Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Glenn Robertson <Glenn.Robertson@***.EDU>
Subject: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 07:37:55 -0700
Howdy!
Our little game is getting difficult, and I was trying to figure
some stuff out. So, I figured the fastest way to learn it (since reading
all the stuff was clear as mud) would be to ask here. So here goes.

1) The position test IS a vehicle control test, isn't it? Therefore,
can't you only add the same number of control pool dice as you have skill
dice? I believe so, but heck, I've been wrong plenty of times.

2) Ok, I read SRII p.99 on firing missiles. We are using the 18D
Hyundai-CSA AAMs with the intel of 9. So, using the SRII rules, the
gunner (skill 3 and threat dice of 2) would roll 5 + 9 dice vs. the sig
of the helicopter (4)? This seems to be incredibly easy to deliver
deadly damage. Is this correct? Do vehicle sensors add into the roll to
hit? If so, how can you use the missile intel as well?

3) Ranges for these weopons are enormous. How do you determine when they
hit? Is it the same combat phase that they are fired? Doesn't anyone
get a chance to dive / evade like the movies? What about flares/chaff?
Is there such a thing, where can it be found, and what are the rules for
its use in defense?

4) Next, assuming that a hit is scored. How is damage determined? Is
there a body test and how does armor figure into it? I understand for
AVR/AVM that the damage level isn't automatically dropped one level like
all other weopons, but I am greatly confused on how the strength vs armor
is determined and how the damage is lessened, if at all.

As for the crash tests and such, I understand that. It is just
everything up to there that gets fuzzy up to there with the old RBB and
new SRII.

Frustrated and Lost in many manuals,
Glenn
Message no. 2
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:29:03 -0500
A little off the topic, but why hasn't anyone intergrated tactical
computers with rigging gear. It makes more sence than having them as
headware.
Message no. 3
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 03:33:48 +0000
Daniel wrote:

> A little off the topic, but why hasn't anyone intergrated tactical
> computers with rigging gear. It makes more sence than having them as
> headware.

Hmmm.....it does make sense....I would think, though, that it
wouldn't be as well integrated as the headware. I would allow it to
track a number of targets equal to its level without adding the
rigger's intellegence, but the drone's sensor rating instead.

Also, the drone and gear would have to be compatable, increasing the
cost of everything using the system.


--Droopy
droopy@**.net
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 11:46:14 +0100
Glenn Robertson said on 7:37/16 Nov 96...

> Our little game is getting difficult, and I was trying to figure
> some stuff out. So, I figured the fastest way to learn it (since reading
> all the stuff was clear as mud) would be to ask here. So here goes.

Taking the easy way out, huh? :)

> 1) The position test IS a vehicle control test, isn't it? Therefore,
> can't you only add the same number of control pool dice as you have skill
> dice? I believe so, but heck, I've been wrong plenty of times.

I think so. There aren't many vehicle chases when I GM, but I do believe
the position test lets you roll Control Pool dice up to your skill rating.

> 2) Ok, I read SRII p.99 on firing missiles. We are using the 18D
> Hyundai-CSA AAMs with the intel of 9. So, using the SRII rules, the
> gunner (skill 3 and threat dice of 2) would roll 5 + 9 dice vs. the sig
> of the helicopter (4)? This seems to be incredibly easy to deliver
> deadly damage. Is this correct? Do vehicle sensors add into the roll to
> hit? If so, how can you use the missile intel as well?

He would roll 14 dice to hit against the signature, yes (3+2+9 dice vs. TN
4), plus sensor dice, if the weapon is linked to the sensors -- and I
think most weapons, except pintle-mounted ones, are. Still, with
sensor-enhanced targeting, the TN may be modified for terrain (page 106,
RBB), though the best modifier (-4 for direct LOS) doesn't apply to
missiles.

> 3) Ranges for these weopons are enormous. How do you determine when they
> hit? Is it the same combat phase that they are fired?

According to FOF, you should assume missiles fly at 1000 m/turn (see the
very top of page 86, FOF).

> Doesn't anyone get a chance to dive / evade like the movies?

If the missile doesn't reach the target before the target's next action, I
would allow them to try and evade. It would probably involve a Handling
test to remove the missile's successes, but I've never had this situation
come up so I'm improvising right now :)

> What about flares/chaff? Is there such a thing, where can it be found,
> and what are the rules for its use in defense?

Assume that all of this is part of the vehicle's ECM equipment. It gets
too complicated for SR's simple system to figure in whether you have a
radar warning system, flares, chaff, disco lights, or whatever on the
vehicle. Unless you really want to, of course :)

> 4) Next, assuming that a hit is scored. How is damage determined? Is
> there a body test and how does armor figure into it? I understand for
> AVR/AVM that the damage level isn't automatically dropped one level like
> all other weopons, but I am greatly confused on how the strength vs armor
> is determined and how the damage is lessened, if at all.

This is a somewhat tough point, since the rules for vehicles resisting
damage aren't all that clear. Some people treat it like shooting at a
barrier, but if you look at those rules closely you'll get lost in them as well.
Anyway, a simple way of handling it is to just drop the Damage Level by
one category, except if the weapon is specifically designed to shoot at
vehicles. AVM/AVRs fall into that class, and so would all the missiles
from the RBB.

Now compare the Power Level to the armor rating; if the AR is larger than
or equal to the PL, the attack does no damage at all.

If it does do damage, deduct the vehicle's Body from the weapon's Power
Level. If it has armor, deduct that as well (even against
semi-armor-piercing weapons).

Next, roll a number of dice equal to the Body plus one-half the Armor
rating (riggers may add Control Pool dice). Finally stage damage up or
down as necessary for the number of successes rolled.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
It's as plain as a Bulgarian stripper.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 5
From: Steffen Lassahn <sl@*******.HANSE.DE>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:45:23 GMT
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:37:55 GMT, in fusebox-ml.shadowrn you wrote:

Hiho!

>1) The position test IS a vehicle control test, isn't it? Therefore,
>can't you only add the same number of control pool dice as you have =
skill
>dice? I believe so, but heck, I've been wrong plenty of times.

You are right.

>2) Ok, I read SRII p.99 on firing missiles. We are using the 18D
>Hyundai-CSA AAMs with the intel of 9. So, using the SRII rules, the
>gunner (skill 3 and threat dice of 2) would roll 5 + 9 dice vs. the sig
>of the helicopter (4)? This seems to be incredibly easy to deliver
>deadly damage. Is this correct? Do vehicle sensors add into the roll =
to
>hit? If so, how can you use the missile intel as well?

OK, you discovered the same problems that we had. We solved it this
way: We divided the firing of these wepons into two phases. In the
first phase you are firing the missile. For that you roll the skill of
the rigger plus half the intelligence of the weapon against the normal
target number depending on the range. The reason for that is normally
to fire this weapon you point its seeker towards the target (skill of
the rigger) and the seeker aquires the target and locks on
(Intelligence of the weapon). In the second phase you decide whether
the missile hits or not. For that you roll the intelligence plus half
the successes of the first test against the signature of the target
plus modifiers (chaff, flares and the like).

>3) Ranges for these weopons are enormous. How do you determine when =
they
>hit? Is it the same combat phase that they are fired? Doesn't anyone
>get a chance to dive / evade like the movies?

Since we had to divide the firing of these weapons into multiple
phases we said that it takes the weapon one combat phase to go through
one range step. During this time the rigger of the target has time to
eject chaff/flares and to evade IF he saw the firing of the weapon or
any warning system told him.

>What about flares/chaff?
>Is there such a thing, where can it be found, and what are the rules for
>its use in defense?

We just made something up. For each bundle of chaff/flare you manage
to eject the target number for the missile to hit goes up 2.

Example for all the stuff above:
Joe Runner is piloting a truck with a build in missile launcher and
wants to shoot a Hyundai at an Ares Dragon at extreme range. So he
rolls 6 dices (skill) plus 4 dices (intelligence/2) plus combat pool
against the target number of 9. He gets 5 successes. Now it takes the
weapon four phases until it reaches the target.
The rigger of the Dragon got the information from his threat warning
system that a radar guided missile was shot at him so he starts to
eject chaff. He can do so three times and in his last combat phase
before the missile hits he drops the aircraft towards the ground to
leave only the chaff target for the missile. Now the missile rolls 9
(intelligence) plus 2 (successes of the first test/2) against 3
(signature of the Dragon) plus 6 (3 times 2 for 3 bundles of chaff)
plus 2 (drop to the ground) = 11. The result is 1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,8,9,10
so the missile misses and self destructs.

>4) Next, assuming that a hit is scored. How is damage determined? Is
>there a body test and how does armor figure into it? I understand for
>AVR/AVM that the damage level isn't automatically dropped one level like
>all other weopons, but I am greatly confused on how the strength vs =
armor
>is determined and how the damage is lessened, if at all.

The weapon is aasumed to be an AVM so the damage level doesn't drop.
You substract the armor of the helicopter from the power of the weapon
and the you roll a body test as you would do with an anti personnel
missile hitting a squad of troopers.

Any comments?

Steffen


+------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--+
| Steffen Lassahn sl@*******.hanse.de=
|
| Tel. +49 (0)40 250 72 98 =
|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--+
| You are young only once. But if you do it right once is enough! =
|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--+
Message no. 6
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 14:33:57 -0500
> Daniel wrote:
>
> > A little off the topic, but why hasn't anyone intergrated tactical
> > computers with rigging gear. It makes more sence than having them as
> > headware.
>
> Hmmm.....it does make sense....I would think, though, that it
> wouldn't be as well integrated as the headware. I would allow it to
> track a number of targets equal to its level without adding the
> rigger's intellegence, but the drone's sensor rating instead.
>
> Also, the drone and gear would have to be compatable, increasing the
> cost of everything using the system.

I was just thinking of sticking it in a vehicle. Now you are driving
around in a van (maybe) with a heavy machine gun (hopefully), but now the
van can predict the movements of cars around it or enable improve tracking
of aerial drones or a whole number of other useful things. I think it
could be intergrated quite well though, just include in the vehicles VCR.
Since it is using the vehicles sensors instead of your own, it wouldn't
require total integration with your body. It would jst need to report
back its results, and the VCR interface should be sufficient for that.
Also, since you don't have to worry about minituration costs or
difficulties, one probably would be able in use a more powerful tac
computer than its counterpart in a sam. It would make sence.
Message no. 7
From: Faux Pas <fauxpas@******.NET>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:38:56 -0600
At 07:37 AM 11/16/96 -0700, you wrote:
>Howdy!

>2) Ok, I read SRII p.99 on firing missiles. We are using the 18D
>Hyundai-CSA AAMs with the intel of 9. So, using the SRII rules, the
>gunner (skill 3 and threat dice of 2) would roll 5 + 9 dice vs. the sig
>of the helicopter (4)? This seems to be incredibly easy to deliver
>deadly damage. Is this correct? Do vehicle sensors add into the roll to
>hit? If so, how can you use the missile intel as well?

It seems like the 5+9 dice is correct. The three missiles listed in the
gear section of the main book have Intels of 3 or 4 (so with these "normal"
missiles, that'd be an 8d attack). It looks like the sig becomes the base
TN, and that's modified up and down. Remember that in an urban situation,
you've got a +2 modifier to that. And some sprawls have that firetrack net
mentioned in the Lone Star s'book. I'd go ahead and add on some of the mods
from the visibility table and the ranged combat table.
-Thomas Deeny
the Cartoonist at large is on the web at www2.cy-net.net/~fauxpas

"If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have
schizophrenia."
-Dr. Thomas Szasz
Message no. 8
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: Vehicle combat and AAM help!
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 00:54:25 +0000
Daniel wrote:
> >
> > > A little off the topic, but why hasn't anyone intergrated tactical
> > > computers with rigging gear. It makes more sence than having them as
> > > headware.
> >
> > Hmmm.....it does make sense....I would think, though, that it
> > wouldn't be as well integrated as the headware. I would allow it to
> > track a number of targets equal to its level without adding the
> > rigger's intellegence, but the drone's sensor rating instead.
> >
> > Also, the drone and gear would have to be compatable, increasing the
> > cost of everything using the system.
>
> I was just thinking of sticking it in a vehicle. Now you are driving

I fail to see the difference.

> Also, since you don't have to worry about minituration costs or
> difficulties, one probably would be able in use a more powerful tac
> computer than its counterpart in a sam. It would make sence.

I both agree and disagree with this....on one hand, yes, you could
make them more powerfull if the restrictions are merely based on
headroom. OTOH, that is pretty sophisticated equipment. It'd take a
lot to increase the capabilities much further.


--Droopy
droopy@**.net

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Vehicle combat and AAM help!, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

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.

Thwap!