i think it sounds interesting and fun.  have a few things to bring up.
1) would this be like mad max style? where the field is mostly a mass of cars with side to side jockeying and a bit of front to back movement.
2) would the focus be on car to car combat (a la twisted metal) or person to person combat on the cars (mad max again)

i`d love to see a new car combat game. its the genre of gaming i started with, it being CarWars of course. but the enevitable always happens the rules become to encumbered, you spend more time trying to make the perfect car than ya do playing.
  i tried the new rules, they`re fun fast, but still having to account for speed, turning hazards, etc. etc. . its all still just to much.
  im trying to come up with some working guide lines using Dream Pod 9
Silhouette Engine, and construction rules, but i need to come up with a detailed crash table, spin, flip, skid stuff.
  as far as the back ground stuff, i say arena combat, the open highway/streets thing can get a little daunting moving  the board from back to front, and nothing really changes until the near end of the battle.
arenas can be made different every time you play, from dirt to concrete
and even npc spectator particapation or speed traps, if you go to slow,the arenas  guns automaticlly target and fire on you

   any way im rambling, theres my two cents.
   
                      Tommy.

I'd prefer to see a system where you could play it on any surface:
i.e. highway, arena, or over several city blocks. I've got a number
of Matchbox cars, and several sets of the old GW game Dark Future,
along with a LOT of the pedestrians, that are just screaming for a
good system. Several times I've started trying to design such a
game, but always seem to get stuck on the same thing: whether the
game should be fast playing enough to allow players to control
multiple cars, pedestrians, etc. (which would mean fairly
streamlined maneuvering and damage systems), or whether the system
should be more detailed (which would limit the players to a few cars
or pedestrians. And I just can't seem to reach any kind of decision.
So it hasn't gotten done yet.

Kevin
__________________________________________________________-

One vote for the 'open road'.  

I'm leaning towards the ability to control multiple cars/ peds myself.  Fast playing enough to keep the attention span...yet enough shoot 'em up to be grimly satisfying. *chuckles*

maneuver system will be detailed...or rather, a given vehicle type will have a set of maneuvers available to it (all I'll say on it for now...but that's not the whole of things )...the key of course is the die mechanic I'm working up.

There will be different vehicle types...complete with hard points and such similar to wardogs.

Combat will be a bit different however though I'm going to try to keep the open weapon design included.  "contests" will range through several scenario types.  Full out combat...objectives...who can get the highest point total...Demolition (and I'm not talking JUST the cars! :twisted: ), etc.

For now it's going down as just sketchy notes...until I get Wardogs full up and running.

Well, since I'm the one who originally brought up the topic I guess I'll throw out a few opinions.

For starters, I think we should go with d10s. They're getting to the point where they're almost as common, and allow more "granularity," for lack of a better word.
A maneuver rating is fine, as long as it's a universal modifier that's added to all maneuvering rolls. I think I'd stay away from a maneuver chart for vehicle types, and maybe think about assigning "safe" speeds to various maneuvers. The reason for this is to not artificially limit what  player can attempt. For example, if someone driving a tractor-trailer wants to attempt a bootlegger that's fine. More than likely it won't be successful, but let's not restrict a player from attempting it because that maneuver doesn't show up on a maneuver chart for the tractor-trailer.
The idea of hard points is fine. Dark Future uses it and it works.
You didn't mention anything about this, but for movement I'd like to stay away from plotted movement if possible. I'd like to come up with some sort of initiative system where when it's time for a vehicle or pedestrian group to activate they do so. It'll take some thought but I'm sure we can come up with something that works.
For damage allocation, we can probably go several directions. I guess I'd prefer to see a system where it's possible for a vehicle to still have most of it's systems functional after massive damage in one game, while in another game it might have all of it's weapons disabled after just a few hits in another. In other words, I'd prefer not to see the damage allocation be predictable. A good example of predictability is Silent Death. The damage tracks are cool, but a given fighter always takes damage in exactly the same way.
More later.
Kevin

Actually, what I'm envisioning is a universal set of maneuvers available to every vehicle. each maneuver would then have a safe speed.
Something similar to the following:

Maneuver      Spd(mph)    Effect
Drift                    80    ½ base width slide left or right
Steep drift                    50    Up to one base width slide left or right
45 deg turn    50    Up to 45 degree turn left or right
90 deg turn    20    Up to 90 degree turn left or right
135 deg turn    10    Up to 135 degree turn left or right
Bootlegger                    (1)    180 degree turn
Donut                    0 (2)    Turn to any facing
Brake slam    (3)    Stops vehicle

(1) The bootlegger reverse is a special maneuver that results in the vehicle facing 180 degrees opposite the direction of travel before the maneuver. It may only be attempted when a vehicle is traveling between 30 – 50 mph.
    
(2) A donut is simply a car spinning in place to face a new direction. It may only be attempted when a vehicle has come to a stop, and is automatically successful.

(3) A brake slam is an emergency action, is only attempted when a car wants to come to a complete stop in a hurry. As such, it may be attempted by a vehicle traveling at any speed.

Now, these safe speeds may be influenced by the type of road surface, etc., in the form of basic modifiers to a maneuver test. But the safe speed for each maneuver would be independent of the vehicle attempting the maneuver. Where the differences of each vehicle type would come into play is with a maneuver rating. So your basic motorcycle would have a much "better" maneuver rating than our loveable tractor-trailer.

Kevin

Okay, so while I'm on a roll, I'll take it one step farther.
All of the following is purely hypothetical, so don't get let any suspect numbers throw you off.
And I don't know anything yet about your 3dx system, so I'll make some assumptions.
For funsies, let's go one step "better" than a fixed die system (3dx), and assume an xd10 system. Vehicles get a number of maneuvering dice equal to xd10, where "x" can range from 1 to 5. These dice are rolled when attempting a maneuver at above the safe speed. For example, using the speeds from the post above, a sedan is traveling at 60 mph and wants to attempt a steep drift (safe speed 50mph). This necessitates a maneuvering test. All tests have a base 6+ target number, with one success is generally enough to pass a test. So if you're rolling one d10, you've got a 50% chance of successfully attempting the maneuver.
Modifiers to a control test might add to the number of successes that must be rolled in order to successfully make a maneuver. For example, for a steep drift, the speeds might be as follows:

I'll assume increments of 10 mph for units of movement...
50 mph or less = automatic pass
60 mph = one success required
70 to 80 mph = two successes required
90 to 110 mph = three successes required
120 to 150 mph = four successes required
160+ = automatic crash

So let's say our sedan has 3d10 for its maneuvering dice, is traveling at 70 mph, and wants to steep drift. That is 20 mph over the safe speed, which necessitates a maneuver test with two successes. The dice are rolled, with one success coming up, meaning the sedan has failed by one success.
Now let's look at the consequences...
I propose some sort of step reduction for control: for starters how about in control, partial control, shaky control, and lost control (skidding or spinning). I've shamelessly borrowed this from my racing game.

So from the above example, the sedan has lost one step of control, and is now in partial control. this has no effect other than being closer to a lost control status. And each maneuver attempted at above the safe speeds will necessitate a maneuver test, which puts a vehicle at risk.
this control can be regained to some degree at the end of each turn.
To further customize vehicle ability, the base target number 6+ could vary from vehicle to vehicle. So a cycle might have 4d10, with a target number of 5+. This would represent an extremely maneuverable vehicle.
These are just some initial thoughts.
Kevin

I thought about having a dice pool also.
And I'm definitely in favor of trying that.
I just didn't know if others would think that'd be too fiddly.
Although another way you could do this is have the vehicle have a maneuver value, which sets the target number for maneuver tests. So the lower the number the better.
Then on top of that you could have your pool of d10s, which represent the driver's ability over a turn's worth of time. So a 1d10 driver isn't going to be able to attempt nearly as many maneuvers (like all of 1 ), or be certain of successfully completing that maneuver, as say a 4d10 or 5d10 driver.
The idea then would be that that pool refreshes at the start of each turn.
But again, it boils down to whether or not you want to track dice expenditure for each vehicle over a turn.
I don't have a problem with that, especially if the design intent is to have players running from 1 to 3 or 4 vehicles.
But others might see it as fiddly.
Kevin

How about Side Swipe as a working title?
I came up with this a year or so ago. I'm not set on it by any means, but thought it'd be nice to have something in place so we don't have to refer to the game as "the stupid Car Wars game."

I did a few calculations a while back, and thought the following might work for game scale.
I was assuming Matchbox or Hot Wheels scale for cars, although you could certainly use Micro Machines.
If we assume Matchbox or Hot Wheels are being used, they're roughly 1/64 scale. This means that one inch on the tabletop equals approximately fifteen feet. If we use two second game turns, this means that a movement of one inch would be equivalent to 5 miles per hour.
Or a vehicle traveling at 60 mph would move 12 inches.
I think this scales nicely for most player's tables. My guess is that for a lot of scenarios the speeds will actually be slower than this, and so movement distances will be shorter. I'm guessing that combat speeds would really be more in the 20 to 40 mph range for most urban (non-highway) scenarios.
Any thoughts on the above?
Kevin

The only problem I see with 5 second turns (and trying to keep the game *somewhat* scaled correctly, is that the movement rates get pretty large. A speed of 60 mph, again assuming my numbers are correct, would equate to 30 inches of movement. And 150 mph would equate to a movment of 75 inches.
Or basically one pass on a normal table.

I don't have a problem with longer turns, but I would like to keep the game in the ballpark of being realistically scaled.
Kevin

--snip --And 150 mph would equate to a movment of 75 inches.
Or basically one pass on a normal table.

I don't have a problem with longer turns, but I would like to keep the game in the ballpark of being realistically scaled.
Kevin[/quote]

What about having a smaller scaled map to the side, and then a combat map?

You can plot the movement of the cars over a wider area, and use the rest of the table top for the times when the cars are actually in proximity to each other.

That would give you the bst of both worlds maybe....as well as that maze-running aspect of going through the city streets a la Twisted Metal.

Just a casual interjection.

JP

Man, you two have been busy.  I'm out of the conversation for a few days and blam... 

First off, I like the name.  Side Swipe is nice and simple.

Second, instead of a stated distance, I would use 'units' since it could be scaled for the include 1 inch counters, 1.5 inch scale micromachines or 3 inch matchbox cars.  Personally, I would make one unit of the game equal one half of the car and let the players decide the 'scale' they'll use (why re-invent the wheel here).

My idea for maneuvers was to make a list of 'acceptable maneuvers' that a vehicle can perform in a turn/round/whatever.  Then have each vehicle have a maneuver rating.  That number would be the safe number of maneuvers for speeds less than 30 mph.  For every 20 mph over 30 mph, the vehicle would have one less safe maneuver to spend (“excessive” amounts of damage would also be a way to lose maneuvers).  For every maneuver performed after the ‘safe' ones were spent, the player would have to roll a control check with failure being some nasty results.

For example, lets say we have a sports car design that has 6 safe maneuvers.  If the car was going between 0 and 30 mph, it could perform 6 maneuvers without the need to make a check (a car must move straight at least 1 car length before a new maneuver can be done).  If that same car was going 110 mph it could perform 2 maneuvers before making a check

Control checks...  I think that the best way would be the divide the speed by 10 and that is the needed value on a d10 to stay in control (If that sports cars need to make a check, it has a problem).  If the check fails, the amount failed by would be what occurs.  Driver skill could modify the die result (how the sports car could survive).

Thoughts.
-Bren