------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEAVY GEAR TECHNICAL FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Version 1.40 Last Update: 02/26/98 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HISTORY OF THE TECHNICAL FAQ Ver.0.98:John D. Prins writes up the Technical FAQ because he's bored. After four hours of hard work, he prepares to send off his efforts, only to be rewarded with the message 'this application has performed an illegal operation, and will be closed'. John loses all his work and swears vengeance on Bill Gates for putting out Win95. Arrrg! John resolves to back up from now on. Ver.0.99:John D. Prins, undaunted, re-attempts to write the Heavy Gear Technical FAQ. Ver.1.00:Added location of V-Engine explanation and video. Added sections dealing with spacecraft and landships. Made some general corrections and new questions. Added location of HG errata and where the Hobby Hunter may be found. Ver.1.01:Added one question in the gear section and clarified the whole missile/grenade launcher ammo expendature thing. Ver.1.10:Added section on artillery. Added section on manly flaws. Made a few minor corrections and additions. Ver.1.11:Added questions in the Gear and Weapons sections. Minor corrections. Ver.1.20:Advent of the NVC and SVC prompts reworking of the Technical FAQ. Reasons for this are many, and are explained below. New Standard Disclaimer because I don't like the old one anymore. Took a crack at explaining the V-Engine. New section on neural nets. Changed my mind on Frag Cannons. Deleted old questions, added new questions. Ver.1.21:Official word on Frag Cannons. Ver.1.30:Added section on fuel consumption. Ver.1.31:Added question about AGMs, and made some corrections/clarifications. Ver.1.32:Minor corrections/clarifications. Ver.1.33:Very minor corrections. Would have done more, but I chose to revise the Rules FAQ instead. Ver.1.40:Some obsolete material removed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WELCOME TO THE HEAVY GEAR TECHNICAL FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS This document is intended to act as a timesaving device for the Heavy Gear mailing list, by answering all those nagging technical questions we have, leaving us time for more important stuff like cracking the weapons code and anticipating Dream Pod 9's latest plot twists. If you have a question that is not covered by this document, please don't hesitate to ask the list at large. If your question is a common one (or a very good one), it may be added to this FAQ and help enlighten the ignorant masses. This FAQ will be updated on a semi-regular basis. My plan is to re-issue the FAQ whenever: 1.) I feel like it, 2.) People ask me for it, 3.) I write a new version, 4.) the beginning of a month rolls by. Obviously, I can't cover everything, so this FAQ is devoted to issues of technology, specifically the machines and equipment of Terra Nova, and some of the rules that cover them. If you find that I've made an error or have a suggested addition to the FAQ, please contact me at: jprins@interhop.net and put in the subject line: HG TECHNICAL FAQ If your suggestion has merit, it will be added in the next version and you will be added to the list of contributors. Note that this FAQ assumes that the reader is reasonably fluent in the Silhouette System and at least has read the Heavy Gear Rulebook. Many of the questions will deal with vehicles and equipment found in the various sourcebooks; I'll try to reference them where I can. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1.) Standard Disclaimer. 2.) Where Can I Find Heavy Gear Errata? 3.) Questions About Heavy Gears. 4.) Questions About Striders. 5.) Questions About Tanks and AFVs. 6.) Questions About Aircraft. 7.) Questions About Weapons. 8.) Questions About Landships. 9.) Questions About Spacecraft. 10.) Questions About Artillery. 11.) Questions About Neural Nets. 12.) Questions About Fuel Consumption. 13.) Abusive Perks. 14.) Cheesy Flaws. 15.) Manly Flaws. 16.) List of Contributors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1.) STANDARD DISCLAIMER HEAVY GEAR, TERRA NOVA and SILHOUETTE SYSTEM are all registered trademarks of Dream Pod 9, Inc. This document should in no way be construed as a legal challenge to these trademarks. This document may be distributed by anyone to anyone in any medium (electronic, hard copy, recited as a mantra) so long as no legal tender changes hands (at the reader's option, you may send $5 to Dream Pod 9 if you like this document. Merry Christmas, Marc and Jean). Any similarities to people, places or things found in this document are purely co-incidental, unless they have to do with Mantises, in which case, it's intentional. Any spelling mistakes you spot are due to an error in data transmission and are not my fault. Any grammatical errors you find are part of a communist plot to discredit me. The writer of this document cannot be held responsible for any paper cuts taken while reading it in hard copy form. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.) WHERE CAN I FIND HEAVY GEAR ERRATA? The Tactical Air Support sourcebook has the errata for the first printing of the Heavy Gear Rulebook. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.) QUESTIONS ABOUT HEAVY GEARS. 3.1: What's a Heavy Gear? A Heavy Gear is a humanoid armored fighting vehicle developed on Terra Nova in the latter parts of the sixth millenia AD. It is a highly mobile and agile weapons platform and a real cool way to charge into battle. But you should know this already. 3.2: How does that V-Engine work, anyway? If somebody showed you a picture, you'd understand immediately. The fundamental thing you have to wrap your brain around is that the V-Engine is primarily a bunch of bent rods. Okay, let's start with unbent rods. Take a straight rod. That's your support axle. Surround this axle with more rods, running parallel to the support axle. What you've got is a bundle of rods, right? Now, slip the cylinder of a revolver (the thing you put bullets into) over the ends of this bundle of rods. Fix it so that the cylinder is attached to the support axle, but can rotate, so that the surrounding rods can rotate about the support axle. Spin it around with your mind awhile. Got it? Okay, now, bend this whole apparatus into a 'V' shape. Now, the rods can (get this) _still_ be spun about the support axle - this is the weird thing that will screw you up, but it does work, trust me. Now since all those rods are still the same length, the rods on the _in_side of the 'V' are very deep in the cylinder housing. But the rods on the _out_side of the 'V' have very nearly slipped out. Rods on the 'front' and 'back' of the support axle (from your perspective) are somewhere in-between. Now, the cylinders are actually _combustion chambers_. You know how they work, right? A small amount of combustible fuel is injected into a compressed chamber (rods at the inside of the 'V') and ignited. The gas explodes and expands, pushing the rod _out_ of the chamber. This causes the whole assembly to rotate around the support axle, until the rod is at maximum extension (the outside of the 'V'), where the gases are vented out so that the rod can be pushed back into the cylinder and start the cycle anew. The upshot of all this is that the cylinder heads are spinning merrily about, and that motion can be tapped for nice things like hydraulic pressure and electricity. What makes V-Engines so good is that they're very tough and have a minimum of moving parts. Anyway, if this explanation doesn't do it for you, check out the following web page for a downloadable AVI movie of an operational V-Engine: http://www.members.iquest.net/~jesster/hgapa.html 3.3: How do you get into your gear? It's five meters tall! Most gears are terrible shot traps, with projections and protrusions all over the place, so there's plenty of footholds. Presumably, you just climb in; gears are supposed to be used by soldiers and other physically fit people, so it isn't usually a problem. Some have suggested that a small folding ladder is in the cockpit, while others think that the gear itself can recognize the pilot and pick him up to assist in entry. 3.4: Can a gear just pick up any (handheld) weapon on the battlefield and use it? Yes, assuming that the weapon is within the gear's size rating. Gears are very versatile machines and have dedicated software for this sort of thing. The gear will conpensate for the weapon's fire control system and balance, and away you go. 3.5: Can a gear mount arms with their rating bigger than the actual size of the gear? Yes, it can, but it can only ever lift objects up to twice the ACTUAL size of the vehicle it's mounted on. Furthermore, no matter what the size of the arm on a vehicle, it still cannot carry a weapon greater than the vehicle's ACTUAL size would allow. 3.6: How come the Strike Cheetah (NVC1) has 4 more points of armor than the original Cheetah, but doesn't lose any speed or maneuver rating? Doesn't the Technical Handbook sort of contradict this sort of thing? Officially, they gave the Strike Cheetah a bigger, more powerful engine. Also, it's a production model machine, whereas the rules in the TechBook are for modifying individual vehicles. If you've got millions of Marks and an engineering crew of dozens, you _can_ work miracles. 3.7: Why does the Grizzly have such crappy armor for a gear it's size? The Grizzly is carrying heavy guided mortar (a heavy weapon) and uses heavy durasheet alloy for its armor plating. The combination of the two means that it can't carry as much armor as the Spitting Cobra (ceramic armor) or Razorback (few weapons) in the field. On the up side, it's probably cheap to replace the armor on a damaged Grizzly :-). 3.8: What idiot designed the Anolis (SVC1)? Originally (the real world), the Anolis was supposed to have Advanced Controls. Somewhere between the design board and the printer this got dropped and the Anolis was changed into the whipping boy of Gear-dom. On the other hand, if you actually manage to win with an Anolis, you've got serious bragging rights. 3.9: Why doesn't the Blitz Jager (SVC1) carry three Anti-Tank Missiles instead of just one? Cost and common sense. A Blitz Jager isn't likely to get more than one shot off at a tank anyway, so why waste money on outfitting them with extra rounds? 3.10: Reinforced Crew Compartment and Emergency Medical are cheap. Why aren't they put in every gear, not just the Sidewinder (SVC1) and Black Adder (SVC1)? Terra Novan militaries don't really care if the pilots of their vehicles survive. Hey, that's the impression I get. With all the money you spend training pilots in the first place, it's stupid not to add these perks. 3.11: Why is the Ferret (NVC1) so lovable? Because it's almost a super-deformed version of a gear. And it's made by a company that builds racing motorcycles, so it's cool. Buttwheels rock. 3.12: Why does the Weasel (NVC1) have a - 1 Fire Control? Because the CNCS high command doesn't want its electronics warfare gears to get into firefights; the shoddy targeting systems are an incentive to run rather than fight. 3.13: Where's the Hobby Hunter mentioned in the Technical Handbook? The Hobby Hunter is an idea of Probe's that the folks at Dream Pod 9 took to heart. Like it says, it's a gear for hobbyists. You can find stats of it at: http://www.dragonfire.net/~jhfong/Wormgears/Designs/hobby-hunter.html Alternatively, it shows up in Gear Up Newsletter #1. 3.14: If my gear takes a movement hit, does it subtract from the MP and MV of only one movement system, or both? Just the one you're currently using, unless you're using a gear with Exposed Movement Systems; in this case a 'heavy' movement hit becomes an 'overkill' to your movement system and takes out both systems. 3.15: Why is the Fer-De-Lance (SRAL) a mass production machine? I thought it was super-elite-we-only-built-less-than-a-hundred! The Fer-De-Lance was built on the Sidewinder chassis with some improvements which helps keep costs low(er). That and all that 'hand-crafted' labor was probably volunteered by patriotic technicians - and since they were mostly hand-assembled, a lot of expensive factory re-tooling was probably unnecessary - saving more money. 3.16: Can I make a hover gear? How? Sure you can. However, they aren't really appropriate to the Heavy Gear setting, so there will be no 'official' hover gear units. Territorial Arms was apparantly the last to fool with the idea, and they, like the rest, eventually abandoned the project. To design a hover gear, make your Secondary Movement System 'hover', then take the 'Exposed Movement Systems' and 'Large Sensor Profile' flaws. Flavor to taste; low level Jump Jets may be appropriate, as well as Fuel Inefficient, Decreased Maneuverability (hover mode), Weak Point: Movement Systems and other flaws. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4.) QUESTIONS ABOUT STRIDERS. 4.1: What's a Strider? A strider is any walking vehicle that isn't a heavy gear, due to either size or non-humanoid construction. So striders include huge chicken-walkers as well as small spider-mechs. 4.2: Why is the Mammoth (NVC1) so much more expensive than the Naga? The Mammoth is a limited production machine, meaning heavy quality controls are put on every unit before it rolls off the lines. And the Mammoth needs it, too, because it has twice as many perks as the Naga does (meaning more lemon dice). The Naga is a mass production machine and is cranked out for much cheaper, but chances are your Naga will have more factory defects than a Mammoth. 4.3: Is the Fire Dragon (SVC1) really that useful? Possibly. True, it isn't as well armed as a Spitting Cobra, but it does have a +1 Fire Control and Sniper Systems on its HRP/48; which is a nasty weapon. But changing the rocket pack to something else does drastically improve the Fire Dragon into a very dangerous machine. 4.4: How does the Mammoth (NVC1) walk, anyway? It takes one step at a time :-). Seriously, though, the Mammoth does not move in an unusual manner. Those long 'thighs' that stick waaaay out in front of it and the 'kneepads' really have very little to do with the walking motion; they are there to keep the Mammoth from falling onto its own face by providing balance and something to keep it from going all the way over. The Mammoth's 'real' legs are under this and kind of stumpy; making them tough and well defended but not very fast or agile. But it does use a 'normal' walking gait, it just squats a little. 4.5: Why isn't the Sagittarius (SVC1) Sensor Dependant? They go on about how the crew has to rely on the sensors because of the armored clam-shell! Presumably, the Sagittarius has back-up sensory apparatus that don't really function any better than normal eyesight; these external 'cameras' still function in case of a sensor hit and there are so darned many of them that they can't realistically be taken out. This isn't the same as the Backup Sensors perk, it's just good engineering on the part of the Humanist Alliance. 4.6: Is the Mammoth really as agile as the Grizzly? One of the glaring errors in the first edition Rulebook lists the Mammoth strider at -1 Maneuver Value. This is wrong. The Mammoth's Maneuver Value is -2, as properly presented in the NVC1. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.) QUESTIONS ABOUT TANKS. 5.1: Tanks are much more deadly than gears, and don't cost all that much more; in some cases they cost less. So why doesn't everybody use a tank? Tanks are never more maneuverable than -1, whereas gears go to as high a +2 on their maneuver value. This means that a top speed, dodging gear can almost always get close enough to a tank to use anti-tank weapons effectively. On open ground, the tank at least has a chance at picking off a gear before it gets into effective range, but a lot of Terra Nova isn't open ground. Also, gears only require one pilot while most tanks require two or more. This means that training tank personnel is more expensive than gear pilots, making gears more cost effective. Finally, gears were born out of necessity, and have become a fixed part of Terra Novan culture, dating back to the abandonment of the colonies by Earth, when gears were armed with makeshift weapons to protect settlements. 5.2: What's better, the Aller (N2) or the Visigoth (S2)? Neither. The Aller has more potent weapons (heavy railgun, pulsed laser cannon) but lacks any indirect fire ability or variable ammunition capacity. The Visigoth uses a heavy field gun, capable of indirect fire and variable ammunition, as well as medium rockets. So on open, flat terrain, the Aller will win. On uneven terrain, the Visigoth will win. 5.3: Why does the Hun (S2) use such a wimpy main gun? The Heavy Rifle is a bit underpowered, but probably very cheap to make and keep supplied with ammunition. The Hun also has a Light Laser and MRP/36 as supplimental weapons, meaning it will always have a reasonably strong weapon in a fight. Its counterpart, the Klemm, becomes pretty much useless if it loses its Anti-Tank missiles, but then again, it HAS anti-tank missiles. 5.4: What are the stats for the CEF Hovertanks? We don't know, and it would probably give you bad dreams anyway. The Scythian (SRAL) is really a poor copy of a CEF Hovertank (yurg...). 5.5: What's the Aller's (N2) ACTUAL size? It cannot carry twenty HRG rounds at size 14. The Aller's actual Threat Value is 3512, making its default size 15, and its actual size 15. It can carry twenty rounds for the railgun. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. QUESTIONS ABOUT AIRCRAFT. 6.1: Why does the Buzzard (TAS) cost so much? The communication range accounts for 1,000,000 of its miscellaneous threat value. There's your price problem. 6.2: Why does the Aspic (TAS) cost so much? High manuever value (+1, for a plane) coupled with a high top speed (66) and a low stall speed (8, for an interceptor) plus limited production all spell disaster for the Republic's pocket book. The real pity is that they aren't getting a decent plane out of the bargain. 6.3: When planes attack ground targets, which scale do you use, air war or tactical scale? Aircraft attacking ground targets use tactical scale ranges, because ground targets are hard to pick out from ground clutter. Ground targets attacking planes at altitude 1 or more use air war ranges, as nothing restricts their field of fire. 6.4: What's a hopper? A hopper is a vectored thrust VTOL craft that can perform both like a helicopter and a jet aircraft. Such hoppers make excellent ground attack platforms, offering the low-speed and altitude capability of the helicopter, but without the vulnerable rotary wing. 6.5: Why don't aircraft dominate the Terra Novan battlefield like they do today? Terra Novans have Anti-Aircraft LASER emplacements powered by fusion reactors. Also, the atmosphere of Terra Nova is pretty volatile, even on the poles. Storms can pop up very quickly, so pilots must be very careful of when and where they fly. But when aircraft can operate, they do make a significant difference on the battlefield; a hopper or helicopter is still the tank's worst enemy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7.) QUESTIONS ABOUT WEAPONS 7.1: How far can a gear really throw a grenade? In tactical scale combat, grenades are 0 range weapons, and can only be used at opponants in the same hex. However, the grenade does gain the point blank attack bonus. Officially, vehicle grenades are size 1 objects, and can be thrown a base number of meters equal the following formula: (Arm Size - Object Size) x 2. So a Size 5 arm can throw a grenade 8m/16m/32m/48m, a Size 6 arm 10m/20m/40m/80m, and a Size 7 arm 12m/24m/48m/96m. 7.2: If missiles expend ammo at a rate of 2^ROF, why doesn't grenade launchers? The official, Dream Pod 9 reason for this is that any weapon that is affected by Anti-Missile Systems uses the ammo expendature rate of 2^ROF, and systems that do not use 10 x ROF. So if you want to give grenade launchers or rapid-fire bazookas the 2^ROF rate of ammo expendature, they must be subject to Anti-Missile Systems. 7.3: How much ammo do I expend if I walk saturation fire? 30 rounds (or 8 rockets) per ROF used per hex; and you MUST use one ROF point in every hex to saturate (saturatation requires +1 ROF). So a +3 ROF weapon could saturate three hexes, expending 90 rounds of ammunition (or 24 rockets) in the process. Each hex gains no benefit from the ROF because one half of +1 ROF is rounded down to 0. 7.4: How do I add haywire ammunition to weapons that have no ammunition? Just multiply the base cost of the weapon by 15. Yes, this is expensive, but it never runs out of charges. 7.5: Can you use Anti-Tank and Anti-Gear missiles against aircraft? Common sense would dictate a no, but there are no rules prohibiting this tactic, though it will often be overkill. AGMs are more likely to be used in air to air combat than ATMs. 7.6: Why don't more units use lasers? Lasers are expensive to produce, fragile, and require frequent maintenance. So they're a bad idea on you basic fighting machine. Tanks are the best platform for laser weapons, where they can be housed in large anti-shock mounts and draw off of large capacitor batteries. 7.7: Are particle beams effective? Sometimes. They are high accuracy weapons and do decent amounts of damage, but they have the same problems as lasers. They are, however, excellent if you want to capture or immobilize your opponants without killing them, as they are more likely to do multiple light criticals than any heavy criticals. 7.8: Do Anti-Missile Systems work against Bazooka shells? No. Anti-Missile Systems only work against rockets, missiles, mortars, panzerfausts, artillery missiles, and bombs. 7.9: How much damage does orbital bombardment do? Everyone with the 'Satellite Uplink' perk wants to know this one. Unless you're a landship, orbital artillery is instantly fatal to the craft and its operators. Orbital weapons are probably area effect weapons too, so don't expect to survive just on maneuverability. The only real defense against orbital artillery is sheer luck and not being spotted in the first place. Thankfully, orbital artillery is expensive and not always available, so it is pretty much a game master plot device (for now). 7.10: Do Digging Cannons (TFS) add to OTV or MTV? Offensive Threat Value. They are actual weapons. 7.11: How do you build a gun like the paratrooper gears' combination rifle? Arms can carry as many 'combination' weapons as their size times 1.5. So a size 6 arm can carry 9 size worth of weapons, provided neither weapon exceeds size 6. This has no effect on threat value. 7.12: Do melee weapons use Maneuver as their bonus? No. While melee attacks use piloting+AGL, they still use Fire Control to attack. Only kicks and rams use Maneuver instead of Fire Control. 7.13: Can I put a Weapon Link (perk) on my Target Designator to make it go off with a guided weapon? No. The Target Designator is a perk, not a weapon, and cannot be chained into a Weapon Link. 7.14: Can I Sniper my Target Designator? No. Target Designators cannot be Snipered, becuase, strictly speaking, they are not weapons, they are perks. While they function like a weapon, they provide a bonus to guided weapons to strike the designated target - a very different effect than causing damage. 7.15: How much ammo can my weapon hold? What if I use clips? The amount of ammo that can be loaded/attached to a weapon via either clip or internal magazine is limited by the size of the vehicle. The Minimum Size of the weapon plus the increase based on ammo (Rulebook pg 124) may not exceed the actual size of the vehicle in question. A Stabilizer (perk) allows you to consider the vehicle in question to be 2 points larger (actual size) for mounting considerations, but only for that weapon (you could buy more Stabilizers for other weapons, of course). The only real benefit clips provide is a quick supply of 'replacement' ammunition; the maximum amount of ammo actually IN the weapon is the same as if you used an internal magazine. Any additional ammunition carried is subject to destruction from AUX hits; clips in a weapon are subject to Fire Control hits. 7.16: Are Anti-Gear Missiles Indirect weapons? Though some book entries contradict one another on this issue, AGMs are definitely Indirect weapons. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 8.) QUESTIONS ABOUT LANDSHIPS. 8.1: What's a Landship? The name says it all. A landship is a ship that travels on land. They are the biggest warcraft on Terra Nova. 8.2: How does a landship move? The very small ones use conventional vectored thrust (hovercraft), but the majority use a combination of vectored thrust and magnetic repulsion (and possibly sub-atomic repulsion forces; it is not clearly understood by most scientists, even on Terra Nova). This is only possible due to the presence of many strong magnetic monopoles scattered about on the surface of Terra Nova. 8.3: How much armor does a landship carry? LOTS. Exactly how much is as yet undefined, but expect landships to have a bare minimum on 100 armor points (and I mean BARE MINIMUM; most will have much more). Also, landships are likely to take damage in a different manner than conventional craft; they are too large for the current system to accurately reflect manner in which something that size would suffer from weapons fire. 8.4: What kind of armaments does a landship carry? It varies, and has yet to be fully specified by Dream Pod 9. Most landships will carry anti-aircraft lasers, naval cannons and railguns, short, long and 'intercontinental' missiles (Terra Nova has no per se continents, only tectonic plates), as well as hoppers, tanks, striders and gears for self-defense. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9.) QUESTIONS ABOUT SPACECRAFT. 9.1: What's a Tannhauser Drive? A Tannhauser Drive is really just a particle accelerator. What it does is shoots a stream of antimatter into a 'Tannhauser Gate', a spatial discontinuity found in some planetary systems. When thus stimulated, the Tannhauser Gate expands and 'sucks' all nearby matter into itself and out into normal space on the other side (light years away). Travel time is instantaneous. 9.2: What are the statistics for a Gateship? Dream Pod 9 has yet to divulge any such statistics. Same goes for any other spacecraft. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 10.) QUESTIONS ABOUT ARTILLERY. 10.1: How does the Counter-Battery Sensor (TFS) work? It's not clear. Sadly, a major error crept into the Tactical Field Support. The range of CBS is its rating TIMES its sensor range. So a vehicle with rating 1 CBS and a sensor range of 2 km (40 hexes) has a base range of 40 hexes to spot artillery (320 hexes extreme range). The target must reveal which of the CBS' range bands he is in so a proper penalty can be applied to the attempt to hit. This problem was corrected in the Vehicle Compendiums, but I'm leaving the answer here - TFS:A&GS won't be obsolete for a while. 10.2: How much ammo does the Red Bull (TFS) carry? Twelve salvoes for each gun. 10.3: How much ammo does the Stinger (TFS) carry? Sixteen LAMs. 10.4: What rating is the Seeker's (TFS) optional CBS? Rating 1. 10.5: Hey!!! The Verder (TFS) has only one shot! What gives? Some people have pointed out that the Verder is based on an Aller chassis, which we know is size 15 (not 14), so the Verder SHOULD be able to carry three salvoes. However, the V-Man is sticking to his guns; the Verder has one volley only. Several concessions were made, however. Firstly, the ammo is considered to be clipped, so reloading should be very fast. Second, the Verder carries a supply of 'marker' shells for ranging fire; so you don't have to blow your one shot with zero accuracy. 10.6: How am I supposed to hit anything with a threshold of 8? You're stationary (+2) with a good (+1 PER) to excellent (+2 PER) gunner. Also, you've made a few ranging shots to lower the threshold, and you might even be using guided artillery. But if you really want accurate fire, don't use artillery. 10.7: Do missed artillery shots act like ordinary area effect attacks? No. They do FULL base damage to everything in the hex, not half base damage. 10.8: How much damage does deviated artillery shots do? Roll the vehicle's dodge roll and compare it to the artillery's (failed) attack roll to hit the target hex, and calculate damage as normal (base damage is still the minimum). So you can still kill tanks with those deviated artillery barrages (it just isn't easy). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 11.) QUESTIONS ABOUT NEURAL NETS. 11.1: Can you just pull out your gear's neural net (NNet) brain and plug it into another gear? Maybe. Gear NNets are learning computers, so they could conceivably learn to pilot any similar machine to its original housing. However, connectors may not be standard in every gear, and the NNet will need time to adjust to its new body, even if it is almost identical to the original. So, in most cases, the answer is a conditional yes. 11.2: Can you put your gear's NNet into a strider? No. Striders are significantly different from gears, so they have their own 'brand' of NNets. Tanks and aircraft may also use NNets, which are specific to their own 'type' of machine. 11.3: Can you repair a Neural Net if it gets damaged? No, they're far too complex. Chuck it out. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12.) QUESTIONS ABOUT FUEL CONSUMPTION. 12.1: Auuugh! The fuel consumption rules in the Technical Manual are confusing! Can you help me out? Sure. What's confusing you is probably the lack of units. Mass is in metric tons, combat speed in kilometers per hour. The first thing you want to do is determine how many Energy Points (EP) your machine has. To do this, find out how many EPs it must spend for every kilometer in its MOST efficient movement mode. For gears, that would be Ground. Then multiply that by the 'deployment range' in kilometers of the vehicle in question (ignoring Fuel Efficient and Inefficient perk/flaws, for the moment). This will give you the total EPs of your vehicle. For example, let's take the stock Jager. Mass (6.637 Tons) x Combat Speed (36 kph) x 0.175 (ground) = 41.8131 EP/km 41.8131 EP/km x 500 km Deployment = 20906.55 EP total. A quick conversion (300 EP = 1 litre standard fuel) will show that this amounts to 69.6885 litres of fuel. But how far can the gear travel on this if it just walks? Well, in walker mode, the Jager uses this much fuel: Mass (6.637) x Combat Speed (24 kph) x 0.525 = 83.6262 EP/km. Divide this amount into the total EPs in the fuel tank to get the actual range in kilometers: 20906.55 / 83.6262 = 250 km. So the Jager can only travel half as far in walker mode as it can in ground mode. 12.2: So that's at combat speed. What about top speed? Top speed gulps down fuel at twice the rate. So each kilometer of movement takes up twice the EPs. For our trusty Jager, that would mean at top speed it would use 167.2524 EP/km in top speed walker mode - meaning it could only travel 125km! 12.3: What if my vehicle is fuel efficient? Divide the number of EP/km by the appropriate amount. For example, if our Jager had 1.5x Fuel Efficiency, then it would be using: 41.8131 / 1.5 = 27.8754 EP/km (ground) and have an appropriately longer range. Note that this applies ONLY to when travelling at combat speed, at top speeds, normal fuel consumption applies (double the standard combat speed fuel consumption rates). 12.4: And fuel inefficient? This flaw increases the fuel consumption at TOP speed by its rating. Multiply the EP/km by (1 + Fuel Inefficent Rating) x 2 to get the final EP/km fuel consumption for top speed travel. For example, let's say our Jager had Fuel Inefficient Rating 2. It would consume: 41.8131 x [(1 + 2) x 2] = 41.8131 x 6 = 250.8786 EP/km (ground, top speed) and a top speed ground deployment range of 83.3 km! 12.5: And inappropriate fuel? Inappropriate fuel provides less EP per litre of fuel. So use the above method to discover the amount of standard fuel (in litres) you carry. Then multiply the number of litres times the EP amount of the 'inappropriate' fuel. Let's say our stock Jager got issued cheap whiskey instead of good gasoline. While the pilot may be happy, the gear is not: 69.6885 litres x 100 EP/litre (inappropriate fuel) = 6988.5 EP. On this tank of booze, using combat ground speed, our Jager can only travel 6988.5 / 41.8131 = 167.1 km, and probably needs a good cleaning after its trip. The Fuel Inefficient Jager featured in 12.4 could only travel 27.9 km (top speed, ground) on this fuel load! 12.6: What about airplanes? Always calculate an airplane's fuel load from its FLIGHT movement mode, or you'll get confused. Let's look at the Quetzal: 27 Tons x 960 kph x 0.2 = 5184 EP/km 2000 km deployment x 5184 EP/km = 10368000 EP / 300 = 34560 litres. Obviously, jets use more efficient fuel than your average ground vehicle - otherwise this fuel load would outweigh the plane! My guess is that 'jet fuel' is anywhere from 1000 - 3000 EP per litre - I'm no expert on common jet body/fuel mass ratios. If you had calculated this fuel load from the Quetzal's ground movement, you would get this result: 27 Tons x 150 kph x 0.175 = 708.75 EP/km x 2000 km = 1417500 EP. Which would mean that in flight mode it could only go 273.4 km, far too short a flight range. Note that most flying vehicles really don't have an actual 'ground' mode; rather, they are pushing themselves along with their jet engines on unmotorized wheels. If this were not the case, the Quetzal, using ground mode, could travel 14628.6 km! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13.) ABUSIVE PERKS. Certain perks have proven to be far more efficient and effective than their cost would indicate. In the interests of game balance, designers should take special care not to frivolously use such perks in their designs just because they give such good advantages. Perks considered 'abusive' are as follows: * Advanced Controls: Actions are very powerful, so this perk should be restricted in use. Though its cost will likely prevent too much abuse. * Automation: This perk provides extra 'crewmembers'. The first crewmember is almost the same cost as advanced controls (above), which will prevent abuse, but thereafter, it gets cheaper. For example, one 'crewmember' (+1 action on a one-man machine) costs 11, but three (+2 actions on a one-man machine) costs 13. And seven (+3 actions) costs 17. I wouldn't want to see a 600 TV gear with 4 actions as its base, would you? * Easy to Modify: In a single engagement, this won't much come into play, but in a campaign, an easy to modify machine will (almost) always be repaired first. * Improved Off-Road Ability: Can turn a standard machine on good terrain into a speed demon on lousy terrain; a very large advantage. * Shielded Weapons: Virtually negates fire control table hits. * Sniper Systems: Often appropriate, but sometimes abused, just because it's 'handy to have'. * Advanced Neural Net (NVC1): Grants +1 maneuver without affecting the DTV of a vehicle. Almost never appropriate, far too advanced. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 14.) CHEESY FLAWS. Just as certain perks have proven to be abusive, so have certain flaws been shown to give far more 'cost benefit' than they're worth. If you use these flaws on a vehicle you intend to post to the list, expect some negative feedback unless you have really good reasons (though we're mostly a nice bunch). * Annoyance: Alright in moderation, but put three or more on a single machine and it will reek of limburger. * Hazardous Ammo/Fuel Storage: Fuel/Ammo hits only occur on heavy damage criticals, and then only one in six times; besides, ammo hits ALWAYS disable the vehicle involved, so this flaw just improves the chances of crew kills a SMALL percentage of the time. * Poor Towing Capability: When was the last time you towed something with your gear? I thought so! This one wins the prize for cheapo loser flaw number one. * Vulnerable to Haywire: Provides a BIG discount, but how often do you run into a Kodiak or King Cobra, anyways? Right. Besides, two critical rolls will nail you almost as often as three will. * Difficult to Modify (SVC1): Okay for prototypes, but just not believable for anything that will ever see combat on any regular basis. Only stealth planes have this flaw, and they avoid combat. * Inefficient Combat Computer (SVC1): Most people don't fire more than once per turn anyways (every penalty and bonus counts), so this doesn't often effect the machine it's on. It's low discount, though, so it's not too cheesy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 15.) MANLY FLAWS. Manly flaws are flaws that put you at a real (but not crippling) disadvantage. They are the exact opposite of cheesy flaws. Bonus points to anybody who puts them on their machine, because these babies COUNT. These flaws add spice to piloting the vehicle. Of course, too many and you've got a worthless machine, but hey... *Cannot Glide (TAS) (real men fly tanks!) *Decreased Maneuver (NVC1) *Defective Fire Control *Exposed Fire Control *Exposed Movement System *Fragile Chassis *Large Sensor Profile (hiding is for wimps! ) *Overheating (Extreme Overheating is crippling) *Sensor Dependant *Weak Facing *Weak Underbelly (SVC1) *Unstable (SVC1) (affects dodge rolls, folks!) -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16.) LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS (in no particular order). John D. Prins, author and current maintainer of the FAQ. Alistair Gillies, seeker and divulger of HG Errata. Alex Rhodes, explainer of the V-Engine. Michael P. Oshea, essay writer and question-asker. Dan Higdon, figure-outer of the kinetics of the Mammoth's walk. Prabal Nandy (aka Probe), smarter than the average Mantis. Jason Prince, who asked about movement hits. Mark A. Vezina, arbiter of rules questions. Lloyd D. Jessee ------------------------------------------------------------------------------