| From: | "Michael A. Kauffman" <mak9@******.EDU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Lots of Kage stuff (repost) |
| Date: | Thu, 6 May 1993 15:26:19 EDT |
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@*****.nic.SURFnet.nl>
>Armor:
>
>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.
>Handling:
>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
>cost?
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
>
>Autopilots:
>
reasons deleted.
>For the above reasons, I believe we should keep the Autopilot rules as they are
agreed.
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
