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