Car Wars / Road Warrior

What's next?
go0gleplex
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Keizer, OR

Postby go0gleplex » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:22 pm

Sorry Kevin...I went the wrong way with the thinking in my head. (a good example why doing 4 things at once is not a good thing) :oops:

forgot that more time equals longer distances traveled. Now that I've been reminded to focus more on distance than time...;)

The scale is probably good...though I'm inclined to reduce it by 25%...so rather than 12" at 60 it would be more like 9". But that's just me...and where I was thinking rather than my oops. :roll:
"Our past shapes us, our choices define us, our desires propel us, and those we let into our hearts give us the strength to persevere even when our dreams lay shattered behind us." - me

Justin Crough
Commander
Commander
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Justin Crough » Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:30 pm

--snip --And 150 mph would equate to a movment of 75 inches.
Or basically one pass on a normal table.
:)
I don't have a problem with longer turns, but I would like to keep the game in the ballpark of being realistically scaled.
Kevin[/quote]

What about having a smaller scaled map to the side, and then a combat map?

You can plot the movement of the cars over a wider area, and use the rest of the table top for the times when the cars are actually in proximity to each other.

That would give you the bst of both worlds maybe....as well as that maze-running aspect of going through the city streets a la Twisted Metal.

Just a casual interjection.

JP

go0gleplex
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Keizer, OR

Postby go0gleplex » Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:04 am

Justin Crough wrote:
underling wrote:--snip --And 150 mph would equate to a movment of 75 inches.
Or basically one pass on a normal table.
:)
I don't have a problem with longer turns, but I would like to keep the game in the ballpark of being realistically scaled.
Kevin


What about having a smaller scaled map to the side, and then a combat map?

You can plot the movement of the cars over a wider area, and use the rest of the table top for the times when the cars are actually in proximity to each other.

That would give you the bst of both worlds maybe....as well as that maze-running aspect of going through the city streets a la Twisted Metal.

Just a casual interjection.

JP

I could see this working for something like a cross-state combat (deathrace) type thing...but not so sure about a typical combat 'arena'.
"Our past shapes us, our choices define us, our desires propel us, and those we let into our hearts give us the strength to persevere even when our dreams lay shattered behind us." - me

jygro
Captain
Captain
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:24 pm
Location: Bloomington, Indiana

My thoughts on the game...

Postby jygro » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:04 am

Man, you two have been busy. I'm out of the conversation for a few days and blam...

First off, I like the name. Side Swipe is nice and simple.

Second, instead of a stated distance, I would use 'units' since it could be scaled for the include 1 inch counters, 1.5 inch scale micromachines or 3 inch matchbox cars. Personally, I would make one unit of the game equal one half of the car and let the players decide the 'scale' they'll use (why re-invent the wheel here).

My idea for maneuvers was to make a list of 'acceptable maneuvers' that a vehicle can perform in a turn/round/whatever. Then have each vehicle have a maneuver rating. That number would be the safe number of maneuvers for speeds less than 30 mph. For every 20 mph over 30 mph, the vehicle would have one less safe maneuver to spend (“excessive” amounts of damage would also be a way to lose maneuvers). For every maneuver performed after the ‘safe’ ones were spent, the player would have to roll a control check with failure being some nasty results.

For example, lets say we have a sports car design that has 6 safe maneuvers. If the car was going between 0 and 30 mph, it could perform 6 maneuvers without the need to make a check (a car must move straight at least 1 car length before a new maneuver can be done). If that same car was going 110 mph it could perform 2 maneuvers before making a check

Control checks... I think that the best way would be the divide the speed by 10 and that is the needed value on a d10 to stay in control (If that sports cars need to make a check, it has a problem). If the check fails, the amount failed by would be what occurs. Driver skill could modify the die result (how the sports car could survive).

Thoughts.
-Bren

go0gleplex
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Keizer, OR

Postby go0gleplex » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:35 pm

Conversationally...

I think it's gonna be cleaner to have a list of maneuvers that players can choose from rather than assign them to the vehicles. Any vehicle can attempt any manuever, but it's going to be up to the skill of the driver and the maneuverability of the vehicle itself that is gonna determine success or not...as modified by by speed of course.

I'm thinking that for construction purposes/ design, a vehicle will have three body zones. The front, the middle, and the rear...each with a set number of equipment modules. The EMs will be used to buy hardpoints, engine size (to determine max. speed), driver/passenger compartment, and special equipment of course. This, I think, would give some pretty good flexibility in car layout.
"Our past shapes us, our choices define us, our desires propel us, and those we let into our hearts give us the strength to persevere even when our dreams lay shattered behind us." - me

underling
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 561
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Wichita, Ks

Postby underling » Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:57 pm

go0gleplex wrote:I think it's gonna be cleaner to have a list of maneuvers that players can choose from rather than assign them to the vehicles. Any vehicle can attempt any manuever, but it's going to be up to the skill of the driver and the maneuverability of the vehicle itself that is gonna determine success or not...as modified by by speed of course.

I definitely agree here.
If someone wants to try a bootlegger while driving a tractor-trailer, more power to 'em.
:)
go0gleplex wrote:I'm thinking that for construction purposes/ design, a vehicle will have three body zones. The front, the middle, and the rear...each with a set number of equipment modules. The EMs will be used to buy hardpoints, engine size (to determine max. speed), driver/passenger compartment, and special equipment of course. This, I think, would give some pretty good flexibility in car layout.

Another way to do this (and which Dark Future does pretty well), is to have a number of vehicle types. Each vehicle type will its own set number of hard points. It's then up to the player to fill in the hard points with weapons/equipment, or leave them empty.
For example, a standard cycle might have one hard point on the rear, and one hard point on each forward side (or wing). A standard sedan might have one hard point on the rear, one hard point on each side at the mid-point, one hard point on each side at the front, and one hard point on the roof.
For "internal" equipment, such as heavy duty suspension, upgraded engine, etc., I'd make them more a function of units of space, with each vehicle type having a set amount of internal space available.
Kevin

go0gleplex
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Keizer, OR

Postby go0gleplex » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:06 pm

I'm thinking along the lines of what some of my ex's buddies did when modifying cars...mid mounting engines, forward driver's seat, etc. :) Even the nitrous blowers...(ever seen a mustang melt it's own tires? *chuckles*)

Each car type has so much space in each portion of the vehicle...so I was thinking of something that would really allow customization of that space. If we go with so many hard points in the right front fender or in the trunk...it's going to limit the number of builds possible IMO.

Maybe we use a volume type base, similar to Starship 2300...though simplify it to a grid. 502 8-cyl. takes up 16 spaces...driver compartment is 20 spaces...30mm recoiless rifle and auto-feeder takes up 30 spaces....(just to toss stuff out for discussion) ;)
"Our past shapes us, our choices define us, our desires propel us, and those we let into our hearts give us the strength to persevere even when our dreams lay shattered behind us." - me

thedugan
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1668
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:01 am
Location: DFW area - Texas!
Contact:

Postby thedugan » Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:42 pm

underling wrote:I definitely agree here.
If someone wants to try a bootlegger while driving a tractor-trailer, more power to 'em.:)


Ya know, I've actually been involved with a Tanker rig doing this - you can manage it if the rig isn't full and it's raining about 5 inches an hour....

Just have a teenager in a pickup hit the rig right where the trailer pivot is, just aft of the gas tanks...The rig will loose all momentum, but you do get it pointed the right direction.
:-)
Becuz I'm da friggin' ART FAIRY - dats why!

Big Bang = Let there be LIGHT!

underling
Commodore
Commodore
Posts: 561
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 4:37 pm
Location: Wichita, Ks

Postby underling » Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:54 pm

go0gleplex wrote:Each car type has so much space in each portion of the vehicle...so I was thinking of something that would really allow customization of that space. If we go with so many hard points in the right front fender or in the trunk...it's going to limit the number of builds possible IMO.

True, although I was thinking of the hard points being more for just weapons.
Hard points would be above and beyond what a vehicle could carry as far as "internal" equipment.

go0gleplex wrote:Maybe we use a volume type base, similar to Starship 2300...though simplify it to a grid. 502 8-cyl. takes up 16 spaces...driver compartment is 20 spaces...30mm recoiless rifle and auto-feeder takes up 30 spaces....(just to toss stuff out for discussion) ;)

This also makes sense, and probably more resembles what Car Wars does. Although if I'm remembering correctly CW uses weight in lieu of volume. But the effect is the same.
Kevin

go0gleplex
Admiral
Admiral
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:34 pm
Location: Keizer, OR

Postby go0gleplex » Thu Aug 17, 2006 1:46 am

Oh...I agree. Some stuff will be external mounting which we could half the space cost for or such. (depending on reasonable bracing and structural reinforcement) Of course...external mountings will be so very more vulnerable to gettin...banged up. :twisted:
"Our past shapes us, our choices define us, our desires propel us, and those we let into our hearts give us the strength to persevere even when our dreams lay shattered behind us." - me


Return to “Game Design”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest