Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject:	Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Fri, 29 Jan 1999 21:49:14 +0000

Message no. 1 I'm sorry to bring this up again if it has been asked before, but
going through the logs for this is a bit too much work for me.

first not really a question, more a remark:
My biggest problem I've encountered so far is the high cost for a
floatation package from the point of view that half speed reduction
looks a bit drastic to me (half a day of reading up on floating
planes and flying boats didn't give me anything about that either). I
can imagine that if you hang two huge balloon shape floats under your
plane, performance is going down the drain. But flying boats (like
the Cloud Nine) have a boat shaped fuselage and two small support
floats on the wings (some even can retract those). The only thing
that will set those planes apart from a regular version would be that
they are somewhat more sluggish in their movement. Mostly the
floating planes since they have two +-70kg chunks of metal hanging
under them. Second bit, loads of floats and flying boats have a
landing gear, so are truly amphibious.

Judging from what I've read about them I would say that adding
floats, or opting for a boat hull during vehicle design should be a
lot less painful. My idea would be:
Flying boat:
speed *0.9 and a +1 on reaction when flying the plane. Cost
chassis*1.2 for hull only; +10 points for dual operation.
For an additional 10 points you can have retractable floats and
negate the reaction penalty.

Floats:
speed* (body*5/100 the bigger the plane, the bigger the floats need
to be) and a +1 on reaction for every 10% of speed reduction. Costs
50 design points (you're not really touching the chassis). +10 points
for a landing gear tucked away in the floats. Maximum size would be a
medium dual engine chassis.

Customization afterwards would be next to impossible for a flying
boat. The rules for floats are okay as they are.

If anyone bothered to read this far, thanks :). Here's question 2:

Does the electronics in ECM, ECCM, etc. really weight that much? (no
sarcasm there, I don't know anything about this bit and am curious to
whether the CF and load values are a game balance thing or
realistic). I like those things and wouldn't mind adding it to
high performance sports cars (the ones with a signature of -20 and
counting) to give them any chance against missiles etc.

Same question about armour. nothing kills the load rating of a
vehicle are quickly as those two items. Did someone come up with a
more costly, but lighter variant? (lets say 100 points / 2500 Y per
point with a weight of body^2*2.5, or make a few things in between
those values).
Call me paranoid, but I hate to see my 750K plane go boom because of
one lousy missile.

And what happened to aural damping? I loved that option in RBB, have
your plane sneak up in the dark and scare the living daylights out of
people. >:)

For the rest I did have a great time playing around with the shop and
designing tens of vehicles using the R2 system including a 40MY
attack helicopter which just begs to be used by an evil GM >:)

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	Jon Szeto <JonSzeto@***.COM>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Sat, 30 Jan 1999 01:18:59 EST

Message no. 2 In a message dated 1/29/99 17:56:07 Eastern Standard Time, chimerae@***.IE
writes:

> first not really a question, more a remark:
> My biggest problem I've encountered so far is the high cost for a
> floatation package from the point of view that half speed reduction
> looks a bit drastic to me (snip)
>
> Judging from what I've read about them I would say that adding
> floats, or opting for a boat hull during vehicle design should be a
> lot less painful. My idea would be: (details snipped)
>

If you're referring to the floatation package on p. 144, I would say that one
should remember that it is a modification. In many ways, a modification,
unlike a design option, is something of an add-on. As such, it would mess with
the delicate balance of performance in a way that a design option, which is
smoothly integrated into the structure, would not. I think your ideas are
fine, but with the proviso that they would be DESIGN OPTIONS, not
modifications. (I think that was the point you were making anyway.)

> Does the electronics in ECM, ECCM, etc. really weight that much? (no
> sarcasm there, I don't know anything about this bit and am curious to
> whether the CF and load values are a game balance thing or
> realistic). I like those things and wouldn't mind adding it to
> high performance sports cars (the ones with a signature of -20 and
> counting) to give them any chance against missiles etc.
>

A small part of the reason that it weighs so much is that these electronics
are "hardened" against the stresses, vibrations, and other conditions of
duress that a running vehicle would inflict upon normally delicate electronic
components. This is particularly true of military-grade systems, which
probably still require that they be able to withstand some amount of EMP.

However, the main reason that they weigh so much is because of the
power/performance requirement. Remember that ECM and such have a base Flux
equal to Rating x 1.5. IMHO the rate of miniaturization for power-producing
devices (batteries, generators, and such) and signal-amplification units
nowhere near approaches the miniaturization curve for electronics.

(And don't ask me about the lighter values for power amplifiers of street
electronics in SR3. If it was me, I would have made all hand-held electronics
have a fixed Flux of 1, maybe 2 if characters paid extra. But that wasn't
pointed out to me until after publication, so it was too late for me to
explain myself to FASA editorial.)

> Same question about armour. nothing kills the load rating of a
> vehicle are quickly as those two items. Did someone come up with a
> more costly, but lighter variant? (lets say 100 points / 2500 Y per
> point with a weight of body^2*2.5, or make a few things in between
> those values).
> Call me paranoid, but I hate to see my 750K plane go boom because of
> one lousy missile.
>

You're paranoid. :-)

But seriously, the main reason I did it that way was to get around the
somewhat arbitrary "ceiling" imposed in Rigger 1. (And it makes sense, in a
way --- you can carry as much armor as your engine is capable of hauling, but
that diminishes the capacity for carrying other goodies.)

As far as lighter armor goes, I'd suggest something that reduces weight at the
expense of bulk. The weight would be reduced to Body^2*2.5, but it also
consumes about 1 to 3 CF per point of armor. (Kind of similar in concept to
the technology of ferro-fibrous armor in BattleTech, where armor tonnage is
reduced, but at the cost of eating up precious critical slots.)

Oh yeah, and it also costs more. Gotta pay for that tech curve, ya know. :-)

> And what happened to aural damping? I loved that option in RBB, have
> your plane sneak up in the dark and scare the living daylights out of
> people. >:)
>

I had thought about it, but I just couldn't find a satisfactorily neat way of
expressing it in game terms (before the writing deadline, within word count,
and in layman's terms, that is.) The problem is that, when Shadowrun was
originally designed in '89, the creators used a single Signature Rating to
express a number of multiple detection variables (including sound). It was
easy to focus on the two majors (radar and thermographics), but beyond that it
just got messy.

My $0.02 (USD).

-- Jon

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Sat, 30 Jan 1999 13:20:17 +0100

Message no. 3 According to Martin Steffens, at 21:49 on 29 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> My biggest problem I've encountered so far is the high cost for a
> floatation package from the point of view that half speed reduction
> looks a bit drastic to me (half a day of reading up on floating
> planes and flying boats didn't give me anything about that either).

I have similar feelings about amphibious operations packages, but going
the other way -- i.e. they allow too high a speed in the water for ground
vehicles.

Anyway, I don't think I've got any stats for aircraft with and without
floats anywhere, else I'd look up some data for you. What I think you
should do is find speeds for light aircraft that can be found both with
and without floats (Cessna 172 and similar planes).

> Flying boat:
> speed *0.9 and a +1 on reaction when flying the plane. Cost
> chassis*1.2 for hull only; +10 points for dual operation.
> For an additional 10 points you can have retractable floats and
> negate the reaction penalty.

Looks good to me. Except what do you mean with "+1 on reaction"? Do you
mean Handling, or something else?

> Floats:
> speed* (body*5/100

This doesn't look like it came out the way you wanted it to :) The way the
formula is written, the plane will slow down DRASTICALLY, and the
reduction will be bigger the smaller the plane is -- a Speed 400, Body 5
plane with floats will go 100 m/turn, while a Speed 400, Body 2 plane will
do only 40 m/turn...

> Does the electronics in ECM, ECCM, etc. really weight that much? (no
> sarcasm there, I don't know anything about this bit and am curious to
> whether the CF and load values are a game balance thing or
> realistic).

I have a feeling it's a bit of both, but I guess Jon is best qualified to
answer this. As for RL weights, I only have some for helicopter systems
_somewhere_ *sounds of Gurth moving books around until he can get to the
shelf with the books he's looking for* *sounds of flipping pages* Aha,
here we are... The AN/ALQ-144 active IR jammer weighs about 12.5 kg; this
is a system that's basically an IR strobe light that distracts seeker
heads of anti-aircraft missiles. It's mounted on many US Army and Marine
Corps combat helicopters somewhere near the engine. There's some more info
about helicopter ECM systems such as rdar jammers in the book I'm looking
in now ("Bell AH-1 Cobra" by Mike Verier, Osprey, 1990) but no weights or
sizes unfortunately.

> Same question about armour. nothing kills the load rating of a
> vehicle are quickly as those two items. Did someone come up with a
> more costly, but lighter variant? (lets say 100 points / 2500 Y per
> point with a weight of body^2*2.5, or make a few things in between
> those values).

Lighter often means that it takes up more space as well. I've often found
that weight isn't the biggest problem, at least not for cars -- size is.
If you want to armor a sportscar, with luck you can put in one or two
points of armor before all remaining CF is filled up.

> Call me paranoid, but I hate to see my 750K plane go boom because of
> one lousy missile.

A character in my campaign has bought an Ares Roadmaster and put 15 points
of concealed armor on the thing. He has about 2 cubic meters of storage
space left in the back, and nobody has fired at the truck AFAICR :)

> And what happened to aural damping? I loved that option in RBB, have
> your plane sneak up in the dark and scare the living daylights out of
> people. >:)

Just translate the stats and you can add it to your vehicles...

> For the rest I did have a great time playing around with the shop and
> designing tens of vehicles using the R2 system including a 40MY
> attack helicopter which just begs to be used by an evil GM >:)

Can you send me the stats?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And that's as far as the conversation went.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:28:04 +0000

Message no. 4 and thus did Gurth speak on 30 Jan 99 at 13:20:

> I have similar feelings about amphibious operations packages, but
> going the other way -- i.e. they allow too high a speed in the water
> for ground vehicles.

Ah yes, hadn't really paid attention to that. I guess that something
could be removed from the speed, but then again the only experience
I have with those things are those stupid water cycles that use
these big tires to propel themselves. I can say from that trip that
they absolutely are a waste of the plastic they're made off...

> Anyway, I don't think I've got any stats for aircraft with and
> without floats anywhere, else I'd look up some data for you. What I
> think you should do is find speeds for light aircraft that can be
> found both with and without floats (Cessna 172 and similar planes).

Have to look into that. The only one that I remember and might have
info off lying around in the house is the Japanese Zero.
For flying boats it's next to impossible because they're usually only
build in a boat version (although I recall a WWII bomber that might
have existed in both versions, have to look that up).
What I did was to take a flying boat and compare it to a plane with
roughly the same lay-out and horse powers and found out that the
differences weren't that big.

> Looks good to me. Except what do you mean with "+1 on reaction"? Do
> you mean Handling, or something else?

Actually I meant something along the lines of a -1 on the reaction of
the pilot. The thing is those planes are not more difficult to fly,
they're slower to respond though, so that's why I opted for the
reaction penalty (and got the + wrong :)

> > Floats:
> > speed* (body*5/100
>
> This doesn't look like it came out the way you wanted it to :) The
> way the formula is written, the plane will slow down DRASTICALLY,
> and the reduction will be bigger the smaller the plane is -- a Speed
> 400, Body 5 plane with floats will go 100 m/turn, while a Speed 400,
> Body 2 plane will do only 40 m/turn...

Erhm, yeah, dammit forgot one part:
speed * (1 - body*5/100)
Light planes suffer less and big ones should consider going for a
flying boat fuselage.

> I have a feeling it's a bit of both, but I guess Jon is best
> qualified to answer this. As for RL weights, I only have some for
> helicopter systems _somewhere_ *sounds of Gurth moving books around
> until he can get to the shelf with the books he's looking for*
> *sounds of flipping pages* Aha, here we are... The AN/ALQ-144 active
> IR jammer weighs about 12.5 kg; this is a system that's basically an
> IR strobe light that distracts seeker heads of anti-aircraft
> missiles.

Okay that sounds reasonable. That should give me some ideas on how to
adapt those weights to give electronic warfare some more chance. I
found out that with the new ED systems the need for space is greater
than ever.

> Lighter often means that it takes up more space as well. I've often
> found that weight isn't the biggest problem, at least not for cars
> -- size is. If you want to armor a sportscar, with luck you can put
> in one or two points of armor before all remaining CF is filled up.

Strangely enough I tend to end up with vehicles who have the
equivalent of a small van in empty space left, but the only thing
that's good for is packing two six packs because otherwise they go
over the load rating :).

> A character in my campaign has bought an Ares Roadmaster and put 15
> points of concealed armor on the thing. He has about 2 cubic meters
> of storage space left in the back, and nobody has fired at the truck
> AFAICR :)

Heheh, shame shame. Which reminds me that against AV weapons this
Roadmaster doesn't stand much of a chance. I think there should have
been more weapons like the Block 1A Outlaw that are semi AV (the
lovely autocannons come to mind). Now it's often a case of "bounce"
or "die" for the heavy armoured vehicles.

> > For the rest I did have a great time playing around with the shop and
> > designing tens of vehicles using the R2 system including a 40MY
> > attack helicopter which just begs to be used by an evil GM >:)
>
> Can you send me the stats?

Yep (grins and waves at some of Gurth's players how are one the
list), consider it done as long as you promise not to convert it for
a certain paranoia campaign :).

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 13:24:56 +0100

Message no. 5 According to Martin Steffens, at 19:28 on 31 Jan 99, the word on
the street was...

> > I have similar feelings about amphibious operations packages, but
> > going the other way -- i.e. they allow too high a speed in the water
> > for ground vehicles.
>
> Ah yes, hadn't really paid attention to that. I guess that something
> could be removed from the speed, but then again the only experience
> I have with those things are those stupid water cycles that use
> these big tires to propel themselves. I can say from that trip that
> they absolutely are a waste of the plastic they're made off...

Here's a comparison of the amphibious operations packages against real
military vehicles:

Level Water RL equivalents Propulsion
speed Vehicle Water speed
1 18 km/h M113 6 km/h Tracks
BMP-2 7 km/h Tracks
2 36 km/h LAV-25 11 km/h Propellers
TPz Fuchs 11 km/h Propellers
3 54 km/h BTR-70 10 km/h One water jet
AAV-7A1 13 km/h Two water jets

And yes, I am aware of experiments for a follow-up to the AAV-7 that
reached much higher water speeds, but unless I'm mistaken it did not come
close to 54 km/h.

> What I did was to take a flying boat and compare it to a plane with
> roughly the same lay-out and horse powers and found out that the
> differences weren't that big.

That's what I would have expected, because a boat hull is almost as
streamlined as a normal hull, just in a bit of a different way. My guess
is that the speed reduction is mainly there for game balance reasons.

> Actually I meant something along the lines of a -1 on the reaction of
> the pilot. The thing is those planes are not more difficult to fly,
> they're slower to respond though, so that's why I opted for the
> reaction penalty (and got the + wrong :)

I woul reflect this as a change to the aircraft's Maneuver Score,
probably, rather than the pilot's Reaction.

That reminds me: I had an idea some time ago to write up a modification
that would allow to increase or decrease a vehicle's Maneuver Score.
Probably best to keep it limited to between +3 and -3, and it can only be
built in as a design option. A cost of (basic chassis cost / 2) points per
+1 sounds good to me, while for reducing the Maneuver Score you get back
(basic chsssis cost / 4) points.

Any thoughts?

> Erhm, yeah, dammit forgot one part:
> speed * (1 - body*5/100)

IOW it's speed x (1 - Body/20)? :)

> Light planes suffer less and big ones should consider going for a
> flying boat fuselage.

Makes sense to me.

[attack helicopter]
> > Can you send me the stats?
>
> Yep (grins and waves at some of Gurth's players how are one the
> list)

Got them, thanks.

> consider it done as long as you promise not to convert it for a certain
> paranoia campaign :).

We'll see about that... *GM grin*

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And that's as far as the conversation went.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Mon, 1 Feb 1999 23:31:33 +0000

Message no. 6 Damn this one should have gone to the list, sorry Jon, I forgot the
reply options change when you're on digest.

and thus did Jon Szeto speak on 30 Jan 99 at 1:18:

> If you're referring to the floatation package on p. 144, I would say
> that one should remember that it is a modification. In many ways, a
> modification, unlike a design option, is something of an add-on. As
> such, it would mess with the delicate balance of performance in a
> way that a design option, which is smoothly integrated into the
> structure, would not. I think your ideas are fine, but with the
> proviso that they would be DESIGN OPTIONS, not modifications. (I
> think that was the point you were making anyway.)

It was indeed, plus that I figured that if you would go for a flying
boat that option would have to be design because AFAIK it's impossible
to change the plane afterwards. I think that most planes with floats
are designed by their producer as an option or as a stand alone
version. I can see people having problems along the lines of the rules
in R2 if they just grab a plane and weld two floats under it.
Personally the only thing I leave for customization are the weapon
mounts since they up the cost too much during design (that security
markup factor can really ruin you day :).

> However, the main reason that they weigh so much is because of the
> power/performance requirement. Remember that ECM and such have a
> base Flux equal to Rating x 1.5. IMHO the rate of miniaturization
> for power-producing devices (batteries, generators, and such) and
> signal-amplification units nowhere near approaches the
> miniaturization curve for electronics.

I see your point, but with the new ED rules it means that if a
fighter jet want to have a solid allround electronics set (including
sensors) you're looking at over a ton of electronics, plus the fighter
plane template only has two CF's left after installing that. I can
imagine that most military craft run with a set of military
electronics, but the way it is now they can't even fit them in the
vehicle.

> (And don't ask me about the lighter values for power amplifiers of
> street electronics in SR3. If it was me, I would have made all
> hand-held electronics have a fixed Flux of 1, maybe 2 if characters
> paid extra. But that wasn't pointed out to me until after
> publication, so it was too late for me to explain myself to FASA
> editorial.)

I was going to ask you, but I guess that clears that up :). I agree
with you in that respect and think it's going to be one of the first
house rules I implement.

> > Call me paranoid, but I hate to see my 750K plane go boom because of
> > one lousy missile.

> You're paranoid. :-)

After losing a 500K Westwind to a bunch of goons with Assault
Cannons, I am, but they are after me and my Cloud Nine, I can proof
it! :)

> As far as lighter armor goes, I'd suggest something that reduces
> weight at the expense of bulk. The weight would be reduced to
> Body^2*2.5, but it also consumes about 1 to 3 CF per point of armor.
> (Kind of similar in concept to the technology of ferro-fibrous armor
> in BattleTech, where armor tonnage is reduced, but at the cost of
> eating up precious critical slots.)

*Scribblescribble* noted, that should do the trick nicely indeed.

> Oh yeah, and it also costs more. Gotta pay for that tech curve, ya
> know. :-)

Of course :)

> I had thought about it, but I just couldn't find a satisfactorily
> neat way of expressing it in game terms (before the writing
> deadline, within word count, and in layman's terms, that is.) The
> problem is that, when Shadowrun was originally designed in '89, the
> creators used a single Signature Rating to express a number of
> multiple detection variables (including sound). It was easy to focus
> on the two majors (radar and thermographics), but beyond that it
> just got messy.

The way we solved that in RBB was by giving a vehicle three signature
values: Visual, Sensor and Aural. So the Aural Dampers where great if
you're up against a bunch of soft bodies at night; hide behind the
trees, warm up the minigun(s) and party on dudes! :)

> My $0.02 (USD).

Thanks and add to that IR£ 0.02

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	Martin Steffens <chimerae@***.IE>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Wed, 3 Feb 1999 21:39:36 +0000

Message no. 7 and thus did Gurth speak on 1 Feb 99 at 13:24:

> Here's a comparison of the amphibious operations packages against
> real military vehicles:
[snip stats]
> And yes, I am aware of experiments for a follow-up to the AAV-7 that
> reached much higher water speeds, but unless I'm mistaken it did not
> come close to 54 km/h.

Okay, I think that dividing the speeds listed in R2 by three would
make it slightly more realistic. If you feel that advances in
technology should warrant a higher speed, divide levels 2 and three
by 2, but if you are using wheels or tracks there isn't much you can
do to increase speed (except maybe little flaps that pop out on the
wheels made of smart materials that give it extra surface).

> That's what I would have expected, because a boat hull is almost as
> streamlined as a normal hull, just in a bit of a different way. My
> guess is that the speed reduction is mainly there for game balance
> reasons.

What game balance? I can understand the frame being more expensive as
a game balance thing (why not have a boat hull on your plane else),
but since the other items in the book are very well thought out, it
just stuck me as a bit weird (and being a big fan of flying boats I
had to come to their rescue :).
Having said that, there aren't going to be many manufacturers out
there that still make flying boats, floating planes as a standard
option (as compared to other planes), so if your team opts for one,
they just bought one item that might identify them.

> I woul reflect this as a change to the aircraft's Maneuver Score,
> probably, rather than the pilot's Reaction.

That's a better idea, specially combined with the next one:

> That reminds me: I had an idea some time ago to write up a
> modification that would allow to increase or decrease a vehicle's
> Maneuver Score. Probably best to keep it limited to between +3 and
> -3, and it can only be built in as a design option. A cost of (basic
> chassis cost / 2) points per
> +1 sounds good to me, while for reducing the Maneuver Score you get back
> (basic chsssis cost / 4) points.
>
> Any thoughts?

Me like? This would be excellent when recreating those WWII fighter
planes as a replica kit, instead of being fairly similar they would
differ in the maneuvre scores. I personally wouldn't limit it to
three points but go to about +5 / -5. Of course when installing it on
a fighter plane going at max speed you might need some rules for all
the G's the pilot is going to pull... :)

> > Erhm, yeah, dammit forgot one part:
> > speed * (1 - body*5/100)
>
> IOW it's speed x (1 - Body/20)? :)

I think mine looks better :P

> > Yep (grins and waves at some of Gurth's players how are one the
> > list)
> Got them, thanks.

I don't think it was possible to make it more expensive :)

> > consider it done as long as you promise not to convert it for a certain
> > paranoia campaign :).
>
> We'll see about that... *GM grin*

Hah, a helicopter in Alpha complex, that would be the day!
Considering the problems we have with a simple train, I think I just
shoot myself when we spot that one...

Martin Steffens
chimerae@***.ie

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:59:00 +0100

Message no. 8 According to Martin Steffens, at 21:39 on 3 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> Okay, I think that dividing the speeds listed in R2 by three would
> make it slightly more realistic.

That was the solution I had in mind too.

> If you feel that advances in technology should warrant a higher speed,
> divide levels 2 and three by 2, but if you are using wheels or tracks
> there isn't much you can do to increase speed (except maybe little flaps
> that pop out on the wheels made of smart materials that give it extra
> surface).

...which undoubtedly would get damaged in regular use -- like driving the
vehicle over a road :)

> Having said that, there aren't going to be many manufacturers out
> there that still make flying boats, floating planes as a standard
> option (as compared to other planes), so if your team opts for one,
> they just bought one item that might identify them.

I'm not so sure about that... With large parts of the world being less
accessible than they were, an aircraft that can land on water is very
convenient in many parts of South America, Africa, and Asia at least. They
would not be the kinds of flying boats used in the 1930s, of course.

[maneuver score modification option]
> Me like? This would be excellent when recreating those WWII fighter
> planes as a replica kit, instead of being fairly similar they would
> differ in the maneuvre scores.

That was my thought too. Of course it could also be applied to cars,
motorcycles, and so on -- it can be explained by careful design allowing
them to be piloted better than average types.

> I personally wouldn't limit it to three points but go to about +5 / -5.
> Of course when installing it on a fighter plane going at max speed you
> might need some rules for all the G's the pilot is going to pull... :)

Maybe the minimum and maximum should depend on the type of vehicle; for
example a +5/-5 is rather big for a normal car (sportscars are at +3, so a
sedan that's better-performing than a typical sportscar would be rather
rare). This needs a little bit more work, I think.

> > > speed * (1 - body*5/100)
> >
> > IOW it's speed x (1 - Body/20)? :)
>
> I think mine looks better :P

But mine's easier :)

> > > consider it done as long as you promise not to convert it for a certain
> > > paranoia campaign :).
> >
> > We'll see about that... *GM grin*
>
> Hah, a helicopter in Alpha complex, that would be the day!
> Considering the problems we have with a simple train, I think I just
> shoot myself when we spot that one...

I'll hold you to that :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If it's no use pretending, then I don't want to know.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	Anders Swenson <anders@**********.COM>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 07:55:53 -0800

Message no. 9 Herr Gurth: You referred me to NERPS to find primary stats for the German
Sourcebook vehicles. So, where is NERPS these days? The link off of your
home page is obviously not to useful these days. --Anders

From:	Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject:	Re: Yet another Rigger 2 question
Date:	Thu, 4 Feb 1999 19:20:32 +0100

Message no. 10 According to Anders Swenson, at 7:55 on 4 Feb 99, the word on
the street was...

> Herr Gurth: You referred me to NERPS to find primary stats for the German
> Sourcebook vehicles.

Unless I made a mistake, I referred you to the NAGEE.

> So, where is NERPS these days? The link off of your home page is
> obviously not to useful these days.

http://shadowrun.html.com/nerps should get you there (and you're right, I
really need to update my web page...) but there's no NAGEE there. Not sure
if you can find them in the archive, but one source is
http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Role-Playing/Shadowrun/NAGEE/. The server is
case-sensitive, I believe, so make sure you get it right. Also, you
_might_ need to chuck out the "/pub" bit, as I did this URL from memory.

(That site, BTW, is essentially the successor to cerebus.acusd.edu, which
was the successor to teetot.acusd.edu -- for those to whom these sites
mean nothing, firstly you obviously haven't been involved with Shadowrun
on the net long enough :) and secondly these used to be THE place to go
for SR stuff, until the WWW became too popular for its own good.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
If it's no use pretending, then I don't want to know.
-> NERPS Project Leader * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer