Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: "Michael A. Kauffman" <mak9@******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Lots of Kage stuff (repost)
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 15:26:19 EDT
I sent this out yesterday but as Carter poitned out it got chopped. Hopefully
this will reach all of you intacted. If not, all I said about autopilots was
that I agree with Carter.

Date: Wed, 05 May 1993 19:55:39 EDT
From: mak9@******.EDU (Michael A. Kauffman)
Subject: Re: Lots of Kage stuff
To: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
CC: Multiple recipients of list KAGE-CAR <KAGE-CAR@*****>

>I like how armor as worked itself out. It takes a significant amount of speed
>and effiency from a car without using the rediculous -5/15 that's in the RBB.
I agree -5/15 was rediculous.

One other comment: RBB always increases handling with the addition of armor.
Should we also consider this? In SRII terms handling is increased 1 point per
6 full points of armor. (5 would probably be a better number here if we want
to do this.)

>Fuel Tanks and Batteries:
>I think the fuel tank size of 1 ESU per liter would be good. I'm sorry if I
>gave the impression that sizes should be decided as BVU's and then translated
>into a different space unit.
That was probably my fault. I started the calculations in BVU's because I
wasn't sure which (ESU, CSU, PSU) to use. I think I'm clear now.

>There are two levels of Improved Suspension for all land vehicles. For cars
>the modifier is -1/0 per level. Should Improved Suspension have any weight

I think it should. How about +5% to chassis mass?
>Off-Road Suspension should have a Basic level that makes the Off-Road handling
>equal to On-Road handling.

Do you mean that if a car has a handling of 4/8 and the basic level of
off-road suspension is used, the car would a handling of 4/4? If so I think
this should "cost" more than +10% chassis mass.

There should also be two levels of Improved Off-
>Road Suspension that has a modifier of +1/-1 per level. The mass increase
>of +10% chassis sounds alright for now. I see no need for a reduced power
>rate since the power does not relate to efficiency and the increase mass
>increase will reduce both speed and efficiency.

This sounds ok if what i said about the basic level is considered.
>There should also be Active Suspension, that makes the On-Road and Off-Road
>Suspension values equal. I propose 2 levels of Active Suspension. The first
>makes both On-Road and Off-Road handling the same, while level 2 also reduces
>the handling by 1. I propose a 15% chassis mass increase for Active Suspension

Considering what I said above, this is a step in the right direction. I was
thinking more like +20%. Other wise good Idea.

Also I assume all suspension option are mutually exclusive?????
>Body Increase:
[text deleted because this is getting too long]
everything sounds good here.
>Passive thermal masking: (from Amonchare and it looks just fine to me)
ditto directly above
reasons deleted.

>For the above reasons, I believe we should keep the Autopilot rules as they are


I haven't had a chance to look the passenger accesories post yet. I'll do
that tonight and get back to you.

> See Ya in Shadows,

See Ya chummer,

Mike Kauffman
AKA Amonchare

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Re: Lots of Kage stuff (repost), you may also be interested in:


These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.