Vehicle combat rules

[barnest2]

Has anyone looked at them?
Edited them?
Completely re-written them?

This is gonna be kinda important pretty soon in a coming game, and I just wondered what people had done.

My main questions are in terms of movement on a combat scale, and damage tables, though that is much less important...

I.e., i have an APC with a cruising speed of 45kmh, currently travelling at 30kmh... what can I do in the next 6 seconds...

Help please?
Barnes

 

[BP]

Looked at them...

Thought about them...

Decided skill checks and roleplay work better for me.

Simply put, ultimately I want to be able to describe the action - so I skip the mechanics and jump right to the results. I can describe the action more plausibly than any set of rule mechanics, while using DMs and stats to give players control and some balance over the outcomes - my role is to referee the timing and details as the situation requires.

Players can utilize strategy as well as tactics to roleplay out their combat, and issues of scale and situation can be handled appropriately. As I use the basic skill mechanic, players can depend on that element of meta-gaming consistency, without a huge dependency on number crunching and fixed rules (which often leads to playing the rules rather than the game, munchkin-ism, and absurd outcomes).

Counting seconds and tracking 'initiative' is a trip down a slipper slope of unbelievability to me and more tedium to overcome it.

I.e. - how fast can the APC accelerate - fast enough to be going 45 kmh in 6 seconds? Two? How about decelerating to a complete stop? 6 seconds? 18 seconds? Is the APC on-road or off-road - or on ice? Fighting a headwind? On a higher/lower G planet?

Besides the mechanics of handling this (which <i>can</i> be done), there is also the aspect of 'meta-game creep'. I.e. - unless PCs are using radar guns alongside their plasma rifles, an opponent's actual speeds will be unknown, so players really shouldn't have to know either.

This probably doesn't sound to helpful - but if you try winging it, you and your players may find it works really well...

 

[barnest2]

Problem is, I'm using miniatures and a board for combats in this game...

And it's the player's APC, so they don't need a radar gun, just to loook at the speedo

I would normally just RP it but this time its impossible

 

[BP]

Most of the rules for vehicles in Core involve skill checks - and nothing directly related to movement (just facing). You are pretty much left RP and winging this. The major/minor and 6 second discrete timing mechanics just get in the way at this point = most everything being skill checks.

Your APC at 30 kmh covers 50 m in 6 s - i.e. from personal to Long range every 'turn', when opponents are static.

Besides not mentioning miniatures, your post didn't qualify if you are referring to just vehicle to vehicle or including vehicle vs. personnel (and or spacecraft as well). Your scale would probably have to change depending on the scenario and how large a play surface is available.

P.S. - re: speed - 'an opponent's actual speeds will be unknown', unless they are just matching speeds with another vehicle, in which case it is essentially irrelevant...

 

[barnest2]

I'll probably keep it quite fast and loose then
Sorry for the lack of detail, I normally forget something while posting...

One last question, what sort of acceleration/decel could you do in one round?

 

[BP]

That is totally dependent on the vehicle and the situation (surface contact vs. gravitic, surface/atmo resistance, load vs power, etc.). In fact, in the real world these numbers are relatively hard to come by - except in specifically delineated test cases (i.e. 0-100-0, 0-60 times, etc. - which still leave a lot of wiggle room). Don't believe the vehicle design supplements make any mention of this, nor support it. And core rules don't offer much at all about such details.

Again, this is why I drop the whole '6 second' round thing - the most believable, and most playable metric is going to be referee fiat!

Relative accelerations/speeds are more important than actual numbers or mechanics - likewise relative timing of actions. I.e. - a motorcycle is generally going to out-accelerate an APC - so it can flee or pursue with ease (timing upto referee and RP goodness factors . If you need mechanics, use task checks and DMs - maybe the motorcycle fails for any number of reasons (spot of oil/gravel; overheated engine; etc.).

The effects of shooting are, again, simply a skill check - i.e. they succeed/fail to varying degrees. The referee should account for variations in speed and maneuverability (vehicle books support 'agility') with appropriate DMs.

If you are trying to count ammo/shots - simply use extra rolls to determine number of rounds or number of tries (if you want to allow this level of detail). I.e. - let dice determine questionable time issues (just as they normally do with 1d6 for skill checks and 'counted' seconds, etc.).

Hope that helps - I know its vague - but, if you are asking the questions it means you have some expectations (be they real-world or Hollywood cinematic), meaning you can probably handle things in real time without much effort. Players generally don't give a darn, unless things seem way unrealistic (or they are 'losing' and their munchkin-ism is showing .

P.S. - I'm pretty sure you will get more responses to this topic when more members get online, which might be more helpful...

 

[barnest2]

Thanks thats pretty cool

As for the question of scale, I don't think there should really be a shift between personal and vehicle scale, especially with most of the weapons in the CSC being at near enough the correct damage scaling to damage vehicles...
For instance, the anti material rifle, firing discarding Sabots, being able o ignore 20 points of armour before doing (on average) 35 points of damage... which as far as I can tell, should pretty much kill a light armoured vehicle... which is correct, no?

 

[BP]

Was referring mainly to scale of distances/accelerations

Though in cases of anti-craft and anti-structure weapons there are certainly issues...

Core takes a 1:1 approach - with armour DMs. There is also the 1 point regardless for 6+ effect, if you like (a bit more cinematic that). Vehicle supplements can have very high armour values, IIRC, to accommodate this.

And, yes, man portable weapons (ala afore mentioned anti-materiel rifle) that are capable of penetrating battledress should be capable of handling lightly armoured vehicles

 

[barnest2]

+1 hit for 6+ effect? god no I like my damage realistic, and I don't like the possibility of a man with a snub pistol being able to disable the engine block on my APC just because he is a crack shot

Issues? what sort of issues?

 

[BP]

What - the slug hitting a wheel, ricocheting in the wheel well and lodging in the axle seal, causing a metal shard to fly off into the engine compartment and damaging the ventral O2 sensor array causing the engine to fail due to faulty on-board diagnostic logic - just like Super-PC San Holo planned - is unrealistic?

[On that note, however, I do encourage my players to roleplay their characters attempting things regardless of odds, if that is an aspect of the PC - and if the dice say yes, who am I to argue. I'm just the guy who gets to setup the DMs, outcomes (and consequences)

I also try to avoid arguing with my player's level of disbelief - if they think it is plausible, even after I elaborate, I'll allow it (with consequences). I.e. - in above example the engine is likely to start back up at a most in-opportune time...]

As to armour/damage scaling issues - there have been other topics on this subject... IIRC, there are 'believability' issues regarding the 50x for starship weapons (excepting sandcasters) and small craft vs vehicles and the damage done to starship hulls by personal and vehicle scale weapons (esp. anti-tank weapons).

My approach is the more simulation-ist rules that deal with hard numbers (and realworld 'facts'), the more exceptions for the varying degrees of suspension of disbelief must be made. It becomes a vicious circle that evolves ever further from the goal - a playable and enjoyable game of fiction.

As to realistic - well, its a game, involving gravitics, jump drives, psionics, uplifted pets, and, in most folks play, visible space lasers - I settle for 'believable as a game'.

 

[barnest2]

... yeh, i think not in my games

And yeh, if they can give me good solid reasoning, i'll normally let my players try something

Oh right, damage scaling. Fair enough. Well I already planned on dropping starship to x10 because frankly, x50 is mildly absurd... but then I don't plan on the firing at spaceships much... though there is a chance...

Ah see... i have invisible lasers (i do like proper sci-fi)... but uplifted pets are too hilarious to not have...