|
|
|
#1
10-03-2009, 02:39 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Vehicular Gaming
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? Last edited by ChalkLine; 10-03-2009 at 03:31 AM. Reason: Bloody thing won't let me edit the title. 
|
|
#2
10-03-2009, 04:40 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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
|
|
#3
10-03-2009, 07:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
in my games each player run up to a division.
__________________
"There is only one tactical principal which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wounds, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." --General George S. Patton, Jr.
|
|
#4
10-06-2009, 03:50 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
gamewise
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 .
|
|
#5
10-08-2009, 04:52 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
|
|
#6
10-08-2009, 07:11 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
10-15-2009, 04:37 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Good question Chalk. I badly wanted to run a vehicle based game in T2K. So i looked hard into how the game would run, work, and what challenges the players might face - because vehicles dont get a great show in T2K.
I havent run a game, but i put a bit of time and effort into planning for one. I was going to have players play Commander, Driver, Gunner + an NPC. The players would have an MBT/APC of their choice, and have a street patrol to carry out in urban Iraq. I have a good post sitting at work, so i will pull it out monday (I'm on annual leave today). It listed a heap of points and in most cases solutions/ideas. For example one of them was for the commander. An important member of the team, but how to involve them rules/action wise? Leadership skill should be used often. Maybe for every driver check +/- half the difference the Commander passes his leadership check by. A good commander helps, while a poorer one would hinder more often than not. Another thing i heavily considered was having hte commander make a "tactical roll" in order to see how the tank is positioned defensively (making enemy to hit rolls harder) and offensively (does his own tank have a clear shot). I hope to post more on Monday.
__________________
"Beep me if the apocolypse comes" - Buffy Sommers
|
|
#8
10-16-2009, 05:23 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
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:
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 ÂżIndividual initiative or a common intiative for the vehicle?
__________________
L'Argonauta, rol en catalŕ
|
|
#9
10-16-2009, 06:55 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
agreed
Quote:
|
|
#10
10-16-2009, 08:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#11
10-16-2009, 09:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
L'Argonauta, rol en catalŕ
|
|
#12
10-16-2009, 05:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
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.
__________________
"Beep me if the apocolypse comes" - Buffy Sommers
|
|
#13
10-16-2009, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
For rangefinders I was also toying with the idea of making them like scopes - treat extreme range shots as formidable and not impossible if you aim. I've been looking at the wording for sight/vision damage: Code:
The referee randomly determined which item(s) in this category have been damaged (gun sight, range finder, night vision equipment), per the required damage result. If a component is damaged twice, it is irreparably destroyed. Repairing any of the three components in this category is a task (Formidable: Electronics). gun sight - can't aim range finder - don't get FC bonus night vision equipment - don't get NV bonus I assume damage would be to the external systems and not the actual display/view (or whatever it is) inside the turret. Anyway, this was stuff I was trying to cover in the Optical Relay Thread. I've been trying to get some ideas from GDW's board game Assault - it has rules for vehicle spotting etc - you can find the rules here if you are interested: http://sites.google.com/site/leonpoi...attredirects=0 Last edited by leonpoi; 10-16-2009 at 05:34 PM. Reason: added link to assault docs
|
|
#14
10-17-2009, 11:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
BTW, about turret rotation speed here are some useful data: Tanks: - M1 Abrams (105mm): 40Âş/sec. => 200Âş/turn - IPM1: 40Âş/sec. => 200Âş/turn - M1A1: 40Âş/sec. => 200Âş/turn - M1A2: 40Âş/sec. => 200Âş/turn - M60: 20Âş/sec.=>100Âş/turn - M60A1: 22.5Âş/sec.=>112.5Âş/turn - M60A2: 40Âş/sec.=> 200Âş/turn - M60A3: 22.5Âş/sec =>112.5Âş/turn - M48: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - M48A1: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - M48A2: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - M48A3: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - M48A5: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - Leopard 1: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - Leopard 1A4: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - Leopard 2: 30Âş/sec => 150Âş/turn - Leopard 2A4: 30Âş/sec => 150Âş/turn - T62: 17Âş/sec=> 85Âş/turn - T72A: 20Âş/sec=>100Âş/turn - T72B: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - T72S: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn IFV: - M2 Bradley: 60Âş/sec=> 300Âş/turn - M2A1 Bradley: 60Âş/sec=> 300Âş/turn - M2A2 Bradley: 60Âş/sec=> 300Âş/turn SP Artillery - M109: 11Âş/sec: => 55Âş/turn - M109A1: 11Âş/sec: => 55Âş/turn - M109A2: 11Âş/sec: => 55Âş/turn - M109A6: 11Âş/sec: => 55Âş/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 catalŕ
|
|
#15
10-17-2009, 05:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#16
10-18-2009, 05:42 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 30Âş 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: 45Âş/sec=>225Âş/turn - ZSU 57-2: 30Âş/sec=> 150Âş/turn - BMP-2: 35Âş/sec=> 175Âş/turn - Leclerc: 40Âş/sec=> 200Âş/turn - Challenger 2: 40Âş/sec - AMX-30: 30Âş/sec=>150Âş/turn - Chieftain Mk3: 25Âş/sec=>125Âş/turn - Chieftain Mk5: 22Âş/sec=>110Âş/turn - T72B: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - T72S: 24Âş/sec. => 120Âş/turn - T-54: 17Âş/sec=>85Âş/turn - T-55: 17Âş/sec=>85Âş/turn
__________________
L'Argonauta, rol en catalŕ
|
|
#18
10-19-2009, 08:19 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
|
|
#19
10-19-2009, 08:38 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
|
|
#20
10-19-2009, 10:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
 "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
|
|
#21
10-20-2009, 07:21 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 catalŕ
|
|
#22
10-26-2009, 12:59 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 I will have to look for it. Not much time lately 
|
|
#23
10-27-2009, 11:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I've started playing the computer game combat mission (various versions) again, and I like the way it handles vehicles and tanks. Now granted that this is in ww2, but breakdowns in radios etc could render you about ww2 equivalent. What the game includes is things like:
Vehicle special traits: Burns Easily - some vehicles stow ammunition and/or fuel in such a way that internal damage regularly causes the entire vehicle to catch fire. Shot Trap - certain vehicles (like the early Panther model A) have a design flaw in their external shape, which creates a "shot-trap" - a curved surface on the underside of the turret front which deflects incoming projectiles downward into the turret ring, or the weakly-armored hull top, where it often penetrates easily. Slow ROF - certain vehicles are known for their slow "rate of fire", i.e. long reloading times for their main gun. This can be due to design flaws (e.g. a cramped crew compartment) or especially bulky ammunition or cumbersome loading mechanisms. Cupola - some tanks feature a tank commander's hatch with cupola allowing the tank commander a 360° view around the tank even with the hatch closed. It enhances a tank's close range observation against infantry assaults, even from from the rear. - comment - Slow ROF would be captured by the ROF of the main gun, but things like burns easily etc may be interesting things to include in certain vehicles as special notes and that cause damage results to vary. We already have this type of thing for the M1Ax's blast panels for ammo explosions. - most modern tanks probably have cupolas, probably any tank that isn't CIH would be assumed to have one? Turret Speed Turreted vehicles (mostly tanks but also some armored cars) are rated for their ability to rotate the turret. Five different speeds are possible: Very fast turret, fast turret, medium turret, slow turret, very slow turret. - comment - we could define 5 or 6 turret speeds and have rules saying what each means in terms of rotations and how far it can rotate and shoot in the same turn, for example. An armored vehicle can still be damaged even by a hit which does not penetrate the armor. External equipment such as the gun or its optics can be damaged, as well as the vehicle becoming immobilized by a hit to the tracks or a vital engine component. A non-penetrating hit can even injure or kill crewmembers by causing internal armor flaking or "spalling". - comment - maybe a non penetrating shot (and perhaps not small-arms fire) has a 1 in 10 chance of inflicting minor damage to certain components such as the optics, searchlights etc. The game includes the effect of optics - magnification, field or view, all kinds of things. I don't think we need to go this far. Anyway, if your tank doesn't have thermal optics in tw2k spotting should be hugely dependant on the buttoned us status of the observers, movement by both sides, etc. As another cool note, I've been reading that the T-72 (and I guess -80 and -90) can be used to "bulldoze" a hole with its glacis plate (? or is there an attachment) in 2 minutes that is big enough for the tank to go hull-down. There is a computer game video showing it in "action" ftp://ftp.battlefront.com/pub/misc/T...nch%20Demo.wmv
|
|
#24
10-28-2009, 02:43 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#25
10-28-2009, 07:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#26
10-29-2009, 12:22 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
|
|
#27
10-30-2009, 08:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ok I'm not a tank enthusiast and not a military man, so my (and my gaming groups) knowledge of military stuff is pretty small; and thus it follows that I've only come to realise that those huge box things sticking out on the turret front of tanks are the gunner's, or if there are 2, and commander's sight. Does anyone know how vulnerable these are to small-arms fire?
Also, if say my PC's tank got hit in the turret front with a rpg that failed to penetrate, would there be any chance or a good chance that the blast/concussion could damage the sight. It's sticking out there like dog's balls, so I would have said yes. [edit]: I have some house rules which run something like this (don't have my book in front of me). Exploding rounds (or anything with a concussion value) have a Pen value even if they miss the target but are in the same 10m square (think radius 5m, same as the 1st blast region of explosives). The Pen value is C/3 rounded down - this means that the 61mm mortar would have Pen 1, and not even be able to get through soft skinned vehicles, 81mm mortar would have pen 2 and would inflict a minor damage (in addition to any shrapnel) on a soft-skinned vehicle. If I say that the external tank sights are AP 1 or maybe 2 this means I don't have to worry about most small arms fire vs tanks gun sights, except .50 cals etc. It also means that most rpgs I would not have to worry about either. Most HEAT tank rounds would do nothing if < 120mm, otherwise they would inflict minor damage. This means that a HESH round with a high C could damage the sights without penetrating the tank armour. Q. should this "splash damage" be applied only to frontal turret hits? I'm thinking yes. Q. I'm thinking of making a 1 in 20 or perhaps 1 in 10 chance of frontal turret hits hitting the gun sight which would be resolved as normal except that the sight is damaged even if the penetration fails (and damage could pen from explosive or KE rounds). I think I remember reading that tanks (UK?) in Iraq were taken off the front line for repairs a few times because their sights had been damaged from non-penetrating turret hits. By the way the 1 in 10 chance would be used because that's the same chance a person has of being hit from a ricochet when their head is out of a hatch - I thought it would be good to use the same value for convenience. Another thing, a lot of the Russian tanks and vehicles have exhaust generators which generate smoke by injecting diesel into the engine I guess. In the tw2000 context, would these smoke generators work when on alcohol fuel? I'd say no, but what would I know. Last edited by leonpoi; 10-30-2009 at 08:25 PM.
|
|
#28
10-30-2009, 09:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Most vehicle vision blocks (the periscope-like blocks surrounding driver, commander, and loader positions) and sight heads are reasonably armored against small-arms fire and fragments, but against a decent direct rifle or heavier hit, they won't survive. And you're right; it's been a valid antiarmor technique, pretty much since tanks have been around, to force the crew to button up then blind the tank by shooting out vision blocks and sight heads; eventually, the crew has to surrender or face being roasted by Molotov cocktails or other incendiaries poured into their engine compartments. The only real problem is that they're small targets.
As far as the vehicle smoke generators, they only work with diesel fuel. Most modern armored vehicles either have them or had them -- I say had because US vehicles and those of some NATO countries are now burning jet fuel (JP-8 IIRC) and that won't work with the vehicle smoke generators. The US, for example, has removed the smoke generators from its vehicles, since they're useless now anyway. In a T2K context, US and NATO vehicles would still be burning diesel and they would not have been removed.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
|
|
#29
10-30-2009, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thanks. this is from wiki:
Quote:
|
|
#30
10-30-2009, 09:46 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
What's the wiki link? I'd love to know where insurgents got a Milan -- they must have literally been using Coalition weapons against us!
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com
|
 |
| Tags |
| rules, vehicles |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
