Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 17, 2010, 03:07:28 AM »Here is a new pdf. It's been updated from the version posted, but not in a great way.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 17, 2010, 03:05:20 AM »Quote from: "mrwigggles"
I also don't see how I can add personal flair to meks, it seems the unit would be very uniform.
The weapon/electronic loadouts would be the case of customization to the units. Of course, I am open to additional suggestions on it.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 14, 2010, 10:49:08 AM »Quote from: "mrwigggles"
I haven't yet, thanks for the site. Its currently on hold as I'm out of work, and he just moved 2800 or so miles.
Its defiantly bear bones. I love meks, there are to few systems that do mek well. Also I notice a minor contradiction. With the DOF of arm mounted equipment, it states 120 degrees, though the diagram shows only 90 degrees.
I also noticed the initiative section doesn't explain the firing sequence either
Posted by: mrwigggles
« on: January 14, 2010, 04:57:53 AM »I haven't yet, thanks for the site. Its currently on hold as I'm out of work, and he just moved 2800 or so miles.
Its defiantly bear bones. I love meks, there are to few systems that do mek well. Also I notice a minor contradiction. With the DOF of arm mounted equipment, it states 120 degrees, though the diagram shows only 90 degrees.
Its defiantly bear bones. I love meks, there are to few systems that do mek well. Also I notice a minor contradiction. With the DOF of arm mounted equipment, it states 120 degrees, though the diagram shows only 90 degrees.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 14, 2010, 02:17:55 AM »I can relate to that. 
Have you checked the publisher's resources on RPGNow.com? I've picked up some decent (and some not-so-decent) art for very cheap there.
As for Project Alpha...
The initiative is meant to simulate that the person with better reactions can react to the not so good reaction person. Therefore, if you roll higher than me in initiative, I move first, and you can react to my movement. When it comes time for shooting, you get to shoot first.
The mechanics as presented are the bare bones. I've not taken the time to flesh it out much (as is evident) yet. As time permits, I do plan on adding more detail to the rules. My philosophy is to get the bare mechanics down first, then start fleshing things out. But, as I mentioned previously, my time has been consumed by a fantasy RPG and a sci-fi RPG. When time permits, or when my brain needs a respite from rpg mechanics, I do plan on revisiting this and adding to it.
I should point out the rules/mechanics as written are more of a stream of consciousness than any sort of tested cohesive whole.
Have you checked the publisher's resources on RPGNow.com? I've picked up some decent (and some not-so-decent) art for very cheap there.
As for Project Alpha...
The initiative is meant to simulate that the person with better reactions can react to the not so good reaction person. Therefore, if you roll higher than me in initiative, I move first, and you can react to my movement. When it comes time for shooting, you get to shoot first.
The mechanics as presented are the bare bones. I've not taken the time to flesh it out much (as is evident) yet. As time permits, I do plan on adding more detail to the rules. My philosophy is to get the bare mechanics down first, then start fleshing things out. But, as I mentioned previously, my time has been consumed by a fantasy RPG and a sci-fi RPG. When time permits, or when my brain needs a respite from rpg mechanics, I do plan on revisiting this and adding to it.
I should point out the rules/mechanics as written are more of a stream of consciousness than any sort of tested cohesive whole.
Posted by: mrwigggles
« on: January 13, 2010, 10:04:18 PM »Heh.
I need a type font person and an artist for a friend and mine rp book. 'Dice: The System!'. No luck in getting anyone willing to work for accolades oddly enough.
------------
Uh. It seems very stale, I don't see how this system as it is now can generate those moments where you're anxious to roll the dice to see what the outcome is.
The wording on the initiative seems contradictive. The highest roll wins the initiative but the lowest initiative moves first. Maybe I'm not understanding the mechanical use of initiative here.
The weapon seem to go from specific to vague in naming. That really a personal choice, I like to have a constancy in naming schemes.
I also don't see how I can add personal flair to meks, it seems the unit would be very uniform.
I do like having a system to be used for the different scale from infantry to the mek itself. It could end up being very dynamic battles with the variance in troops.
I need a type font person and an artist for a friend and mine rp book. 'Dice: The System!'. No luck in getting anyone willing to work for accolades oddly enough.
------------
Uh. It seems very stale, I don't see how this system as it is now can generate those moments where you're anxious to roll the dice to see what the outcome is.
The wording on the initiative seems contradictive. The highest roll wins the initiative but the lowest initiative moves first. Maybe I'm not understanding the mechanical use of initiative here.
The weapon seem to go from specific to vague in naming. That really a personal choice, I like to have a constancy in naming schemes.
I also don't see how I can add personal flair to meks, it seems the unit would be very uniform.
I do like having a system to be used for the different scale from infantry to the mek itself. It could end up being very dynamic battles with the variance in troops.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 13, 2010, 08:50:39 PM »It is a table-top wargame. Very early alpha stages. I've not done much with it recently, as I've been focussing on two RPGs.
Posted by: mrwigggles
« on: January 13, 2010, 04:50:59 PM »What is this system meant as?
A role playing game or a war game? Depending on the response will change how I perceive the game, and the thoughts for it.
A role playing game or a war game? Depending on the response will change how I perceive the game, and the thoughts for it.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 09, 2008, 02:43:14 PM »Okay. So let's call the RoF for projectile weapons bursts instead of discrete shots.
If the armor is thick enough to withstand laser/plasma shots, then a few rounds of call it .50 cal is not going to do much to it. If each "shot" is actually a burst of say 90-100 rounds (using Kevin's example of 300-600 rounds/10 seconds and a game RoF of 5), I think that'd be enough to damage the armor.
If the armor is thick enough to withstand laser/plasma shots, then a few rounds of call it .50 cal is not going to do much to it. If each "shot" is actually a burst of say 90-100 rounds (using Kevin's example of 300-600 rounds/10 seconds and a game RoF of 5), I think that'd be enough to damage the armor.
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: January 03, 2008, 07:57:49 PM »Eric
Cyclic rates are the key here. ten second burst with the new M60E5 7.62 can fire 5000 rounds in 90 seconds, I believe that is correct. A minigun can run through 1000 rounds in 60 seconds easy, the 20 mm Mk 15 CIWS used by USN fires at a rate of between 3000 and 6000 rounds per minute. So ten seconds would burn up 300 to 600 rounds, and I assume combat turns of ten seconds do not include reloading between turns.
I think your project could be a very useful adjunct to the SFA or Aurora universes, since ground combat has always been anemic in these arenas. Combat exoskeleton powered armor would allow the individual soldier to carry 20 mm gatling guns for counter infantry with 40 mm or above for anti-armor. If you're using Laser and Plasma Weapons then rail guns become possible, which means the individual combat armor is going to get heavy really quick--this could become a lot of fun
Kevin
Cyclic rates are the key here. ten second burst with the new M60E5 7.62 can fire 5000 rounds in 90 seconds, I believe that is correct. A minigun can run through 1000 rounds in 60 seconds easy, the 20 mm Mk 15 CIWS used by USN fires at a rate of between 3000 and 6000 rounds per minute. So ten seconds would burn up 300 to 600 rounds, and I assume combat turns of ten seconds do not include reloading between turns.
I think your project could be a very useful adjunct to the SFA or Aurora universes, since ground combat has always been anemic in these arenas. Combat exoskeleton powered armor would allow the individual soldier to carry 20 mm gatling guns for counter infantry with 40 mm or above for anti-armor. If you're using Laser and Plasma Weapons then rail guns become possible, which means the individual combat armor is going to get heavy really quick--this could become a lot of fun
Kevin
Posted by: Erik L
« on: January 02, 2008, 10:16:42 PM »Quote from: "kdstubbs"
For a robotic unit, I think your machine gun units are woefully under armed. My son use to carry 750 rounds of 5.56 into combat with his SAW in Iraq. Three box magazines, one on the weapon and two on his back. A normal combat load for the 50 cal on an Abrams Tank is about 2000 rounds, and 6000 for the 7.62 gunners weapon. If I remember my stats from ten years ago.
My point is that while infantry normally does not carry excessive numbers of rounds, my son's unit went into battle with large numbers of rounds--most carried in their vehicles, but when they went on foot. He had more than 500 rounds.
A robotic tank should have more than 500 rounds for their weapons--I would say they would use a mini-gun not a single barrel weapon, and what about rail guns--if you have the power for lasers, then you have the power for a rail gun.
Kevin
I suppose this would fall under handwavium. I just double-checked the file, and I did not define a turn length. So if a combat turn is say 10 seconds, the ammo numbers given would apply as 50 rounds of combat fire (in the machine gun's case). One could assume that more than 5 shots are fired in that 10 seconds.
Of course, this is a very rough first draft yet.
Posted by: kdstubbs
« on: January 02, 2008, 08:43:47 PM »For a robotic unit, I think your machine gun units are woefully under armed. My son use to carry 750 rounds of 5.56 into combat with his SAW in Iraq. Three box magazines, one on the weapon and two on his back. A normal combat load for the 50 cal on an Abrams Tank is about 2000 rounds, and 6000 for the 7.62 gunners weapon. If I remember my stats from ten years ago.
My point is that while infantry normally does not carry excessive numbers of rounds, my son's unit went into battle with large numbers of rounds--most carried in their vehicles, but when they went on foot. He had more than 500 rounds.
A robotic tank should have more than 500 rounds for their weapons--I would say they would use a mini-gun not a single barrel weapon, and what about rail guns--if you have the power for lasers, then you have the power for a rail gun.
Kevin
My point is that while infantry normally does not carry excessive numbers of rounds, my son's unit went into battle with large numbers of rounds--most carried in their vehicles, but when they went on foot. He had more than 500 rounds.
A robotic tank should have more than 500 rounds for their weapons--I would say they would use a mini-gun not a single barrel weapon, and what about rail guns--if you have the power for lasers, then you have the power for a rail gun.
Kevin
Posted by: Erik L
« on: December 04, 2007, 04:00:36 PM »That's the working title. Not had any good brainstorms for a decent title yet. The attached document is a rough first draft playtest ruleset. Comments are always welcome.
[attachment deleted by admin]
[attachment deleted by admin]
