question...should we shoot for a set period post-apocalypse/ crashing society background or work for a generic sort of approach?

[thedugan]

For what it's worth, the whole 'post appocalypse' thing has been overdone, and beisdes, I hate it. It's just a cop out to justify something in most cases...

[underling]

Next question...should we shoot for a set period post-apocalypse/ crashing society background or work for a generic sort of approach?

I play, and have played, a ton of different minitaures games. And to be honest, in most of them, if not all of them, I haven't really paid much attention to the background or fluff.
I'm just not much of a background or fluff guy.
So the short answer is I don't care.

Anything's fine with me.
Kevin

[Ironchicken]

first go...

http://www.ironchicken.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sideswipe.doc