Vehicluar Gaming

[ChalkLine]

Has anyone ever run a game where each player controlled a vehicle?

If so, how did it go?

Anything which was hugely different from a normal game?

[copeab]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Has anyone ever run a game where each player controlled a vehicle?

I assume you mean a multi-crew vehicle. I've seen PCs crew battlemechs (the point of the game) and fighter planes (from an X-wing to a P-40).

I think a lot of GMs are reluctant to let players control multiple characters. I've never personally had PCs run the crew of a vehicle in a campaign because, well, it's just never come up

[Dog 6]

in my games each player run up to a division.

[headquarters]

If you run phase by phase type combat it is a good tip to let the PC have a post where he can make decisions and take actions .
In a crew the commander usually tells the driver and gunner pretty much everything they can do -or at least issue orders that controls the limits of their actions .

playing the driver can be boring if the vehicle just trudges along and you get to roll an easy check every 6 phases or so .

Having one do the gunnery and one drive is a fun set up - the cmdr could be an npc that issue general sounding orders so that the driver/gunner can get a lot of actions in .Remember to sprinkle obstacles for the driver often or he will get bored.

Playing a commander can be made fun to- I used to let PCs commanding crew vehicles get a crew who spoke only Khazak or some such ,giving them a list of syllables and grunts to be spoken in character to mean advance! stop! target 12 o clock ! etc etc .Cmdr duty can be boring to play in some cases - the driver and gunner do most of the rolling - but I guess you could double commander /gunner duty. map and route planning can be added to get some game into it.

One good session we had a large map with combined ops going on .The players and their kahazak driver and loader in their souped up T-55 were busy engaging and advancing -blowing up apcs and trucks and mowing down infantry left and right when they suddenly encounter a mixed platoon of enemy T-72s and a T-90 .The ensuing fight was great fun .Since one hit can mean that everyone dies in an instant it became a nerve racking and hectic running fight with cat and mouse tactics over miles and miles .( Have a lot of map material ready - a big vehicle fight can take place in ranges from 10-3000 meters plus manouvering room .)
Pitfalls like bogging down,throwing a track on an obstacle ,minefields ,battledamage like fires and sputtering radios all make for additional fun .

just my humble opinion of course
.

[Kellhound]

I started a Merc:2000 campaign in the "Nigerian civil war", the players forming an armored company for the Biafran government.
They began with old M24 Chaffee, and a couple M113, with most vehicle commanders (only 5 of them PCs) being foreign mer... assessors. Once they started operations a trickle of Stingrays (from good old T2K cannon ) began replacing the M24s. The main enemy in their area was a Cuban merc battallion equipped with Type 61 light tanks.

Two of the players (Co. commander and XO) rode the same vehicle, the rest were 2nd and 3rd platoon commanders, and the "scout squad" infantry commander.
Sometimes I was tempted to get Last Battle out for the engagements, but with standard (2.2 edition) rules was usually enough.

Sadly, the campaign was cut short when laboral and family issues of one or another player began appearing.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Kellhound

Type 61 light tanks.

Don't want to be picky but you must mean type 62 or 63 (must be a typo). I believe that the Type 61 is a japanese tank that was never exported.

[Marc]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Has anyone ever run a game where each player controlled a vehicle?

I must recognize that the idea of a game based on vehicles have always been a temptation. I'm not entirely convinced about the vehicle rules of T2K v2.2 and the extra-work to arrange them in some way to run a vehicle based game has always discouraged me. In part for my ignorance about the matter.

I think that the vehicle data sheets given are complete enough and I that the rules about armour and damage are acceptable. But there are some gaps like:

• Turning rate of the turret (for a 5sec. turn).
• Some rule to link the needed turn of the turret to point a target to adjust the difficulty of the to hit roll. Not enough with the modifier due to target speed.
• Turning rate of a tracked vehicle while stopped.
• Effect of different type of terrain on movement
• Some guide about what can be detected and (how difficult could be to do it) through the observation devices.

Among others...

About the players and a vehicle based game, I think that the best option is with each player being the commander of one vehicle. Even with games more focused in the players acting as a crew (I'm thinking about Traveller, as an example), some role assigned to certain crewmembers limit them to one or two significative actions, without any decision to be taken.

A chart for each vehicle could be made. With the same data included in the vehicle data sheet but with the important information about the skills of every crewmember depending of their role in the vehicle. Mmmm... well, it's an idea.

By the way ¿Individual initiative or a common intiative for the vehicle?

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Marc

I must recognize that the idea of a game based on vehicles have always been a temptation. I'm not entirely convinced about the vehicle rules of T2K v2.2 and the extra-work to arrange them in some way to run a vehicle based game has always discouraged me. In part for my ignorance about the matter.

I think that the vehicle data sheets given are complete enough and I that the rules about armour and damage are acceptable. But there are some gaps like:

• Turning rate of the turret (for a 5sec. turn).
• Some rule to link the needed turn of the turret to point a target to adjust the difficulty of the to hit roll. Not enough with the modifier due to target speed.
• Turning rate of a tracked vehicle while stopped.
• Effect of different type of terrain on movement
• Some guide about what can be detected and (how difficult could be to do it) through the observation devices.

Among others...

About the players and a vehicle based game, I think that the best option is with each player being the commander of one vehicle. Even with games more focused in the players acting as a crew (I'm thinking about Traveller, as an example), some role assigned to certain crewmembers limit them to one or two significative actions, without any decision to be taken.

A chart for each vehicle could be made. With the same data included in the vehicle data sheet but with the important information about the skills of every crewmember depending of their role in the vehicle. Mmmm... well, it's an idea.

By the way ¿Individual initiative or a common intiative for the vehicle?

I am with you on this one - having to play a loader or driver over longer sessions is not going to be challenging enough .Having a chart with crew skill is a good idea .Playing cmdr and getting to shoot to also .

[leonpoi]

I also agree - I've been trying to compile a expanded list that will capture these things:
http://sites.google.com/site/leonpoi...attredirects=0

My intention is to have some simple guideline about how much a turret can turn and still fire in a turn, and some ruling about the commander assigning targets etc. I also am trying to compile a list of exits and things like halon systems because I'm coming up with a slightly more complicated vehicle damage table where these things might be important.

For the turret I was going to go with enabling an unaimed shot if the turret rotation takes 1/2 a turn AND the gunner knows about the target, e.g. the commander tells him/her so, and allowing an unaimed shot if the turret rotation takes a full turn (maybe a 3/4??) AND the commander has somehow marked the target on his turn etc (for simplicity I was going to say any vehicle that allows the commander to rotate the turret to have this feature).

At the moment I'm toying with a few ideas, e.g.

Two values for FC bonus, the first acts just like the tw2k2.2 FC bonus and removes penalties for target moving etc but also acts like a bonus to the hit number, the 2nd is an increased bonus that is added if an aimed shot is taken. I'm thinking I want the bonus to be a flat bonus and not a bonus to the asset, i.e. at extreme range with FC+2 a gunner with asset 12 would hit on a 3 (12/4) + 2 = 5 instead of the 3.

Rules for backup optical sights if the primary gunsight is damaged - you lose your FC bonus but can still aim, if the 2ndary gunsight is damaged then I'm guessing you can still shoot but the shots must be unaimed.

For spotting at the moment I make spotting troops Difficult and spotting vehicles Average (this is what page 155 of tw2k2.2 says for spotting a group moving) with:
+1 Difficulty if target is camouflaged
+1 Difficulty if observer is moving
+1 Difficulty if observer is buttoned up inside vehicle put using periscopes
+2 Difficulty if observer is buttoned up inside vehicle using vision ports, broken periscope, etc
I haven't really thought about difficulty increase with range.

I intend to indicate which vehicles have smoke discharges/launchers and use the rules for chemical smoke.

Still works in progress but I want something that makes vehicle combat tactical and fun - any ideas would be really useful.

[Marc]

Interesting. And promising, too. I will take a look to my notes this night. It would be great if we reach to a suitable set of rules about this matter.

[kcdusk]

I think like most "themes" we could end up with a collection of rules you could choose from. There might be two or three ways of dealing with a particular issue suggested by people, then you choose the one that suits you best.