Brian Stanfield

Current update:

I'd wanted to get all six of the "that size" books done today, but I had yet-another company-oriented road trip today (you know: on my _vacation_!  ) that hasn't left me with a whole lot of scanning time. Still, I'm plugging way, and I _will_ get this to Jason before his deadline.  After tonight, there aren't all that many left anyway.

#13 was a bit awkward. The book I was working from had been collated and folded more than a little off-center (pages only; cover was about right), resulting in pretty much every page after the centerfold being cut with _zero_ right hand margin. Still, everything remains intact, at least as far as what was printed.

#14 is the first of the "comic format" books. No; they're not laid out like comics, but the editor refers to the new size as "comic format." I think comics are a little larger than this, but I'm not really sure. Fortunately, the uptick in real estate per page and a step down in font size dramatically dropped the page count. It's not quite enough to balance out the time invested in the scanning, though, as each individual page has to be hand-aligned (with the smaller size, I could do the whole leaf at once, really helping speed things up).

On that-- page alignment. I am as meticulous as I can be, within reason. I have been informed that the deadline is closer than I thought (not that I'd been shirking, mind you), so I have allowed a bit more tolerance in page alignment.  I still work to get it as close as possible, but I have stopped fighting the diminishing returns of micro adjustments.  I'd like to explain what that means in this context.

I am not lining up the pages square with the scanning bed. Given that these books are machine printed, machine collated and bound, and machine cut, that would be ludicrous. In almost every case, the final leafs and pages (and covers, too, actually) aren't actually square anymore. This is due to tolerances and variables during all the mechanized processes. Were you to actually sit and measure the borders in books and magazines (particularly "Saddle Stitched," or staple-bound magazines), you will see that the print is almost never square with the page. It's so much the dominant normal that we don't even notice it anymore when we are reading-- the page is curled or rolled anyway, blah-blah-blah-- the brain says "Oh, why bother noticing anymore?" That doesn't work on a screen, as we are used to everything being places with electronic precision. We can square the text perfectly, but when the "page" it's on is crooked, we think "well this is a terrible scan!" without actually noticing why the decision was made.

I am not the guy doing the final clean-up and "restoration" of these scans; I don't know who is. Worse, I don't know what he or she has as a methodology. Without this information, I have decided to do the scans as if I were doing them for my own projects (and if the final product ends up like the 4e POD, I will probably end up doing my own project.  ). Anyway, I have defaulted to doing these as if I was going to be the finishing guy, which means getting the text and headers as squared up as possible. Why? Well frankly, it's the most important part of the content. Yes; it's nice to get drawn lines squared up, as they are the first things to show digital manipulation. However, they can also be redrawn from scratch in your image software, so....

Header graphics are nigh as important (that is, "almost equally" Ha!). The trouble is that most of these old magazines were laid out with the techniques at hand. Often that meant literally hand-laying various items to create a master from which copies would be made. What does that mean here? It means that it's entirely possible that the two columns of text aren't square with each other. It means that sometimes the art is off-kilter with relation to the text, of the text is "listing" to the right and the header is listing to the left. This is the sort of thing that necessitates digital manipulation.

Yes; it could _all_ be done through digital manipulation, but we are all by now familiar with the hallmark of that: pixelation, odd "jogs" in the outlines and graphics, etc. The closer you can manually position the image you want to scan, the less manipulation you will have to do digitally, meaning the less signs of such manipulation will be in your final product. In instances where more than one important thing is askew, I try to position the originals manually so that they are... well, for lack of a better term, "equally askew, both as close as possible without making the other worse."

The thing given the _least_ priority is the footer line and page number. Both of these are too easy to redraw from scratch, and I won't let them stand in the way of having the best-looking content I can create.

14 has a great example of why you _plan from the start_ when you do _anything_.  There is an add for Mystic Masters, featuring a _beautiful_ greyscale of that book, and after all these years, it _still_ looks fantastic.  Two pages later is an add for the then-current version of Traveller, which looks like nothing so much as my father's tattoo.  When I was a kid, it looked clean and crisp and was easy to recognize; even the tiny areas of color popped.   

Today, it's just a black blob, just like that Traveller add.  There wasn't any decent composition planning, and the bleeds were deep to get that "this is so black and space-like" look.  And over the last umpteen years, that ink has run and blurred and there's really nothing I can do about it.  Most of the Cyber Space adds are like this, too.  Just wanted that up there:  sometimes, there are things you just can't save, but it's not because you didn't try: it's because you have nothing to _start_ with.  I own some (a really, _really_ small portion) of the products in some of these "beyond repair" adds.  If I ever find time to do a version of these scans for myself, I will probably try to scan in the actual products, and insert them into the add.  It won't look the same (real always jars against drawn), but at least it will be recognizable.  I've considered doing the same for the various HERO books displayed throughout the magazine's run:  just slap in some colored covers!  HA!


#15: A surprisingly good long-game adventure.  Too long for a scenario, but a nice bit of background for a campaign.  If you don't have it, be sure to check it out:  No More Mr. Nice Guy


#16.  I won't lie to you; this one was _hard_ to tear apart.  Not physically-- it's just paper and a couple of rotten staples, after all.  But that _cover_....   Fortunately, I had two copies.  Unfortunately, I opted to scan the nicest one in the hopes of making less work for whoever is restoring these.  (I wish I had a better copy of #1, but that's the hardest issue there is to find, I'm afraid   ).  But when it came time to fold the cover backwards to scan the inside....   Oh, there should have been a service of some kind...     There is only one issue that's going to be ever more difficult.  Any of you folks out there with a complete set care to make a guess?    At any rate, this issue contains three pages of errata for the BBB, so if you missed it twenty years ago and absolutely cannot use a search engine, here's your chance to find out what went wrong.    

#17: The Western HERO Special!  Sort of... 
When you guys look on page 2, I want you to know that what you're seeing is _not_ the fault of either myself or whoever the pro that Jason has lined up for cleaning these scans.  That image really is that washed out in the original (same with the NOTICE! poster on p 44).  It could be solved by someone who really wanted to take the time to maybe insert a greyscaled copy of the original product, so I am going to try to find the time to include one.  Keep in mind, folks, that this doesn't mean the pro has time to actually _do_ it, okay?  Remember that the goal here is the preservation of the game material; the vintage adds are just a nice tag-along.  

I do wish I had done this AC project before Western HERO, though.  There are a couple of pieces of art that I believe are repeated from there, and they are in much, _much_ better condition than the pieces I was working with.  I could have done a simple swap-out and saved _days_ of work....  

Hello, HERO people!
 
I have had some spine problems today, making it impossible to sit down or stand up more than just a few minutes, and the constant up-and-down of the humidity with the rain trying and failing to come together isn't helping.  
 
At any rate, I have gotten #13 done, though it took about four times as long as it should have.  I'd like to say that it was "the last of the easy ones," but at one-hundred-plus pages, it wasn't particularly light-weight, either.  
 
At any rate, the magazine was reformatted after this one, and I can not lay a complete leaf upon my scanner (I really miss the Super Scanner....   ).  That means the rest will go a bit slower, as even de-bound, I will only be able to scan one page at a time.  I have no intention of cutting the leaves (I intend to put the books back together when this is all done), so there's going to be a minute or two of flipping, folding, and turning with each page.    And of course, alignment will have to be one page at a time instead of two.
 
Stil, things are looking pretty good.  With one-through-thirteen done, _and_ #26 done, we _can_ say that one-half of the books are scanned!   Yay!
 
The rest will be slower, I'm afraid, but will be approached with the same level of tenacity that got this much done.  Then-- onto a flash drive and on to Jason!
 
 

 

I had some 12-ply tires on my Ram and they are almost indestructible, and boy do they ride rough! I say almost indestructible because I had to park the truck in a strange spot at work (when I was still working two jobs and doing construction) and had a two-inch puncture from who-knows-what?! Even those bad boys couldn’t withstand random shards of steel. Oh, and an emergency break stand on the highway to avoid a collision shaved one of the other tires flat on one side. So now I have everything arranged like you, only opposite: I rotated the two 12-plys to the rear, and two new normal tires up front.  

Okay, scans are done up to #12.
 
Didn't get much time to work today; I had to travel three hours for a pair of tires for the Leviathan.
 
Oh; sorry: to explain:  
 
The Leviathan weighs roughly what any other one-ton truck weighs.  The problem is it's just over twenty-one feet from proudest point to proudest point (when the winch is installed).  And because it's a (relatively) modern vehicle, the steel gauges are light enough that the weight distribution is really, _really_ wonky when she's not loaded, and it's been a few years since she routinely carried the loads I bought her to carry (changed lines of work, but I liked the truck).  The upshot of that is that all the weight that she does have, she has _squarely_ on the front wheels.  Weirdly, this problem doesn't occur when she spends most of her time under a heavy load.  :/
 
 
She spends most of her time lightly loaded these days, and accordingly, she eats up some tires.     Even LT tires and HT tires don't last more than eight months or so.   Many years ago, a tire guy (after my fourth set of tires in less than two years), this guy says "I've got a nutty idea....."
 
Have you folks ever seen one of those trucks-- popular with ice-cream vendors-- where they take a semi truck (truck only), pull off the fifth wheel, install a large cooler, and then put little undersized wheels and tires on it to bring it a bit lower to the ground?
 
We put on a set of those tires.  Holy crap they ain't cheap!     But I'll be hanged if it didn't work.  I got over four years out of that set of tires.  When it was time for more, I bought more.  It's been time for several weeks now, and I couldn't find them anywhere!  Seriously:  between the various Corona shut-downs and the rubber tariff, etc--  none can get them.   Freakishly, I found a place three hours from here that happened to have six in stock.  At two-fifty a pop, I only got the front ones.  The rears can wait another couple weeks, I think.  
 
They've rebranded them, but they are the same tire.  They've made the lettering freaky small, making the massive expanse of black rubber garish and unpleasant....  and cheap-looking, really.
 
Anyway, I got back _way_ late today (kind of made a day of it; I don't get that way as often as I used to), so not much scanning got done.  We're up to issue twelve completed.  unfortunately, this is the last of the quickies.     The next one is a "double issue," and after that, the size of the pages steps up to the point that I will only be able to scan one page at a time as opposed to the entire leaf.   
 
Tomorrow I have to run out of town again (different direction; different reasons), so I don't expect to get much done then, either.  However, _something_ will get done; I promise.
 
 
Oh-- if you were wondering (and you probably weren't) about just how strong the tires are--  One of them has (had) two small holes all the way through the tread, about three-sixteenths of an inch in diameter.  There is (sorry; was) _no_ air in the tire.  And I drove three hours on it.  Why not?  It wasn't flat.     The new tires have the euro-standard load range, and call it a 145.  They have a weight rating of around 6800 pounds each and eighteen-ply sidewalls.  
 
And they ride like absolute _crap_ when the Leviathan isn't loaded.   
 
 
 
 

I played some Spacemaster myself (Sci-fi junkie), and while character creation (we used to call it "Chartmaster") was a pain, and combat was a pain, it wasn't bad.  I enjoyed it for space opera type games.  However, I was a Traveller buff above all else: I liked the cleaner, simpler system. We didn't even do much in the Imperium-- every time we'd make characters, we'd head off into the Marches or other vast uncharted (or at least undocumented) areas and have adventures in a number of home-brewed settings.  It didn't hurt that Traveller was the first game I ever played, and, as far as I know, was the only space-oriented game to _not_ suffer from "lack of deck plans"  
 
 

[Joe Friday]  
Just the maps, Fam.
[/Joe Friday]
 
 

+1 on the Map Pack!

Me Me ME!
 
I am in the market for any of the Hero maps that are high enough resolution they can be blown up.
I normally am not a mini gamer, but a map large enough to mark position for Hero is a big plus. 
I have always wished that the maps in Champions Battlegrounds and Fantasy Hero Battlegrounds were available in a hi-res format.  I really don't know if it is possible, but the store still has physical copies.  I will buy another and send them to you to experiment with if you think you will have time.
 

Okay, that's eight down  (1-7 and #26).  Nineteen more to go.
 
The early issues go easily: the whole sheet fits the scanner; it's just a matter of finding an alignment that gets both pages "mostly straight."  The less straightening you have to do digitally, the better, at least art-wise.
#7 was brutal: my copy was badly printed, badly cut, and badly managed.  That is to say that on every leaf, the pages were not straight with each other, necessitating a lot of setting and re-setting to get both printed pages "mostly straight;" getting both straight wasn't possible.  Get one too straight, and the other was just awful.  The leaning text of Pisa.  It was badly cut in that the top margin was infinite, while the page numbers barely fit at the bottom.  And I think this thing was used a coaster for a significant portion of its life....  I should have suspected something when I didn't have to pull the staples: I just started to straighten them a bit and the fell into bits....
It's funny that this was also the first issue that ICE was involved in.
 
Anyway, the small ones go reasonably quickly as they scan essentially two-pages-at-once.  There is a double-sized issue coming up that will slow it down a bit.  I expect the first size step-up will slow things down to one page at a time; I know the final size-- actual magazine size-- is going to crawl, as I've done one of those already (#26).
 
Still, it will get done as quickly as possible, and sent to Jason.  
 
 
Then we wait.....
 
I need a survey, if no one minds:
 
 
How many people are interested in maps as play aids?  I ask because _I_ love them, as does the youth group and both of my remaining adult groups.
 
I ask because AC is _filled_ with tiny maps.  I am curious to see if there is any interest in an Adventurers Club Map Pack-- I can take much higher rez scans-- high enough to enlarge these maps to 1 hex = 1 inch without loosing detail or getting pixelated.  It's more work on the pile, but if there are enough 5e-and-back players (sorry; I don't have the time to rescale individual elements of the map itself for 6e's 1"=1m scale), I might consider taking it on after the BBB project.
 
 

This is actually something I've considered doing before, but more like an entire party of teenagers setting out on their own, etc. etc. The things that held me back are similar to what you're concerns are. I'll offer a few of the ideas I had to maybe help you out. Take 'em or leave 'em as you wish!
The Medieval world had a robust apprenticing system in trades and whatnot. Parents gave up their children willingly in order to learn a trade and become productive adults (squire, apprentice for a trade, shopkeeper's assistant/trainee, etc.) Keep in mind that adulthood began at a much younger age, so it's not so strange for a teenager to be out on his own. In fantasy, this may amount to a child who shows promise being sent to apprentice with a wizard. If you have another wizard in your party, perhaps he'd like to take on the mentoring role. So the parents have sent the child off willingly to learn. If there's no mentor, maybe they've sent the child with the party with the promise to make sure he gets to [name of school redacted to protect the innocent] in order to learn properly. Maybe the parents are too poor to support the child and have to send him off with someone else who can afford to care for the child while also training the child. Maybe the child is a runaway who managed to glom onto the party, and now they can't get rid of him.  
Most importantly, it's going to require you to sit down at Session 0 with your players and see who and how all these things will interact. Things to consider and discuss with your players:
The child should have Complications galore built into the character: distinctive feature (young person, easily identified and hard to conceal), reduced Characteristics based on one of the templates offered, a tendency to throw tantrums or act irrationally because of youth, defies authority, is always trying to "prove himself" to the adults, and the list goes on. Complications are where you can try to encourage some of the character's role playing. Spells will most likely have limited power that can grow rapidly over time. Perhaps your player will have limited versions of spells that can improve with use. Most likely the spells will also have a reduced activation roll, or have side effects, that can eventually be bought off with XP as he grows.  Maybe the youngster will gain XP at a faster rate than the other players for a while as he learns and grows more dramatically than the adults. "Hey, I didn't know I could make a fire spell explode like that! Cool!" and then add a new spell to his list. The other players should most definitely step up and take Complications to account for a youth in their party. Maybe not all of them, but someone should take on the role of the mentor or protector, perhaps another player actually hates kids and take a Complication to pick on him that comes up every once in a while, and so on. The more you can get the characters to overlap with their Complications, the more likely the role playing will be reinforced in the group. So much good material can come from this! So much good material can come from this. As you suggest, Ragitsu, have a conversation and let the group decide how these parts will interact. The more you can get the characters to overlap with their Complications, the less you'll have to "hand wave" the problems away, and the more you can hopefully encourage some good role playing material.
 
I was once in a one-shot at a convention, and one of the characters was a teenage girl super. The player who took her played that to the hilt! She was on her phone all the time, and was so ironic all the time, and started half her comments with "OMG . . ." and stuff like that. The role playing was amazing, and was only barely built into the character as a suggestion. If you can get your group to buy into the concept, it could be a ton of fun!
 
Hope this helps.

Okay, Adventurers Club (Man, it really _bugs_ me that there is no apostrophe in there) scanning proceeds slowly; it's a time problem.  Completed are  1-5 and 26.  Many, many more to go.  Have found a #27, meaning I will shortly have a complete set.
 
Stumbling block, though, in sending vials through the net as both Jason and I live in the "e-sticks," resulting in spotty connectivity and low data flow.  I've tried sending them through an intermediary (thanks, Chris!), but Jason is talking now about having them scanned locally.  I had offered to put them all on a drive and just send it, but have heard nothing back from that.
 
In other news, our colleague Spence has offered up an already-debound BBB for that particular project.  I've lined up an artist to help me with the cover restoration (that cover seems to mean a lot to the fans, so I don't trust myself to handle it), and work will proceed (very slowly) on that project as time allows.  I just can't make promises on that one, but if you remember Western HERO, remember that this book is a roughly three times as large, and I have less time.  On the plus side, most of the interior art was essentially "comic style" line drawings as opposed to the etchings, stampings, lithographs, and old photos that were in Western HERO, so there should be considerably less problems with that aspect of things.
 
 
And now I'm going to bed-- like I should have done instead of scanning AC #5.    
 
I keep hoping Jason will take me up on the flash drive, just so we know he has high-rez scans from the get-go.  I wish I had time to do the actual clean-up and restoration, but I don't think I'll live that long.  
 
 
 

Uh oh, now you done did it . . . . 

Hey, this new "Dump on Duke" game is kinda fun!

Hey, this new "Dump on Duke" game is kinda fun!

You know what they say:
 
Eighth time's the charm..... 
 

 
 

I got that edited, but evidently you were quoting while I was editing. 
 

 
At any rate, it reads correctly now.
 
 
 

So, I have a plan!
For me and my brain, the original Champions Attack equation and explanation of the Attack equation is more intuitive than that in in later editions, so I'm going to stick with the original. Thanks, all.

It's worked for me for forty years.  I can't find any reason to change it. 
 
 
 
I will have to double-check (still at work), but I think there is one on the 5e GM screen, and there were dozens when the Web Ring of Heroes was still a thing...
 
Jfg17:
 
Doc explained it perfectly:
 
It's just like any other 11 or less skill roll. 
 
To simply further:
 
It is possible to see this as 2 skill rolls:
 
The attacker makes an attack roll; the Defender makes a defend roll. 
 
Both rolls have a base value of 11 of less. 
 
Whoever succeeds by the most wins.  If the attacker rolls a 9 and the Defender rolls a 7, then the Defender has succeeded by 5, while the attacker has succeeded by only 2.  The Defender wins, and the attack misses. 
 
Like any other skill roll, there are modifiers.  Start with how good you are at the skill.  Suppose you have a skill with a base of 11 or less, but you've invested a few extra points to demonstrate a deeper study or better understanding that a lot of folks might have.  Your roll might be 14 or less instead of 11 or less. 
 
Another way to look at that is to consider that you have an 11 less and a +3 bonus to you ability with that skill.  In combat, that bonus is your CV. 
 
So in the above example, let's say the atttacker has an OCV of 8 while the Defender has a DCV of 5.
 
The attacker needs to roll his base 11 or less, but he gets his 8 OCV bonus.  He know has to roll a 19 or less to succeed. 
 
The Defender, with his DCV bonus of 5, has to roll a 16 or less to successfully defend. 
 
 
So the attacker rolls a 9, as before, which means he succeeded by 10.  The Defender rolls a 7, as before, and succeeds by 9.  The attacker wins, as he has won by the greatest margin. 
 
And just like any other skill roll, there are other modifiers where appropriate: range, weather, bad footing--whatever might be appropriate. 
 
If you've ever played a game (including HERO, in some cases) where skills are directly opposed like this, you are familiar with the problems, not the least of which is we are now rolling dice twice to resolve one thing.  Another problem is the arguments like "how did he hit me if I successfully defended?  What do you mean, 'succeeded more?'. That makes no sense!" and things like that. 
 
So how do we resolve that?  Make one roll. 
 
They both have a base chance of 11.  We understand that OCV is a positive modifier to that.  We understand that DCV can be considered a negative modifier (from the attacker's point of view) to that same roll.  So we know how to reduce the time wasted rolling dice: make one roll that includes both sets of modifiers. 
 
(11 + OCV) - (Defender's DCV) = target number.  Roll that number or less. 
 
(I don't want to confuse things, but I handle all my opposed roll situations, like Concealment VS Concealment, this exact same way.  It's fast and it's clean). 
Best of all, it eliminates the problem with ties (in terms of how  much you succeeded.  If your wondering, though, ties go to the attacker) and "but I successfully defended!" by not having separate rolls for these two aspects of combat. 
 
There is no _real_ downside, but for some reason, some people are really bothered by the fact that telling a player "you need an eight or less" tells the player something he shouldn't know.  Here's why that's not really true:  the play has no idea what his oppenents skill levels are, how many are allocated, where they are allocated, or what other situational bonuses are in play.  You might need an eight this time, even the next five times, but then you might need a thirteen, followed by a six!  You're not giving away what they claim you are giving away.  Unless, of course, the groups in question use no situational modifiers at all, ever, in which case, yea: your player might figure out his opponent's DCV.  To which I say "so what?"
 
 
I say that, because the "solution" to this "problem" is the roll-high option.  Ultimately, this is touted as hiding all the stuff that you are allegedly giving away with roll low. 
 
The problem is that you are _still_ giving it away.  It's not calculus.  It's math like you picked up in first and second grade:
 
I rolled an eleven. 
You hit! 
I rolled a twelve. 
I'm sorry, you missed. 
 
Egad!  If only there was some way I could use this information to determine what his DCV is! 
 

 
Obviously, in this case, his total DCV (that would be his DCV, plus and skill levels he has allocated to defense plus any Maneuver or situational DCV bonuses he has) exactly equals your total OCV-  which is, as I said, the _total_ of everything in play that's working toward increasing your OCV. 
 
You still don't really know what his precise DCV is any more than he knows your precise OCV.  The best part is that you have that same conundrum with roll-under to hit: you know the total, that one time, after resolution, and have no way of knowing exactly _why_ that is the total, or if it is always that total. 
 
Roll-over is a non-solution to a not problem. 
 
However, it is just as valid as roll-under.  Pick the one you like and stick with it, as changing up or using both is the only _real_ problem you are going to have teaching the attack mechanic. 

It's best to think of it like others have suggested: Roll under a Skill (your "Attack Skill" of 11) on 3d6, with OCV acting like Skill Levels and DCV acting like penalties. Roll under that number.
 
In older editions of Champions the formula used to be shown as this: 11 + OCV - DCV = target roll or less. Basically it looks like a Skill Roll. The main problem is that a GM may not want you do know your opponent's DCV, so in later editions they moved things around to keep the DCV secret. I'll show my work in steps like we used to do in math class (I'm trying to remember how to do that now!), not to be condescending, just to make sure you're following (and to check that I'm actually doing it right!):
               11 + OCV - DCV = 3d6 or less
+ (DCV) 11 + OCV - DCV = 3d6 + (DCV)
               - (3d6) 11 + OCV = 3d6 + DCV - (3d6) 
                 11 + OCV - 3d6 =  DCV you can hit
 
Another way to look at it is this: Think of 11+OCV as your Skill Roll, rolled at or under on 3d6. The margin of success ("I made my roll by 5") that you use on some Skill Rolls is equivalent to the DCV you can hit ("I can hit a DCV 5"). Again, the reason why in some games we announce how much we exceeded the roll, especially things like Perception rolls, is because there may be modifiers and stuff the GM is tracking that we don't know about. Easiest solution is to just roll and announce how much we made it by. In combat, that's the DCV we can hit.
 
I hope I didn't just make things worse, or ridiculous with my math. But it was only recently, after more than 30 years of playing, that someone on these forums showed me how combat is actually a Skill Roll! Seriously, it's never really stated in the rules, but as Doc says, it's the same mechanic tacitly built into it. It was a mind-bending moment for me to suddenly see it so clearly after simply missing it for so long! 

Just to recap: just think of an attack as a Skill roll. The degree of a Skill roll often determines how much success you have, so if you make it by a lot it is better than making it by a little. The lower you roll, the more you make the Skill roll by, and for an attack that difference is how good of an opponent you can hit. The lower the roll, the more DCV you can hit. 
 
Keep coming back to that. Make up a couple of sample combats for your own practice. Create some environmental conditions (darkness, terrain, whatever) and use a few of the maneuvers that modify OCV and DCV, and run a few rounds of combat. It'll get you used to the basic formula plus adding modifiers and stuff as you calculate. 

Somewhere there is a chart for comparing OCV to DCV that when you cross-index the numbers it gives you the target number you need to roll.

It's best to think of it like others have suggested: Roll under a Skill (your "Attack Skill" of 11) on 3d6, with OCV acting like Skill Levels and DCV acting like penalties. Roll under that number.
 
In older editions of Champions the formula used to be shown as this: 11 + OCV - DCV = target roll or less. Basically it looks like a Skill Roll. The main problem is that a GM may not want you do know your opponent's DCV, so in later editions they moved things around to keep the DCV secret. I'll show my work in steps like we used to do in math class (I'm trying to remember how to do that now!), not to be condescending, just to make sure you're following (and to check that I'm actually doing it right!):
               11 + OCV - DCV = 3d6 or less
+ (DCV) 11 + OCV - DCV = 3d6 + (DCV)
               - (3d6) 11 + OCV = 3d6 + DCV - (3d6) 
                 11 + OCV - 3d6 =  DCV you can hit
 
Another way to look at it is this: Think of 11+OCV as your Skill Roll, rolled at or under on 3d6. The margin of success ("I made my roll by 5") that you use on some Skill Rolls is equivalent to the DCV you can hit ("I can hit a DCV 5"). Again, the reason why in some games we announce how much we exceeded the roll, especially things like Perception rolls, is because there may be modifiers and stuff the GM is tracking that we don't know about. Easiest solution is to just roll and announce how much we made it by. In combat, that's the DCV we can hit.
 
I hope I didn't just make things worse, or ridiculous with my math. But it was only recently, after more than 30 years of playing, that someone on these forums showed me how combat is actually a Skill Roll! Seriously, it's never really stated in the rules, but as Doc says, it's the same mechanic tacitly built into it. It was a mind-bending moment for me to suddenly see it so clearly after simply missing it for so long! 

I have no idea where to put this, and "other genres" seems appropriate.
 
No; I'm not looking to tear it apart or ask questions about it.  I just wanted to say that I spent this afternoon reading it.  Yeah; I'm probably the last guy to buy it (that's just the way it tends to go for me    ), but I read it today-- the PDF, anyway.  I intend to read it again when the printed book shows up.
 
First: it took me far to long to make the connection between the Bill Keyes listed on the cover and our own Bill Keyes.   That was humorously embarrassing.  
 
Second:  I thoroughly enjoyed it.  It was well-written, with an easy, comfortable writing style that read quickly and lightly.  I want more!      I have to say that overall, it's not my thing-- well, Steampunk is something I've enjoyed for quite some time, but the over-all tone built into the offered setting is a bit 'dark' for my tastes, or rather, to be more accurate-- a bit dark for what I like in Steampunk.  I suppose I'm a Verne at heart.
 
Still, I can't say enough good things about this book, over all.  Even though it tends to be a bit dark by default, it's not overtly depressing or dehumanizing, and is filled, particularly near the end, where the suggestions start coming hard and fast-- with suggestions on lightening things up.  I wasn't too keen on the baked-in presence of magic, but again-- lots of suggestions on ignoring that, and they worked well.  Oddly, I didn't mind magic as it relates to the talents of Savants.  It seemed almost appropriate there.
 
One thing I would liked to have seen was a bit more information on the "ancient evil beasties."  No; I don't need write-ups for a piece of background, particularly one that is expressly described as not taking direct action in the setting, ever.  But I would like to know just _why_ they are interested in humans and technology-- at least, more than the vague mentions that they are in fact interested-- and why this interest waxes and wanes across generations.  To a lesser extent, I would like to know the effects on humans of this waxing and waning.  I suppose to sum it up: is this something unique to the setting?  Is it important to the history or the future adventures of the game?  Or was this an afterthought to bring this wordbook in line with the much-unloved universal timeline dropped on us in 5e and not yet abandoned?
 
Still, that's rather minor, as if I chose to run with this book, I could always invent what I needed and ignore what I didn't.  And I confess that it _is_ helpful that the provided introductory adventure leaps directly to the machinations of these great evil beings and their attempt to use Savants to open a dimensional gateway.  But that also seems pretty close to direct intervention.  Still, it does provide an idea of the motives the evil and how they influence the world.  I'd just like something a bit more concrete.
 
 
However, if you haven't checked it out, I can't recommend it enough, if only for pleasure reading.  It's just really well-done, and should be considered a high-water mark for third-party products.  
 
(What I really wish, though, was that the HERO version got the same cover as the Savage Worlds version.     )
 
 
 
 

I had to go look at the document, and although it doesn't come out and say it, my impression is that the combat roll is a "roll high" approach. This comes up in discussions every once in a while since many gamers are used to rolling over a target number rather than under. I think that maybe @drunkonduty applied this to his document, although you'd have to ask him. Maybe he can be enticed to comment on it . . .

This has kind of already been said, but yeah, go through every skill and every power and think of it from a Driving angle.
 
Lonewolf mentioned Shadowing. Exactly. I'd recommend that the players buy skills "on foot" and skills "in car" separately.
 
Shadowing on foot is very different than by vehicle. Imagine a guy who is good at Shadowing on foot having to do it in a car instead, or vice versa. Like, I can see Vin Diesel ninja-ing his car under a tractor trailer to avoid being spotted in a rear view, but I can also see him tripping over a hot dog stand when trying to do this on foot. In this campaign, they could be two different skills.
 
I see Acrobatics working the same way: character can flip a car, do a full rotation to jump from the bridge to the underpass, but as a person can't do a somersault.
 
"Acting" : can duplicate another driver's style, make it look like she did the heist when the video footage is reviewed. Or she can make it look like there's something wrong with the car. "The way she's driving, I'd say she blew her engine..." Surprise!
 
Breakfall: Can slow down by hitting things without taking too much Body off the car.
 
Contortionist: "No way you can fit between those two cars...wait! Don't!!"
 
Demolitions: Know where to hit another car to do extra damage....maybe Find Weakness fits this better....
 
Tactics/Teamwork