Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Popular Vehicles and group assets
Posted by: Sage2000 Feb 15 2013, 05:07 PM
Good evening!
I have been looking for ways of having vehicles in Shadowrun groups.
About group assets:
- According to RAW, is it possible to start the game with a vehicle owned by the entire core group? Can players/characters share resourses before gameplay actually starts?
- I have been wondering about this, as I am very fond of helicopters, but maybe would be too expensive for a starting character.
- Even more important, how much would cost to maintain a helicopter, including fuel? How much would cost the repair it if weapons fire did even moderate damage to it? These questions makes me wonder how much of the groups payment a pilot/rigger/chopper owner would have to claim to be worth it?
- Even using ground, regular, wheeled vehicles, the tab could go skyhigh.
- What kind of group vehicles are popular among runners? I mean, of course every person should have his own ride, as he has a life, but the idea of the entire group going togueder, as a team, full of gear and weapons, discussing the mission; is very iconic and pratical. Like this:
http://www.automopedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/mystery-machine3.jpg
- Would group funds be the solution? Experiences?
Doubts, doubts...
I know these things would vary from campaign to campaign, but I would love to hear your imput.
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 15 2013, 05:12 PM
RAW doesn't make any explicit allowance for this, but nor is it explicitly forbidden. This is up to the GM.
Most of them would be too expensive for even two or three characters to think of owning.
Rigger 3 made explicit answers to these questions. SR4, to the best of my knowledge, has not. I imagine most groups just pretty much tend to assume fuel expenses come out of Lifestyle, but repairs are another matter.
- Would group funds be the solution? Experiences?
The group I'm playing in has significant expenses like this - repair of damaged drones/vehicles comes out of the payment before it's divided up. (I imagine that medical expenses would similarly come out of the total funds before they get cashed out.)
Posted by: CanRay Feb 15 2013, 05:39 PM
The two most popular vehicles for groups to be in are the GMC Bulldog Stepvan and the Ares RoadMaster (The civilian version of the Ares CityMaster.). And, yes, like the Mystery Machine, it's because you can have a lot of gear/people and no one else is the wiser.
Hell, even if it's not modified for Trolls, one can stretch out (somewhat) in the back.
Other group assets I've seen is a Lifestyle utilized for a base of operations, and my suggestion in http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/99534/Shadowrun%3A-Safehouses for a Bolt Hole, although considering the paranoid nature of 'runners, each having an individual one would also be an idea. (It's just that the group one is likely to be more comfortable.).
Otherwise, it's mostly gear that each person uses/cares for individually that I've seen.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 15 2013, 10:14 PM
It existed better in RAW in older editions, but there is something to be said for dropping the price of vehicles via them being used and damaged chinese kockoffs of something decent. In this edition you'd have to houserule for some of that. But the upshot is throwing in disadvantages like gremlins for price reductions.
I've found submersable vehicles play a little better as theyr'e stealth options. Also there are, were, cheap and stealthy glider type things.
Bikes can be fun as they are cheap and get everyone involved.
And a couple times they've had airborn VTOL vehicles that worked for getting them between locations and to runs in remote locations. But they'd keep them out of the firefights.
But generally speaking vehicles are tricky because of their expense, likelyhood of getting shot up, and the tendincy of GMs to make running away on foot pretty easy.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 16 2013, 12:37 AM
First, the cost/rules to repair vehicles can be found in Arsenal under Vehicle Repair (pg 104). I don't know why people keep missing this. Secondly, yes Fuel, etc comes out of lifestyle. No need to micro manage your vehicle expenses. Maybe for something like a helicopter you could but by the time you can afford one your lifestyle can probably cover the costs for that too (unless you're a cheap bastard 
).
For my games we instituted a team fund taken from pay (10%) which goes towards covering team expenses like group vehicles, drones, repairs and in run costs like bribes and such. This comes off the top before dividing between the survivors. Medical is your own expense. Duck next time. We maintain at least a team shop to store team stuff plus at least one http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/99534/Shadowrun%3A-Safehouses (put my share into the usual account CanRay 
), which gets paid out of this team fund.
The most common vehicles have been listed already though the GMC Hermes with it's drone racks makes a nice sub for the older Bulldog (worse handling though).
One of the easiest ways we've found to get vehicles for group use has been character death. You die, we steal your car. Waste not, want not, plus we probably know your passcodes already. Beyond that we will save up the team fund to buy something we really want. Never had a helicopter as they are so hella expensive it just hasn't been feasible. Maybe one day. Mages and levitate make a good substitute in the mean time.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 16 2013, 12:58 AM
Go to the scrap yards and rebuild your flying vehicles... If it is good enough for Kaylie, Mal and Wash, it is good enough for me.
May take some time and effort, but you can save some money doing it. As long as you actually have someone who can make those repairs.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 16 2013, 01:56 AM
I had to confirm it was actually in there. But that bit I do with Gremlins isn't a house rule, it's actually in the RAW in Arsenal. Actually they gives you a lot of flexibility and discretion there.
If you have a character that starts the game rigger style with repair skills and tools, I'd throw 'em a bone and use the rule for giving them a vehicle at over half off due to starting with heavy damage (requiring time and repairs and maybe some GM discretion fun schenanigans they can't get rid of, though those often give the thing some fun personality).
There can also be a chance for the Face to shine in negotiations, and maybe some work for the Hacker if you're taking advantages of street value modifiers to get the price even lower.
One other thing I tend to allow is the use of the "extra storage" vehicle modification to allow smaller/cheaper vehicles to haul the whole team, usually with some penalites, especially for landing, but that just makes it interesting for the rigger.
All in all I find this is a way to get characters to have fun with vehicles without the tears.
I also find that a Skraacha that is used and abused is not only affordable for a team (say maybe being a fifth of the books cost between being non-functioning when bought, hot, and with some serious flaws) but its speed and the pain in the butt stuff the rigger has to deal with gives it a sort of Serenity/Millenium Falcon flavor that I rather enjoy. It also gives other players a chance to fly and fight when you make the rigger repair something on the fly.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 16 2013, 04:08 AM
Good ideas sunnyside. Our players don't usually want used gear but the option is always there, especially for the big ticket items.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 16 2013, 04:34 AM
Thanks.
I think big ticket vehicles are the only thing they deliberately get used. And that's just a matter of the price and the chance of loosing the thing. Brewing up a low feature but cheap and high seating VSTOL ultralight was something I let a group do in the past. But that isn't supported so well in current rules, I guess a storage enhanced thing based off the Wasp might be about the closest thing.
The other option I suppose is letting them steal something. However as a GM I like to keep them runnin' as opposed to spending sessions jacking vehicles. So the way I play it is that corps look to their bottom line. Whack the runners that stole a prototype after they've delivered it? You may have just saved your enemy the cash of tying up loose ends. Did they take a chopper? Get that thing back! (The thing may also have control system backdoors/transponders/etc)
But that's just me.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 16 2013, 05:08 AM
We've stolen them (choppers) a time or two but always ditch it afterwards with the idea that we probably can't get rid of the RFID tags and close any back doors on the thing before the people we stole it from come looking. Besides, where do hide you an Ares Dragon? Those things are fricking huge.
Posted by: CanRay Feb 16 2013, 06:03 AM
Posted by: Mantis Feb 16 2013, 06:57 AM
There may be but do your characters know about them? They (smuggler hideouts) can't be obvious from the air or else they would be taken out. And if you've stolen the chopper to make an escape you probably didn't plan it that way. So on the fly, your odds of knowing where to stash it and making it there before a SAM or spirit or similar tracks you and leads a squad your way before you can clean the thing is pretty slim. Not impossible but damn hard.
If you have planned it out of course then that changes things dramatically. But they'll still come looking. A chopper is a pretty expensive bit of hardware to just write off.
Posted by: toturi Feb 16 2013, 07:05 AM
That is exactly what those Knowledge skills are for.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 16 2013, 07:12 AM
Yeah I know that. The 'Do your characters know about them?' included that as an option. In my mind at least. What, you mean you can't read my mind over the internet? That explains so much 
Posted by: Modular Man Feb 16 2013, 03:17 PM
I've adopted the idea of jacking vehicles for group use, I'll see how well my GM deals with that idea and where he sees issues I might have overlooked. We've had a few rules issues to clarify over that.
It basically comes down to this: Does the GM touch stuff the characters have legitimately bought? As far as I've heard, some don't do that on principle. If said GM does so, then acquiring stuff without payment should be fair game. Appropriate situations included on both occasions, of course. Vehicle gets shot to metal bits? Well, better fire up those hijacker drones I have stashed.
I've been trying to convince the group that we really need a Skytrain With a little addition, our group funds could afford that. Then again, new cars, now that we've moved to a new city, would be the first thing to do.
Said group account has been used in the past to pay for big things everybody benefits from, such as in-mission gear (e.g. explosives) or a weapon shop. My character, being the techie (or claims to be), benefits most of the new tools, but will, of course, work on he whole team's toys.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 16 2013, 09:18 PM
If a player has modified his ride to be used for shadowrunning then I don't mind taking a swipe at when they use it for shadowrunning. The cost to repair vehicles is quite low (1% of base price/box) and so long as it isn't destroyed they can always fix it up again, just like so long as you aren't killed you get healed to fight again.
For us, vehicle theft has always been a situation/opportunity thing, in that if we need a ride and something is convenient, we'll take it but won't keep it. Especially high end stuff like helicopters. If a job requires the team to have aircraft but the GM has not made it possible to get them then the team is well within rights to refuse the job.
One conceit of the game is that you are generally hired to do jobs you are actually capable of. The exception being when it is a smoke screen designed to fail but generally if you get a job it is because you are the right team for that job.
Forcing the players to bankrupt characters to get gear to do a job is kind of a dick move on the part of the GM as such jobs rarely will cover the cost of the gear.
Mr. J: 'Yeah I need you to fly into the jungle and pick up this guy. Pay is 25,000¥.'
Team: 'Will you provide the aircraft?'
Mr. J: 'Nope. Buy one.'
Team: 'Well then fuck you Mr. Johnson.'
Posted by: kzt Feb 16 2013, 10:48 PM
Actually, helicopters (and aircraft in general) are stupid cheap in SR compared to the real world. They also don't cost anything to maintain, when in fact they are huge money and time sinks.
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 17 2013, 08:11 AM
Cheap though they may be compared to reality, they're still heavily expensive compared to the typical payout for a 'run, especially when you consider in the overhead the Runners have to go through (buying mission supplies, paying mission bribes, dividing the take amongst everyone, etcetera.) And I wouldn't even think about trying to do it on the payouts that are in the published adventures, they're just bonkers.
That said, I've had a look through all the sourcebooks available to me. If you want a group whirlibird, I have got the devil's bargain for you:
The Nissan Hound, as found on Page 30 of the Runner's Black Book. The price is so low that I'm absolutely sure it's a misprint, especially compared to what you get for it: a top-of-the-line helicopter transport/gunship, ala a modern-day Black Hawk or Pave Low, or yesterday's UH-1. It has VTOL operations (obviously), Lock-On Countermeasures, 4 weapon mounts; two internal, flexible and manned, two external, fixed, and remote controlled. It handles pretty good, the speed is admittedly not great (but that's why they invented vehicle mods), it has Body and Armor enough to survive most of the shit Shadowrunners get into, availability is only 13R, and the price-tag is a mind-numbingly cheap 265,000 
If that price-tag isn't a misprint, then clearly Nissan is producing these and dumping them on the gray and shadow markets at a loss to enable plausible deniability when Imperial Japanese Marines pull off a shadow op, because the nearest analogue I can find in size and function is the DocWagon CRT out of Arsenal, which has two Large Drone Racks, 2 Valkyrie Modules, only one weapon mount, handles much more poorly, is admittedly faster and has better body but worse armor, is Availability 20R and has a cost of 1,310,000
Posted by: Mantis Feb 17 2013, 08:24 AM
Ya think they forgot a 0 in there somewhere ShadowDragon? Though I actually like your alternate explanation better.
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 17 2013, 09:47 AM
Yeah, it seems likely they forgot a zero and an apostrophe somewhere. Still, that's the book as it's written, and in the absence of eratta, that's the book as it's played.
And hell, my explanation makes pretty damn good sense, doesn't it?
Posted by: Shortstraw Feb 17 2013, 12:39 PM
Also I like the hound and if no one mentions the price they won't be tempted to change it
Posted by: Sage2000 Feb 17 2013, 02:56 PM
Thank you all for the answers! 
I will take a look at the suggestions.
If I underestand, there is no rule for starting a game with a group asset, but that could be house-ruled with no serious imbalances.
I agree that the helicopters are cheap compared to "real life", but I believe they were put there to be used (some of them, anyway). Probably SR4 assumes that somethings went cheaper in time. And let's face it: how much would a surgery that allows you to see in the dark costs today? How much would be to add stuff to your muscles and bones today? Could one of those procedures be in the same price range as good gun? 
So if we are not doing "reality checks" on these, its fair not to do to vehicles as well.
Actually, as a side note, if you fellows knew how much we pay for a basic car in Brazil you would freak out...its very expensive, compared to other countries.
I do miss more helicopters and other aircraft in the price range for runners in the official publications. I underestand that the need for stats of nuclear submarines are there, so the GM can use them if needed, but cmon! We buy a book we can effectively use 15-20%?
I will take a closer look at GMC Bulldog and Ares RoadMaster (this one seems less discrete, but maybe it could be disguised as an armored car?). The GMC Hermes Van looks a little slow and overpriced, but by the description it would be a very discreet Mystery Machine.
Regarding helicopters, the only real option I can see for a flying team vehicle is the Huges Stallion. Although I am wandering about a DocWagon chopter, would be a great disguise.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 17 2013, 09:52 PM
An Ares Air Supply might be able to transport one or two runners, but they would probably have to dress warmly and carry their own breathing gear. Flying in an unpressurized cargo compartment isn't comfortable.
-k
Posted by: CanRay Feb 17 2013, 11:30 PM
-k
Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 18 2013, 04:47 AM
At this point Mungo really needs to show up in 5th edition as an NPC, even if it's only as "that guy" other runners have stories about.
-k
Posted by: CanRay Feb 18 2013, 06:31 AM
-k
Posted by: Shortstraw Feb 18 2013, 06:45 AM
Don't they run together? Also if Fastjack is on the way out he will need a replacement
Posted by: Halinn Feb 18 2013, 01:39 PM
I want to be a poster on MungoPoint.
Posted by: toturi Feb 18 2013, 02:09 PM
Where can you find the complete and unedited collection of all of Bubba teh Love Troll's award winning exploits?
On MungoPoint! Friendz Mungo teh 1337 todaz!
Posted by: Halinn Feb 18 2013, 03:22 PM
Okay, here's a random wish for SR5: a sidebox that lists various social networks and online places with descriptions about them. Include Shadowland, P2.0, couple of others, and MungoPoint. I want MungoPoint to be canon, even if it only gets a small mention.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 19 2013, 06:02 PM
For us, vehicle theft has always been a situation/opportunity thing, in that if we need a ride and something is convenient, we'll take it but won't keep it. Especially high end stuff like helicopters. If a job requires the team to have aircraft but the GM has not made it possible to get them then the team is well within rights to refuse the job.
One conceit of the game is that you are generally hired to do jobs you are actually capable of. The exception being when it is a smoke screen designed to fail but generally if you get a job it is because you are the right team for that job.
Forcing the players to bankrupt characters to get gear to do a job is kind of a dick move on the part of the GM as such jobs rarely will cover the cost of the gear.
Mr. J: 'Yeah I need you to fly into the jungle and pick up this guy. Pay is 25,000¥.'
Team: 'Will you provide the aircraft?'
Mr. J: 'Nope. Buy one.'
Team: 'Well then fuck you Mr. Johnson.'
Actually that is one other thing I really ought to mention ( and have done). I'd actively have a J pay more for missions requiring a vehicle (fewer runners able to do it, and high costs associated with it.) Prior to the players having vehicles, I would occasionally have a J provide something. Actually even after they had vehicles I'd on occasion have a J provide them one they were supposed to use for some reason or other.
Part of the reason for that is that vehicles add a new twist to a session and are fun. You'll notice virtually all the fiction for SR and the genre in general feature vehicles.
But what's even more fun that flying around in 'em? BLOWING THEM UP! And I find it's it's more enjoyable all around if the flaming wreckage the rigger is desperately trying to steer over that river before the team bails out wasn't purchased with team funds.
Posted by: Neurosis Feb 19 2013, 08:05 PM
It's possible, but you wind up with a shitty character and a shitty helicopter. I have been obsessed with this build since SR4 came out, yet to find a way to make it work at starting levels. Helicopters are just too pricy.
Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 20 2013, 01:17 AM
My rigger has achieved air superiority affordably only because she's the size of a breadbox.
Economy of scale. Or something like that.
-k
Posted by: Falconer Feb 20 2013, 02:31 AM
1% per damage box is still pretty pricey for many things...
That copter with the vehicle mods and all the like... if it's say 1million after upgrades...
1% is 10,000. So if that sucker gets the paint scratched for 3 points... that's a 30k repair bill. Lets say half that if you can get the parts and do it yourself... but still that's probably the riggers paycheck for the mission if he's lucky.
1% isn't much on a 5k or 10k bike... but on big stuff it gets pricey.
So yeah... generally I go with the... if you really need a 'copter for the mission... steal it! Then don't cry too much when the GM doesn't let you keep it (blows it up... gotta bail before the fuzz tracks it down... etc. etc. etc.).
Posted by: ravensoracle Feb 20 2013, 02:52 AM
As a GM, if I want my players to have some big ticket item like a helicopter, VTOL or ship, then it becomes a plot device that is given to them. I've ran a couple of games that the team had a VTOL that they used for jobs cause I wanted the game to be a globe trotting adventure and the team had to be able to travel to some very remote areas of the world. Pricing things like gas and basic maintenance just come from a team lifestyle. I only make them pay for major repairs that come directly from combat engagements but most of the time they are savvy enough to negtotiate the repairs like that into the contract. The Johnson is hiring the team partly because of their high ticket item and putting it at risk so he becomes partially liable for it.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 20 2013, 04:42 AM
That copter with the vehicle mods and all the like... if it's say 1million after upgrades...
1% is 10,000. So if that sucker gets the paint scratched for 3 points... that's a 30k repair bill. Lets say half that if you can get the parts and do it yourself... but still that's probably the riggers paycheck for the mission if he's lucky.
1% isn't much on a 5k or 10k bike... but on big stuff it gets pricey.
So yeah... generally I go with the... if you really need a 'copter for the mission... steal it! Then don't cry too much when the GM doesn't let you keep it (blows it up... gotta bail before the fuzz tracks it down... etc. etc. etc.).
The rule (pg 104 Aresenal) is 1% of base price, not the price after mods. So the only way you get 10,000¥ per box is when the vehicle cost 1,000,000¥. If you can afford a 1,000,000¥ vehicle, then you can afford to fix it.
Even fixing 10 boxes is only 10% of the base price and if that level of damage is common for your ride, you need to learn to dodge or something. 
Posted by: CanRay Feb 20 2013, 06:27 AM
Even fixing 10 boxes is only 10% of the base price and if that level of damage is common for your ride, you need to learn to dodge or something. Posted by: Mantis Feb 20 2013, 06:40 AM
https://d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net/images/cm-39268-050cb463153f8a.jpeg Always messing up. But what can you do?
Posted by: Falconer Feb 20 2013, 04:51 PM
Actually the rules do not define the term 'base cost' it's only used in the repair rules. To me the base cost of the repair rules is the 'vehicle cost' plus extra applicable costs from mods. Lacking any other definition this makes the most sense to me.
Throughout the vehicle section... the term is 'vehicle cost' when they refer to the bare bones vehicle cost. This term comes up all the time when pricing & modifying vehicles...
If you've scratched the paint and the vehicle has reflective/chameleon/signature masking... you can bet damn well the 'base cost' includes the extra enhancement. On a big ticket vehicle... this probably isn't significant... but on smaller ones these can double or triple the cost of the car and rightly should increase the repair costs accordingly.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 20 2013, 05:12 PM
Then why didn't they say total cost? To me base cost is what it cost before doing something to it. The starting point. If you wish to interpret it your way then , yes 1% is quite expensive. My way it is not.
Posted by: Falconer Feb 20 2013, 05:58 PM
No... I'm saying the rules as written are vague. It's your GM's call how he reads that. I read that as base vehicle value... or baseline value... or base repair cost. Because 'vehicle cost' is already used elsewhere throughout the rules referring to what you said... so why not just say it again if that's what is meant? What else are they going to put in there 'vehicle cost' again which would exactly what you say... or use a different word to avoid confusion. (and in true SR editorial fashion create extra confusion by choosing an ambiguous word with no clarification).
Most of the vehicle mods if you haven't noticed are dirt cheap compared to the cost of a 1 million vehicle. And will do little to change the repair costs...
It's only on 'cheap vehicles that mods start to dominate the costs that it could become an issue. But those are the ones where it makes sense... like when your bulldog has had it's chameleon coated paint job lovingly massaged by the gangers bullets enough to do actual damage to the vehicle.
Also remember parts for repair are generally only half the repair cost if you do the labor yourself.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 20 2013, 07:15 PM
I think they chose to use the word 'base' to tell you not to include the price of mods in the cost of repairs. What else could it mean? What else would be added to the cost of the vehicle to change the price from base to something else (total)?
Most vehicle mods are based on body, so regardless of vehicle cost, the bigger the ride the more expensive your interpretation makes it to fix them. If you want to hammer your players for modding up the 'cheap' van and then shoot the thing up and hammer them again to fix it, that is your choice.
Also remember that the rule on repairing vehicles is for the parts, not the labour. No half price do it yourself discount. You still need to pay for labour or do it yourself or get a drone to do it as far as Arsenal is concerned. I suggest the GM Mr.Fix-it from RC.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 23 2013, 03:51 AM
Threads like this make me really miss having Rigger 3 work easily in the rules.
I guess in this context maybe you could just, as the GM, brew up on your own initiative new vehicles.
For perspective, in Rigger 3 you could brew up a bare bones autogyro that seats three, flies like a helicopter, and handles entirely unimpressively in all respects for only 18k new.
In essence it would work as a flying fighting platform for the players in the unfortunate instance where you'd get in a fight. But it'd get you from roof to roof.
Posted by: Novocrane Feb 23 2013, 04:40 AM
In essence it would work as a flying fighting platform for the players in the unfortunate instance where you'd get in a fight. But it'd get you from roof to roof.
Just for comparison; Amenities (squatter) and the Icarus Autogyro will seat two for 20,100¥, no mod slots required, nor does it break 12 availability. It also comes with Chameleon Coating and Sig Masking by default.
Posted by: Falconer Feb 23 2013, 04:49 AM
Autogyro's don't fly like a helicopter... they don't hover.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 23 2013, 04:57 AM
Yeah they also don't take off like a helicopter. They need a runway. I find them to be a silly vehicle. All the drawbacks of a plane and helicopter with few of the advantages (needs runway, can't hover, etc). One advantage they seem to have IRL is they are cheaper to operate but since that isn't actually a factor in SR it is irrelevant. Why they made the Wasp an Autogyro when its big brother the Yellowjacket is a helicopter and in past editions they are both helicopters, I don't know. Seems a weird change to make.
Posted by: CanRay Feb 23 2013, 06:14 AM
Posted by: Falconer Feb 23 2013, 06:16 AM
Actually they're not all that silly.... they fly by autorotation.... their biggest advantage is they have exceptionally short take off and landing and can fly at extremely slow speeds... just not hover.
That also means they have their 'parachute' built in... if the engine cuts out they can autorotate down to a vertical landing. It works a lot better than trying to turn a cessna into a sailplane for landing.
Canray:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro
http://www.auto-gyro.com/en/Gyroplanes/Merkmale-des-Tragschraubers/
Please note the ability to 'hover' is never once mentioned... because they can't that requires a powered rotor. A powered rotor requires a tail for thrust to stop the helicopter from spinning itself out of control.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 23 2013, 07:31 AM
I read the same wikipedia article before my last post. I still find them silly. None of the advantages listed have any game effect (any aircraft can be made VSTOL in the game) and there are no stall speeds listed for aircraft. If there were rules for auto-rotation, that would also be an advantage but there isn't. I find them silly in the game as there is no real reason to use one as they can't hold more than 1 person, they don't have the best stats and they aren't all that cheap. Your second link shows the advantages of this type of air-frame but none of that is represented in game.
In the real world the only place they are used outside the hobby pilot is by military or police that want a cheap to operate aircraft. All commercial forays with them have failed (so claims wikipedia). You could say they were included in game for completeness sake but really, with the vehicle rules as they are, there isn't much point. In addition, most people don't even know what the heck they are and have to look them up.
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 23 2013, 11:53 AM
About the Wasp inexplicably becoming an autogyro, it's not impossible to imagine that when a model year changed, they made the new one an autogyro instead of a chopper. Can't imagine why, but it's not impossible.
Anyway, the best use for an autogyro is to play a Crimson Skies campaign. Get yourselves a big, armored, armed zepplin, outfit it with plane-launching equipment, and fly down the carribbean way, go out-Kane Kane.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 23 2013, 06:44 PM
A number of designs exist under the "autogyro" umbrella. There were huge ones and tiny ones. Ones with a rotor that just sits there until you start going down a runway, and ones where you can divert power to the rotor in order to take off vertically, though when going forward they rely on autogyration.
In Rigger3 they imagined them as the little hobby pilot ones with a powered rotor. So you can't make 'em big, and they seriously limit the weight you can lift, but they have a straight up VTOL profile by default. So while I think the models in real life aren't good hoverers (I think they build up inertia in the rotor to allow a vertical take off), for simplicity and a bit of credit for the future I let my players just use them as a VTOL per RAW.
If they changed autogyros to a VSTOL profile in 4th I guess I didn't notice and just injected what I remembered from Rigger3. Their stats do make them seem "bigger" in 4th.
Posted by: Falconer Feb 23 2013, 07:20 PM
Actually the powered rotor doesn't allow them to take off vertically it only shortens their takeoff runway distance.
The problem with a powered rotor is as soon as your wheels leave the ground it torques the vehicle into an uncontrollable spin (newton's 3rd). The technical problem for helicopters wasn't a big enough engine to lift itself... it was the controls needed to handle the torqueing and gyroscopic effects.
An unpowered rotor works by the autogyro starts moving forward... this causes air to move up through the rotor... this causes the rotor to spin... as the rotor spins it develops lift. So the first part of your takeoff roll is simply to get the rotor spinning fast enough to lift you.. with a powered rotor this simply starts the rotor spinning before you're moving... but you need to turn off the power assist when you leave the ground and rely on forward motion to keep air flowing through the rotor. It's not VTOL... by design it's VSTOL. (very short take off and landing).
The low speed handling bonus comes because the 'airfoil' of the rotor is always moving into the air faster than the plane itself to generate lift unlike a fixed wing plane... There's another aerodynamic problem which comes up at higher speeds... one side of the rotor is moving into the oncoming wind... while the other is moving backwards relative to the wind... at this point only one side of the rotor generates lift and the other doesn't... it limits their upper speed of operation.
But I stand by my view... I don't see the autogyro as being a problem in game... I think they make a lot of sense... very short takeoff runs mean you can takeoff and land in the space of a football field... as opposed to needing an airport. If you need a small 'cheap' flying machine suitable for a runner... they're not a bad pick. The ultra-light types would easily fit in the back of truck or trailer as well for covert transportation.
Posted by: kzt Feb 23 2013, 07:57 PM
Yup. http://www.dynamicflight.com/aerodynamics/retreating/.
Posted by: sunnyside Feb 23 2013, 07:57 PM
The problem with a powered rotor is as soon as your wheels leave the ground it torques the vehicle into an uncontrollable spin (newton's 3rd). The technical problem for helicopters wasn't a big enough engine to lift itself... it was the controls needed to handle the torqueing and gyroscopic effects.
An unpowered rotor works by the autogyro starts moving forward... this causes air to move up through the rotor... this causes the rotor to spin... as the rotor spins it develops lift. So the first part of your takeoff roll is simply to get the rotor spinning fast enough to lift you.. with a powered rotor this simply starts the rotor spinning before you're moving... but you need to turn off the power assist when you leave the ground and rely on forward motion to keep air flowing through the rotor. It's not VTOL... by design it's VSTOL. (very short take off and landing).
The low speed handling bonus comes because the 'airfoil' of the rotor is always moving into the air faster than the plane itself to generate lift unlike a fixed wing plane... There's another aerodynamic problem which comes up at higher speeds... one side of the rotor is moving into the oncoming wind... while the other is moving backwards relative to the wind... at this point only one side of the rotor generates lift and the other doesn't... it limits their upper speed of operation.
But I stand by my view... I don't see the autogyro as being a problem in game... I think they make a lot of sense... very short takeoff runs mean you can takeoff and land in the space of a football field... as opposed to needing an airport. If you need a small 'cheap' flying machine suitable for a runner... they're not a bad pick. The ultra-light types would easily fit in the back of truck or trailer as well for covert transportation.
While I see that you get the concept, I don't think you're giving the hobby models enough credit. Here lemmi see what pops up on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RPYWmdv174
That said, true hover would be hard for the reasons you say without either sufficient forward motion or a headwind. However it doesn't take much of either.
Posted by: Falconer Feb 24 2013, 08:08 AM
Sunnyside:
Exactly my point... notice how he didn't go straight up and down... he must develop forward airspeed as fast as he can after leaving the ground... or he'll come right back down as fast as he went up.
If you're more interested in that topic...
http://www.cartercopters.com/faq
look at the jump takeoff...
It's not a true hover if it needs a headwind!!!! Airspeed != groundspeed !!!!
A true hover is performed with no airspeed whatsoever... Though I have seen sailplanes perform 'vtol' landings into a heavy headwind... (about 35 knots with gusts to 45)... I have no doubt any plane with a sufficiently low stall speed can pull it off provided the wind and wind alone can maintain enough airspeed.
Posted by: Sage2000 Feb 25 2013, 01:33 PM
All valid points about the autogyros.
I am impressed at those videos above, becuse the need for space for those ultralights to take of and land is soooooo small, that (given skill) they could use rooftops helipads, ships helipads and so on.
But, from a game balance perspective, I wonder why the writers decided that some aircraft were specifically autogyros, without giving any specific rules for them.
Example: If I say aircraft "X" is a helicopper, we all know it can hover, it's common sense, and can be used to deploy rappeling SWAT squads. On the other hand, if the aircraft in question were a plane (without any special stuff, like VTOL...), we know that thing can't be used that way. Now, how about autogyros? How the game rules and scenario defines them?
I personally interpret "autogyro" either as an intented in-game limitation to the aircraft, or as a silly writer mistake.
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 25 2013, 01:51 PM
Sage2000: You want to know why the writers decided that some aircraft were specifically autogyros?
Because they remembered that they worked for one of the bastard-children of FASA and remembered playing Crimson Skies back in the day and were all "Ooooh, autogyros are awesome!"
That's the thought process that went into it.
Posted by: Mantis Feb 25 2013, 02:07 PM
ShadowDragon, I hope you are kidding. That would explain the silly things showing up though, and certain vehicles that have traditionally been helicopters deciding to suddenly become the much smaller non-hovering auto-gyro. In my own games those same aircraft have magically transformed back into helicopters again, especially with so little price and stat difference between its bigger brother.
Posted by: CanRay Feb 25 2013, 02:57 PM
So... Character Creation last night.
Troll Ninja.
"Ooooooooooooooo, Wing Suit!" "Yes, they come in Troll Sizes." "All I need is a cape and I'm Batman!" "Early non-detective Batman who uses firearms, maybe..."
Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Feb 25 2013, 05:23 PM
Troll Ninja.
"Ooooooooooooooo, Wing Suit!" "Yes, they come in Troll Sizes." "All I need is a cape and I'm Batman!" "Early non-detective Batman who uses firearms, maybe..."
For some reason this puts an image in my head of a huge troll in a three-piece suit with a fedora who bombs around town in a troll-sized replica 1947 Nash 600.
Posted by: Sage2000 Feb 25 2013, 05:39 PM
Because they remembered that they worked for one of the bastard-children of FASA and remembered playing Crimson Skies back in the day and were all "Ooooh, autogyros are awesome!"
That's the thought process that went into it.
Well, that explains a lot.
And we lose time discussing it... trying to "resolve the issues".
Posted by: KarmaInferno Feb 26 2013, 01:51 AM
It's not just aircraft. Ask any gun nut how frustrating it is that a number of the SR guns are apparently designed by someone who got their education on firearms from movies and comic books.
-k
Posted by: CanRay Feb 26 2013, 02:13 AM
*Cough*Clips*Cough*
Posted by: kzt Feb 26 2013, 02:35 AM
The entire combat section was designed by that guy.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 26 2013, 01:51 PM
Yeah, but it works... *shrug*
Posted by: kzt Feb 26 2013, 05:56 PM
A Yugo works, for that value of "works".
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)