Fria Ligans forum

Which actually would all point toward a need for mechanics/hazard events that centre more around environmental obstacles that consume time to navigate, and that mainly create temporary failures on vehicles — failures that can be fully fixed by e.g. patching a tire, leaving the vehicle itself none the worse for wear — rather than break down a vehicle to scrap metal in no time flat.

also bombing road is quite useless in war. You hit chokepoints, but roads? Not very difficult to repair... said that one wonders why my town council does not perform road repairs more often...

also bombing road is quite useless in war. You hit chokepoints, but roads? Not very difficult to repair... said that one wonders why my town council does not perform road repairs more often...

But we have three years of war with modern weapons, incl. nukes no less. I don't think that the limited resources (and also manpower) will (or can) be used for this or at least not enough.

The town that I live in is extremely bad at road repairs. That seems to be a thing regardless of where you live
edit: Or to paint the picture of my home town better. When I cycle to the store, it sometimes feel like I am in some sort of Enduro race

Yeah i read that to and was abit confused thinking i missed something because a game based so heavily on travel does not need % chance random walls to hurt the narrative.

Hm, not sure I follow - roleplaying travel surely shouldn't mean travel should be fast and easy? Quite the opposite, no?`
Remember, a "road" in Twilight: 2000 is not your average highway of today - it will be full of debris, fallen, trees wrecks, craters, potholes, etc etc.
And driving long distances off-road in hilly terrain without any trouble along the way is not easy, believe me!

From a game design perspective. we also need tools to keep players from just driving off the map in a single shift.

That said, we'll have another look at the hazard table before the game is finalized.

I think danger is fine and i do not mean to take away danger from it, but i also do not like the top end of the driving hazard table where you can end the travel, or the plan simply by a bad random roll. Now for example i like the 7 result, while i disslike the 9 and 10 result, especially since they do not take reliability into consideration ? i mean travel by vehicle already has limitations such as fuel.

To give an example how i like (again this is just me) table based encounters:
roll of 8: MINES! a minefield spreads out across the area, it can be traversed with a successfull hard scout roll losing 1 hex movment, it can be cleared with a stamina check but will take a quarter days work, maybee someone will notice ?
roll of 9: RADIADION! (biological/chemical) warningsigns for radiation appear infront of you, time to turn on the geiger. The area can be traversed but a radiation check must be made, maybee you can enhande the protection of your vehicle first. The area can be circumvented and you return to the previous hexagon (or other if referee agrees)

Above is just quick examples, my initial feel is that i like options or atleast giving my players options rather than already happened events that they have to react to, it is simply more fun to get to choose the type of crap you have to deal with and not lets say have to abandon your vehicle in the middle of x because you unfortunatly rolled bad and ended up with a blown engine.

One solution to vehicle-killing failures like a blown engine is to allow the PCs to detect the impending failure before it occurs. (A Tech task.) So if they continue, they get the failure, but they can also choose not to continue and must then make repairs on whatever underlying problem exists, scrounge the required parts, etc.

If they fail that roll then, well, bad things happen to good people.

One solution to vehicle-killing failures like a blown engine is to allow the PCs to detect the impending failure before it occurs. (A Tech task.) So if they continue, they get the failure, but they can also choose not to continue and must then make repairs on whatever underlying problem exists, scrounge the required parts, etc.

If they fail that roll then, well, bad things happen to good people.

But not as frequently as they do in the game as it stands.

More time consuming but relatively minor problems - a clogged fuel line, for example, rather than a blown engine, requiring clean fuel to flush the system (and possibly draining the tank as the whole fuel load may be contaminated) could immobilise the PCs just as completely as the former, and require just as much potential role playing solutions without completely stuffing them over.

Finesse rather than brute force!

Phil McGregor
========
Author: Space Opera (FGU); Rigger Black Book #1 (FASA); Orbis Mundi 2, The Marketplace, Ithura & Porthaven, Fantasy Europe (PGD); Road to Armageddon & Supplements, Displaced, Audace ad Gloriam, Farm, Forge & Steam (PGD).

Swedishtrex - yup, that's it.
It's not that some form of hazard occurs too frequently, it's those two top end results that kill a group's principal asset (and in the process completely stuff progress to whatever the actual current plot is) based on dumb (bad) luck. The fact that there is no influence from the vehicle reliability statistic makes it seem even worse.

The engine blown and broken axle results block progress with the story arc, and so should be very rare and more of a possibility (a 'threat') to make the players think about their characters' actions, than something that is likely to happen on maybe every 10th shift of driving (or rather vehicle-shift; if the group have two vehicles, that's two chances of a vehicle being crippled every shift of driving)

Which actually would all point toward a need for mechanics/hazard events that centre more around environmental obstacles that consume time to navigate, and that mainly create temporary failures on vehicles — failures that can be fully fixed by e.g. patching a tire, leaving the vehicle itself none the worse for wear — rather than break down a vehicle to scrap metal in no time flat.

It's not that some form of hazard occurs too frequently, it's those two top end results that kill a group's principal asset..

Only, that's not what the table says - results 9-10 don't "kill" the vehicle or turn it to "scrap metal". An inoperable vehicle can be repaired with a shift of work, a vehicle spare part and a TECH roll. Happy to take feedback on the rules, but please don't criticize things that aren't there.
That said, this is still an Alpha, and the hazards table will be reviewed.

More time consuming but relatively minor problems - a clogged fuel line, for example, rather than a blown engine, requiring clean fuel to flush the system (and possibly draining the tank as the whole fuel load may be contaminated) could immobilise the PCs just as completely as the former, and require just as much potential role playing solutions without completely stuffing them over.

There are a pile of things that can go wrong with a vehicle ... I think a simple D10 table is probably too simplistic.

From actual experience as an armoured soldier, the number one most probable and permanently recurring with sickening regularity mishap ought to be ... bogged again.

Also from the same experience ... after a few years of hard service with limited spare parts and vehicles that weren't new at the outbreak of war, breakdowns ought to be a pretty routine problem. I would get rid of the vehicle-killing blown engines and instead hand out coolant leaks, suspension and steering problems, hydraulic leaks, etc. And btw one of the holes in the game has always been, with the breakdown of the entire oil industry ... where is your engine oil, your transmission & diff oil, your brake fluid, etc. coming from? These fluids would be like gold.

Whatever ends up happening with this, I would strongly recommend that it be the exact same procedure as with weapons mishaps in terms of how vehicle reliability is checked/reduced, skills tested, etc.