|
|
|
|
|
#1
10-17-2009, 10:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
BTW, about turret rotation speed here are some useful data: Tanks: - M1 Abrams (105mm): 40º/sec. => 200º/turn - IPM1: 40º/sec. => 200º/turn - M1A1: 40º/sec. => 200º/turn - M1A2: 40º/sec. => 200º/turn - M60: 20º/sec.=>100º/turn - M60A1: 22.5º/sec.=>112.5º/turn - M60A2: 40º/sec.=> 200º/turn - M60A3: 22.5º/sec =>112.5º/turn - M48: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - M48A1: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - M48A2: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - M48A3: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - M48A5: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - Leopard 1: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - Leopard 1A4: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - Leopard 2: 30º/sec => 150º/turn - Leopard 2A4: 30º/sec => 150º/turn - T62: 17º/sec=> 85º/turn - T72A: 20º/sec=>100º/turn - T72B: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - T72S: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn IFV: - M2 Bradley: 60º/sec=> 300º/turn - M2A1 Bradley: 60º/sec=> 300º/turn - M2A2 Bradley: 60º/sec=> 300º/turn SP Artillery - M109: 11º/sec: => 55º/turn - M109A1: 11º/sec: => 55º/turn - M109A2: 11º/sec: => 55º/turn - M109A6: 11º/sec: => 55º/turn It seems that soviet tanks would be in some disadvantage with their turret traverse rate agains their western rivals. Sadly I've been unable to find the turret traverse rates for the T-80 and T-90. In some forums people seems to think that the T-90 turret speed would be equivalent to the turret speed of the Abrams and that the T-80 (first types) turret speed would be the same as for the T-72B.
__________________
L'Argonauta, rol en catal 
|
|
#2
10-17-2009, 04:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#3
10-18-2009, 04:42 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Thinking about the numbers related to turret rotation speed, one possible idea would be to allocate turret movement points instead to playing with degrees. It would be more gamer-friendly. Each 30º of rotation in one combat turn would cost 1 point. Based on this and approaching to the nearest number, we would have the following list, ordered in the total number of Turret Movement Points (TMP for the all the american acronym lovers
 ) that a crew can spend in one combat turn:10 points
I've added to the list the vehicles wich turret traverse rate I've been able to find: - LAV-25: 45º/sec=>225º/turn - ZSU 57-2: 30º/sec=> 150º/turn - BMP-2: 35º/sec=> 175º/turn - Leclerc: 40º/sec=> 200º/turn - Challenger 2: 40º/sec - AMX-30: 30º/sec=>150º/turn - Chieftain Mk3: 25º/sec=>125º/turn - Chieftain Mk5: 22º/sec=>110º/turn - T72B: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - T72S: 24º/sec. => 120º/turn - T-54: 17º/sec=>85º/turn - T-55: 17º/sec=>85º/turn
__________________
L'Argonauta, rol en catal
|
|
#5
10-19-2009, 07:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Recreation of some posts from the old board below.
One of the biggest criticisms of T2K has been vehicle combat. Too much attention given to what items a round hits inside a vehicle (v1.0 approach) and not enough focus on the tactics and manoeuvre of vehicles against one another during an engagement. To make vehicle combat more interesting, it needs something to simulate vehicles manoeuvring around in order to get a good clean shot away at another vehicle or static position. It needs to be PC reliant on the crew (commander, driver, gunner, radio man) and reward situational awareness (tactics). How to do it? It got me thinking about what comes into play in RL, then trying to find game mechanics to make it work. My thoughts so far. In my mind its a vehicles commander who has the ultimate say over this type of aspect of vehicle combat. The commander needs to understand conceptually where his vehicle is, where the opposition vehicle is and try and outwit them. Maybe a test of intelligence between opposing commanders is required to see who gains the upper hand (who is on the offensive and who is on the defensive)? Leadership to inspire the troops/other vehicles to follow the game plan/orders, then a test of vehicle driving skill to make sure drivers are able to perform the actions required in the commanders plan? This type of opposed skill roll places emphasis where it should be (Commanders intelligence) while allowing vehicles to be influenced by Leadership (good or bad) and drivers are required to test their skills also. This seems to capture the types of things necessary for vehicle verse vehicle combat in a RPG game while still remaining "conceptual" in that you don't necessarily need to diagram where each vehicle is. You just need to understand situational awareness / who has the upper hand. Modifiers could include; Intelligence roll is one difficulty level harder if Commander is also the gunner or undertaking some other duty (such as radio man) to emphasis vehicle crews need to operate as a team - a commander cannot do it all (tactics, drive, radio, gunner, observation, situational awareness etc ...). And a full crew makes it easier than a part crew or shared duties. This sounds reasonable to me. Drivers (driving) and gunners (shooting) can be influenced one difficulty level easier or harder if the Commander passes/fails a leadership roll. This reflects the strong influence (good or bad) that a commander has over the people in the crew and how successful they are at their tasks. The commanders own leadership roll is made one level harder if he is performing a task in addition to situational awareness. Example of vehicle combat process could be like this summery of steps Observation rolls to see if vehicles see each other or remain undetected. Leadership roll by commander to influence crew to act Intelligence roll (opposed rolls if both vehicles can see each other) to reflect situation awareness/tactics Drive skill test to perform directions Gunner firing roll The results of the opposed Intelligence rolls would be like a matrix Two commanders make Intelligence rolls. The possible results for each commander are critical success, success, fail, critical fail. You then have a matrix with each of the combination of results available. Critical success by both = neither side has any type of shot on the other vehicle. Critical success v success = 1st vehicle can fire on the other at one level difficulty harder (in addition to leadership or other modifiers) other vehicle cannot fire on the first vehicle. critical success v failure = 1st vehicle can fire at other vehicle. critical success v critical failure - 1st vehicle can fire at other at one level easier. Other vehicle has lost site of first vehicle. There are many other combinations of results - these are just examples. Could this type of mechanism work and make vehicle v vehicle combat more exciting and PC reliant? Other considerations could be Crew Exposed or buttoned up? - Some skills are easier if crew members are exposed (Crew Exposed) but they are more vulnerable to fire. Driver skill one level easier if driver is exposed Gunner firing is one level harder if the gunner is buttoned up Commander observation is two levels harder if buttoned up if in a tank and one level harder if in a APC/IFV. On an open battlefield, tanks are easier to manoeuvrer in the open (Commanders intelligence/tactical roll one level easier if battlefield is open and enemy is not in a tank ie IFV or APC). In confines of woods or an urban setting, commanders intelligence/tactical roll in one level easier if opposition is a tank (tanks find it harder to fight in woods/urban setting). This may make commanders in tanks go Crew Exposed in an urban setting to off set the urban difficulty with being CE so cancels out that increase in difficulty. But being CE is bad for tanks in urban environment - snipers, machine guns, guys with Molotov cocktails or hand grenades ... Do you see what I am trying to do? Make PCs in vehicles have to make decisions that impact on performance and mirror real life considerations. Come on you tread heads - what are your thoughts? To me it is a matter of to each his own... if you want vehicle combat to be like how you described then go for it... I only have one question, if you use the tactics/intel roll in vehicle combat to make your shots better then why not in regular infantry combat? Or leadership rolls? I keep things simple but if I was to use something like what you have I would not have gunners effected at all by open or closed hatches. As a gunner your life is spent looking through the weapon sites, so being buttoned up has nothing to do with you firing your weapon. As a gunner and spotting is different story. First and formost is sighting; the vehicle commander (VC) and gunner scan for targets. The gunner has to do so through the turret so is slower and sometimes more difficult, though in some weapon systems he has thermal or night vision etc to aid in sighting. And I would absolutely effect sighting big time if you are buttoned up, much much harder to spot targets that way. If I, as the VC, spot a target... I direct the gunner toward the target... he swings the turret over and lets me know when he is on the target.. then the order to fire is given. Now, I can manuever the turret if he needs help and can even fire the weapon if need be. During all this the VC can give orders to the driver to get into a better firing position or to find cover. Mainly getting us into what we call a hull down position. For those unfamilair it is when the vehicle is behind a hill, wall or other obstruction that shields the hull but allows the turret weapon to fire over the protection. Again I completely agree with the difficulty change if the driver is buttoned up or driving with his head exposed. I guess I would have it go something like: Spotting/Manuevering Targeting/Manuevering Gunnery/Manuevering Each part effected by the commander and the driver. Cause if a driver is slamming into holes or nicking trees then spotting, targeting and firing are all effected. And of course the commander giving good information vs bad information can effect the driver and gunner. i know this seems to be adding many die rolls, that wasnt my intent. But if you want to replicate a vehicle crew then every position needs to be involved at some point and skill checks will be called for. Part of the reason for this is also so that non-combat skills are brought more into play, and so that non-fighting skills are also more valuable (electronics, driving, leadership ... ) otherwise its really only fighting skills that get used. I'm happy to take on board that the gunner being buttoned up would not suffer any penalties for firing since he uses his thermal or infra red imager. It was just another suggestion to try and get players thinking more about the enviroment and making decisions around trade-offs. I've been thinking about this matrix and i may post a word doc when i am finished. But i am thinking that if two opposed vehicles both roll critical success's on their Inteligence/tactics roll - would that mean they can both fire on one another or that neither can fire on the other? My rational would be that a VC first priority is to make sure they cannot be fired at. So critical success's mean neither vehicle can fire on the other. Whereas if both roll critical failures it means both vehicles can fire on each other simultaniously. Comments? No no, I completely understand why you are doing it and it does make the game more interesting for everyone involved in the vehicle. Hell, I will probably use whatever you come up in some fashion. Because vehicle combat is not as simple as most games make it out to be. I like what you are trying to address and work out. As for two critical success'... It would depend on the mindset of the vehicle commander. Is he trying to get the first shot or is he trying to put himself out of the line of fire? I would lean toward them nullifing each other but as I said, depends on what they are attempting to do. Maybe have the vehicle commanders make declarations before rolling on what tactic they are attempting; defensive or offensive. I know that is simplified but you get the point. If two vehicles are attempting to get the better shot and both roll an outstanding success then have them both fire with a bonus. If one is defensive and the other offensive let the shooter fire normally with no modifiers. They both equalize each other; one vehicle got in a damn good position to fire but as he was doing so the other vehicle got his into a damn good covered position. Something like that. This would also add another layer to the commanders thought process and decision making. Not just do I roll good on my Intel/Tactics but what is my goal when I roll.
__________________
"Beep me if the apocolypse comes" - Buffy Sommers
|
|
#6
10-19-2009, 07:38 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
This approach frees the commander to fulfill his main role of observer/spotter and so on.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem
|
|
#7
10-20-2009, 06:21 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Thanks for the old post. Interesting, though the system depicted there does not convince me. I suppose it’s just that I tend to rule out from the “abstract” combat systems, although I’ve used in the past. This type of systems tends to resolve the encounter in a few rolls based in the skills of the characters implied but without the players taking many decisions in the action. An example would be the naval combat in Star Wars D6. The referee could make the combat exciting one time if it was short and the situation does not repeat. The pilot rolled to avoid dire, the gunners fired when they had a target and the shield-operator activate the shields when their ship was hit. But all this actions were their only logical option. I think the goal is to make a vehicular combat system as exciting and fun as the infantry combat under the Twilight: 2000 rules. The hard work is done. The vehicles are there, with all their statistics. The same could be said about the guns, the ammo, the armor and the damage effects. Even the rules regarding tactical visibility and encounters could give you a solution about who have spotted the enemy first and gains the upper hand in a tactical situation. But certain aspects for a good vehicular combat system are not there. Movement ratio in different types of terrain, modifiers to spotting enemy concealed vehicles, the effect of obstacles against vehicles, the time to turn a turret, the speed while going in reverse or the time needed time to make a full turn. Can my Bradley cross this trench or go through this wall? Can a tank tow another tank? Does the crew use to have the needed tools to do it in the vehicle? You know all of the equivalencies in the Twilight:2000 rules when talking about infantry combat. Our characters kneel, run, trot, take cover, jump over obstacles, give first aid to a wounded, move silently, change the location of their equipment…and the rules are fluent and we use them easily. I think that the goal must be the same for vehicular combat if one wants to run a game based on vehicles. Mmmmm... I wish I had more time this week. I have some ideas but I've not worked on them. Meanwhile, the adjustments suggested by Leonpoi about the FC's and the spotting modifiers seem good to me. Bona nit!
__________________
L'Argonauta, rol en catal
|
|
#8
10-19-2009, 09:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
 |
| Tags |
| rules, vehicles |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
