Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

This point is key.

 

Simple energy increase by itself is almost meaningless, the actual important issue is where the energy is depleted at.

 

It can be the armor itself, it can be in the projectile itself, it can be on the other side of the target after its passed through. It can be in the form of heat transferred to the bullet and heat tranferred the target.

 

So first key is projectile construction- then energy.

 

Depending upon the construction of the bullet, armor (even if only skin, for skin is a weak type of armor), and target, very counter-intuitive outcomes can and do result.

 

 

For example, a high velocity AP round fired from a .357 mag will pass through a person causing little actual damage. Meanwhile the same velocity and weight Hollow Point can over-expand (with the bullet taking most of the energy), under penetrate and end up doing less damage to the person the AP round did. The ideal round will expand and just barely exit- sadly this idea round is almost impossible to create although blended metal technology may be a final answer to this need for small arms.

The problem that I have with the above line of reasoning is that you are looking at how an attack will impact on a given target (in this case, a normal human being), rather than the attack itself.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

The problem that I have with the above line of reasoning is that you are looking at how an attack will impact on a given target (in this case' date=' a normal human being), rather than the attack itself.[/quote']

 

Damage isn't damage unless it affects the target.

 

In practical terms, there is no other way to look at it. If the dropping of feathers actually killed people, you'd see feathers being dropped.

 

I will agree however that the reality is complex.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

In their defence, i believe its a case of Jack-of-all-Trades, Master-of-None. It would take a serious military nut (or a rather large amount of research) to do a proper job of a writeup for a military vessel. It would take another type of knowledge base to writeup (properly) things like armoured limos, police cruisers, guns and ammo, axes and swords.

 

There is nothing wrong with the rules themselves, it is just VERY hard (without spending years in research) to effectively balance all of these things.

 

If anything, I would suggest Hero may spend too muich effort trying to tie some of these things back to the real world. I'm not a military nut. I'm a gamer. I'm buying gaming books to game. I don't really care if it's realistic based on real world equivalents, I care whether it works in my game.

 

And "run of the mill" (not supertechnology) tanks that takes over a dozen hits from the CU's equivalent of the Hulk to crunch is not something that I consider to work in my game.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

If anything' date=' I would suggest Hero may spend too muich effort trying to tie some of these things back to the real world. I'm not a military nut. I'm a gamer. [/quote']

 

Some of us DO buy a game to run military campaigns or para-military campaigns.

 

For us, it would be better if HERO didn't spend any time on it at all if the current result is what one must expect.

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Some of us DO buy a game to run military campaigns or para-military campaigns.

 

For us, it would be better if HERO didn't spend any time on it at all if the current result is what one must expect.

 

I think the phrase is "YMMY." Some people will take the numbers as is, and not blink. Others will take them and tinker until they get what they want. Some will ignore the numbers and create their own.

 

I'd rather some sort of basic concept than nothing at all. It at least gives me a feel for things and gives me something to work from if I decide I need (say) an M1A1 in a scenario.

 

I do know that the current owners and writers of HERO stress game play over realism in their published material, which is fine for the 4-color gamer crowd, and seems to fall short for the super-realist gamer crowd. However, telling DOJ to not waste their time (and thus your time) seems a mite harsh.

 

Out of curiosity, Fox1, do you think any other RPG (GURPS for example) handles any of this any better?

 

(As a side note, I'm in the middle category. I tinker with what I'm given, and gladly pick up new sourcebooks (such as genre and Ultimate books) for new ideas and concepts.

[MitchellS]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Some of us DO buy a game to run military campaigns or para-military campaigns.

 

For us, it would be better if HERO didn't spend any time on it at all if the current result is what one must expect.

Hero is a generic game system. As such nothing is tailor made to any one specific genre [for better or worse]. For 90% of the gamers what Hero has present is satisfactory, or close enough that it's easily modified to an individual's taste. DOJ really can't expend too much time catering to the niche client [in this case dedicated military buffs] within an already niche market. Expressing and sharing individual expertise is what the message boards are for.

[Silbeg]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

BTW' date=' what's a torpedo's damage? How much of the skirt is above the water line?[/quote']

 

While I don't know the exact details, one of the improvements added to the Iowa class was torpedo skirting, and they were pretty well immune to the torpedoes of their day (WWII), something that has likely not changed much.

 

As battleships go, the Iowa-class was the most technologically advanced in the world (mostly because they were the last class of dreadnaught-type battleships to be created).

 

Also, remember, they had 9 16" guns (so refigure the combat between the T-80's and the Iowa), as well as many secondary guns. Even figuring the firepower from a single turret (3X 9d6, based on the HERO designations?) you would see an average of 9 * 3.5 =31.5 BODY/hit, or 31.5 - 19= 12.5/hit (19DEF, right?), or 37.5/volley. Figure these as a 3-gun MPA. WHAM! Wouldn't that pretty well do a T-80 in? Also, remember that the Iowa could do this from a range the tanks couldn't... they are reasonably accurate out beyond 20 miles, assuming good spotters!

 

Let's also not forget that the indirect fire from the big guns will be hitting the tanks from the top, where the armor would be quite a bit thinner. So, let's be generous, and assume that the armor is 1/2 the thickness... so add an additional 9/shot... the 3-gun volley then does 64.5 BODY. Boom, baby, BOOM!

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Do not be so proud of this technological terror you have described. The ability to destroy a T-80 tank is insignificant to the to the power of the Force.

 

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I certainly think GURPS handles firearms and ballistics in a much more detailed an realistic manner. However, I think Hero's take on it is playable from a cinematic point of view. I would like to see an almost "cinematic reality baseline" used in the Hero products, and certainly something to capture the compartmentalization required for large vehicles. This baseline would essentially allow the system to demonstrate a perceived relativity as a whole, allowing you to compare a jeep to a HMMWV to a Sherman to an M1 to a U-Boot to a LA Class Sub and so on. It doesn't seem too far outside the realm of possibility to make this happen.

 

As for compartmentalization, it's almost as if you need to determine damage on a per hex basis to see how much of a vehicle is destroyed. It's conceivable that Superman could punch his way through a Star Destroyer without destroying the ship. You could use AE to simulate the "scale" of capitol weapons. Weapons that cannot affect at least 1 hex of area would be largely useless against multi-hex targets. Large vehicle weapons would have a 1 hex AE, and thus destroying an entire hex of a tank would be sufficient to eliminate it. However, even a tank gun would have reduced effect against a battleship.

 

Vehicles/buildings/whatever have their volume in hexes calculated, so this would almost be like a simple hitpoint system. Areas of the vehicle/building or systems/subsystems would also be rated in the number of hexes they occupy and destroying an appropriate number of hexes, and the hexes between the armor and the system would have to be destroyed as well.

 

"megahexes" could be used to simulate truly massive vehicles (e.g. star destroyer). You'd almost need a new advantage like Megascale to cover this. That way attacking a Star Destroyer with a blaster is pointless - the scale is totally different. Even a superman-punch is largely pointless as destroying a single hex on the scale of something that size means little. A hull breach possibly, but the ship isn't going to be disabled otherwise. A hull breach on the bridge might be useful, but again that is a "called shot" style attack compared to capitol ship blasters and torpedoes.

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Hero is a generic game system. As such nothing is tailor made to any one specific genre [for better or worse]. For 90% of the gamers what Hero has present is satisfactory' date=' or close enough that it's easily modified to an individual's taste. [/quote']

 

The truth is, 90% of the people aren't going to ever use an M1A1 in their game. So from that PoV, it is satisfactory. It could have Def 1 and a main gun doing 1 PiP NND defense LS and have butterfly wings and it would still be satisfactory if I didn't use it and never intended on using it.

 

What I want to hear from is people who have in fact used or considered using (but abandoned for obvious reasons) that M1A1 write-up, and of them how many considered it perfectly satisfactory. If that number is 90%, THEN your point is valid.

 

If however that number of actual users isn't 90%, heck if it isn't 50%- HERO is only producing a set of numbers to look complete to people who will never find out how poorly it in fact works. They are in effect, selling hot air knowing it won't be used but that it will push page counts and thus sales.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Without coming over all sappy can I just say this is a really useful discussion: cheers, chaps

 

Fox1 says bigger bullet better against flesh: I'm thinking a narrower 'bullet' of the same mass would be better against armour though: anyone know if this is right? I'm getting that mass is more important than velocity: again: is this right?

 

Hero has enough detail to model most of this, I think. I agree with Hugh Neilson: the look and feel is far more important to me than getting it right, but wouldn't it be nice if we could get somewhere near both? I'm just talking out loud here...

 

In effect I think you'd need to build a base round (9mm, 120mm, whatever) that does whatever base damage it would cause no matter what it hits, then add something if it is used against an 'appropriate' target.

 

Hmm this leads to some dark but interesting places: if a CHARACTER were made of plastic, or of metal, ammunition would react very differently.

 

You'd need some sort of combination penetration/damage by depth scale. You'd rule (generally) that the TARGET of an attack is the armour or other protection of a target, thus when attacking a tank the target actually is the armour. Penetration then converts the damage to some sort of explosion to everything immediately protected by the armour - a tank's crew would get chewed up by a penetrating round even if it didn't actually brew up the tank. The USS Iowa would only really take damage if it got hit somewhere vital, somewhere with crew or on or below the waterline.

 

Against characters you'd need some sort of damage index: normal flesh, for example, of human thickness (this is getting a little gross...), would have (say) an index of 2 and is considered to be 4 units thick, so a penetrating type killing attack (not the advantage: forget that) could so 2x4 BODY as a maximum. Rounds could be built with advantages so that they can do more damage per thickness to simulate expanding, tumbling or just big bullets. in effect a human can't take more than 8 BODY from a bullet - the rest of the energy gets wasted.

 

Characters could then be more resistant to damage: for example if, rather than just having ;skin defences' a character was denser or tougher it could take more damage per thickness unit but gets defences at each 'depth'. Say The incredible clay man has 'internal defences' (someone think of a better phrase...) of 1 becasue clay is more resistant than flesh, any bullet going through could now cause up to 3x4=12 damage BUT would lose 1 BODY of damage for each depth penetrated.

 

This is a bit confusing, but

 

Normal human v Clay man, bullet doing 5 BODY

 

Normal human takes 5 BODY

Clay Man takes 3 (1 BODY lost for hitting a more resistant material, 3 body in first thickness, 1 more BODY lost from hitting first depth marker: 3 BODY)

 

8 BODY

Normal human takes all 8

Clay man takes 6 BODY

 

10 BODY bullet

Normal human takes 8

Clay man takes 7

 

12 Body bullet

Normal human takes 8

Clay man takes 9

 

Cool: being denser means you take more damage from higher powered rounds becasue more energy is expended inside you.

 

That's all a bit badly presented AND I ACCEPT FAR TOO COMPLEX FOR MOST GAMES, but what do you think? (we definitely need better terminology...)

 

Also, generally, to make it anywhere near realistic you would always need some sort of hit location system running.

 

NB the other effect is that bigger targets will have more 'penetration layers' - 3 levels of growth would mean you have 8 rather than 4, so bigger targets require bigger guns which are of limited use against smaller targets. Sounds about right...

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I'd rather some sort of basic concept than nothing at all. It at least gives me a feel for things and gives me something to work from if I decide I need (say) an M1A1 in a scenario.

 

Given what a terrible job from either a realism or genre POV the current offical write-up is, of what value is that basic concept?

 

At what point does the degree of wrongness matter? Can they give it any values and characteristics and still be good enough for you?

 

 

I do know that the current owners and writers of HERO stress game play over realism in their published material, which is fine for the 4-color gamer crowd,

 

It was actually the four-color crowd that led the charge vs. the M1 as I recall.

 

Out of curiosity, Fox1, do you think any other RPG (GURPS for example) handles any of this any better?

 

I haven't seen anything but the 1st edition of GURPS back when it was a new kid on the block. So I don't feel I can comment.

 

In general, rpgs do a terrible job on such things.

[MitchellS]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

What I want to hear from is people who have in fact used or considered using (but abandoned for obvious reasons) that M1A1 write-up' date=' and of them how many considered it perfectly satisfactory. If that number is 90%, THEN your point is valid.[/quote']

Perhaps you missed the part where I said: "or close enough that it's easily modified to an individual's taste"?

 

We used an M1A1 recently in our Champions game, which is why I brought it up in another thread. How did we fix it? We dropped 3d6 from the 120mm killing attack and 10 defenses. As I said, easily modified.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Hero is a generic game system. As such nothing is tailor made to any one specific genre [for better or worse]. For 90% of the gamers what Hero has present is satisfactory' date=' or close enough that it's easily modified to an individual's taste. DOJ really can't expend too much time catering to the niche client [in this case dedicated military buffs'] within an already niche market. Expressing and sharing individual expertise is what the message boards are for.

I don't see this as a niche client issue, however. I see expanded vehicile rules as quite important to every genre EXCEPT Supers. In the superheroic genre, Vehicles are basically props. A tank lets a solider threaten Grond. A tank is a conveinent projectile for Grond to throw at someone. The Batmobile is a plot device that lets Batman get places quickly and access better lab gear than he can reasonably fit in his belt of holding. A Battle ship is a setting for a fight, or something for Superman to airlift to saftey to show just how freaking strong he is. The current vehicile rules are fine for Champions.

Its ALL the other Genres that suffer.

Any subgenre that treats vechiles as, in a way, complex characters.

What I'm trying to dream up is a Simulationist ruleset that allows for increased dramatic potential from a Narationist perspective, with the right balance of ease of play and accuracy to keep the Gamists happy.

HERO is almost unique as a system in that it allows the flexibility to do this, usually.

I don't see this as a "too complex so not needed" thing.

I see this as vital to a true "universal system"

I want to be able to call engineering on the com for a damage report after a Klingon suprise attack.

I want to try and cripple the Archeron with a clever tactic that takes advantge of its only weak point.

I want to be able to disable the Star Destroyers hyperdrive so they can't follow me back to the Rebel base.

I want to keep fighting in my delta while systems redline and burn out and redundant systems come online to keep me from buying a farm.

I want to run a shipment of Haffakkine antiserum across the Alley to keep the Nation of New England from dying of the Plauge.

I want to feel the rumble of my scythed chariot wheels as I charge the front ranks of the Formorian army.

I want to drive a tanker truck out of the badlands, and try an keep the mutants from stopping me.

I want to command a ship in Heliums navy, turing my radium cannons on the endless horde of Tharks who are marching to besiege the city.

 

Basically

I want advanced vehicle rules.

Obviously.

[Warp9]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Damage isn't damage unless it affects the target.

 

In practical terms, there is no other way to look at it. If the dropping of feathers actually killed people, you'd see feathers being dropped.

 

I will agree however that the reality is complex.

You refer to "the" target.

 

But there is not just one target that you could shoot at. Almost anything could be a target.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Different strokes, folks.

 

I'm four-colour crowd and don't like tanks because Grond takes forever to punch through one (I know: don't punch - flip)

 

I'm mainly waffling here because I like to tinker on a theoretical level: can't imagine any of this will ever become cannon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deliberate spelling mistake, obviousy

[MitchellS]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I don't see this as a niche client issue, however. I see expanded vehicile rules as quite important to every genre EXCEPT Supers. In the superheroic genre, Vehicles are basically props. A tank lets a solider threaten Grond. A tank is a conveinent projectile for Grond to throw at someone. The Batmobile is a plot device that lets Batman get places quickly and access better lab gear than he can reasonably fit in his belt of holding. A Battle ship is a setting for a fight, or something for Superman to airlift to saftey to show just how freaking strong he is. The current vehicile rules are fine for Champions.

Its ALL the other Genres that suffer.

Any subgenre that treats vechiles as, in a way, complex characters.

What I'm trying to dream up is a Simulationist ruleset that allows for increased dramatic potential from a Narationist perspective, with the right balance of ease of play and accuracy to keep the Gamists happy.

HERO is almost unique as a system in that it allows the flexibility to do this, usually.

I don't see this as a "too complex so not needed" thing.

I see this as vital to a true "universal system"

I want to be able to call engineering on the com for a damage report after a Klingon suprise attack.

I want to try and cripple the Archeron with a clever tactic that takes advantge of its only weak point.

I want to be able to disable the Star Destroyers hyperdrive so they can't follow me back to the Rebel base.

I want to keep fighting in my delta while systems redline and burn out and redundant systems come online to keep me from buying a farm.

I want to run a shipment of Haffakkine antiserum across the Alley to keep the Nation of New England from dying of the Plauge.

I want to feel the rumble of my scythed chariot wheels as I charge the front ranks of the Formorian army.

I want to drive a tanker truck out of the badlands, and try an keep the mutants from stopping me.

I want to command a ship in Heliums navy, turing my radium cannons on the endless horde of Tharks who are marching to besiege the city.

 

Basically

I want advanced vehicle rules.

Obviously.

Outside of some damage and defense issues [the fact that damages are too high, which makes defenses too high] I believe you can already do all of that with the rules in The Ultimate Vehicle.

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Given what a terrible job from either a realism or genre POV the current offical write-up is, of what value is that basic concept?

 

At what point does the degree of wrongness matter? Can they give it any values and characteristics and still be good enough for you?

 

Considering that I know very little about the M1A1 in many respects, and less about how to factor the effect of 120mm cannon on modern armor, it at least gives me a basic set of stats to work from. And yes, the stats are very high (30 DEF front, 8d6 RKA cannon), but they can be scaled down. Make the M1A1 have DEF 5 armor and a 2d6 RKA wouldn't be good enough for me, but they would obviously be out of whack. And, for the record, I do think the 10 DEF Iowa is a mistake, because it is also out of whack for other values for other vehicles. At least the tank is in scale to the other tanks, so I can work from there.

 

It was actually the four-color crowd that led the charge vs. the M1 as I recall.

 

I don't know, I wasn't paying attention to that. And yes, if you want tank-smashing bricks, the M1A1 is going to be too hard to hurt -- unless you let your bricks by HKAs only versus vehicles and buildings. When I built all of my Panzers for HERO (http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsvehicles/vehicle.html) I had to juggle such things, and did the best I could based on the published designs from a variety of sources.

 

I haven't seen anything but the 1st edition of GURPS back when it was a new kid on the block. So I don't feel I can comment.

 

In general, rpgs do a terrible job on such things.

 

I'm not much for military simulation RPG gaming, so it's never been an issue with me.

[shadowcat1313]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

I'm nutty enough to do the designs, dont have the time to do all the research, but I can work with whatevers handy

 

I will just keep using the IDC table I pointed to earlier just for consistency, its not perfect, but I figure consistency is more important at this point

 

Traveller currently has 5 editions published, and they dont all agree on things

heres the best example off the top of my head

 

TL-12 Starships Beam Laser

CT/MT/T4 has it as a 250mw weapon

TNE has it as a 150mw weapon

GT uses a different tech scale so its GTL-10 and 250mw

all versions but TNE have single double or triple mounts available

TNE only has single mounts

 

when doing the traveller conversions some things have been a lot simpler than others, for example to get the size of a Traveller ship in hero hexes, you just double it. Traveller uses 1 displacement ton equals roughly 14 cubic meters

[Fox1]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

You refer to "the" target.

 

But there is not just one target that you could shoot at. Almost anything could be a target.

 

In general I build a weapon for use against it's common target. Firearms against people, tank guns against tanks/vehicles, etc.

 

Does that cause a problem if they are used against something else? Sometimes yes. It's an 80% solution. It works against the primary target and I'm willing in a game system to accept some degree of error when they are used against abnormal targets. I consider this better than failing against 80% of its targets.

 

I do of course run sanity checks to make sure I haven't screw up the game system as whole. Thus my house rule firearms that work so well in a gritty normals campaign is verified as working in a superhero setting. I check to see if my M1A1 tank gun works the same range (it does, and better than the official version for that matter).

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Oh! Oh! I know!

 

I want to be able to call engineering on the com for a damage report after a Klingon suprise attack.

 

STAR TREK

 

I want to try and cripple the Archeron with a clever tactic that takes advantge of its only weak point.

 

... no idea...

 

I want to be able to disable the Star Destroyers hyperdrive so they can't follow me back to the Rebel base.

 

STAR WARS

 

I want to keep fighting in my delta while systems redline and burn out and redundant systems come online to keep me from buying a farm.

 

HARDWIRED

 

I want to run a shipment of Haffakkine antiserum across the Alley to keep the Nation of New England from dying of the Plauge.

 

DAMNATION ALLEY

 

(and it's Boston!)

 

I want to feel the rumble of my scythed chariot wheels as I charge the front ranks of the Formorian army.

 

Any Celtic mythos.

 

I want to drive a tanker truck out of the badlands, and try an keep the mutants from stopping me.

 

MAD MAX/THE ROAD WARRIOR

 

I want to command a ship in Heliums navy, turing my radium cannons on the endless horde of Tharks who are marching to besiege the city.

 

JOHN CARTER OF MARS

 

How'd I do?

 

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Outside of some damage and defense issues [the fact that damages are too high' date= which makes defenses too high] I believe you can already do all of that with the rules in The Ultimate Vehicle.

 

I admit this... I don't have a copy of UV yet...

I perused it at my FLGS and didn't see enough actual system additions to make it worth my limited fundage. I am looking for a way to deal with comparmentalization, hit locations, and hopefully a good way to sidestep the whole "vehicles have a set Body And Def value that is used in all combat" issue. This thread could, quite easily, devolve into the same kind of discussion we've had time and agin on similar threads, in reference to the whole Exponential Damage discussion. There is almost NO way to write up a large complex vechile that can take the kind of punishment that a battleship, or star destroyer, or The Enterprise, to name a few examples, that doesn't break under the +1 body = x2 mass system.

A tank gun is NOT going to kill the Iowa in a couple of shots.

Its the same issue that comes up in the "How do you destroy a planet" discussions.

I'm not saying we need a ruleset like Star Fleet Battles.

But there needs to be a paradigm shift if we want to involve the vehicles in the game plot in a more complex manner.

I still think that it can be done, and I'm willing to bet that the base rules are a good starting point.

The Base rules are written with the expectation that they will be too large for any single attack to detroy (barring large AoE attacks or megascale)

Essentially... wouldn't you agree that for functional play purposes, something like a Starship or a pirates Merchantman fuill essentially the same plot role as a base, rather than the role of, say, a starfighter. And even in the Starfighter... If its your character piloting it, wouldn't you like a better system than " Well...your fighter took 15 body. it explodes. you die. Sorry"

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

 

... no idea...

 

Master and Commander, Far Side of the World

 

 

DAMNATION ALLEY

 

(and it's Boston!)

Damn..you're right!

How'd I do?

 

Pretty damn good... I knew I liked you

[Legendsmiths]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Did my post not make it in? I was trying to talk about that very issue of compartmentalization, and thought I came up with a gameable solution.

[Susano]

Re: Why does the USS Iowa only have a 10 Defense?

 

Master and Commander, Far Side of the World

 

 

Ah! Yes! I saw that movie too.

 

Damn..you're right!

 

Pretty damn good... I knew I liked you

 

Here, for you:

http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsbook/helltanner.html

http://surbrook.devermore.net/adaptionsvehicles/damnationalley.html