I'm thinking along the lines of what some of my ex's buddies did when modifying cars...mid mounting engines, forward driver's seat, etc.   Even the nitrous blowers...(ever seen a mustang melt it's own tires? *chuckles*)

Each car type has so much space in each portion of the vehicle...so I was thinking of something that would really allow customization of that space.  If we go with so many hard points in the right front fender or in the trunk...it's going to limit the number of builds possible IMO. 

Maybe we use a volume type base, similar to Starship 2300...though simplify it to a grid.  502 8-cyl. takes up 16 spaces...driver compartment is 20 spaces...30mm recoiless rifle and auto-feeder takes up 30 spaces....(just to toss stuff out for discussion)

True, although I was thinking of the hard points being more for just weapons.
Hard points would be above and beyond what a vehicle could carry as far as "internal" equipment.

This also makes sense, and probably more resembles what Car Wars does. Although if I'm remembering correctly CW uses weight in lieu of volume. But the effect is the same.
Kevin

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

Gotcha...

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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

Kevin

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...

first go...

http://www.ironchicken.pwp.blueyonder.c … eswipe.doc

I tried to keep it simple. Due to granuality in things like speed I kept to a simple 'units'. I tend to use the route of getting a set of mechanics that plays and then refine.

Yes, skidding is too simple at the moment but should be playable.

Take care when trying to develop an acceleration formulae. The variables are so wide. Its not a horsepower V weight thing.

One of the reasons I have never been all that satisfied with the feel of carwars type games is that I raced for about 10 years. I stopped when I started a family. My last car weighed about 650kg and had 121BHP at the wheels. 0-60 was about 5.2 to 5.6. All from a 1950's design 1.3 single cam engine.

<IMG src="http://www.ironchicken.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/crisincar.jpg"></IMG>

IC

I'll trust you 8)

Without knowing your background I could just see the HP/weight*factor type formula coming out. Which tends to be rubbish. I tend to go for the impirical (SP) feels right approach and then argue the point on the boarderline.

Part of it relies upon the style of game. I lean towards a simple and fun game that has the right feel even if not necessarily accurate (Cararmada?). I am also of the camp of get something bashed together that can be played to prove the principles are right and then prioritise where effort is needed on refinements.