Vehicle DEX

[Talon]

The higher a vehicle's DEX, the more difficult it is to hit in combat. Thus, a fighter plane has a higher DEX than a bulldozer.

Thinking about this...is a fighter plane really more hard to hit? If a fighter plane and a bulldozer were both moving at the same speed, would the fighter be harder to hit?

[Dead guy on tab]

The fighter isn't hard to hit if the pilot's DEX is lower than either vechile's DEX. But if it is , Mr. Fighter Pilot is not going to be that good at getting the bulldozer out of the way of an incoming attack than he would with the fighter. Vechile DEX is a quick mechanic to account for the vechile's responsiveness. You can also always you the velocity based DCV option.

[Sean Waters]

DCV is not purely about speed, but also about anticipation. Point is, even if you know it is coming, you can't get the 'dozer out of the way in time.

[Sean Waters]

What you're describing is an effect of movement. If the dozer can drive at mach 2 there's a good bet you can get it out of the way on time. :)


Not so much movement, but manouverablity, which is a function of DEX and SPD of the vehicle rather than pure movement.

Mind you a mach 2 bulldozer would be something to see, wouldn't it :D

[JohnTaber]

The person flying the fighter makes it harder to hit with his skill. That is why I've long said that vehicles shouldn't have dexterity or speed stats. Instead they should use the dex and speed of the pilot [adjusted with the appropriate size modifiers].

Hi Mitchell: This issue has been talked into the ground but I have a slightly different approach to the vehicle dex/spd issue that is working great in my Star Hero game. I give vehicles dex but every vehicle has a spd of 12 for no point cost. This does several GREAT things. It makes the MPH/KPH calculations really easy. It also allows vehicles to move when the character can't act. This is essentially one step closer to how they worked in Champions II/III. I liked that model. :)

Anyway...onward and upward... :)

[Fox1]

Hi Mitchell: This issue has been talked into the ground but I have a slightly different approach to the vehicle dex/spd issue that is working great in my Star Hero game. I give vehicles dex but every vehicle has a spd of 12 for no point cost. This does several GREAT things. It makes the MPH/KPH calculations really easy. It also allows vehicles to move when the character can't act. This is essentially one step closer to how they worked in Champions II/III. I liked that model. :)

Anyway...onward and upward... :)

All in all this is easy and important 'fix' for vehicles.

[Fox1]

Thinking about this...is a fighter plane really more hard to hit? If a fighter plane and a bulldozer were both moving at the same speed, would the fighter be harder to hit?

I tend to agree with you. Fighter planes don't so much dodge individual attacks as they avoid weapon envelops in the first place.

On the bright side you have the option to use the velocity based DCV table (personally I'd use a relative velocity based table).

[Black Lotus]

Hi Mitchell: This issue has been talked into the ground but I have a slightly different approach to the vehicle dex/spd issue that is working great in my Star Hero game. I give vehicles dex but every vehicle has a spd of 12 for no point cost. This does several GREAT things. It makes the MPH/KPH calculations really easy. It also allows vehicles to move when the character can't act. This is essentially one step closer to how they worked in Champions II/III. I liked that model. :)

Anyway...onward and upward... :)

That' a fine way to fix the problem, since other objects built using Powers -- for example, all weapons -- also function on the character's own SPD, when he uses them, at his convenience (they essentially have SPD 12). Why should vehicles be an exception? A person with SPD 4 can get off twice as many shots with his Colt Anaconda as a person with SPD 2. Vehicles are built using Powers. Why make an exception?

Well, actually, there is a reason to limit the SPD of a vehicle, and that is "top speed." Really, having faster reflexes isn't going to allow you to push your Lamborghini Diablo twice as fast as another guy. All you have to do is stomp your foot down on the pedal, and hold the wheel straight, and each vehicle -- whether piloted by a person with SPD 2, 3, or 4 -- will achieve the same velocity (all other things, such as obstacles and the like, being equal). The same SHOULD be true of firearms' Rate of Fire, but that is easy to fudge.

In short, it's become jarringly obvious to me that vehicles' top speeds should not depend upon the character's SPD. It's just ridiculous. I'm all right with character "top speed" in Inches/Turn depending upon SPD, but I simply can't accept it with vehicles. It's ludicrous.

Therefore, I am going to go back to my old attempts to find a house rule that separates SPD from Movement -- but a GOOD rule, not the awkward ones that currently exist, one we can all live with. That way, a vehicle can be more maneuverable due to a higher SPD, yet still have the same top speed as a vehicle with an identical engine but poorer handling.

In other words, the vehicle's SPD would determine how much maneuvering you can do with it over the course of a Turn, and the Movement/ Turn would be independent from SPD. The trick is to find a way to reconcile those differences.

I have to say... this aspect of HERO is broken. Hero literally sucks at simulating even remotely realistic vehicles.

Well... hmmm. Better get to work....

[Fox1]

Well, actually, there is a reason to limit the SPD of a vehicle, and that is "top speed."

If you give all vehicles a SPD of 12, and have them move on each segment even if the driver has a slower SPD, that issue is moot.

[Black Lotus]

If you give all vehicles a SPD of 12, and have them move on each segment even if the driver has a slower SPD, that issue is moot.

It also means that each vehicle must have a SPD of at least 12", or multiples of 12". What if you want to creep around at 2"? The rules necessary to govern how that works would be quite complicated. If the driver wants his vehicle to move at 5", how would you work that? What about 32"? Should all vehicles respond as though they had SPD 12? To use the example from earlier, would a SPD 4 character being able to maneuver a bulldozer four times in one Turn be realistic? Shouldn't there be limits on what one can do, movement-wise (including turning and other maneuvers), with certain vehicles during a Turn?

That method does NOT fix all the problems, and even adds a few of its own. There is no existing mechanic for having a vehicle move autonomously every Turn. There is also no mechanic for incremental Movement -- it needs to be addressed. And the main problem is that the SPD 12 method assumes that the vehicle is as maneuverable as its pilot is quick, which is silly.

[Talon]

Aside: I generally use Turn-based movement -- not sure if my solution qualifies as clunky or not, but in essence I just have characters buy movement for the Turn and then divide it evenly amongst their Phases. Vehicles go on the driver's Phases splitting their movement as needed, so cars don't drive faster for certain people.

Getting back to vehicle DEX...from a realistic perspective, it seems like few vehicles actually use their nimbleness to avoid personal-scale weapons (guns, etc.). On the other hand, in a fighter-jet vs. missile kind of situation, I could see something like DCV coming into play.

My initial thought was to get rid of vehicle DEX and replace it with modifiers to DCV (base 0) and driving rolls (so the bulldozer would be a lot harder to corner effectively, while the fighter might have +2 DCV for being nimble). Something to think about.

[Black Lotus]

Aside: I generally use Turn-based movement -- not sure if my solution qualifies as clunky or not, but in essence I just have characters buy movement for the Turn and then divide it evenly amongst their Phases. Vehicles go on the driver's Phases splitting their movement as needed, so cars don't drive faster for certain people.

That's basically what I want to do, but I would lie to polish it a little bit. I also want to revise the cost in Character Points per Inch of each type of movement to reflect its non-dependence on SPD (slashing the cost in half should do it). A chart detailing how to divide a certain amount of movement amongst the Phases of certain SPDs would be nice, but instead I think I'll say, "You may use no more than 1/2 (SPD 2)/ 1/3 (SPD 3)/ 1/4 (SPD 4) of your total Movement in Inches per Phase; distribute uneven Inches of Movement from your first Phase towards your last." That way, you may choose to go less than your allotted Speed in one Phase, but you will lose the difference when you move to your next Phase.

Example: Pithonn has a SPD of 3, Running 20". That means he will normally have the opportunity to move at 7" on his first Phase, 7" on his second Phase, and 6" on his last Phase. Remember that if the (Inches per Turn/ SPD) does not come out to a whole number, distribute the uneven Inches from first Phase to last (in this case, giving us 7", 7", 6"). If Pithonn does not wish to move at his full 7" in Phase A, and instead moves only 4", he cannot then use that "rollover" 3" in a later Phase. This also makes it much more realistic when using Velocity Factor.

Hey. I have my solution! My explanation may not be clear -- it has been a bit hurried -- so I will try to write up a more eloquent document, if anyone is interested. It really is quite simple and takes only a minor adjustment to the system to implement.

[Black Lotus]

Also, the approximate human speed record for sprinting is 25 mph, or about 40 kph. That's approximately 666 meters per minute, approximately 11 meters per second. That works out to a Normal Characteristic Maxima estimate of 133 meters per Turn, or about 67" per Turn.

So, as my calculations go, 60" is a decent Normal Characteristic Maxima to set for Running using the separate SPD/ Movement system; if you want to be world-class, you'll pay double to work past the 60"/ Turn mark.

Also, a few other Hero System aspects must be reconciled with this system... I'll work them out as I find them.

[JohnTaber]

It also means that each vehicle must have a SPD of at least 12", or multiples of 12". ...

No no. My concept is that vehicles must have a SPD of 12 NOT a movement of 12". A SPD of 12. If you want your vehicle to go really slow buy it less movement. Get it? ;)

[Fox1]

It also means that each vehicle must have a SPD of at least 12", or multiples of 12". What if you want to creep around at 2"?

As already pointed out- SPD 12, movement rate can be whatever you want.




To use the example from earlier, would a SPD 4 character being able to maneuver a bulldozer four times in one Turn be realistic? Shouldn't there be limits on what one can do, movement-wise (including turning and other maneuvers), with certain vehicles during a Turn?

That's what turn modes are for.




There is no existing mechanic for having a vehicle move autonomously every Turn.

There a number of ways of handling this.

The simple method is just to have the driver declare both his combat action and entire course until his next segment, i.e. exactly what happens now if you've purchused the vehicles movement to match the character's SPD to produced a desired mph velocity. Only instead of moving the entire distance in one segment you move at the vehicles declared movement rate each segment.

Another simple method is just to allow the player free movement control on those segments he doesn't go in- but no other action or change of action unless he aborts, i.e. the way the game used to work.





And the main problem is that the SPD 12 method assumes that the vehicle is as maneuverable as its pilot is quick, which is silly.

That's what Turn Modes are for.

[Black Lotus]

As already pointed out- SPD 12, movement rate can be whatever you want.

Mmm-hmmm. Only, say the vehicle has Ground Movement 15". With no further adjustments to the rules, that means a SPD 2 characer will only act in two Phases, and the vehicle will have 30"/ Turn total Movement. On the other hand, piloted by a SPD 4 character, the vehicle will have 60"/ Turn total Movement. This still does not solve the "top speed" problem.

And if you mean the vehicle should move on each Segment, see my response below to your answer to that questiion.


That's what turn modes are for.

Turn modes don't quite seem to handle the differences between a tractor and a fighter jet very well to me; they're not granular enough. I believe the two values ought to be used in a complementary fasion, making maneuverability VERY granular (a SPD 1 tractor with a crappy turn mode; a SPD 5 fighter jet with the best turn mode).


There a number of ways of handling this.

The simple method is just to have the driver declare both his combat action and entire course until his next segment, i.e. exactly what happens now if you've purchused the vehicles movement to match the character's SPD to produced a desired mph velocity. Only instead of moving the entire distance in one segment you move at the vehicles declared movement rate each segment.

The only problem I see with this is that moving in each Segment requires you to deal with the non-granularity of multiples of 12, or the problem of deciding how to divide up the moving/ nonmoving phases if a player wants to go at a speed not divisible by 12 -- say 7, or 17. It's going to make a lot of extra work in-game whenever the player chooses a speed not divisible by 12 or 6 or 4 or 3. Separate Movement divided between only the active Phases of a character or vehicle's Turn allows you the ultimate granularity -- increments of 1", easily distributed between any number of Phases on the fly.

In the "Divide Movement by SPD" method, if a player wishes to change his speed in a given Phase, he simply moves fewer Inches (instead of reducing the movement he makes during every single Segment).

[JohnTaber]

In the "Divide Movement by SPD" method, if a player wishes to change his speed in a given Phase, he simply moves fewer Inches (instead of reducing the movement he makes during every single Segment).

When I run this I don't divide the movement by the speed at all. If a vehicle is travelling at 5" then it goes 5" on phase 1, 5" on phase 2, etc.

NOW...

To simply things...I like simple...I let the pilot make course corrections (i.e. steer) even if it is not their phase. It seems to work fine as the enemy ships use the same rules.

[Fox1]

Turn modes don't quite seem to handle the differences between a tractor and a fighter jet very well to me; they're not granular enough.

They used to be. And they can be made so again.




I believe the two values ought to be used in a complementary fasion, making maneuverability VERY granular (a SPD 1 tractor with a crappy turn mode; a SPD 5 fighter jet with the best turn mode).




The only problem I see with this is that moving in each Segment requires you to deal with the non-granularity of multiples of 12, or the problem of deciding how to divide up the moving/ nonmoving phases if a player wants to go at a speed not divisible by 12 -- say 7, or 17.

This 'problem' already exists.

How do you currently move 60 mph with a SPD 4 character in HERO? The answer is that you don't, you move a rounded number of inches in each of the 4 phases that's somewhat close to 60 mph.

This is in no significant way different. Call it close, round it off, and call it good.




In the "Divide Movement by SPD" method, if a player wishes to change his speed in a given Phase, he simply moves fewer Inches (instead of reducing the movement he makes during every single Segment).

You're vastly overthinking this and causing yourself problems. The old rules allowed you to adjust your speed by a given acceleration/deacceleration value every segment as the driver wished.

The game used to work this way. It was only a mistaken desire to force vehicles to function exactly as characters that changed it.

[Black Lotus]

They used to be. And they can be made so again.

One significant difficulty with Turn Modes is that they are based upon Current Turn Mode = Total Distance Traveled This Phase/5. Also, there is only one Turn Mode Disadvantage; there are no greater or lesser Turn Modes. If you have a Turn Mode, you use that formula, and that formula is frankly incompatible with Segmented Movement, because it doesn't take into account the distance moved between Segments.


This 'problem' already exists.

How do you currently move 60 mph with a SPD 4 character in HERO? The answer is that you don't, you move a rounded number of inches in each of the 4 phases that's somewhat close to 60 mph.

Hmmm. Let's see. At 12" (24 m) per Turn, 60" (120 m) per minute, and 3600" (7200 m) per hour, we're talking 7.2 kph increments (4.44 mph increments.) Actually, that's all right by me; even 5 mph increments would suit me just fine, and this way is slightly more granular than that. You can go from 0 kph (0 inches) to 4.44 mph (12 inches) to 8.89 mph (24 inches) to 13.33 mph (36 inches) to 17.78 mph (48 inches) to 22.22 mph (60 inches), and so on and so forth. That's all well and good. But! See my paragraph above, wherein I wonder how to reconcile the current Turn Mode system with this Segment-by-Segment method.

With the Segment-by-Segment method, only two factors control the vehicle's maneuverability (aside from an abstract DEX score): the vehicle's Movement, and the pilot's SPD. That is unacceptable to me. Some very slow vehicles (skateboard, for example) can be quite maneuverable, while some comparatively very fast vehicles (a C-5 Galaxy, for instance, USAF ginormous cargo carrier) aren't maneuverable hardly at all.

I can solve this by simply saying, "Well, you move each Segment, but there is a virtual limit to the SPD with which you may maneuver the craft," and make that virtual SPD a Limitation. However, I still don't have a solution for the Turn Mode system, although I may come up with one soon.


You're vastly overthinking this and causing yourself problems. The old rules allowed you to adjust your speed by a given acceleration/deacceleration value every segment as the driver wished.

The game used to work this way. It was only a mistaken desire to force vehicles to function exactly as characters that changed it.

I disagree that I am overthinking the problem. The rules do need to be changed, at least I would like to change them for my own use, and preferably in a way that is both easy to implement and runs smoothly and realistically at crunch time. As the system is written, people with higher SPD get to go faster in the identical vehicle... not cool. I like the Segmented movement you suggest, but what about the Turn Mode?

[Fox1]

I like the Segmented movement you suggest, but what about the Turn Mode?

You need to grab a copy of Champions II if you get the chance and look over the orginal rules.

There vehicles were bought completely differently than they are in 5th edition with Turn Mode (2 pts), Acceleration (5 pts) and Deceleration (2 pts) specifically brought.

The Turn Modes were much more restricted than those for characters. No turning on a dime here.

An average vehicle like the family wagon had a Turn Value of 3, An F-15 had one of 20.

If your movement per segment was 1x TURN or less, you got to change your hex facing one each segment.

2x Turns was once every 2 segments.
3x Turns was once every 3 segments.

And so on.


Basically Champions II treated vehicles like something inherently different than characters. A concept I agree with, but those who did later editions apparently did not.

[Black Lotus]

You need to grab a copy of Champions II if you get the chance and look over the orginal rules.

Look over at the upper right-hand corner of my post window... right there near Norfolk, VA... ah! Yes, 22 years old. I am fairly certain I was still soiling my Pampers when Champions II came out, but I wouldn't know for sure. :D In all seriousness, I cannot find the aforementioned book for sale online, possibly because I do not know its full title, or the best place to look for it. I also cannot find a fansite with outdated Champions information archived, and I suspect DOJ doesn't stock that ruleset anymore, either.

Thus, unless someone is willing to share this information with me through some other vector, I am up the primordial estuary without a paddle as far as the old vehicle rules system is concerned. However....


There vehicles were bought completely differently than they are in 5th edition with Turn Mode (2 pts), Acceleration (5 pts) and Deceleration (2 pts) specifically brought.

The Turn Modes were much more restricted than those for characters. No turning on a dime here.

An average vehicle like the family wagon had a Turn Value of 3, An F-15 had one of 20.

If your movement per segment was 1x TURN or less, you got to change your hex facing one each segment.

2x Turns was once every 2 segments.
3x Turns was once every 3 segments.

And so on.


Basically Champions II treated vehicles like something inherently different than characters. A concept I agree with, but those who did later editions apparently did not.

Thank you. I may be able to extrapolate a fully functioning alternative vehicle system from the information you have provided. We shall see....

[Teflon Billy]

Look over at the upper right-hand corner of my post window... right there near Norfolk, VA... ah! Yes, 22 years old. I am fairly certain I was still soiling my Pampers when Champions II came out, but I wouldn't know for sure. :D In all seriousness, I cannot find the aforementioned book for sale online, possibly because I do not know its full title, or the best place to look for it. I also cannot find a fansite with outdated Champions information archived, and I suspect DOJ doesn't stock that ruleset anymore, either.

Thus, unless someone is willing to share this information with me through some other vector, I am up the primordial estuary without a paddle as far as the old vehicle rules system is concerned. However....



Thank you. I may be able to extrapolate a fully functioning alternative vehicle system from the information you have provided. We shall see....Champions II is up for sale from the Online Store for $8.95

I just purchased a copy because of Fox1's run down of the vehicle rules (which I agree should be seperate and distinct from the character rules)

TB

[Black Lotus]

Champions II is up for sale from the Online Store for $8.95

I just purchased a copy because of Fox1's run down of the vehicle rules (which I agree should be seperate and distinct from the character rules)

TB

Interesting... I suppose I ought to pick up a set too, then.

I didn't think they'd have such an "outdated" thing stocked. Odd.

[Fox1]

Interesting... I suppose I ought to pick up a set too, then.

I didn't think they'd have such an "outdated" thing stocked. Odd.

I didn't see it when I looked, saw a Champions 2nd Edition set. Maybe I'm clueless.

Here's a ebay link to the book I'm speaking of:

http://cgi.ebay.com/Champions-RPG-Champions-II-accessory_W0QQitemZ3181769707QQcategoryZ2548QQssPa geNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem


It really is a much improved way of building vehicles. Now that I've worked out the basics of damage I may go back to using it.

[prestidigitator]

I think people have lost sight of these facts:
The Dex of a vehicle (and the Speed in a combat sense) are maximums. They indicate that as good a driver or pilot as you might be, you just can't push an old clunker with lousy steering and a crumby engine to have very good performance. EDIT: this is why the vehicle tables list adjustments to CV, not a final CV; the latter can only be calculated once you know the driver/pilot's Dex.
You can drive or pilot a vehicle at a higher Speed than your own as long as you don't exceed its Speed. When the vehicle has a Phase but you do not, you just cannot make course corrections and your movement is considered Non-Combat even at Combat, "velocities."
I play a little loosely with the, "cannot make course corrections." I allow a constant radius of curvature for the path of the vehicle, which means if you ended your Phase in a turn, you can continue through that turn on the vehicle's extra Phases. I also allow the vehicle to be straightened out for free, but nothing else (meaning you can either keep going at the current turn rate, or let the controls snap back to a neutral position which usually--for stable vehicles but possibly not combat aircraft and such--means, "driving/flying straight and level"). This means you had better decellerate and act only on your Phases if you are going into a blind or tricky turn; screw up and you're probably going to either crash or have to Abort your next Phase to maneuver.

[ghost-angel]

I think people have lost sight of these facts:
[LIST] The Dex of a vehicle (and the Speed in a combat sense) are maximums. They indicate that as good a driver or pilot as you might be, you just can't push an old clunker with lousy steering and a crumby engine to have very good performance. EDIT: this is why the vehicle tables list adjustments to CV, not a final CV; the latter can only be calculated once you know the driver/pilot's Dex.

Likewise a crappy pilot can't climb into fighter jet and expect it to react all that well to him.

Vehicles go on whichever DEX is LOWER, pilot's or vehicles.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Personaly, I like the current vehicles rules.

*ducks*

Hey, stop throwing fruit! Let me explain...

In general, I run vehicles combat on a per turn basis. The DEX of the vehicle determines its DCV (with the possibility of adding more DCV based on relative velocity) and the SPD of the vehicle determining how often it can be maneuvered within that turn.

I only worry about "Phases" if the vehicles/characters are attacking one another, in which case attacks are handled in the normal fashion based on SPD. I only worry about the movement within the Turn in such cases as someone attempting to close the distance for a ram or melee attack or some such.

The one exception is when Mecha are involved. If the Mecha are on the ground, or are locked in Hand to Hand combat, I resolve the Turn as I would for normal characters (cause lets face it...mecha are merely really big characters) but if they are flying at high speeds, I resolve combat using the Dogfighting rules.

I really like the Dogfighting rules. Apparently, so did R-Talsorian games, since they adapted them for use in Mekton Zeta (see Mekton Z+ for their dogfighting rules. They are very similar to Heros)

[Kirby]

On the bright side you have the option to use the velocity based DCV table (personally I'd use a relative velocity based table).
Really? Where is that? (My wife's sleeping by my book and I don't want to wake her from her nap. And I am a bit lazy. :p )

[Kirby]

I'm all right with character "top speed" in Inches/Turn depending upon SPD, but I simply can't accept it with vehicles. It's ludicrous.

This issue was first brought up in "Space Balls." Surely you remember Ludicrous SPD? :snicker:

[ghost-angel]

This issue was first brought up in "Space Balls." Surely you remember Ludicrous SPD? :snicker:

"They've gone plaide!"

[Black Lotus]

Actually I discovered on pg. 471-472 of 5ER, it talks about vehicle SPD and pilot SPD. Say a jet fighter has a SPD of 4, and the pilot has a SPD of 3 (the SPD most military jet pilots would have). You have two options:

A.) Voluntarily lower the vehicle's SPD (and thus, Inches/ Turn) to match your own. (Unrealistic).

B.) Allow the vehicle to move at SPD 4. That means the pilot shares only one of its four Phases. That means for three Phases, the vehicle moves straight ahead at 1/2 DCV, with no possibility of turning.

Wow. I'm glad they got THAT covered. :D

[ghost-angel]

Actually I discovered on pg. 471-472 of 5ER, it talks about vehicle SPD and pilot SPD. Say a jet fighter has a SPD of 4, and the pilot has a SPD of 3 (the SPD most military jet pilots would have). You have two options:

A.) Voluntarily lower the vehicle's SPD (and thus, Inches/ Turn) to match your own. (Unrealistic).

B.) Allow the vehicle to move at SPD 4. That means the pilot shares only one of its four Phases. That means for three Phases, the vehicle moves straight ahead at 1/2 DCV, with no possibility of turning.

Wow. I'm glad they got THAT covered. :D

While I thnk the idea behind that ruling is sound ... the execution is less than spectacular.

You could either pilot the vehicle to your capability by moving it at the same SPD. or...

The vehicle moves at SPD4, the pilot SPD3.
On the pilot's phases he may do two of the following: adjust speed, adjust heading, fire, some other vehicle action. However - any adjustments to the vehicles Vector (speed, turning, etc...) do not take effect until the Vehicle's Phases.
On the Vehicles phases - It's heading adjusts to the Pilot's commands from a previous phase. If none it continues in the previous Vector (if in a turn it continues to turn, or dive, slow down, or speed up (to maximum velocity).

A good way to represent a vehicle that is more repsonsive than the pilot.

If the pilot is faster than the vehicle .. well, he just got into a machine that cant' keep up with him. The vehicle will only adjust its Vector on phases it goes on (or both the vehicle and pilot go on). The pilot may, while waiting for his slow chunk of metal to react, do other things like: fire weapons, check systems, eat lunch, compose sonata's, wonder why the ground is getting so damn close.

[Black Lotus]

While I thnk the idea behind that ruling is sound ... the execution is less than spectacular.

It's a conflict of the way the system works, not a designer's flaw, true enough. It's better than the other ways I've thought of to handle it.


The vehicle moves at SPD4, the pilot SPD3.
On the pilot's phases he may do two of the following: adjust speed, adjust heading, fire, some other vehicle action. However - any adjustments to the vehicles Vector (speed, turning, etc...) do not take effect until the Vehicle's Phases.
On the Vehicles phases - It's heading adjusts to the Pilot's commands from a previous phase. If none it continues in the previous Vector (if in a turn it continues to turn, or dive, slow down, or speed up (to maximum velocity).

That's a House Rule™, of course; officially, you can only turn, accelerate or decelerate if the vehicle is moving during the Phase in which you make an adjustment. And it's hard to juggle, I think... I mean, if commands entered by the character don't take place until the vehicle's next Phase, you might as well let the character act on that Phase, anyway (think about it -- yes, there's a little more to it than that, but still).

Also, consider this: why should all SPD 3 characters be punished simply because a machine is responsive enough for a SPD 4 character to take full advantage of? In terms of top speed, anyway? (You could just buy more movement and have it be SPD 3). I think I will make a special case for vehicles, allowing an extra Phase or two worth of Movement to be evenly distributed into the reduced Phases of a character with a lower SPD than the vehicle. Just to keep the top possible speed consistent (but note he still only gets to turn at his reduced rate -- which at top speed....) And of course, I'd have to combine that with the VF rules.


If the pilot is faster than the vehicle .. well, he just got into a machine that cant' keep up with him. The vehicle will only adjust its Vector on phases it goes on (or both the vehicle and pilot go on). The pilot may, while waiting for his slow chunk of metal to react, do other things like: fire weapons, check systems, eat lunch, compose sonata's, wonder why the ground is getting so damn close.

That's not a problem. A faster pilot adjusting to a slower machine makes plenty of sense. ;)

[Fox1]

Really? Where is that? (My wife's sleeping by my book and I don't want to wake her from her nap. And I am a bit lazy. :p )

I've been away from the keyboard for a while, so sorry if this is late...

It's on page 364 5th revised.

Back in the days of Champions II, this was the base DCV of a vehicle, the driver could get a dodge bonus if he made is combat driving/piloting.

[ghost-angel]

It's a conflict of the way the system works, not a designer's flaw, true enough. It's better than the other ways I've thought of to handle it.



That's a House Rule™, of course; officially, you can only turn, accelerate or decelerate if the vehicle is moving during the Phase in which you make an adjustment. And it's hard to juggle, I think... I mean, if commands entered by the character don't take place until the vehicle's next Phase, you might as well let the character act on that Phase, anyway (think about it -- yes, there's a little more to it than that, but still).
Definately a House Rule, possibly even a bad Kludge. I'd have to try it out to see if has any merit at all.


Also, consider this: why should all SPD 3 characters be punished simply because a machine is responsive enough for a SPD 4 character to take full advantage of? In terms of top speed, anyway? (You could just buy more movement and have it be SPD 3). I think I will make a special case for vehicles, allowing an extra Phase or two worth of Movement to be evenly distributed into the reduced Phases of a character with a lower SPD than the vehicle. Just to keep the top possible speed consistent (but note he still only gets to turn at his reduced rate -- which at top speed....) And of course, I'd have to combine that with the VF rules.
I thought about this...

came to this conclusion:

Never Drive Faster Than You Can See. If you don't have the reaction ability/timing to work a vehicle at 200MPH you shouldn't be driving that fast anyway. Conceivably a SPD3 character doesn't have the ability to get a SPD4 vehicle to top velocity and still maintain control of it in any useful manner.

[Duke Bushido]

While I thnk the idea behind that ruling is sound ... the execution is less than spectacular.

You could either pilot the vehicle to your capability by moving it at the same SPD. or...

The vehicle moves at SPD4, the pilot SPD3.
On the pilot's phases he may do two of the following: adjust speed, adjust heading, fire, some other vehicle action. However - any adjustments to the vehicles Vector (speed, turning, etc...) do not take effect until the Vehicle's Phases.
On the Vehicles phases - It's heading adjusts to the Pilot's commands from a previous phase. If none it continues in the previous Vector (if in a turn it continues to turn, or dive, slow down, or speed up (to maximum velocity).

A good way to represent a vehicle that is more repsonsive than the pilot.

If the pilot is faster than the vehicle .. well, he just got into a machine that cant' keep up with him. The vehicle will only adjust its Vector on phases it goes on (or both the vehicle and pilot go on). The pilot may, while waiting for his slow chunk of metal to react, do other things like: fire weapons, check systems, eat lunch, compose sonata's, wonder why the ground is getting so damn close.

Uhm,

is this not the way that it's currently written? Because this is pretty much how we've always played it. Not as a House Rule or anything, but because we thought that was official........

I ask because there's another thread soliciting 'corrections' to vehicle movement, so I'm beginning to think that there is a mistake on our end.....

[Talon]

The problem I have with the vehicle SPD rules is that they seem completely alien to both the real world and the source literature. I'm not aware of any instances where a vehicle just kept going straight because the driver wasn't nimble/fast enough. I've driven sports cars, I'm SPD 3 if I'm optimistic, but I wasn't holding Phases in order to make turns at the right time. It just doesn't work that way.

If I were looking to keep to the current rules mindset, I would create a "Pilot Vehicle" maneuver that drivers can executes. This allows them to move the vehicle on each of its Phases regardless of which of their SPDs is higher. (A detailed version would have a 1/2 Phase version with a CV and Combat Driving penalty for those making drive-by shootings or making cell phone calls while driving.) A low SPD character could drive a high SPD vehicle fine, which IMO is how it should be.

[NuSoardGraphite]

I have a question:

Are you guys using Hex maps to plot out your vehicle chases?

If so, you must have a fargin HUGE map, because none of the one's I've seen would be sufficient to keep track of a high speed chase. Especially with the sort of vehcles that PC's and Villians tend to get ahold of. (To quote "The Bandit": I'm gonna need a car. A fast car. Faster than that.)

If you aren't using mapped chases, then why would you even need to keep track of the vehicles phases? Simply keep track of the vehicles velocities in relation to one another to see if the lead vehicle opens the distance or looses ground. Have the PC's and villians make a few Combat Driving or Piloting rolls to make sure they don't wipe out.

I simply describe the action as its happening. Give bonuses and penalties based on whats going on and the terrain/obstacles the vehicles encounter. If the PC's wish to attack during a turn, I allow them a number of attacks equal to their SPD (well, the Driver needs to use his phases to keep control of the vehicle..passengers may attack at their leisure) and the villians most certainly will respond (or most often, start attacking without provocation)

A vehicles per turn movement is what I base everything on...who can catch who. The control roll penalties etc (if a vehicle is moving at extreme high speed and tries to dodge an obstacle, it gets a big penalty based on its turn mode)

Of course, thats for non-mapped vehicle action. Mapped action would probably need to be broken down into Phases, but I use non-mapped, so I feel no need to resolve it exactly as I resolve character combat.

[Duke Bushido]

The mapping is easy;

it's borrowed from several old tactical games.

Examine the movement of all vehicles in play. Get the lowest common denominator and divide everyone by that amount. (sometimes twice that amount, if the differences are great.)

For example, if one vehicle has 20 inches of flight and one has 40, divide by 20. The slowest vehicle then moves one inch; the other moves 2.

But it's all relative. Even like this, you run into cases where a map just won't work.

Old plastic-box edition Car Wars road sections work great, too-- endless loops of highway.....

[ghost-angel]

Uhm,

is this not the way that it's currently written? Because this is pretty much how we've always played it. Not as a House Rule or anything, but because we thought that was official........

I ask because there's another thread soliciting 'corrections' to vehicle movement, so I'm beginning to think that there is a mistake on our end.....
Official ruling is:
Use whichever SPD and DEX are lowest. SPD4 Vehicle + SPD3 Pilot = SPD3. DEX20 Vehicle + DEX30 Pilot = DEX20. FRED pg321, don't know 5ER pg. Which is everyone's contention with the system - lowering a Vehicles SPD effectively lower's its maximum possible Velocity. But certainly makes the mechanics easier to handle.

And then there's Mounted Movement ... which is different altogether... but probably modeled better. At least I think so.

[Duke Bushido]

Official ruling is:
Use whichever SPD and DEX are lowest. SPD4 Vehicle + SPD3 Pilot = SPD3. DEX20 Vehicle + DEX30 Pilot = DEX20. FRED pg321, don't know 5ER

Ugh.

No wonder people are griping......

Thanks, G-A.

[Black Lotus]

I thought about this...

came to this conclusion:

Never Drive Faster Than You Can See. If you don't have the reaction ability/timing to work a vehicle at 200MPH you shouldn't be driving that fast anyway. Conceivably a SPD3 character doesn't have the ability to get a SPD4 vehicle to top velocity and still maintain control of it in any useful manner.

There's a severe problem with this assumption, and that is that total Movement in Inches/ Turn is not dependent upon SPD. I can have a skateboard with SPD 4 that moves a total of 80"/ Turn, max, and a Piper Cub that moves at SPD 2 that goes at 300"/ Turn, average. Your suggestion is a good one... but it makes no sense to base how fast you can drive a vehicle on your personal SPD, because of the reason I just mentioned.

ESPECIALLY where spacecraft are concerned, and especially where gritty rules are concerned (i.e., thrust is measured in Inches per Turn per Turn, or Inches/ Turn^2). For example, a spacecraft with 6000"/ Turn of Flight (which is about 10 G-forces -- but current G-force suits today can allow a human to handle that much acceleration) will go 6000" the first Turn, 12,000"/ Turn the third Turn, 18,000"/ Turn the second turn, etcetera.

In short, I do not believe SPD is a good indication that a vehicle is "too fast" for a character. Anyone with any level of reflexes can adjust to driving a high speed vehicle, especially with a TF and CERTAINLY with Combat Piloting.

[Black Lotus]

I have a question:

Are you guys using Hex maps to plot out your vehicle chases?

One thing I use for Science Fiction is an adapated form of the GURPS space combat rules, whihc, by the way, are narrative, not tactical in nature and quite a pleasure to use (but they are VERY contrived and un-Hero like, so approach with caution). I will also run mapped space combats, but usually only for important one-on-one battles. It just depends.

For vehicle chases/ combat, I narrate until the vehicles in question draw close to one another (or not, if the pursued party outruns the pursuer), then I place them on an ad-hoc map and allow combat/ whatever to proceed, usually with 5" or 10" hexes... though I will go to 1" if necessary (and sometimes it is).

Personally, I like having tactical, mapped scenarios in my games. I'm a big fan of board game tactics, and I like to integrate that into my roleplaying games... and to do that with vehicles, one needs a solid, semi-believable (in my case) set of rules.

[Talon]

Are you guys using Hex maps to plot out your vehicle chases?

...

If you aren't using mapped chases, then why would you even need to keep track of the vehicles phases? Simply keep track of the vehicles velocities in relation to one another to see if the lead vehicle opens the distance or looses ground. Have the PC's and villians make a few Combat Driving or Piloting rolls to make sure they don't wipe out.

For car chases I don't use a hex map -- but for naval battles or chases I sometimes do, and for space combat I sometimes do, and for vehicle vs. character combat I usually do.

The point is that Vehicle combat rules should be specific (and consistent) enough that you can use them well with a hex map...it's easy to abstract the rules if you don't want to, but it's a lot harder to make up rules if you do.

[ghost-angel]

There's a severe problem with this assumption, and that is that total Movement in Inches/ Turn is not dependent upon SPD. I can have a skateboard with SPD 4 that moves a total of 80"/ Turn, max, and a Piper Cub that moves at SPD 2 that goes at 300"/ Turn, average. Your suggestion is a good one... but it makes no sense to base how fast you can drive a vehicle on your personal SPD, because of the reason I just mentioned.

ESPECIALLY where spacecraft are concerned, and especially where gritty rules are concerned (i.e., thrust is measured in Inches per Turn per Turn, or Inches/ Turn^2). For example, a spacecraft with 6000"/ Turn of Flight (which is about 10 G-forces -- but current G-force suits today can allow a human to handle that much acceleration) will go 6000" the first Turn, 12,000"/ Turn the third Turn, 18,000"/ Turn the second turn, etcetera.

In short, I do not believe SPD is a good indication that a vehicle is "too fast" for a character. Anyone with any level of reflexes can adjust to driving a high speed vehicle, especially with a TF and CERTAINLY with Combat Piloting.
No Vehicle Combat Rules will work 'properly' as long as you are looking at a turn based system (whether they be Turns, Phases, Rounds, etc...) unless everyone goes on every turn all the time.

Which eliminates one of the best parts of Hero, IMO, the Speed Characterisitc.

At some point you will either 1) Just cope. or b) Eliminate Speed.

[Fox1]

At some point you will either 1) Just cope. or b) Eliminate Speed.

Or have vehicles move every segment while characters and vehicle weapons/systems/powers act per their SPD.

This is, the Champions II method.

[ghost-angel]

Or have vehicles move every segment while characters and vehicle weapons/systems/powers act per their SPD.

This is, the Champions II method.
Which effectively eliminates SPD for the Vehicle.

[Duke Bushido]

I've sort of lost track of which vehicle thread was which,

so I've resigned myself to posting them in this one, figuring that BL is probably still watching them both, as he is trying to get some ideas for 'fixing' vehicle rules.

I recall seeing in one of the threads something that I agreed to. But I suddenly realized that I had mis-read a small bit of it (I really have _GOT_ to stop reading until all hours of the night!) and I'd like to take a minute to point out a potential issue with it.

The example was, I think, a vehicle with a SPD4 and a pilot of SPD3, and the suggestion was that the pilot did his course change on his phase, but it did not take effect until the next phase the vehicle moved. The explanation was that the pilot was 'waiting on the machine' to catch up to the input.

I don't like this on the surface, but for purely conceptual reasons; the mechanic itself seemed a lot like how we handle it now.

I don't like the assumption that a pilot with a lower SPD is 'waiting for the vehicle', in spite of it being capable of reacting faster than the current pilot can. After all, a SPD 4 character would find the machine most intuitive.

Sure, there's no better way to demonstrate the interaction of SPD3 character with SPD4 machine; my beef was the 'story-driven' aspect of it.

It makes no actual difference mechanically or tacticaly, but just to reconcile the two different SPDs, we (when we are mapping) allow the vechile to change its facing on the phase the pilot made the maneuver. Actual movement does wait until the vehicle's next Phase, of course.


Like I said; the mechanic is solid. But the idea of a slow guy waiting for a fast machine kinda didn't sit right.

[Fox1]

Which effectively eliminates SPD for the Vehicle.

Only for movement.

If it has weapons to fire, chutes to deploy, or anything else of that nature it would to do it per the normal SPD rules, which was the lower of the driver/pilot or the vehicle itself.

For example, a M1A1 battle tank would have a SPD of 2. This duplicates its real life rate of fire for the main gun. So it could fire on phase 6 and 12. However it could move up to 45 mph or around 10" a segment every segment.

In Champions II assuming it had a TURN of 4, it could turn a hexside every 3 segments at its top movement rate.

Meanwhile the top machineguns are mounted outside the armor and thus are not slaved to the turret controls allowing them to be fired at whatever speed the crewman has (the same as any other ground mounted HMG).

Not perfect, but much better than the 5th system.

[Talon]

No Vehicle Combat Rules will work 'properly' as long as you are looking at a turn based system (whether they be Turns, Phases, Rounds, etc...) unless everyone goes on every turn all the time.

I often use per-Turn movement rules where the movement gets divided by whatever the driver's SPD happens to be at the moment...you get granularity issues like you always do with SPD, but otherwise it works fine.

[Black Lotus]

Only for movement.

If it has weapons to fire, chutes to deploy, or anything else of that nature it would to do it per the normal SPD rules, which was the lower of the driver/pilot or the vehicle itself.

For example, a M1A1 battle tank would have a SPD of 2. This duplicates its real life rate of fire for the main gun. So it could fire on phase 6 and 12. However it could move up to 45 mph or around 10" a segment every segment.

In Champions II assuming it had a TURN of 4, it could turn a hexside every 3 segments at its top movement rate.

Meanwhile the top machineguns are mounted outside the armor and thus are not slaved to the turret controls allowing them to be fired at whatever speed the crewman has (the same as any other ground mounted HMG).

Not perfect, but much better than the 5th system.

In the case of turrets... well, I suppose they could have their OWN SPD, which may or may not correspond to the vehicle's. That makes sense.

And missiles might have their own SPD.

Otherwise, I treat all shipboard weapons as acting on the operator's SPD.

Also, Fox1, there's one problem with Segmented (essentially SPD 12) Movement. It screws up the Turn Modes, since Current turn Mode = Inches Traveled This Phase/ 5.

[Fox1]

Also, Fox1, there's one problem with Segmented (essentially SPD 12) Movement. It screws up the Turn Modes, since Current turn Mode = Inches Traveled This Phase/ 5.

Not in Champions II, Turn is defined completely differently there as I pointed out in the other thread. Here at top speed my example M1A1 could only turn a single hexside every 3 segments.

Under Champions II, the max turn rate *period* is 1 hexside per segment, and that only if your segment speed is equal to or less than your TURN value (likely a 3 for our example M1A1).

I'm going to post a request to publish the old Champions II vehicle rules on my website. I expect to be turned down, but it's worth the shot I suppose.

[zornwil]

Maybe DOJ would agree to publish it on their own site, at least? Nice idea, let us know what comes out of it, Fox1.

[Fox1]

Maybe DOJ would agree to publish it on their own site, at least? Nice idea, let us know what comes out of it, Fox1.

No dice.

Not even as a Digital Hero article it seems.

[zornwil]

Ah well, it was a good idea, thanks for trying.

[Fox1]

Ah well, it was a good idea, thanks for trying.

No problem, it wasn't like it took a huge effort.

Maybe someday they'll catch up to some of the other gaming companies. It's not uncommon these days to see old editions of rules and modules put up as PDFs for reasonable fees, or even free.

Or maybe not. There are some things DoJ doesn't rights to, and it may include this material for all I know.

[Black Lotus]

It's probably a "let's not distribute them publicly for free, we may need them later" sort of deal. Kind of sucks, since there are fans with the latest edition of the core rules who would truly appreciate the vehicle rules from Champions II... also, a good way to kind of force someone into buying the entire Champions II book just to get at the vehicle rules. The book still is for sale, though, so I can't blame them too much.

Not that I'm bitter, or accusing anyone; if I really need the rules, I'll buy Champions II. It's less than ten bucks with shipping.

[ghost-angel]

It's probably a lot closer to "We don't have writes to publish these at all, only to publish new works derivative of previous works."

Hence - they can make a new game but not reprint old ones.

[Fox1]

The book still is for sale, though, so I can't blame them too much.

I don't think it's for sale here. Saw Champions 2nd edition, but not Champions II. Did I miss it?

Saw one copy of it on ebay...

[prestidigitator]

Actually I discovered on pg. 471-472 of 5ER, it talks about vehicle SPD and pilot SPD. Say a jet fighter has a SPD of 4, and the pilot has a SPD of 3 (the SPD most military jet pilots would have). You have two options:

A.) Voluntarily lower the vehicle's SPD (and thus, Inches/ Turn) to match your own. (Unrealistic).

B.) Allow the vehicle to move at SPD 4. That means the pilot shares only one of its four Phases. That means for three Phases, the vehicle moves straight ahead at 1/2 DCV, with no possibility of turning.

Wow. I'm glad they got THAT covered. :D
No, no, no. Dude. You are making it so much harder than it is. Just Delay Phases until the pilot and vehicle have 3 in common. The last Phase must be dropped or flown Non-Combat. Done. It makes things so easy.

[Black Lotus]

No, no, no. Dude. You are making it so much harder than it is. Just Delay Phases until the pilot and vehicle have 3 in common. The last Phase must be dropped or flown Non-Combat. Done. It makes things so easy.

Yes, I know. That's the only way to do it that makes sense... it complicates game play JUST a tad, though. Probably best to determine the delay one time, mark it down, and have the pilot act on that Delayed schedule every Turn.

[prestidigitator]

Yes, I know. That's the only way to do it that makes sense... it complicates game play JUST a tad, though. Probably best to determine the delay one time, mark it down, and have the pilot act on that Delayed schedule every Turn.
Exactly!