Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Need information for running a Post Apocolypse Savage Worlds Game

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Need information for running a Post Apocolypse Savage Worlds Game

    I am looking for some advice on running a scenario where opposing sides have armored vehicles.

    I was considering the time needed for turret rotation, and was planning on applying a one turn (6 seconds) cost for each 90 degrees of rotation for a powered turret and a one turn cost for every 15 degrees of rotation for hand-cranked turrets. Does this seem reasonable?

    Once the turret is in the correct location, gunner sighting was also going to take one turn. I'm worried that this may be too short a time for site the weapon, so I was hoping for some feedback.

    As for switching between the main gun and the coaxial machine gun, this would also take a full turn. I view it as much more time consuming that dropping a hand weapon and drawing another.

    Finally, can someone recommend an armor factors for the following: Sandbagged wall, metal door, metal-clad door, brick wall, concrete wall, concrete wall with steel reinforcement, jersey wall, and walls made of railroad ties.

    Thanks in advance for any suggestions you may have.

  • ValhallaGH
    replied
    Originally posted by turbo View Post
    I am looking for some advice on running a scenario where opposing sides have armored vehicles.
    Well, you asked for it.

    I was considering the time needed for turret rotation, and was planning on applying a one turn (6 seconds) cost for each 90 degrees of rotation for a powered turret and a one turn cost for every 15 degrees of rotation for hand-cranked turrets. Does this seem reasonable?
    That seems incredibly slow for a turret rotation (unless it's hand cranked? even then it's kind of slow).
    It seems like it would slow combat significantly to no meaningful dramatic purpose.
    It seems like it would make positioning vastly more important than anything else. By placing your own vehicle opposite the foes current cannon facing you have guaranteed that he can't shoot you for two rounds (without moving his vehicle).

    Not fast, not furious, and not fun.

    [more ideas]
    Are you sure you actually want vehicle combat? Because with these proposals, the characters would be much more effective if they drove close to their enemies, then jumped out on foot and killed the rival armored vehicles while dismounted. It's not like their foes will be able to shoot the heroes before they climb aboard and drop explosives into the armored hulls or just slit the throats of the crew.

    Finally, can someone recommend an armor factors for the following: Sandbagged wall, metal door, metal-clad door, brick wall, concrete wall, concrete wall with steel reinforcement, jersey wall, and walls made of railroad ties.
    Sure. Many of these are under Obstacles in Chapter 3: Game Rules.
    Sandbags about +6 armor.
    Solid metal door around +4 armor.
    Solid wood door (or metal covered wood door) around +4 armor.
    Brick wall is +8 armor.
    Hollow cinder block wall is +6 armor.
    Reinforced cinder block wall is probably +8 armor.
    A "jersey wall" would presumably be made from stacks of concrete traffic barricades. I'd treat it as a brick wall. +8
    Rail road ties are just thick wooden beams, probably +5 armor.

    Good luck!

    Leave a comment:


  • paladin2019
    replied
    Originally posted by turbo View Post
    I am looking for some advice on running a scenario where opposing sides have armored vehicles.

    I was considering the time needed for turret rotation, and was planning on applying a one turn (6 seconds) cost for each 90 degrees of rotation for a powered turret and a one turn cost for every 15 degrees of rotation for hand-cranked turrets. Does this seem reasonable?

    Once the turret is in the correct location, gunner sighting was also going to take one turn. I'm worried that this may be too short a time for site the weapon, so I was hoping for some feedback.
    Nope, not at all. Without more specific information on the platforms involved, you're better off including a single facing change in the action to fire. Consider that 6 seconds is the time for a full rotation of many IFVs. Tanks, with their large caliber, single shot cannon are slower, but not so much to negate what I proposed given a modern, well-maintained system. But see my response to Gafgarionn below for caveats.

    Note that when it comes to what we think is in SWADE for repeating actions, this is an area where multiple cannon shots are probably not a good idea. Also, the crew really needs to be treated as single combatant, baring unusual circumstances like a Mk IV or bow machine guns. Even in those cases, some variation of Two-Fisted probably works better.

    Originally posted by turbo View Post
    As for switching between the main gun and the coaxial machine gun, this would also take a full turn. I view it as much more time consuming that dropping a hand weapon and drawing another.
    See my comment on Erolat's post. Switching between main gun and coax (and between main gun HE and AP) is less time consuming than transitioning to the secondary.

    Originally posted by Gafgarionn View Post
    1) I think you could use the 90° turn as per their one action, and any further turn impairs the -2 to the attack.
    Are you suggesting that a facing change of up to 90o is part of the attack? Or that it is its own action and so any turret movement imposes a multiaction penalty on attacks in the same round? Depending on the tech level/specific vehicle and maintenance regime applied, I could see either as reasonable.
    Last edited by paladin2019; 12-06-2018, 04:22 PM. Reason: I realized there's a lot to respond to and kept it to one post.

    Leave a comment:


  • paladin2019
    commented on 's reply
    Moreso, it's generally the same control (the Cadillac in in US Army parlance) for the main gun and the coax; that's why it's a coax. By definition, both weapons are physically in the same mount. It's generally just the flick of a switch to switch reticles in the sights for the different ammunition of the main gun or to the coax controls. So while a gunner wouldn't be able to fire both weapons in the same round, switching to the other gun (or between main gun ammo types) should be subsumed in the time it takes to make the attack.

  • Erolat
    replied
    Originally posted by turbo View Post
    As for switching between the main gun and the coaxial machine gun, this would also take a full turn. I view it as much more time consuming that dropping a hand weapon and drawing another.
    I disagree. Unless there is some reason it is difficult to get from one position to another often the person triggering the cannon is also the person triggering the coax. In a few variations of tanks there was enough crew to be able to fire both at the same time. In that case it may take some time to crawl from one position to another. I guess it depends on how the tanks are laid out and crewed though.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gafgarionn
    replied
    1) I think you could use the 90° turn as per their one action, and any further turn impairs the -2 to the attack. So the second 90°, would inflict a -4 penalty jnstead of just the minus two. Also if you let them shoot without lining up the shot, they just didn't aim, so no +2. Or you could rule it as an unstable platform when they shoot, so they attack at Shooting -2. But the aim full-round could be them locking in the sights.
    2) ​​Okay.... Regarding the damage to break things, I believe you can find ideas such as on page 81 - Breaking Things, as well as see page 85 - Obstacle Toughness.

    Last edited by Gafgarionn; 12-05-2018, 10:15 PM. Reason: Added more thoughts.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X