From: | shadowrn@*********.com (Jonathan Szeto) |
---|---|
Subject: | 10 Rigger 3 gripes & More rigger 3 nitpicking |
Date: | Mon Jul 9 14:15:01 2001 |
> 1) Number of rounds in weapon mounts.....
> Couldn't they just have a limit of 0.2 CF, 0.1 CF or even 0.02 CF capacity
> in mounts?
For some weapons, particularly large-caliber weapons (like assault cannons
tank rounds, and particularly naval guns) 0.2 CF is not enough. Also, some
uses (namely aerial strafing and anti-aircraft guns) require a whole
buttload of ammo to perform adequately. (For example, the AH-64 Apache
carries as part of its standard loadout 1,200 rounds of 30mm chain gun ammo
-- the SR equivalent of an autocannon.) In fact, the expression "the whole
nine yards" originates from WWII aerial combat, in which the pilot had to
use nine yards of belted ammo -- the standard loadout for the gun.)
IMO it's best to leave the ammo bin capacity open-ended and let the GM set
the upper limits.
> 2) If says that adding a weapon to a vehicle, it can only accept
accessories
> that are part of the weapon, except smartguns, which much be internal.
>
> Now, does that mean all accessories must be internal or integral with the
> gun?
Yes.
> I can accept things like bipods and stuff like shock pads couldn't be
added
> to the rifle, but scopes that come with the weapon when you buy it
shouldn't
> be different from imaging systems and scopes that you add on.....
Except that vehicle-mounted weapons use the vehicle's sensor systems to
fire, so scopes aren't necessary.
> 3) I couldn't find a magazine selector - if I want to put a variety of
> different ammos in the different magazines, say APDS, EX, Fletchette and
> incendary; there doesn't seem to be any mechanism? So should I just
> allocate 0.2 CF to each? 10,000 assault rifle rounds is an awful lot -
> 500kg of ammo. It would take me a long time to burn through that much,
> although, some players I have known.......
You would need a separate ammo bin for each type of ammo.
> 4) In the old edition, you had to double the cost of a gun to mount a
hand
> held weapon on a vehicle, but I looked and looked, but could find only a
> reference to a gun conversion kit, with no price (I assume same as a
> mechanics or weaponsmith kit), but you seem to only buy that once, in
> addition to your vehicle, electronic, computer and weaponsmith kits)
You need a weapon conversion kit to mount a weapon in a mount (fixed mount
or turret). Unfortunately the specs for conversion kits was left out of
Rigger 3; this has already been submitted to the errata list currently
under development. In the meanwhile, you can find the numbers listed at
(http://forums.dumpshock.com//Forum18/HTML/000024.html#3).
> 5) Engines - I wished to swap the EC engine in the glider they have, so
that
> it could run on solar cells and charge the battery - you can get them for
> drone mini-blimps, which is ok I guess. Could I rig an AC rectifier to
give
> the EC engine power from the solar cells and just let it drift along, or
to
> suppliment the power requirements? Surely a normal battery powered engine
> is enough for an ultralight glider?
No. Electric fuel cells have a higher overall power output per mass than
electric batteries do. (One reason why electric cars aren't commercially
viable yet; the batteries needed for an adequate travel range are way too
heavy.) If you swapped out the EC engine for batteries, you would seriously
cut the performance down, plus add more weight (especially by jury-rigging
a rectifier to the battery, which wouldn't work anyway).
(Personally, I think the concept of the Artemis Night Glider running on an
electric engine is just plain ludicrous. Whoever came up with that idea had
absolutely no clue about aeronautics. If it were up to me, I would have
deleted it from Rigger 2 and Rigger 3 -- if I wasn't obligated to include
it in the update and re-compilation of previously published vehicles.)
> EC engines should be able to use solar panels? Whoever wrote the rules
for
> EC engines had a poor grasp of physics - hydrogen cells do not produce AC
> power, they are like conventional batteries using a chemical reaction,
> wheras a internal combustion engine burning hydrogen would produce AC with
a
> generator as it uses coils and transformers. Transformers do not work on
DC
> power.
It is not the chemical conversion of hydrogen and oxygen to water that
produces electricity. Electric fuel cells work by inducting the hydrogen
ions (in essence, free protons) through a coil to generate a magnetic
field, that subsequently induces a current in the power circuit.
In other words, electric fuel cells aren't governed by the Laws of
Thermodynamics, but rather by Maxwell's Laws of Electromagnetics.
> Surely the EC engine is the hybrid version of the petrochem internal
> combustion engine? Why should there be a difference?
It is not (per my explanation above). However, hybrid engines are also
covered in Rigger 3 (on p. 117).
> 6) Maintenance cost of vehicles - players should be given a mothball
> option - putting the car up on blocks, coating the parts in vaseline and
> other things that would not induce and wear and tear. Getting the car
back
> on the road would take some work - pumping up and rebalancing the tires,
> recharging the battery, relubricating the moving parts for first ignition.
> Or should as a player, I disassemble a backup or rarely used vehicle for
> parts - so I have a collection of parts, not a vehicle, which doesn't need
> maintenance costs?
"Mothballing" (or, in my part of the USA, "cinderblocking" ;) a car
doesn't
avoid the need for maintenance. Metal corrodes, rubber dry-rots, fluids and
lubricants contaminate. At best you're only slowing down the wear and tear,
not eliminating altogether.
That said, there are options for basing maintenance off of usage. Check out
the Optempo Rules in the Advanced Rules chapter.
> 8) Offroad vehicle penalty for on road? Why should a person driving on a
> flattened road have a harder time than off the road? I can accept the
> handling penalty at higher speeds, but not if you are Sunday driving along
> the highway. Hmm, looks like I drive on the gravel or grass road shoulder
> on the highway from now on.
However, if you are Sunday-driving on the highway, you would not need to
make Handling Tests. Handling Tests only apply when you are performing non-
standard vehicle operations -- hairpin turns, emergency braking, vehicle
combat, and so on. And in these cases, off-road handling CAN adversely
affect performance.
> 9) The price of fly by wire systems - 1.25 x the cost of the whole vehicle
> for EACH LEVEL - does that include other accessories unrelated to the
engine
> systems.
For customization, the cost is based on the price of the base vehicle. This
is to keep things simple -- no need to break down the cost of the
individual components.
> Pg 192: Semiballistics A/S-K G. Concorde and G. D. SV250 has 50,000kg fuel
> by 0.01 km/kg = 500km travel
> Pg 193: Suborbitals F-B China Clipper and Ilyushin IL-159 has 80,000kg
fuel
> by 0.01 km/kg = 800km travel
>
> Either that should be 0.1 km/kg, or that is the fuel they use to get out
of
> the atmosphere and coast in very low earth orbit, representing the
> "manuevering fuel" - They have only 250 or 400km for the launch and
re-entry
> to move around.
The fuel represents the "maneuvering fuel." When SBs and SOs kick into
high-speed mode, a separate set of engines (and fuel) kick in. (In other
words there's a difference between the "maneuver thrusters" and the "main
thrusters.") Since no PC is likely to own a SB or SO anyway, that's better
handled as a handwave than by bean-counting the amount of rocket fuel.
> The drop tanks used for the Suborbitals to get them to low earth orbit are
> also not listed.
IMO booster rockets and tanks are more of a plot device than anything else.
> Also, I would like more details in the rules on orbital habits, especially
> at the Lagrange points.
Orbital habitats will be covered in the upcoming Target: Wastelands book
(which should be due out around the beginning of 2002, according to Rob
Boyle, the SR developer, during the Shadowrun seminar at Origins).
> Also, could Jim suits be adapted for vacuum conditions or for nuclear
> reactors?
No. JIM suits are designed for the high-pressure environment at deep ocean
depths and have lost of performance problems operating outside of the
water.
> Now supposing I was to go down to a scuttled Russian nuclear submarine and
> salvage the ICBMs, why couldn't I build my own sub-orbital as a player?
It
> would be a small cramped cabin, with no ammenities, but surely you can
hold
> it for 40 minutes? I don't need to carry 156 passengers, probably no more
> than 5. I can understand it might be a one way trip, with refueling
> problems (plus a heap of alarmed fighter jets converging on the location),
> but it might be just the ticket for getting out of a country in a hurry
(or
> into it), especially out of the soviet union.
No. The vehicle design rules are supposed to model MASS-PRODUCTION
vehicles, made by the big companies with lots of nuyen and teams of design
engineers at their beck and call. The tooling, facility, and labor
requirements to build a vehicle are too much for any one individual (or
even a small team of individuals) to perform on their own.
In any case, semiballistics aren't built directly from ex-ICBMs. ICBMs may
have served as the INSPIRATION for SBs, but the performance parameters
require some major re-engineering design for SBs to do what they have to
with a minimum of negative side effects.
-- Jon