Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

The specific and recent overrules the general and older.
But yea, that what I was trying to get out with Skill Rank requirements, which I poorly worded.
A G racing bike should have high agility, but a nascent user shouldnt be able to use it well. A steam train is a wall of gauges and levers all of which are unlabled.
And right now, the g bike would get high Agility
and the steam train would get a low Agility

And this one stat doesnt make sense for either. A g bike shouldnt become easier to use, bbecause it so fast and turn on a dime.
Yeah that's the thing, isn't it?
I remember when a friend of the family let me drive his Porsche 928 around the block back when I was a fairly new driver. Even though it was an automatic (Yeah, who does that? I mean, never mind, whatever) I was scared to take it past 35 mph.

I'm not supposed to override any rules, just be more specific, and Agility is one where some specificity is necessary. The Agility rating expands the envelope of what the vehicle can do, but not necessarily what the driver can do, and it doesn't necessarily help you deal with what happens when you try to overcorrect from something unwise and end up upside down in a forest (okay, yeah, that was me flipped my car - fortunately it was my car and not anyone else's - and the forest was a better outcome than Lake Superior - cue Gordon Lightfoot... did I do that already in this forum, if so, sorry, must starting to get to the age where I repeat repeat repeat myself)
 
Yeah that's the thing, isn't it?
I remember when a friend of the family let me drive his Porsche 928 around the block back when I was a fairly new driver. Even though it was an automatic (Yeah, who does that? I mean, never mind, whatever) I was scared to take it past 35 mph.

I'm not supposed to override any rules, just be more specific, and Agility is one where some specificity is necessary. The Agility rating expands the envelope of what the vehicle can do, but not necessarily what the driver can do, and it doesn't necessarily help you deal with what happens when you try to overcorrect from something unwise and end up upside down in a forest (okay, yeah, that was me flipped my car - fortunately it was my car and not anyone else's - and the forest was a better outcome than Lake Superior - cue Gordon Lightfoot... did I do that already in this forum, if so, sorry, must starting to get to the age where I repeat repeat repeat myself)
Just make the Agility the Max allowable bonus that you add to a 2D6 roll for the Pilot Check. This works even if it is negative.

Skill + Stat Mod + Misc = Whatever, as long is this number is equal to or lower than the vehicle's Agility. If it is not, lower the bonus to the max Cap of Agility.
 
Just make the Agility the Max allowable bonus that you add to a 2D6 roll for the Pilot Check. This works even if it is negative.

Skill + Stat Mod + Misc = Whatever, as long is this number is equal to or lower than the vehicle's Agility. If it is not, lower the bonus to the max Cap of Agility.
That doesn't work well either, since a basic Agility +1 vehicle can never be better driven than skill level 1, which is is also rather limiting. I'm thinking more of the opposite with only a good pilot getting the maximum squeeze out of Agility than Agility limiting a good pilot, and a good pilot should also be able to overcome bad agility.

Somewhere in the back of my head I'm equating Agility with the Classic Agility for spacecraft, which was what you had to work with for maneuvering in combat (that's not exactly it - so I'm sure I'll be corrected).

I need to read through the Core sections slower, and there are some useful nuggets in there, especially with opposed checks, so sometimes just retyping them prompts the right thoughts.
 
In terms of ranges for naval guns, Wikipedia has a great table with references for all the numbers (see under artillery ranges):


The ranges really take off at the end of the 19th century with more sophisticated rangefinding, but before that, they're amazingly short. Back in the 1700s, you'd probably be able to throw things at the people who were shooting at you.
 
That doesn't work well either, since a basic Agility +1 vehicle can never be better driven than skill level 1, which is is also rather limiting. I'm thinking more of the opposite with only a good pilot getting the maximum squeeze out of Agility than Agility limiting a good pilot, and a good pilot should also be able to overcome bad agility.
Doesn't matter how good of a driver you are if you are driving a brick. It matters a great deal if you are driving a Pod-Racer. Agility is the defining trait. Much easier to ride a bicycle than a unicycle. I would say the unicycle would have the higher agility.

Edit: Consider what you are using as examples of Agility Scores. If a regular ground car is Agility 1, then this won't work. If an Agility 1 vehicle is a tunnelling machine, then it does work. Agility 1 is too low for something like a ground car.
 
In terms of ranges for naval guns, Wikipedia has a great table with references for all the numbers (see under artillery ranges):


The ranges really take off at the end of the 19th century with more sophisticated rangefinding, but before that, they're amazingly short. Back in the 1700s, you'd probably be able to throw things at the people who were shooting at you.
Thanks!
That's really nice and concise there at the end, with usable range definitions, even.
 
How does this sound as a weapons Trait?

Inaccurate​

This weapon is inaccurate, even at relatively short ranges. While its theoretical range may be much further, at 50 metres this weapon is considered at Extreme range and receives DM-4 to hit. At 200 metres, it receives DM-8, and at 800 metres and further, DM-12. Fitting a scope or fire control system will not increase accuracy, and the Aim Minor Action is only usable against a stationary target.
 
How does this sound as a weapons Trait?

Inaccurate​

This weapon is inaccurate, even at relatively short ranges. While its theoretical range may be much further, at 50 metres this weapon is considered at Extreme range and receives DM-4 to hit. At 200 metres, it receives DM-8, and at 800 metres and further, DM-12. Fitting a scope or fire control system will not increase accuracy, and the Aim Minor Action is only usable against a stationary target.
Not bad, but I'm not so sure how I feel about tying the trait directly to hard metre ranges rather than relative to whatever the range of the weapon itself is listed at.

What if instead of all that, Inaccurate simply tripled any DM- from range? I.e. Long Range would now be DM-6 and Extreme Range DM-12. Keep the bit about scopes etc.
 
Not bad, but I'm not so sure how I feel about tying the trait directly to hard metre ranges rather than relative to whatever the range of the weapon itself is listed at.

What if instead of all that, Inaccurate simply tripled any DM- from range? I.e. Long Range would now be DM-6 and Extreme Range DM-12. Keep the bit about scopes etc.
This, I like! :)
 
How does this sound as a weapons Trait?

Inaccurate​

This weapon is inaccurate, even at relatively short ranges. While its theoretical range may be much further, at 50 metres this weapon is considered at Extreme range and receives DM-4 to hit. At 200 metres, it receives DM-8, and at 800 metres and further, DM-12. Fitting a scope or fire control system will not increase accuracy, and the Aim Minor Action is only usable against a stationary target.
Look good for cannons.
 
I think artillery needs something similar. Possibly a minimum range (can’t fire at anything closer than the minimum) and similar disadvantage when targeting a moving target.
 
Inaccurate -X: A weapon with Inaccurate suffers a negative DM to hit when shooting at a target more than 10m distant. This is normally -1 or -2 but could be more in the case of a very ill-made weapon. Smoothbores almost all suffer from Inaccurate, although it is not usually much of a problem at the range where a shotgun might be used.
 
Not bad, but I'm not so sure how I feel about tying the trait directly to hard metre ranges rather than relative to whatever the range of the weapon itself is listed at.

What if instead of all that, Inaccurate simply tripled any DM- from range? I.e. Long Range would now be DM-6 and Extreme Range DM-12. Keep the bit about scopes etc.
Yeah, the problem is the way the Core rules are written: For personal combat:
if Range is greater than 100 metres, then at 100 metres you suddenly drop to Extreme if you have no scope (or 300 or so if you're on a range and nobody is hassling you). So if your weapon has a range of 400 metres, it's no negative DM to 100 metres and then -4 until you get to the end of your range and the fact that you can shoot four times as far as your range number has no effect on accuracy (without a scope).

For vehicles, it adds this:
• All weapons mounted on a closed vehicle may not be used to attack targets within 5% of the weapon’s Range. They are simply not designed to engage close targets.
• Note that unless a vehicle-mounted weapon has the Scope trait (see page 79), all attacks made at a range greater than one kilometre (as opposed
to 100 metres for Travellers shooting on foot) are automatically considered to be Extreme range.


So now, you have the same cliff at 1 km, but nothing before, AND, if your range is 2 km, your minimum range is 100 metres. (so a Napoleonic cannon basically can't shoot at all until it gets far enough out that it misses. ) It also means a Fusion Z gun can't fire at less than 500 metres so... that rule needs some modification, like a constant rather than variable minimum range.
 
Like (okay, this is variable, but it sort of makes sense)
• All weapons mounted on a closed vehicle may not be used to attack targets closer than one metre times the size of the weapon in Spaces, unless mounted on a gun port directly facing the target.
 
Yeah, the problem is the way the Core rules are written: For personal combat:
if Range is greater than 100 metres, then at 100 metres you suddenly drop to Extreme if you have no scope (or 300 or so if you're on a range and nobody is hassling you). So if your weapon has a range of 400 metres, it's no negative DM to 100 metres and then -4 until you get to the end of your range and the fact that you can shoot four times as far as your range number has no effect on accuracy (without a scope).
For vehicles, change meters to kilometers. This won't fix it, but it will help.
For vehicles, it adds this:
• All weapons mounted on a closed vehicle may not be used to attack targets within 5% of the weapon’s Range. They are simply not designed to engage close targets.
• Note that unless a vehicle-mounted weapon has the Scope trait (see page 79), all attacks made at a range greater than one kilometre (as opposed
to 100 metres for Travellers shooting on foot) are automatically considered to be Extreme range.
This makes no sense at all. If they are within the firing arc, they should be able to be hit. You are not going to miss the guy who sticks his head in the cannon because he was too close to it. This whole rule needs scrapped.
So now, you have the same cliff at 1 km, but nothing before, AND, if your range is 2 km, your minimum range is 100 metres. (so a Napoleonic cannon basically can't shoot at all until it gets far enough out that it misses. ) It also means a Fusion Z gun can't fire at less than 500 metres so... that rule needs some modification, like a constant rather than variable minimum range.
Scrapped the whole minimum range rule on direct-fire weapons.
 
Yeah, the problem is the way the Core rules are written: For personal combat:
if Range is greater than 100 metres, then at 100 metres you suddenly drop to Extreme if you have no scope (or 300 or so if you're on a range and nobody is hassling you). So if your weapon has a range of 400 metres, it's no negative DM to 100 metres and then -4 until you get to the end of your range and the fact that you can shoot four times as far as your range number has no effect on accuracy (without a scope).

For vehicles, it adds this:
• All weapons mounted on a closed vehicle may not be used to attack targets within 5% of the weapon’s Range. They are simply not designed to engage close targets.
• Note that unless a vehicle-mounted weapon has the Scope trait (see page 79), all attacks made at a range greater than one kilometre (as opposed
to 100 metres for Travellers shooting on foot) are automatically considered to be Extreme range.


So now, you have the same cliff at 1 km, but nothing before, AND, if your range is 2 km, your minimum range is 100 metres. (so a Napoleonic cannon basically can't shoot at all until it gets far enough out that it misses. ) It also means a Fusion Z gun can't fire at less than 500 metres so... that rule needs some modification, like a constant rather than variable minimum range.
Hm, yeah, I can see how that's a problem.

How would you feel about changing the 5% rule... you all beat me to it. ;)

Now it seems all you'd need to do is adjust the range of each weapon so they can have sensible Normal/Long/Extreme ranges, slap Inaccurate on there for the ones you want to nudge toward salvos/batteries, and you should be just about there I think.
 
I think artillery needs something similar. Possibly a minimum range (can’t fire at anything closer than the minimum) and similar disadvantage when targeting a moving target.
Turn speed of weapons is something to consider maybe. Sailing ships cannon, had no turning. CWIS has wicked fast turning speed.
 
Here is a draft idea for making Agility work better. I will do more with dogfights, but not today... pardon any typos. It's only a draft.


Agility​

A vehicle’s Agility is an indication of how responsive it is to a driver’s commands and how well it can manoeuvre. A high Agility vehicle can change direction quickly and react almost as an extension of the driver’s arms or other limbs. A low Agility vehicle is ponderous, taking a long time to turn or responding slowly to control changes.

High Agility​

A vehicle with high Agility is more forgiving than one with low Agility, but this does not turn a novice into an expert. For vehicle operating tasks, a vehicle’s Agility is a positive DM, but only to the limit of success or to the limit of ability. Agility will act as a DM to avoid failure for most reasonable tasks but will only benefit success to the extent of an operator’s skill.

If an operator has skill and attribute DMs equal or above a vehicle’s agility, then the operator can always take full advantage of a vehicle’s Agility as a positive DM.

If Agility exceeds an operator’s DMs (skill and usually DEX) for operating a vehicle, it provides its full bonus to tasks Difficult (10+) or easier to avoid failure but will only provide as much Agility as the operator’s DMs for the level of success.

For example, Greg has a skill of 1 and no DEX bonus and is attempting a Difficult manoeuvre with an Agility+4 vehicle. He rolls a 7. His DM is +1, leaving him short of success by 2, but the Agility +4 vehicle gains him up to +4 towards a marginal success of 10 using +2 from Agility. Any additional Agility bonus is lost. Had he rolled a 9, he would have received +1 for his DM and still received +1 from the part of Agility he could use, giving him an 11 and Effect +1. If the task had been Very Difficult, he would have received no Agility bonus at all to succeed if he could not succeed by skill and DEX alone, but he still would have received +1 if he had succeeded.

As another example, Beth has a combined skill and DEX DM of +4. Beth will always be able to use the full Agility +4 on the vehicle’s tasks, effectively getting DM+8 on any task check, regardless of success or difficulty. She is quite likely to make Exception Success results, taking full advantage of the capabilities of the vehicle.


Low Agility​

A vehicle with low Agility is not automatically more difficult to manage, otherwise a large ship with Agility-6 would be almost impossible to operate even at the simplest level. Instead, it is ponderous. For any task with a duration, negative Agility acts as positive DM to task duration, though positive Effect can be used to counteract this.

For tasks with a fixed duration of on round, the operator can choose to take Agility as a negative DM to completion or use one Minor Action per round to avoid the penalty. In this instance it is permissible to use three Minor Actions in a round to eliminate three negative DMs. It is not possible to gain a positive DM by using more actions.

For example, Beth is stuck with a vehicle with Agility -3. A Task requiring 1D rounds will take 1D+3 rounds by default. Beth succeeds in her task check with a positive Effect +4 and rolls 4 for duration, modified to 7. She can choose to keep the positive Effect or apply up to 3 of her Effect to counteract the extra time needed to complete the task, reducing it back down to 4 rounds duration. If she had failed her roll, the entire 1D+3 duration would elapse before she could try again.

As another example, in combat Beth’s movement manoeuvre requires a task check. The time is not specified, so it is assumed to occur within that round. Instead of risking failure with DM-3 to the roll, she uses three Minor Action to completely use up her actions for the round to eliminate the -3, and next round she can roll the task check without a penalty.



Turning​

A high Agility vehicle can possibly turn about completely in a round, even at high speed. A low agility vehicle will ponderously shift direction, perhaps taking many rounds to complete a wide turn. The speed at which a vehicle can turn is dependant on Agility. Agility determines the number of degrees a vehicle can turn in a round. If using a hex or square grid system, this can be approximated to the nearest hex or square side each turn.

The basic turn rate of a vehicle is 60° degrees per combat round. This is the effective rate for vehicles of Agility 1, 0 and -1. Beyond this range, the numbers becomes better or worse, as indicated in the Turning Table, which also proves a guide over how many turns a vehicle takes to make a 180° turn.

Turning Table
AgilityRate per roundRounds to 180°
6360°0.5
5300°0.6
4240°0.75
3180°1
2120°1.5
1, 0,-160°3
-245°4
-336°5
-430°6
-525.7°7
-622.5°8


Turning Faster:
To increase the turn rate of a vehicle, the operator can attempt a Difficult (10+) driving check. This task check does not have an Agility bonus to succeed. On success, the vehicle can turn at a rate equal to a vehicle with one greater agility for that round. Prior to rolling the check, the operator could choose to make a Very Difficult (12+) check to make the vehicle turn at an Agility two levels higher. Exceptional Failures are likely to result in a crash.



Optional Rule: Making rapid turns at high speed places excess g-force strain on the vehicle and perhaps its occupants. The amount of g-force experienced by a vehicle is equal to its Speed Band divided by the number of rounds it takes to make a 180 degree turn. For a very agile supersonic vehicle, this may be disastrous. Grav plating can counteract up to 2g, but few non-spacecraft vehicles have inertial compensators installed. Personnel effects of high g-forces is described in the High Guard G-LOC section on pages 46-47. Many vehicles may not survive high-g manoeuvres. A vehicle can withstand up to its TL in g-forces, +1 if Agile and +1 if an AFV and +2 if it has functional grav plates. Beyond that it will suffer a number of Critical Hits equal to the amount by which it exceeded its g-limits, each round it continues its high-g turn.



Dogfights

Agility always matters in dogfights – more detailed rules TBD
 
Back
Top