A while ago, I thought of this as a simple way to provide an incentive for DS2
vehicles with less than maximal armour:
To give a reason for fitting less than maximum armour on ground vehicles (the
high prices of VTOL and aerospace mobility make the change less necessary for
these vehicles): How about giving ground vehicles one extra movement point for
being one level below maximum armour, 2 MP for being two levels below maximum,
and also one or two extra movement points for being open topped?
Extra armour could be added, perhaps costing similar numbers of MP, and say
5-10% of BVP, per facing armoured. This would allow the construction of
smaller heavily armoured vehicles- SF Matilda Is, should anyone want
such a thing.
If this scheme was being used, I would also suggest allowing evasive movement
for any ground vehicle with a movement allowance greater than 12, as a
further, tactical incentive to choose more lightly armoured vehicles.
This would enable an increase in the _relative_ mobility of cheaper
mobility classes, and perhaps encourage the use of real light scout vehicles
and thinly armoured SP artillery and tank destroyers.
As examples, an M113-type APC could be Size 2, Armour 1 with Fast
Tracked mobility giving 13MF instead of the current 12, and capacity for
evasive maneuvring. Basic cost would be 17 points.
A Sexton or Priest SPG could be Size 3, Armour 1, open topped, with Slow
Tracked mobility giving 11MF instead of the current 8 and letting it keep up
with the tanks using a cheaper mobility class. Basic cost would be 22 points.
Under the current rules the same hull with Fast Tracked mobility would have
12MF but cost 25 points.
An M10 Tank destroyer could be Size 3, Armour 1 (Front 2), open topped, with
Fast Tracked mobility giving 14MF instead of the current 12, and capacity for
evasive maneuvring.
A Matilda MkI could be Size 2, Armour 4 (Front 4), with Slow Tracked mobility
giving 4MF instead of the current 8 and letting it keep up with the tanks
using a cheaper mobility class.
Needless to say, none of these ideas have been tested, but they do at least
appear to make a direct connection between weight of armour and mobility
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Robin Paul wrote:
> A while ago, I thought of this as a simple way to provide an incentive
[...]
> How about giving ground vehicles one extra movement point for being
[...]
> This would enable an increase in the _relative_ mobility of cheaper
[...]
> A Sexton or Priest SPG could be Size 3, Armour 1, open topped, with
This just feels...wrong. I'm not able to see how you can have something that's
nominally "slow tracked" be cooking along at just about the same speed as
"fast tracked". The way I understand engines (and I'll be the
first to admit I'm no mechanic ;-) is that they have a certain torque
and
mobility output and whatnot (the "whatnot" part is my non-mechanic lack-
of-jargon portion of the understanding ;-), and you can't make 'em go
faster than they are designed to go. I mean, a bulldozer is not going to go
much faster than it already does if you strip off all the heavy weight
attached to it. My Indymobile is not going to keep up with Nascar vehicles no
matter how much I strip off the car (I can get up to 90 mph on a 7%
grade and 7 miles of uncontested road in front of me - 95 if there's a
stiff wind at my back ;-). I think the "mobility" factor is a limit to
how much an engine on a particular vehicle can move said vehicle.
Sorry, Rob, the idea just doesn't feel right. :-/
Hi,
Actually, without the massive amount of weight, the bulldozer could go much
faster, but it would also need a totally different transmission. Most heavy
vehicles have their speed limited mainly by their transmission, which is
geared very low to account for both their large weight and their need to have
loads of power.
The reason that you will never get to the speeds of a NASCAR is that they have
ten times the power and less weight. Even if you were dropped from a Hercules
at 20000 feet, the NASCAR would still be faster, although you would stop much
faster;)
Simply put, the acceleration of a car is determined mostly by it's power to
weight ratio, whereas its top speed is determined by its gear ratio
(transmission) as well as suspension and braking (for safety reasons). A
vehicle may be unable to reach its theoretical top speed if the power is
insufficient to overcome friction, but IMO that is not particularly relevant
to DS.
I think that mobility should be described by engine output, vehicle mass and
mobility class. I'll try to come up with some sensible combination that fits
somewhat within the current system.
> On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, at 06:37 PM, Dances With Rocks wrote:
You're correct in saying that an "engine" (Internal combustion/Turbine
etc) has a certain torque and mobility output, however these are 1. not set in
stone, and 2. are not a 1 to 1 correlation to how fast a vehicle can go.
Finally, 3. acceleration is directly related to mass, if energy is constant.
Less mass, more acceleration per unit time. More mass, less acceleration per
unit time.
1. I can make your "indymobile" perform a _whole_ lot better (okay
faster, less efficient in almost every other aspect though) through
modifications... Ripping/changing the exhaust, "turbo" charging or
four-barrel carbs if they're not already on the engine, "Nitro" or other
fast cooling system, reboring your cylinders, etc. All of these will directly
change the performance and output of your engine. However, this may, or may
not, change your top speed or acceleration. This is where 2
comes in.
2. Gearing is everything. If you're gearing is low, like a bull-dozer,
or Jeep in 4 wheel low, you're going to top out at speeds of 35 mph (or lower,
I think, for a bulldozer). But you can literally climb walls
(ok,
low walls), tow insane loads, or push large heavy masses of dirt and stone.
Instead of speed, your gearing has given you raw power. On the flip side,
geared the other way, and you can't accelerate much weight quickly, but your
top speeds can be huge... My jeep can do 90 with the top up, and me juicing it
the right way (it helps to have a downslope, and
won't work on an upslope) in 4-wheel high gear.
3. Law of physics. This doesn't necessarily affect top speed, but the ability
to reach it faster does equate to greater distances travelled faster, more
maneuverability, etc.
Real world examples... To stay with your racing example... "Stock" car racing
is taking a "stock" car, like say a ford Torus, and modifying it without
adding anything (Much... there are certain rules for this, and lot's of
limitations, as I understand it's mainly safety gear)... In order to make them
perform better, they cut as much weight as possible... There are no back
seats, or passenger seat, etc.
Mazda Miata vs. their Protege Model... Same, exact engine. Protege was
the 4-door frame (and about 500 pounts heavier). The Miata, designed to
hot-rod, was beating Porshe 911's in most all tests that they were
pitted against each other in. The Protege doesn't hold a candle (although can
beat a ill driven Mustang 5.0 in a quater mile... I made 50 bucks when I was
18 (and stupid) and drag racing).
There _are_ factors that would restrict top speeds, for instance, to
little weight can affect handling making a car less able to grip the road
(usually because weight was removed that changed the center of gravity placing
it to high for the vehicle...) or safely do high to mid speed maneuvers. The
infamous SUV roll-overs as an example.
Another fun one is wind resistance... My Jeep as an example. You could
drop all the weight you wanted, changed the gearing to all kinds of fun,
but you're not liable to make my flying brick fly much faster without changing
the aerodynamics.
And I won't touch electric motors, which "don't need" gearing (even I find
that hard to swallow after a point) and just spin at whatever RPM's are
needed.
Alright, enough real-world stuff...
To bring this back to the original thread. It is perfectly right, in reality,
using physical motive systems as they exist today, to say that a lightly
armored vehicle can have better speeds and acceleration than the
same vehicle with more armor. The gearing would have to change, but this isn't
that difficult and should be no more expensive in either direction, and in
fact could be a fairly simple field modification if a vehicle is built right.
Even with GEV or full flight vehicles, this would still be an issue... Thrust
to weight ratio's make or break modern military aircraft, and are a way of
measuring potential maneuverability of an aircraft.
Rand.
> This just feels...wrong. I'm not able to see how you can have something
This is right. European cars are generally much 'quicker' than American cars
(and around twice as expensive) despite much smaller engines largely
because of (i) higher power/weight ratios, (ii) high manual gearage (my
family saloon car is only doing 3K revs at 80 mph in fifth gear), and complex
stiff suspension designed for stability rather than comfort (you
feel every bump).
A further limitation come into play. You can make the AFV go fast over rough
terrain but the crew inside get exhausted to the point of military
ineffectiveness by being banged around. Formula 1 drivers are supremely fit
athletes and Mansell still had to be lifted out of the car sometimes at the
end of a race. The heavier the vehicle the more it smooths this out, so I have
read that oddly heavier AFVs can often maintain higher cross country speeds
than light ones.
The point is that top speed in straight lines on flat surfaces and 'quickness'
(i.e. ability to maintain high speeds in realistic operating
conditions) are not the same thing.
John
> Hi,
Most
> heavy vehicles have their speed limited mainly by their transmission,
> --- Tony Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:
<<Stuff Snipped>>
> A vehicle may be unable to reach
<Pedantic> Friction and drag. Drag increases as V^3 so it gets important
quickly.
</Pedantic>
> I think that mobility should be described by engine
Along the same lines we are limited to 6 hours of flying time (can be extended
to 8) but after that we
need 10 hours off. The vibration/noise etc just wears
you out and this is in a fairly comfortable helo.
Magic
> --- John Lambshead <pjdl@nhm.ac.uk> wrote:
> Actually, without the massive amount of weight, the bulldozer could go
Roight then! This c/would explain "slow tracked" and "fast tracked" (or
any "slow/fast") mobility difference then, no? So if you take an
essentially "slow velocity" vehicle, change the transmission so its speed can
be higher, you've basically just upgraded to "fast velocity". Just removing
the weight isn't going to allow a "slow velocity" vehicle to reach "fast
velocity" speeds (this is my understanding of it, and what I was trying to
poorly and inadequately say last night; I'm much
better dealing with stellar things ;-)
> The reason that you will never get to the speeds of a NASCAR is that
You know how to make my day, Tony. ;-)
Hi,
Well, drag is just friction in the air, no? I still think that it is an
unnecessary complication. A Grav vehicle in DS moves at a whopping combat
speed
of 6 km/h (1500 m/ 0.25 hours), with a top speed
of 12 km/h... about the speed of a bulldozer in
high gear!
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 04:13 AM, Robert Makowsky wrote:
> --- Tony Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:
> Indy wrote:
> Roight then! This c/would explain "slow tracked" and "fast tracked" (or
This, of course, ignores the fact that the Fast Tracked/Slow tracked
method of determining a vehicle's BMF is quite artificial: ALL tracked
vehicles have a movement of either 8 or 12? That never made sense to me....
The
original proposal, while still flawed, does address the wide variety of speeds
that SHOULD be possible.
> So if you take an
True, but since in DS II armor takes up no capacity, you can always explain
that building a vehicle with a lower-than normal armor rating, and then
rewarding it with a higher BMF, does not represent simply making it lighter,
rather, it represents replacing some of the bulk/mass of the armor with
more powerful transmissions and suspensions. I know, someone will argue that
this can be done just by making it a higher mobility type - again, the
problem I have with that is the artificiality of the fixed BMF's.
The only drawback I see with the proposed HR is that unless you also adjust
the capacity and/or cost for said vehicle, you imbalance the game - is
the increase in speed for the reduction in armor TOO MUCH of a reward? How
much to charge for the new speed? Of course, if the DS3 system gives
appropriate costs (in points OR capacity, whichever system you're for) for
both armor and movement, that problem is solved.
Tony,
No problem, I was thinking friction was tires/tracks
to ground and friction in the drivetrain/gearbox.
Overall I agree with your comments about unnecessary. Just the flight school
coming out where we had to learn the lift equation and use it in a sentence.
<G>
Bob
> --- Tony Christney <tchristney@telus.net> wrote:
Tony Christney
> Well, drag is just friction in the air, no? I still
Umm.... only if you assume that the BMF is movement in a straight line over
the entire 15 minutes of the turn. But the rules specifically state that
that is NOT the case - BMF represents it's tactical speed, the general
amount of ground it can cover in a given turn taking into consideration stops,
starts, jukes, sudden bursts, etc. It is not accurate to merely take it's BMF,
convert that to km, and multiply by 4 to determine kph.
3B^2
Hello everybody
Altogether, following this discussion about speed and armour, my impression is
that most of the suggested complication isn't really warranted.
Why not just have armour classes and final mobility classes? Just pay for the
final result (making speed price dependent on total "weight" of the vehicle).
You can always argue that an uparmoured variant of a vehicle also received an
engine upgrade to allow the same top speed. No need to directly model
performance degradation due to armour. The important point is to get the
balance right, not to model the perforamnce characteristics of a grav vehicle.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> At 10:12 AM -0400 4/10/02, Indy wrote:
And in the process you'll be throwing tracks, loosing road wheels and all
sorts of problems along the way. The differences in suspension for certain
types of armored vehicles isn't the same. You couldn't have dropped a stronger
engine into a churchill with a different transmission and expected that
suspension to handle that kind of movement.
> "K.H.Ranitzsch" wrote:
Agreed.
There are two distinct requirements appearing from our discussions over the
last few days (which unfortunately I've had to dip out of 'cos I'm a bit busy
at the moment!).
The first relates to a points system which accurately (as far as possible)
rates the 'combat value' of a vehicle based on its
capabilities - whether those capabilities are historical, converted from
another game system, the designer's whim, whatever. The current
consensus seems to be that this should be a 'one-off battle' rating.
The second requirement concerns a detailed design system that creates vehicles
within a defined set of parameters and limitations (ie 'real' vehicles in the
GZGverse) involving mass, capacity, engine thrust, motive system etc. This
results in a vehicle with capabilities that can still be rated by the above
mentioned points system.
These aren't mutually exculsive. The points system could rate vehicles
regardless of their origin and produce compatible results. Those who wish to
game 'hard' SF, putting limitations in place to avoid 'cheese'
vehicles (Uberbikes with class/5 MDC etc) would design their vehicles
using the design system, feed the results into the points system and get their
'combat value' out. Those who are less concerned with the detailed design
process would just write down what they want the capabilities of their vehicle
to be (or convert from a different system), feed this into
the points system and - hey presto - get a 'combat value' which is fully
compatible with the 'properly' designed vehicle, just derived in a different
way.
DS3 keeps it's generic tag since the design system becomes an optional
extra for the GZGverse background. Non-canon universes (Star Wars,
Battletech, Hammers Slammers, Epic 40K etc) could all happily be played
out with the game and cross-genre battles would be possible since the
points values are compatible. New weapons systems could be introduced to the
points system, but kept out of the design system if they aren't compatible
with the PSB of the GZG background (so rules and points for Meltaguns are
available, but they can't be designed into NAC tanks). Hell, you could even
create new design systems for alternative backgrounds that allow the creation
of (say) Battletech Mechs within limitations relevant to the FASA game
universe.
We should be able to have our cake _and_ eat it.
> Tony Francis wrote:
> There are two distinct requirements appearing from our discussions over
*SNIP*
> We should be able to have our cake _and_ eat it.
Agreed, and this is the conclusion that Tomb, Oerjan, and myself have also
reached. The thing to make sure of is that while points and capacity systems
are not mutually exclusive, they SHOULD be completely autonomous, so that
neither is dependent on the use of the other.
3B^2
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
(or
> >any "slow/fast") mobility difference then, no?
The
> original proposal, while still flawed, does address the wide variety
I think part of it is a granularity issue for the game scale. But I'm not
arguing with you. I would like to see a wider variety of movement options
available (eg, "medium tracked" = 10).
Ryan also chimes in with:
> ...So if you take an
vehicle
> to reach "fast velocity" speeds (this is my understanding of it, and
Right! I thought there might have been more than simply changing out the
transmission, but my brain wasn't fully engaged (obviously!). My mind just
isn't "geared" to thinking about the mechanics of engines and stuff (the
pun...sorry; it just spilled out). But this just goes to show simply changing
out the armor amounts isn't going to allow
dramatic increases from "slow" to "fast" mobility levels. I'm pre-
suming the whole difference between "slow" and "fast" takes into account all
these little details too small for the game to worry about.
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002 17:48:47 +0100, Tony Francis <tony.francis@kuju.com>
wrote:
> These aren't mutually exculsive. The points system could rate vehicles
Nailed it. That's exactly the kind of approach that I would think best, and it
would be easy to include a lot of different...well, call them "Genre
Templates" in the book. One or two pages each, listing the design assumptions
and limitations for a variety of different genres, including the Tuffleyverse,
a Mecha universe, and
some pop-culture
(and gaming) settings with the serial numbers filed off.
It would be in these Genre Templates that things like weapon limitations and
vehicle capacities would be defined; the Tuffleyverse template would restrict
flyers to a maximum armor level of 3 (or whatever), forbid Mecha larger than
size Class I, forbid Powerguns entirely, and so on and so forth.
This strikes me as the best way to make the maximum number of current players
happy *and* draw in a nice crop of new players.
> Indy wrote:
> I think part of it is a granularity issue for the game scale.
Probably, but an improved version of the game will probsbly address this. But
I'm
> not arguing with you. I would like to see a wider variety of movement
Same response as above.
> I'm pre-
And I'm sure we agree that an expanded movement cost rule could also take such
differences into account.
3B^2
John Crimmins wrote:
> Nailed it. That's exactly the kind of approach that I would think
> forbid Powerguns
Sounds like a large number of listers are in agreement on this point. I
also realized another advantage is the ability to customize not only vehicles,
but weapons systems (Someone else probably has already mentioned this, but in
case someone else missed it as wide as I.....). For the point system, you
could include tables for calculating the values for
scratch-built weapons by taking into account range, damage vs
vehicles/vs.
Infantry, defenses against it (PDS,etc.), special abilities (Top attack; ADS
useability, indirect fire, etc.), can it fire repeatedly or is it necessary
to require reloads, etc. The rules could give a few "Sample" weapons,
and each "Genre Template" could include not only the capacity requirements for
it's specific weapons, but also their specific point cost. Thus you could
give any historical OR future/fictional weapon a point value.
3B^2
3B^2
> At 1:12 PM -0400 4/10/02, Indy wrote:
The thing to realize is that tanks are meant to be able to climb obstacles,
obstructions and grades that would stop most vehicles. That component in mind
means that your gear ratios down low are going to be amazingly low. Even some
wheeled vehicles are like this. My ferret which has a 4.25 litre engine and
weighs 4.5 tons when combat loaded, has a max speed of 50 mph in a straight
line. 5 gears with the 1st one so low you usually start out in 2nd. So really
you've got 4 relatively close spaced gears for moving around. Tanks are
similar in their requirements (more so due to the need for additional torque
what with a tracked drive train), but have additional sizing issues in the
transmissions or final drives for the ability to neutral steer as well as
brake steer.
If you ever have a chance, sit down and read through some books that discuss
the design of tanks and the various changes over the course of said design.
You get some amazing insights into the difficulties one encounters.
> Dances With Rocks wrote:
> This just feels...wrong. I'm not able to see how you can have
Transmission is everything. The bulldozer is damn slow, because it is required
to
move rubble and earth. To accomplish this task, it worries more about torque
and traction, than speed. Stripping the weight off of a bulldozer will improve
its acceleration, but the top speed will only change slightly, because the
final drive ratio was only intended for moving the vehicle at a walking pace.
The bulldozer tops out at nearly the same speed as before, because the engine
is running at the end of its powerband (why construction equipment howls as it
drives by at roadway speeds, the engine is pushed against its rev limiter).
Some american muscle cars had similar limitations. The engine and final drive
were optimised for maxing out the speed achieved by flooring it for a
quarter-mile
from a stop. Topping out at 120mph was useless if you were not going that fast
after the quarter mile. Some of these vehicles had the perverse combination of
> John Lambshead wrote:
> A further limitation come into play. You can make the AFV go fast over
Really massive vehicles (relative to the mass of the running gear) have a much
smoother ride because the roadwheels can follow the undulations, but the
inertia of the vehicle keeps it steady. A larger travel of the suspension also
makes for a smoother ride, as the springs can be softer. Load levelling
suspensions that softly push up the whole vehicle to prevent a harsh shove at
one corner will also improve comfort. Within the travel limits of the
suspension, these not only improve comfort, but also allow for a higher speed,
or why the mid seventies cadillac is a better desert racer than any porsche
From: "Ryan M Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> On 10-Apr-02 at 13:14, Indy (kochte@stsci.edu) wrote:
> Right! I thought there might have been more than simply changing out
You are not wrong. They are getting into the gritty details while your method
"assumes" that the initial designers put the correct suspension on the
vehicle. If any of the designs for the slow heavy vehicles had made them
lighter with the same engine they would have used a different transmission
which would have required a different suspension system. This is below the
level of the game and can be safely ignored.
> At 6:45 PM +1000 4/11/02, Alan and Carmel Brain wrote:
The Churchill was/is very good on rough ground because of the very
long tracks and low ground pressure. But it's top speed was on the order of
15mph, 11 for the up armored models (which had thicker front armor than the
tiger it turns out..).
> The Churchill was/is very good on rough ground because of the very
Up armored model? That would mean more armor, less speed, same engine right?
> At 11:37 AM -0400 4/11/02, Randall L Joiner wrote:
Yep, and they changed the transmission ratios to account for the additional
armor. It was only a Ton increase, they changed the method of armor
manufacture from just casting or just welding to a composite form.
I've been following the discussion of different AFV's/Tanks and the
relationships between engines, gear ratios, armor weight, etc., and must say
it's quite interesting. But I want to steer this back to the discussion of the
game itself by making an important distinction: The game is not reality. It is
an attempt at a reasonable facsimile of a possible reality, that's all any
game can do. While it's true that IRL, there's more to
making a tank go faster than just peeling off armor, in the *_GAME AS IT
STANDS_* there is no mechanism for simulating this complexity and
recreating a variety of different speeds and manouverabilities. There is
either Fast Tracked or Slow Tracked, HMW or LMW, and while ultimately I'm of
the opinion that a completely design system is needed to address issues just
like and including this one, in the short run the original suggestion that
[paying
for full armor but][1] carrying less than full armor, and rewarding this
sacrifice with additional BMF, CAN simulate both the subtraction of armor
and the addition of bigger engines/better suspensions & transmissions.
It does seem like a viable stopgap measure for adding variety to vehicle
designs.
[1] my own suggested addendum to the original suggestion.
3B^2