I'm pretty sure that by the body-weight estimations on P62 R3 the SK Dragoon Scout weighs-in at 830 KGs. That's the basic 300KG, reduced by smart materials to 255, + the full load rating of 575 kg. This, to me, does not seem unreasonable as it's effectively a walking tank.

Another way to do it would be to take the full weight unmodified by smart materials (875kg) then reduce by 15% down to 875-131.25 = 743.75 KGs whcih is within the upper bound for body 3 vehicles.

PS: John: What CF/weight did you pay for the seat in your Spartans? I paid for a 1/2 bench seat at 3CF and 100Kgs. My pilots neither require comfortable bucket seats nor the spacious 2-seater (3 at a cram) bench seats available for 6CF.

I'm contemplating putting ruthenium (yes, ruthenium) on the scout to remove the problem with ED where a visual scan reveals that sensors are wrong. [edit]Forget the ruthenium thing; it wouldn't be compatible with Radar Absorbant Materials[/edit]

For my next project; I'm comsidering creating a bike/similar that can carry one of these using a reenforced seat

Must... Resist... Temptation... To put... Light Railgun... on Scout... For use as... Sniper Rifle...

Yes, I thought you did. I'm tempted to try to cut the dragoons down a bit so they fit a whole bucket seat (rather than a 1/2 bench at 3CF/100KG). The problem is that I'd have troubble resisting the temptation of putting a bench seat in so that I could share the mecha experience with two close friends.

Also: By the chassis you describe (a troll-sized extoskeleton for a human) the human isn't sitting down so you don't need a seat, just the people space. What, then, do you think of the idea of allocating it as a special storage area? Most humans are less than 110 litres in volume, and a single CF is equivalent to 125 litres, so allocating a 1.8CF comparment (Specialised with pads and Air conditioning) would allow for basic clothing and maneuverability. You then have a person-space of 180L weighing around 101kg and taking 2CF of cargo.

Be warned, however, that if the anthroform is moving the wearer's arms & legs as it moves then some problems wil arise. Consider when the vehicle is run at 125kph or more for extended periods.

Also: people were right about there being mechanical arms skills. See Mechanical arms and legs, P67, R3. Does it seem reasonable to give a vehicle, particularily an anthroform, an extremely low handling rating (-2) and just let people default from reaction?

Alright... been holding off on this one because it sparked not only a small idea, but a big one... made a whole character based on this thread... a whiney little runt dwarf sick of people pushing him around... so he scrap built this monster:

I think if the pilot is using a VCR (level does not matter), that the mechanical arm tests should be ignored because the "Power Armor" in general is quite similar to the human body. My "Power Armor" mechanical arms have human like hands, 5 digits (4 fingers, 1 thumb), so I would rule that this type of mechanical arm would not require a robotic arm test when using a VCR. Now if the limbs start to get exotic then I would require a robotic arm test, but I am sure that the generic mechanical arm is quite human like in operation. I use the the Walker skill for general piloting of "Power Armor."

Now if the pilot was not using a VCR, I would require a robotic arm test because there is no DNI that would allow for such a degree control as a VCR. I say datajacks though are a DNI, does not provide the degree of control of a VCR, the normal datajack is not wired like the VCR. But on my "Power Armor" I have a robotic computer that controls the arms and most of the targeting systems, the pilot still selects the target, it is just that the robotic computer does all the tracking.

When you sit on a reasonably tall ledge your legs tend to hang downward with most of your butt on the flat surface, now you take this position and add a back support. The seat kinda puts you in a semi-standing position, this seems the most effective but least comfortable of cockpit seats, but we are looking for efficiency not comfort. Most of the controls would be incorporated into the seat it self, like the steering device in the arm rests, while the accelerator would be a petal on the foot rest. The VCR black box would be stored in the head rest while the screen is either built into the interior of the hatch or uses a holographic projector that is mounted on the top of the head rest or the ceiling of the cockpit. This makes a lot more space for all the larger equipment like the sensor suite and life support.

OK: I'm partially re-doing the dragoon to try to make it more canon but I'd like some advice on how canon particular points are.

Firstly: Vehicle Design
Could an external cargo pod mount an internal missile rack if an electronics port connected the decice to the vehicle's computer?

Secondly: Anthroforms carrying weapons
An anthroform can carry and use modified versions of human weapons. The rules regarding human usage are reasonably clear: Mechanical arm skill chacks cap the number of successes that may be used. What rules, however, would you attribute to drones performing these actions? Does it count as sensor-enhanced gunnery if a drone pilot is using a weapon held in the arm or some form of hybrid with the normal ranged combat rules?

Can anthroforms carry and use heavy weapons without use of gyro-stabilisation gear? (as characters with body8/strength 8 can, see CC P99) Am I right in thinking that the Light Stun damage does not affect the vehicle?

Tertiarily: People space
How canon would you say it is that if a vehicle does not have enough seats, then someone could stand in the cargo space of the vehicle?

Lastly: What can have a scope stuck on?
Is it possible to mount a scope on a target designator? If a scope is mounted on a weapon being carried by an anthroform; could a human rigger use it? Would it need to be fed through an electronics port?

>Lilt

For you scope questions, no. Why would you need a scope when you have radar, ultra sounf, UV, and other multi-spectrum sensors that can see farther and better then a scope. If you insist on doing that you can have some type of interface that allows you to look through the scope even though you are physical seperated from it.

The reason I want a GOF (good old-fashioned) scope is to put on a sniper-rifle (or assault cannon in this case) which the suit would wield. The character could then perform manual gunnery at 2400m without the nasty base TN of 9.

The problem with sensor enhanced gunnery is that it's just too dammn hard if the target has an ED system, a good ECM suite, a spirit's concealment power, a good signature, or even just a convenient electrical storm. It is, however, still possible to see a vehicle with ECM and ED coming out-of its teeth. When you can see a 10 foot tall killing machine infront of you, but your sensors tell you it's an amoeba in a snowstorm a mile to your right, you know you want Manual Gunnery for this shot. The magnification scope just makes the job a bit easier.

Also: What are your thoughts on adding a scope to a standard designator for the same purpose? It would mean a TN of ~4 to manually paint a target. This problem is less about vehicle combat and more about infantry spotters though.

I would leave the sniping and painting targets to the foot sloggers, and the heavy support and heavy assaults to the "Power Armor." ED's don't effect visual based sensors, so I would just out fit my "Sniper - Power Armor" with a lot of powerful visual based sensors and go very light on the ultrasound and radar based sensors. There are rules in Rigger 3 and Rigger 3 Revised on upgrading and/or making surtain sensors more powerful, you should look into that.

Ah. OK> reading the rules again I think it's somewhat safe to assume that the vehicle has telescopic magnification already. I'll put flare compensation on and use a rating 5 clearsight autosoft to boost the pilot's passive sensor tests. Maybe even installing a knowsoft of military vehicle sensor signatures to use as a Complimentary skill? The knowsoft may be unnececary though.

I can't find anything that says anthroforms can't kick. It's a vehicle with legs, and by the rules on P67 of R3; vehicles with legs can kick.

I have no problem with having successes limited by mechanical arm tests. I'm making sure that the handling rating is low (-2 or -1 with an external cargo module) so that people can easily default to reaction. The vehicle will also have structural agility 3 so people get +3 reaction whilst piloting it. All-in-all this brings a good rigger's reaction up-to 12-13 meaning 8+ successes against a TN of -1+4=3.

Hmm. Would Mechanical Arm Operations count as a Vehicle Skill for the purposes of the VCR reducing the TN penalty for defaulting to Reaction? Since it seems to be in the same default group as Walkers, which is definitely a Vehicle Skill, I'm leaning towards yes...

OK: Here's my modified SK Dragoon. I really wish they'd put-out a vehicle-building program for Rigger 3 sometime soon.

Well, this it what I would do.

anyone good enough to be worth putting in powered armor would be skilled enough not to need computer progams.

You Use the rules for Mil Spect heavy armor, add in a few spiffy rules about streegnth mods, forearm mounted weapons using smart gun links, and the such.Throw in a battle tec computer and some other toys, and go .

No need for drone rules. I mean using the rules for drones over these rules don't make the power armour any more realasitic, and kind of make them a lot of wasted paper work.

Except that your modified milspec armor would still be normal armor with some toys, while a drone made into armor is resistant to non anti-vehicle weapons...

Eh, add +2 Str to the mil-hardened suit and +1 Quickness.

+2 TNs to manipulate manually
-1 TN if jacked, troded or body-suit emulation
Standard bonus if rigger-enabled

Synthetic muscle fiber is woven into the underlayer of the suit, acting against the user's body as a form of musculature, resulting in an improved physical ability.

Unfortunately, using the suit as an exoskeleton results in a time-delay that skews the physical response time. However, Troopers who are either rigger-capable or one of the sim-linked options are able to synth their response times to fully optimize the suit's potential.

-Siege

Not to mention that for all the stuff they're packing onto the mil-spec armor, a little augmentation would be necessary just so the trooper could be functional in all that weight.

-Siege

Right, At least in the first generation or three of new technology they wouldn't be adding in optional extras or trying to get him to jump buildings or toss cars around. They would be trying to get a soldier that move farther and easier, while carrying more tactical payload and able to integrate and gather more information. Pretty much the exact DAPRA project standards they have NOW for developing military exoskeletons. Get a soldier that can shrug off non AP ammo while carrying a full load plus a squad assault or heavy weapon while not slowing down any over a standard unloaded joe. That's a military/special forces wet dream. It would also need to be as small and as compact as possible so the soldier can still fit anywhere a normal soldier can, so it's not useless for CQB.

In fact, CQB would be it's strong point since many AV weapons cannot be brought to bear in closed quarters.

I even have a SR fluff piece written for the PA of this style I use in my games. But it's all academic because SR's will never get their hands on it and if they see it used agains tthem they're SCREWED... Kinda like an Aguilar or a EFA Variant.

What exactly does CQB mean? Close Quarters Battle?

Anyway: I'm making mecha and I know it.

I can't even figure out why someone would get 7,000,000 worth of cyber put into them, no one is that important.

You've got good points, it's going to have to be the elite who go into these suits (veterans with terminator honours, so to speak). But can't a computer give them complementary skills? I'd expect that any augmentation available would be used.

But with the millions spent on this armor and cyber upgrades, you could get a dozen decently augmented soldiers.

This cyber monster still wont be able to fire all those cool weapons these heavy infantry support vehicle gets to use and lacks some of the other advantages too. Like the how ineffective smallarms fire is against vehicles, if I remember correctly the power is reduced by half and damage level drops one level, and that is if the armor does not stop the attack dead in its tracks first. But then of course these cyber soldiers can fit in corridors that a heavy infantry support vehicle could never fit in to, but why stick that much ware in one person, considering every body can be bought at a price. So each has its place, besides with that much ware in them, wouldn't they be cyber zombies and the last I read those are very high upkeep, even more so then some drones and much harder to replace too.

Hey: Why don't you just go the Aztechnology route and turn everyone into cyberzombies? They only cost 10000000 nuyen apiece!

OK: These suits cost around 800K apiece, and that's before you decide to build them with a custom chassis (P76, R3) which almost halves the price (400K) but makes future expansions more expencive (as you're fully decking it out to begin with, that's no big problem). You also want soldiers with VCRs to pilot them. That'd cost another 12-60K each.

Now: considering the alternatives we have Heavy Hardened Military Grade Armor at 72.5K and, to get the same effective reaction times, wired 2 with 3 points of reaction enhancer at 285K. Then you have the things most troops can't do: carry and fire light railguns, heavy mortars, and to engage multiple opponents simultaniously.

The way that I see these suits being deployed are as strike teams who can get in covertly, do a drek-load of damage, and get out again. Kinda like military-level shadowrunners. It's either that or as heavy command/fire support unit to move with normal infantry.

Furthermore, even if they should not be too cost-effective, that's the way R&D goes: Begin with something barely viable and turn it (in due time) into something useful.
Right now, in Shadowrun terms, power armor might still be in the "not too useful"-stage, but that's not a reason not to develop them and test them in-field.

The critical difference between an augmented trooper and an ACPA suit:

You can reuse the suit.

-Siege

Also keep in mind, as a vehicle these mecha need fuel and a solid supply line, maintenence, OPTEMPO ect... Exactly the same as a vehicle.

I would also have to bump the chassis multiplier up a boatload, which will increase the price because the only reason the drone chassis multiplier is so low is because they don't have to worry about carrying people. Now they do have to carry people, so the chassis multiplier should be increased to bring it in line with standard vehicles.

>>>>>Lilt

Here is a comparison

-> Cyber <VCR 1> + ISAV: 428,400

-> Cyber <Wired 2; Reaction 3; SL II> + Mil Spec Armor: 421,000

-> Cost difference between the two: 7,000

I added the smartlink II because that is a must for a special force personnel, the vehicle does not need it because of the sensor aided gunnery option. I could get the price down by 200,000 by taking the drone computer out <making the pilot take more skills but there is always a trade off>, making it way more cost effective then you cyber soldier. They both cost about the same with just the base components <cyber and armor/vehicle> with out weapons or other add ons. I would chose the ISAV <Infantry Support Anthro Vehicle> more for most missions because it can use most weapons the mil-specs cant like a 20x83mm Rotory Cannons and a lot of ammunition still not be hindered. And then you have the vehicle damage resistance where smallarms fire is next to ineffective unless AV ammunition is used. But when it comes to fighting inside buildings the cybered soldier is hands down the chose to go with, pretty much invulnerable to normal smallarms fire <APDS still goes through it like a hot knife through butter IMO> and can carry the heavier support weapons with ease. So it all depends upon the mission and how you want it done.

There are a number of vehicles, albeit mostly the smaller ones, that have low markup factors that can carry people. Our vehicle is probably about the size of a troll which, on the scale of things, isn't that big.

Anyway: There probably would be a good markup applied to the first few generations but after the technology had been proven it would presumably go back to a markup of 0.4.

[edit]Oh yes: EFC vehicles, particularily ones with suncell power/gridlink, can self-refuel given the availability of local resources. Thanks for that comparrison Hero, I was going by the price of the suits I was designing, but then-again the ones I'm making come with a kitchen skink in an external cargo pod (it holds the AC ammo).

Kitting out SEAL Team 6 in cyberware costs lots and lots of money. Add to that training and gear and you get some pretty impressive and expensive assets.

The augmented suits (power armor) are individually expensive, but are not user-specific.

Recycling the high-end cyberware in an operator is much harder than hosing out and patching up the salvaged suit.

It's the same reason, back in SR1, my merc didn't keep the evac codes on my implanted transceiver: if I get whacked, it'll be that much more complicated for the survivors to radio for support.

-Siege

I agree that they're a good deal when compared to a kitted-out cybersoldier. Actually, they look like a really good deal, since to replace the pilot only costs training + a VCR.

OTOH, I guess you could scavage a cybersoldier for his wired reflexes, etc. to reduce the cost of replacing him.

... but railguns ... hmmmn, railguns ...

I think the suits would work best for small scenarios where over-whelming odds were required. Kinda like Rainbow Six scenarios. Or storming a SpaceHulk.

Yeah, we're just never going to get away from the 40k references, are we?

But you gotta admit, trying to recycle the cyberware would just suck for trooper morale.

-Siege

One other thing to think of, you cannot make this troll sized and have it proportioned correctly. The elbow, hip, knee and other major joints have to be in the same places as the human because that's where humans have to bend. This means any added height has to be above the users head or below their feet.

Furthermore because of that this would adjust poorly to users of different heights, as the inherent frame/chassis would be too long/short, unless the frame/chassis is inherintly adjustable, which increases the complexity a bunch.

While I am at it, I didn't see Life Support Man Hours listed here, which is required for an envirosealed passenger vehicle, or is this thing completely vulnerable to gas vector attacks? The pilot cannot breathe in an sealed system with no oxygen.

I agree this is possible with SR's tech, just playing Devil's advocate.

Yeah, the phrase

"Never leave a man behind!" would take on whole new meaning.

edit: responding to Seige

When you're using some engines, don't forget about the solar cells. The suits become a lot more feasible when you're either able to fit them with solar cells or can carry along solar cells for use when the suits aren't in direct use. If I had a copy of Rigger 3 right now (lost my old one, and the one won't ship till mid month... curse you Amazon!) I'd be able to say more

As for proportions... The pilot probably shouldn't be standing up inside the device. A pod-like cockpit would probably be the best bet with the arms and legs projecting from that.

Legs applys paddles to thread and yells "CLEAR" ..... ZOT


Question: if we are willing to apply a cf of 3 for a single person bench seat could we not apply (1.25/2 rigger3 pg 124 ) another .75 reduction of cf by removing excess head room etc. I am personaly willing to say that a person in power armor failing a crash test is in trouble anyway.

Shortly after Matrix Revolutions, I got the itch to emulate the AP Mechs from the film, and came up with a couple models that I felt acceptably emulated the ones from the film.

First though, a few notes: I'm not wonderfully knowledgeable on the Rigger3 rules, but feel I know enough for what I built to work as intended.
Secondly, these are using the XL Walker chassis, not Anthroforms. This is because the AP Mechs were, probably, about 2 stories tall, not as tall as a single troll.

The file can be located Here.

I'd like to point out:
While the vehicle has arms, that is more for a 'design accuracy' point of view; my intention was to mount the LMGs on each arm, and have the LMGs rigged, not manually gunned; the first 2 versions (Diesel and Fuel Cell) I played some rules around to include manual controls, the second 2 versions are intended to be fully rigged...may have missed a rule or two, though.
I used external cargo space for extra ammunition storage.
I made the file a while back, and so can't fully remember, but I believe all versions were buy-able from chargen (not that I'd SUGGEST to any GMs to allow them).

Well since most people in SR don't generally give much of a monkeys about creating radioactive mess, I think the good old Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator would be a useful powersource, it's what drives most power armour in the various sci-fi universes, and has powered countless spacecraft over the last 50 years, so it's already a well proven technology. It's a fair bet that since it doesn't create anything like the same sort of waste as a fission reactor, that by 2060 (perhaps with a little help from Deus and his nanites) they might even have the Thermoelectric cells down to such a fine art that waste is minimal (given the Voyagers' RTGs have been going for 25 years imagine how long a 2060 RTG could run on the same fuel), the only real thing to worry about would be the radiation shielding of the generator itself.

I think everyone is forgetting the point. IT's a GAME.....It's not real.......Cyberware doesn't exsist and cyber eyes aren't feasible not mention the Matrix.....They could happen but there's no precidence or even proof that they will within our life times. IT's all Science Fiction. We're talking about fire elementals and magic here....Who cares...really people it could happen. It may not but who knows. In the big picture having armor that's mobile isn't all that wacky. There just has to be a balance between playability. The key thing to remember is that the combat rules in Shadowrun tend to be cinematic in nature. In reality there's always going to be a missile or amunition that can bust through the armor. No armor is invulnerable. The key nastiness is going to come from the recoil supression that armor offers, the speed and the protection against small arms fire. Those would be the overall benefits. With the improvements in electronics and conductors in SR armor is no more far fetched than having cyber eyes and cybernetic arms and limbs.

A hypothetical person of dwarfish stature may only take 1 cf if the following approximation is valid:
Height: 1 meter
Width: .5 meter
Forward portrudance: .25 meter
total volume: .125 m^3, 1cf

If a human/elf can be approximated as similar except for doubling the height, it would be 2 cf.

My trollspace calculation is significantly larger:
Height: 3m
Width: 1.5m
Forward portrudance: .5 meter
totaling volume of 4.5 m^3 or 36 cf

The troll number seems a bit too big, I'll take suggestions at how to reduce the numbers to fit better.