| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Me too. I'd very much like to see some more detail on that. |
Hmm, how much? Some of it seems self-evident. If a vehicle can fly at 100m it shouldn't have any problem clearing a 4m rock-provided the pilot can see the rock in time. I tend to reflect that by adjusting the terrain difficulties based on the speed of the vehicle. Cautious movement is -1 level, High Speed
I guess we could rate terrain difficulties with a height in meters, and give ground vehicles a clerance number (like altitude). If a vehicle has enough clearance it can drop the difficulty an level, and it can drop the clearance another level for each multiple over the terrain height.
For example, Lets say we had some sort of rough terrain with a Difficulty of Moderate and a heiight of 1m. The driver of a typical wheeled vehicle would need to make moderate driving rolls to traverse the terrain at crusing speed. If the driver slows down to cautious speed, he can reduce the difficuty to easy. If the vehicle has a clearance of 1m the difficulty would be reduced to easy, and if the vehilce had a clearance of 2m it would reduce the difficlty down to very easy.
Likewise an AT-AT with a clearance of something like 6m can reduce the terrain difficulty by 6 levels, and so can cross the terrain at high speed without any problems, easily stepping over, on, or around most obstacles.
A lanspeeder with at least 1m altitude could fly right over the obstacles as if they weren't there, treating the teraain as open "ground".
The tricky bits will be for things like swamps, where the difficulty isn't so much about obstacles but the softness of the ground( At AT-AT might sin) and and situations where the terrain difficulty isn't really about the terrain, like space battles where the difficulty is caused by the sheer number of ships in the area, or by asteroids or some such. We would need to note the reason for the difficulty, and which condtions a given vehicle iis designed to overcome. A Verpine asteroid miner would be great from doging around rocks in space, but probably not so good dodging between Redwoods on Endor.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe break up terrain difficulty by type? Swamps, snow, sand, forest, etc. Each would have its own special issues which would need to be overcome.
Perhaps a chart with the basic propulsion types cross-referenced with various general terrain types and the resulting terrain difficulty modifiers?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Maybe break up terrain difficulty by type? Swamps, snow, sand, forest, etc. Each would have its own special issues which would need to be overcome. |
Yeah!
| crmcneill wrote: |
Perhaps a chart with the basic propulsion types cross-referenced with various general terrain types and the resulting terrain difficulty modifiers? |
That would be good. At least as far as covering most common situations.
For vehicles we have:
Wheeled
Tracked
Walker
Repulsorlift/Hovercraft
Propellor
Jet/Rocket/Ion Drive (not really the same, but probably use the same row)
Wings/Glider
For terrain:
Flat Evern Ground
Rockey Terrain (Hills Mountains)
Rough Ground
Bocage/Shrubs
Woodlands (varies from spare and light to something like Endor)
Sand
Marsh/Bog/Swamp
River/Moving Water
Pond/Lake/Ocean
Underwater
Ice
Lava (like water but with Heat-thank you Mustafar)
Air (a couple of difference densities and levels of visual clarity)
Open Space
Asteroid Field
Crowed Space
Various Unusual Spacial Conditions (nebulas, comets, blakc holes)
We probably will need mods for gravity and atmospheric pressure.
Did I miss anything important? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | That would be good. At least as far as covering most common situations.
For vehicles we have:
Wheeled
Tracked
Walker
Repulsorlift/Hovercraft
Propellor
Jet/Rocket/Ion Drive (not really the same, but probably use the same row)
Wings/Glider |
Well, for starters, I would probably split air and ground vehicles into two separate categories, as they don't generally face the same terrain issues. For flying vehicles, I would think the primary distinctions would be hovering and non-hovering (i.e. lifting body vehicles like airplanes)
| Quote: |
For terrain:
Flat Evern Ground
Rockey Terrain (Hills Mountains)
Rough Ground
Bocage/Shrubs
Woodlands (varies from spare and light to something like Endor)
Sand
Marsh/Bog/Swamp
River/Moving Water
Pond/Lake/Ocean
Underwater
Ice
Lava (like water but with Heat-thank you Mustafar)
Air (a couple of difference densities and levels of visual clarity)
Open Space
Asteroid Field
Crowed Space
Various Unusual Spacial Conditions (nebulas, comets, blakc holes) |
Again, to make things less confusing, it would probably be best to separate out flying and surface terrain types. This is a very comprehensive list, btw.
| Quote: | We probably will need mods for gravity and atmospheric pressure.
Did I miss anything important? |
No, in fact you caught waaaay more than I had considered.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14054
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You forgot swoops and gliders.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | You forgot swoops and gliders. |
He didn't forget gliders.
| atgxtg wrote: | | Wings/Glider |
I always hated separating swoops from other repulsorlift vehicles. That's way too much detail/specialization for me and doesn't fit the overall vehicle paradigm. Given that flying Luke's T-47, the family's old landspeeder, and a Scout Trooper's Aratech speederbike are all the same skill separating out swoops into their own skill seems unjustified to me. Similarly separating rocket packs and jet packs into different skills is way too much detail. YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, there is some fluff about swoops being harder to pilot since they have different/more controls. But I've always kinda thought the same thing. Why split swoop off from the rest and nothing else?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | Well, there is some fluff about swoops being harder to pilot since they have different/more controls. But I've always kinda thought the same thing. Why split swoop off from the rest and nothing else? |
Indeed. Just increase the base piloting difficulty or something.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | Well, there is some fluff about swoops being harder to pilot since they have different/more controls. |
Yes I recall the fluff. Darn Corporate Sector Sourcebook. | Quote: | | But I've always kinda thought the same thing. Why split swoop off from the rest and nothing else? |
I don't. 
| crmcneill wrote: | | Just increase the base piloting difficulty or something. |
I like that idea. Without a specialization in swoops, operating a swoop should be difficult for pilots that are 4D or below. Not for pilots that are 6D and above. Maybe give it a difficulty like with weapons so rolling below some threshold (say 10) results in an automatic mishap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | You forgot swoops and gliders. |
Swoops are repulsorlift vehicles and would use the same row as other repulsorlift vehicles. ght have additional modelers but would start off using the base repulsionz table.
Just like a Proche 911 sportscar and a Land Rover are both wheeled vehicles. The Porsche might be faster and more maneuverable, but the Land Rover can cross terrain and clear obstacles that the 911 cannot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
Well, for starters, I would probably split air and ground vehicles into two separate categories, as they don't generally face the same terrain issues. For flying vehicles, I would think the primary distinctions would be hovering and non-hovering (i.e. lifting body vehicles like airplanes) |
Actually the both traverse the same terrain, just that the aircraft can fly over and ingore most of the terrain modfiers. That is where the alttude stat comes in.
For example, lets say a group of rebel are are on the Forest moon of Endor. If the rebels are riding Mobquet overracer" speeder bikes, with a altitude of 20m, they can ingore modfiers for the ground they are going over but would still have to deal with modfiers cause by all those giant trees.
On the other hand, if the group were flying around in Mobquet Wandering Flyer airsppeders with an Altitude of 125 kilometers, they can fly right over the trees and ingore the modfiers for obstacles. Unless a flock on Endorian birds pops up. And no, Mobqet didn7t pay me anything for the plug.
I kept the modifers by type though just in case the rebels decide to flyy thier speeders below tree cover.For instance, if the rebels were to run into a patrol of TIE fighters. The starfighter could blast the airspeeders apart in a fight, and the rebels would be wise to dive belwo the canopy of the trees for cover and to perhaps loose the TIEs.
I did a little work of this idea last night and juding from the RAW I think terrain modifers break down into four catergories, eveness/slope, support and traction , obstacles, and visibility. Some vehicle types can ignore some of the terrain factors. It looks like most things that would adjust the terrain difficult fits into one of those four categories. A forest full of Seqoias and an asteroid field are both obstacles. Basic categories should allow us to reduce that long list I did into a much shorter list with variable servity.
I was thinking that it might be best to apply modfiers in terms of level adjustments, rather than flat numbers. That will make it easier to apply modifers on the fly and allows Gms to tailor the modfier up or down to refect a particular situation, if they wish. But that's just my thoughts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
Actually the both traverse the same terrain, just that the aircraft can fly over and ingore most of the terrain modfiers. |
I disagree. Terrain, in this instance is something that directly affects you, and arguably, universally, the medium by which you are moving. Aircraft travel in the terrain of air, watercraft travel on the terrain of water, and land vehicles travel on land terrain. A microburst would provide a terrain difficulty to a modern aircraft, but not to a boat or a car. Gravel would affect the car, but not the aircraft. Large waves are a small or moderate problem for a boat, but a huge problem for cars!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: |
I disagree. Terrain, in this instance is something that directly affects you, |
Why directly. May thing might afftect you indirectly, and should count.
| Quote: |
and arguably, universally, the medium by which you are moving. Aircraft travel in the terrain of air, watercraft travel on the terrain of water, and land vehicles travel on land terrain. A microburst would provide a terrain difficulty to a modern aircraft, but not to a boat or a car. |
You mean drining during a rainstorm would have no effect on the car's traction, not the winds affect the seas for the boat? I disagree.
Likewise a repuorlift vehicle might not bein direct contact with the groud, but it will still have to deal with any obstacles, such as trees, that it can't fly over.
| Quote: |
Gravel would affect the car, but not the aircraft. |
Unless the aircraft is flying low, such as during an attack run, or during takeoffs and landing. During those situations the gravel migth be a worse hazard for the aircraft than for the car!
[qutoe]
Large waves are a small or moderate problem for a boat, but a huge problem for cars![/quote]
Probably not, since cars don't float. Unless the car is on a bridge or something similar,it would probably already be underwater and not bothered at all by the waves.
Keep in mind that the GM will be deciding when a given modifier should apply, along with the vehicles altitude and the table. So most of the time it should be clear when amodifier shouldn't even be considered. For instance muddy ground isn't ususally going to affect any vehicle that doesn't have to come into contact with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
