Rob Dean writes of vehicle computers being used in combat.
I have always been under the impression that a model one computer adds
an additional +1 on the to hit task for various vehicles. I dislike this
as the computer is large enough and expensive enough to add more accuracy
than that. So, I would say that in tank to tank combat, one would use
the difference in computers as a bonus to hit. (like starship combat)
But against a target that either does not have a computer, or has one
but is not aware of it's adversary (ie not evading) the computer should
give additional bonuses to hit {More than just the computer model number}
As to range/speed modifiers... If the tanks are performing above NOE
then I would treat it as air combat (COACC may have design problems, but
the air to air combat seems pretty good
) Use the MaxAcceleration of the
tank as it's agility.
Actually, I see grav tank vs grav tank not as an extention of modern
tank vs. tank, but an extention of modern helicopter vs helicopter
combat. (ie hiding, unmasking sensor pods, pop ups, etc.) So again, I
would use air to air.
But on the ground the rules Rob mentioned seem pretty good. In NOE tanks
ought to be very hard to hit if you are on level with them.
Gunnery computers: I thought about this a while ago: It seems to me that
a +1 to dice rolls seems pretty paltry for something as expensive and large
as a model 1 computer. Therefore what I considered was installing a
robot cpu with program for vehicle control or gunnery. All it does is add
a little edge (I originally talked about vehicle control but it could be
extended to gunnery).
This gunnery computer would be linked to sensors (radar/ladar/EMS/Environ)
to take into account the movement of the target and the wind speed for
MD or chemically propelled rounds. This seems more like the M-1 gunnery
computer than the model one starship computer.
Just rambling...
Scott Kellogg
Beware... The Horde is coming...