Post-post-apocalyptic roleplaying game where you play as a mercenary

I don't think the guy playing the loader is going to be thrilled here.

File: the ride is starting.jpg (195KB, 553x936px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 553x936px

>>52222900
>he doesn't want to spend 4 hours alternating between yelling UP and ON THE WAY.

w e a k

>>52222941
But seriously, the idea is to have players act as a commander, and have multiple vehicles.

Maybe not start with a tank, maybe just a gun truck or something.

>>52222889
Sounds like a cross between Twilight 2000 and Aftermath, but adding in the "comrades system" from Only War for vehicle crews

>>52222941
Isn't the gunner the one who yells
>ON THE WAY
?

>>52222941
Loader would likely be a cohort/follower/animal companion of the guy operating the main gun. An abstraction or another.

>>52222889
If this thread is still up when I get home in 4 hours, I have a pdf of a really, really simple tank combat game that you might be able to use.

>>52222889
That sounds rad.

How will youndo group dynamics? Someone mentioned that the loader is gonna feel kinda bored in most combats, which I guess would be an issue. Better suited for an NPC hireling really.

>>52222889
>driving a tank
>Post-post-apocalyptic
>still have all the spare parts like tread segments available for routine operation

Ignorance is bliss.

>>52222889
With regards to what lots of others are saying about the loader, keep in mind that most modern tanks have autoloaders so that's not really an issue.

>>52224039
>keep in mind that most modern tanks have autoloaders

Autoloaders which have a nasty tendency to "eat" the turret crews' arms.

Ignorance is bliss.

>>52222889

Add demons. Demons with HEAT rounds as a weakness.

File: 1437746867432.gif (580KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

580KB, 480x360px

>>52222889
>using a tank in a world where realistically there wouldn't be any kind of logistics/infrastructure to support it
Triggered

>>52223507
>How will youndo group dynamics?
Probably let the players sort their dynamics out organically. If someone doesn't want to play loader he can get another vehicle and set up an NPC crew for it.

It's mostly designed as a facilitator for weapons and vehicle customisation autism, to be quite honest.

>>52223852
>le "i am the only person who ever served in the military on 4chan :)"

Games are about fun, not wondering what it would feel like to stick your head behind the main gun and just pull the trigger because the mud's just slurped up the bottom of your hull and you're not allowed to use a recovery vehicle because it's an """"exercise"""" (read: photo op for the defence minister)

We waited a few days for the ground to dry and drove on home.

>>52224099
Git gud or die trying.

>>52224153
Tanks aren't that complex a piece of machinery. It's an engine and tracks. You can make a tank out of any construction equipment you've got lying around, and there's plenty of that and plenty of spare parts for it too. Fuel, not parts, would be the biggest problem. You'll run out of fuel much faster.

Anyway, that's the point. I'm trying to find a setting for my system and I thought tanks in the New Old West might be cool.

The system is flexible enough to work for pretty much all land vehicles and I'm doing up rules for infantry combat now.

>>52224134
I plan to include fantasy shit once I get the system worked out well enough to be able to have a combined arms Cold War battle. If I can achieve that I'm going to call the core of the game feature complete.

>>52222889
I'd try it out for sure anon. Tank combat TTRPG doesn't sound incredibly hard to do either. You could take rules from some wargame and apply them to a set of RPG mechanics and be good to go. It'd be fun too. Plus the setting sounds sick; traveling mercenaries never fails to bring about awesome gameplay and stories.

File: AGT1500_engine_and_M1_tank.jpg (570KB, 1728x1152px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1728x1152px

>>52224499
>Tanks aren't that complex a piece of machinery

>>52224548
And I could post the New Zealand tank that was literally just a tractor with corrugated iron welded to it and some machine guns.

Tank does not exclusively refer to the behemoths that we use today.

And I think there would be a call for tanks in this setting anyway. It's post-post apocalyptic, so think NCR in New Vegas style. There is actually civilisation there, to some degree. Where there's civilisation there's conflict, and where there's conflict there's a need to cross open terrain under enemy fire, and that's what tanks are for.

They would be crude tanks, and in extremely limited numbers, but still.

>>52224576
In general though, tanks are delicate pieces of machinery. Just look at the number of tanks lost by both nazis and soviets to mechanical failure or bad environment

>>52224528
>You could take rules from some wargame and apply them to a set of RPG mechanics and be good to go.
Yeah, the rules I'm designing are so similar to what I'm useful in tabletop that they almost function as tabletop rules, so I figured I'd make two branches of the game - one for RPG, and one for the pure tabletop experience.

The difference would effectively just be that the RPG ruleset will give the PCs a bit more survivability so they don't drop like flies, and add levels and experience and so on, or their equivalents.

The main focus of the system is being able to build your tank literally from the ground up, selecting from an exhaustive range of modules in a layout of your choosing. Basically you choose a hull size that gives you a certain number of units of internal volume to allocate to armour, equipment, whatever. Then you just choose what you fill your tank with and how it's laid out. I plan to have exhaustive options.

>>52224613
I think delicate is the wrong word. They are like horses who run through their skin.

But yes, tanks certainly require a fucktonne of care and attention if you want them to purr.

>>52224725
>I'm useful
I'm used to.

>4 good friends driving a clapped out T-55 across irradiated wastelands
>Hunting for a downed helicopter/rival tank crew/fleeing a battle
>Encountering great caravan trains
>Battling mutated coyotes
>Spending the nights under the stars while the loader plays his guitar
>Five minutes of blind panic as they encounter another tank
>Rest of the time spent shooting the shit and trying to keep their rig going
>Mysterious weather events
>Number stations buzzing through the radio

Pretty cool tbqhwyf

>>52222889
I'd definitely play it. Even better if the tank is basically just a chassis, tracks, and a half-functional engine at the start and the players have to slowly scrounge together various parts and guns and things.

File: engines_of_war_pdf.png (130KB, 400x535px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 400x535px

Oh you fucking faggot. You made me want to plan my own tank based campaign, and the only vehicle ruleset I have is fucking pic fucking related.

>>52222941
He might also get to use the loader's side MG if he's lucky.

>>52224099
that's a myth and you know it

>>52224613
>overly complicated machines
>fingers too frozen to do more than bang engine

I wonder why they lost so many.

I really like the general idea, but it seems better to drop the conventional "tank" imagery. Turn them into scrapped together battle vehicles with improvised armor everywhere but the front, which is the only side that can really defend against other large guns. Reduces the fuel and parts demand, allows the group to build the vehicle to their style. Maybe they go battle-bus to carry more supplies, or maybe they run lighter so they can focus more on speed and combat. I'd play the hell out of that.

File: ride eternal.gif (1MB, 500x304px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x304px

>>52228527
I'd play a Mad Max style game with tanks

File: 145684760607.jpg (115KB, 736x803px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 736x803px

>>52222889
>Post-post-apocalyptic
>a mercenary crew driving a tank
>a severely depopulated and Old West-style USA.

.....so basically Tank Girl: USA Edition?

>>52222900
Couldn't he double as the on board mechanic/ Jack of all trades? An engineer type, maybe?

>>52229693
The loader will be busy enough loading in combat.

The player won't be.

There's also significant overlap of roles between the gunner and commander players, since the work load issues that normally makes it a really bad idea to have the commander also be the gunner doesn't apply here.

All in all, your best bet will be futuristic one man tanks. Or sixties one man tanks, since the Strv103 can be fully operated by a single person without any issue beyond the usual gunner/commander thing.

File: Panzerhaubitze Hummel.jpg (66KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 800x600px

Where my SP-Art bros at?

>>52230339
WHAT? YOU NEED TO SPEAK LOUDER SONNY.

File: 1298518595628.jpg (80KB, 541x566px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 541x566px

>>52223852
There's literally dozens if not hundreds of clapped-out T-72s and T-55 variants rolling around Syria right now, a country which is basically an IRL post-apoc simulator.
Are you telling me if that you happened upon a tank in such a place, that finding spare parts and fuel would be totally unfeasible?

>>52223852
Anon, they're going to run out of fuel week before that point

File: BattleTanx-Global-Assault-1024x689.jpg (295KB, 1024x689px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 1024x689px

>>52222889

File: Tankmen.gif (22KB, 470x359px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 470x359px

>>52222889
>what do you mean you've lost the tank?
>I dunno what to tell you captain, I had to take a wicked piss

File: featured_bobsemple.png (154KB, 350x228px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 350x228px

>>52224548

They can be made from a garage and scraps if you're really pressed.

File: AMX-13_(SM-1).jpg (80KB, 600x397px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x397px

>>52222900
>>52222941

I'm honestly surprised nobody mentioned tanks with autoloaders.

>>52224576
>And I could post the New Zealand tank that was literally just a tractor with corrugated iron welded to it and some machine guns.

Except the OP and his players won't be driving a Semple tank and it's 4 machineguns around their post-post-apoc setting. They'll be in an M-1 or T-72 and not some farm tractor with corrugated sheet steel shell, asshole.

Following the "rule of kewl", the OP is also deliberately ignoring any modern tank's fuel consumption requirements. The M-1 needs 500 gallons of JP-8, kerosene, gasoline, or diesel to travel ~250 miles. There's even a fuel trailer designed to increase their range.

Would there be armored vehicles in some Mad Max type world? Sure. Would there be the M-1s, T-72s, and the like working in some operational sense? Fuck no.

>>52228372

Tell it to my Polish bro's one-armed uncle, faggot.

>>52228726
yeah but without the blatant feminist pandering and dated slapstick humor.

>>52233467
Yeah, getting a Mark 1 into post-modern warfare is perfectly good idea.

Oh wait.

>>52233085
The problem is, sandniggers are at least has a fucking propper tankers for fuel.

And their tanks is shit. Of course its infeasible in the world where a guy with old school RPGs can outrun you day and night.

>>52234961
>Except the OP and his players won't be driving a Semple tank and it's 4 machineguns around their post-post-apoc setting.
I am the OP.

>the OP is deliberately ignoring any modern tank's fuel consumption requirements
Actually, I'm not.

That's the whole reason I made this thread. I am looking for a setting in which to put my game that is conducive to a more fun experience than "it's the Cold War and you're dead before you even get in your tank."

Tanks really only occur inside a military, which means that their crew are subject to military hierarchy which means roleplaying opportunities are limited because all you can realistically do is follow your orders and die in ways you couldn't possibly prevent because someone somewhere else in some other unit wasn't doing their job properly.

So I'm looking for a setting in which to put my system that allows for the freedom that PCs need to actually be fun to play, while also preserving the vehicular combat and pimp-my-ride gameplay that I am creating.

>The M-1 needs 500 gallons of JP-8, kerosene, gasoline, or diesel to travel ~250 miles
Thanks for the heads up m80, I too can use Wikipedia.

>Would there be the M-1s, T-72s, and the like working in some operational sense? Fuck no.
Maybe not the more delicate components, sure, but nobody's going to throw away the hull of a fucking tank when all it needs is a different engine. Even if all your post-post-apocalyptic society can manage is a fuckoff huge diesel that requires the turret be taken out and a casemate gun to keep the weight down as well as an expanded engine deck that can only propel the former M1 at 10km/h, that's still better than not having a tank at all.

The PC's tank can just be handwaved as being some magical nuclear reactor that runs on farts and kittens and doesn't need fuel. Or, alternatively, they could use a tank transporter and not road-march the tank everywhere like fucking morons. It's not as if they're going to be Blitzkrieging anyone.

>>52236722
>I too can use Wikipedia.

Then use it, asshole. You're fucking fool if you think your PCs can be tooling around some post-apoc wasteland ala Tank Girl.

>So I'm looking for a setting in which to put my system that allows for the freedom that PCs need to actually be fun to play, while also preserving the vehicular combat and pimp-my-ride gameplay that I am creating.

You're creating nothing but noise and shit.

The more you turn the dial towards "freedom" and "fun to play" the more you turn it away from anything resembling "vehicular combat" and "pimp-my-ride game play".

There is no happy medium here. Tanks are incredible technological fighting machines but that technology is their Achilles' heel. I fought along side them in both Gulf Wars and was damn glad to have them, but I also saw the huge maintenance, supply, and other support services they required.

TL;DR - You're fucking idiot and you should feel bad for being one.

>>52222889
Well, if i wanted to do that, i would do it in the RIFTS setting, desu. Or, in Europe, in an updated Twilight 2000 setting.

>>52222900
multiple tanks with auto-loaders, problem solved. it's not like this type of campaign has never been done before.

>>52237495
>TL;DR - You're fucking idiot and you should feel bad for being one.
OP's mistake is assuming that his setting has to adhere to some semblance of realism. You're mistake is limiting the scope of this idea to your understanding of tank maintenance.

>>52222889
Go futuretech and have tank crew wandering the battlefields of some alien planet where countless battles have been fought and only your group and the cybernetic abominations your army failed to exterminate roam the battlefields now.

Provide plenty of vehicles to scavange and handwave any hard to do stuff with nanomachine paste or whatever.

>>52234961
play more twilight 2000

>>52222889
Replace few details and you have Twilight 2000, only shittier and less fun

>>52236722
New to this thread, but holy shit, son

>That's the whole reason I made this thread. I am looking for a setting in which to put my game that is conducive to a more fun experience than "it's the Cold War and you're dead before you even get in your tank."
Sorry son, but you are looking at the issue wrong and are (actively!) stupid at doing so.

Want bunch of tankers doing mercenary job in setting that allows them having a tank?
Try Second Sino-Japanese War.

Want a setting that doesn't involve maintance at all or is maintaince-friendly?
Try some future sci-fi stuff, where your tank runs on Unobtanium or flux capacitor

But for the love of God, don't try to mix your ideas with "realistic" settings or modern ones, since this shit is not going to work.

Also, if you seriously and honestly think that it's "just an engine replacement" for a tank - you are not just actively stupid, you are completely oblivious what the fuck you are talking about. Not just about tanks, but any motor-run machine.

>that's still better than not having a tank at all.
Or you could use APC or AFV. Which doesn't have all the downsides of a tank and is as much useful in described setting as a tank, cutting the maintaince issues and spare part problems by half.
Have you even considered the option than tank is god-awful choice for a vehicle, by the sheer virtue of being bad at transportation, unless hauled by trains and similar? Tanks aren't exactly build to get tem from point A to B all by themselves, you idiot.

File: 71KR1Vw4XeL._SL1280_[1].jpg (234KB, 907x1280px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 907x1280px

why not fantasy desu

>OP made another tank thread to show his utter ignorance to the subject
Get fucking over it. Your concept as presented is shit. We don't need a chain of threads to explain you why, the previous one should be enough

File: its all so tiresome.jpg (48KB, 492x449px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 492x449px

>>52237495
>I fought along side them in both Gulf Wars
Oh cool, so I've been listening to the opinions of a fucking moron who was too retarded to make it into college and had to get the pity points to make the grade by shooting sandniggers, jerking off in the porta-potties, and talking about vaginas and how you wish they'd get some into combat arms so you wouldn't have to go jailhouse gay for the length of your deployment.

>TANKS ARE COMPLEX AND IMPOSSIBLE
Dude they were making tanks in fucking 1916, and they could have made them a lot earlier if they'd absolutely had to. As soon as the internal combustion engine was invented the only thing tanks needed was a war big enough to prompt interest in the concept.

Tanks aren't complicated. MODERN tanks are complicated, but the tank concept is an engine, armour, tracks, and a gun. The fact that you WALKED NEXT TO THEM A FEW TIMES IN THE DESERT doesn't give your fucking retarded opinion any more credence than any other nerd on the internet and probably less considering said tank nerds would know a fuckload more about them than you do.

On a final note, what you say when stripped of your "HURR I WAS A GRUNT I KNOW BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU" attitude has a semblance of utility. Maybe if you were less of a cunt you'd be able to get your point across.

File: one million years gulag.jpg (29KB, 600x548px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x548px

>>52237856
>Which doesn't have all the downsides of a tank and is as much useful in described setting as a tank, cutting the maintaince issues and spare part problems by half.
"if you take all the armour off a tank and give it wheels it's a better tank!"

>where your tank runs on Unobtanium or flux capacitor
Oh wow you mean the thing that I specifically mentioned in the fucking post you were replying to.

If you ctrl+F for "realistic" the only person using it in the context you're using it is you.

>New to this thread
Try reading it.

>>52233285
>We need to make like a tree and get the fuck out of here
>Dammit Steve, you know I'm a sucker for Back to the Future quotes

>>52237969
Link me to the "previous thread" in the archive because I have never posted this idea before except in /gdg/ where the thread died before anyone replied, hence why I made this thread.

Then kill yourself.

>>52238077
>"if you take all the armour off a tank and give it wheels it's a better tank!"
>I have no idea what AFV is

>>52238058
It's more like GOOD tanks are complicated. There's a reason modern militaries don't run armoured tractors as frontline assault unit despite them costing fraction what real tanks do.

What an earlier poster wrote is true. Either make the setting not postapocalyptic or make the tank run on magic/scifi science. You could have nuclear atompunk tank, for example.

File: index.jpg (5KB, 286x176px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 286x176px

>>52224153
>nuclear-powered tank
Fixt it for ya

>>52238098
Less effective compared to a tank for the actual role that tanks are designed around, that is assaulting enemy positions over open terrain?

If you take armour off a tank you compromise its protection, which makes it more vulnerable to enemy fire. Not desirable when the role of a tank inherently means that it will be taking a lot of that.

>>52238098
>all the armour off
>armoured fighting vehicle

>>52238077
>"if you take all the armour off a tank and give it wheels it's a better tank!"
Ok, let's do a bit of "shilling".
Go search for KTO Rosomak (or WAV Wolverine... yeah, I know) and tell us all about "lack of armour" or being bad. Because it's a type of vehicle that combines being cool with being exactly what you want for your game. Fast, agile, great armour, good transport capabilities, relatively low maintance and relatively low fuel consumption. Also, can travell thousands of kilometers without much fuss, as long as you have fuel for that.
And unless you are facing other tanks or heavy AT ordnance (not man-portable), it's pretty much indestructable.

File: ss+(2017-03-18+at+10.32.41).png (39KB, 447x256px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 447x256px

>>52238117

>>52238121
>>52238126
Not him, but >>52238128

If you think APC and AFV are just glorified trucks with some thin armour, you are so wrong it destroys your argument.

>>52238128
>KTO Rosomak
Those kinds of vehicles are literally only effective for stomping on sandniggers.

Any modern man-portable anti-tank weapon would crack it open.

But you're right, those are probably a better class of vehicle to look at for a PC vehicle.

File: PL-01_6-648x376.jpg (94KB, 648x376px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 648x376px

>>52238126
Pic related is AFV.
Any more questions, or you just want to prove you don't know what AFV is?

File: mm.jpg (184KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1024x768px

>ctrl f
>Metal Max
>0

Literally an rpg series spanning SNES to NDS covers exactly what you describe OP.

You're a bounty hunter in a post apoc world that uses the money to pimp out your tank.

>>52238149
>only effective for stomping on sandniggers.
And who else you are going fight in post-apo setting, you special you, if not barely organised bands of raiders and MAYBE some military remnannt like your group?
>Any modern man-portable anti-tank weapon would crack it open.
Wrong, as serving in Afganistan proved. It took a considerable, deliberate effort to crack one and it took so many hits it was just absurd...
... after two years of learning how to crack them open in the first place.

File: TW_Stealth_Tank_Render.jpg (186KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 800x600px

>>52238157
Did you forgot to attach a pic?

But in all seriousness that's a tank, nigger.

>>52238169
>post-apo
You forgot an extra post in there.

You'll be fighting rival nation-states in a scramble for resources in a world without MAD, much like the colonial conflicts of old.

>serving in Afghanistan
Yeah where the toughest opposition it encountered was the FOUR DECADE OLD RPG-7.

For reference they've made up to RPG-32 now.

>>52238171
That's an AFV, you moron. Designed as AFV. Protyped as AFV. Currently in limited production for trials as AFV.
Looks like tank =/= tank, nigger Only proves how little you understand in the subject

>>52238191
Tanks are a type of AFV.

>>52238188
>He seriously thinks there was no modern ordnance on Afgani side
K, I think there is no point arguing with you. Because apparently you have some sort of head-canon for not just some game, but reality itself.

If you are starting thread looking for advice and ideas, here is a tip:
Don't act like a mongolid every time people actually try to help you or point our other options.

See ya, nigger

File: ss+(2017-03-18+at+10.43.36).png (280KB, 1667x960px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1667x960px

>>52238191
It's a tank.

>>52238204
Funny, because few posts above when I've suggested replacing the tank with AFV, I was attacked for bringing barely armored trucks, unsuitable for fighting.

>>52238205
>afghanis were elite soldiers armed with the latest russian weapons who operated from their thunderbird-esque secret underground base, striking with precision and fearsome might, except somehow always failing to crack what is essentially a car with some steel on the side to keep the bullets out despite using rockets than can supposedly penetrate an Abrams frontally

File: 1489841050068.png (346KB, 1667x960px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1667x960px

>>52238208
>Reading comprehension: 0

>>52238216
AFV is literally "has weapons, an engine, has armour, moves on something that isn't legs."

My grandmother would be an AFV if she was in her electric wheelchair with a revolver and a really thick blanket.

>>52238216
Those are also AFVs. You really should specify what type of AFV you're talking about.

File: ss+(2017-03-18+at+10.48.33).png (7KB, 184x107px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 184x107px

>>52238238

>>52238228
>failing to crack what is essentially a car with some steel on the side to keep the bullets out despite using rockets than can supposedly penetrate an Abrams frontally
>I have no idea about modern armor design, that's why I think a freshly made AFV can't resist more than 30-something years old tank design

Gee, I wonder

>>52238238
Have a wee gander over at the picture, or more specifically the Type line below it.

>>52238246
Oh, so it's ME that needs to specify, not bunch of butthurt idiots who want to bring a fucking main battle tank as their pet vehicle for a post-apo game?

Seriously, no wonder previous anons chew you out too.

>>52238258
If you're the nigger throwing around a word covering as many different types of vehicle as AFV does, then yes, you need to specify what the fuck you're on about, because only you know.

>>52238058
>Oh cool,

Nice projection, cocksucker. I was a reservist in my 30s for the 1st and voluntarily reactivated for the 2nd.

>>Dude they were making tanks in fucking 1916

And they had a mean failure rate of about 10 miles before they broke down. Your players aren't going to driving those for long, faggot.

As EVERYONE with any brains as been telling you in this thread and the last one, THE IDEA DOESN'T WORK. You can't nigger-rig a diesel in place of the turret like it's some Go-Kart and your nuclear reactor suggestion would be funny if you weren't serious. As for using transporters to carry these mythical tanks to where they're needed, only you would be stupid enough to believe that roads or railroads would still be in good enough condition in this post-post-apoc setting.

>>52237856 has given you a few workable ideas, not that some shit-for-brains like you could use them. Want mercs in tanks? There are any number of small wars from 1920 to 1939 that could work; Chaco, Ethiopia, China, etc.

You wanted advice and you got it: YOUR IDEA SUCKS. You can't pretend to have any semblance of realism and still make this "idea" work. And if you weren't such a cunt in love with your own brainstorm, we would have explained that to you by now.

Now GTFO and go back to /a/

File: Even the cup is judging you.jpg (62KB, 640x736px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x736px

>ITT: Bunch of asshats arguing about semantics
Just another day on /tg/

>>52238254
No, you see, the M1A1 glacis has an estimated 510-800mm RHA equivalent against chemical AP, and the RPG-32 has an estimated 600mm RHA penetration capability.

So you are saying that your armoured car (that's what it is, literally an armoured car) has more armour protection than an M1A1 does frontally.

I find it hard to believe.

And the only operational accounts I can find are of it resisting a few RPG-7 hits (which I can believe, because an RPG-7 can be defeated by side skirts or fucking bedframe suspension), but RPG-7s are not modern weapons, they are sandnigger weapons.

Sorry, but the Wolverine would last about 5 seconds in a real war if it was used in a direct fire or even infantry support role. And sure, that's alright. Equipment gets destroyed and people die in war. It's not bad just because it's not invincible.

But I would not call it "well armoured."

>>52238280
>I find it hard to believe.
A proper reply for you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY

>>52238166
Metal Max is awesome.

It's the right kind of rule of cool.

>the dog can get a dogtank

File: msaga.jpg (54KB, 496x1068px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 496x1068px

>>52238298
Metal Saga has artillery doggos too.

File: cool guy.jpg (3KB, 120x117px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 120x117px

>>52238270
>I was a reservist
Somehow that's even worse, because you have even less experience with tanks than I do if that's the case.

>You can't nigger-rig a diesel in place of the turret
Literally why not? Go ahead, invent some bullshit reason like "OH IT'S JUST TOO COMPLEX FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND."

All you have to do is turn a fucking drive sprocket. Sure, getting it to work might require you to rip everything out of the fucking hull, but turning wheels with engines isn't fucking impossible like you seem to believe. Disconnect the engine where it is literally designed to be disconnected so you can swap out the powerplants and reconnect a new engine. So long as the connections are machined to same dimensions it's not going to fucking matter what turns the shaft. The tank doesn't know and it doesn't give a fuck.

You can change an M1's engine in half an hour you stupid fuck. The engine is the easiest part to nigger rig.

>roads
Army transport trucks eat up offroad conditions worse than a good asphalt road with some cracks in it.

>>52238295
>"IT'S SCIENCE"
Nigga I literally just posted the actual figures of penetration for the RPG-32 and the protection for the glacis of the M1A1 and you still think your nigger-tier gun truck is better protected than the fucking front of an Abrams.

File: 901.jpg (271KB, 816x639px) Image search: [Google]

271KB, 816x639px

>>52238334
Different anon, but still
>Make a thread asking for advices
>Get a bunchload of them
>Start angrily attack people giving them
Exactly why you made this thread in the first place, OP?

>>52238343
>If I will ignore facts and pretend it's just armored truck attacked by guys running with Martini-Henry rifles, it will bend reality to follow the way how I've imagined
I won't encourage you to keep trying, since that would be encouraging you to remaining oblivious

>>52238346
>WAAAH I DON'T LIKE YOUR TONE
The feedback I'm getting is useful but I'm not going to take sarcastic jibes from a jumped up infantry grunt who knows even less about the subject matter than I do who thinks the fact that the dust a tank threw up when it drove past landed on his shoes makes him an expert.

>>52238357
>reee muh super polish weapon can't defy the laws of physics and carry unlimited armour yet still have good ground pressure and mobility
Face it nigger. If your polish super armoured car had tech good enough to make it as effective as a tank in the role of a tank, tanks would also have that tech and be even better than it because the bigger something is the more of that tech it can have.

No, I do not believe that an armoured car is better protected than an M1A1 from the front, and you're a fucking moron if you do. What's that? The Wolverine took 3 RPGs in Afghanistan and was generally considered pretty lucky to survive? A Challenger 2 took 50.

Kill yourself.

>>52238377
So you are just an asshole for the sake of it?

Then I guess you deserve every bit of shit they are giving you ITT

File: 1411991791097_Image_galleryImage.jpg (53KB, 634x356px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 634x356px

>>52235949

It seems to be given that's what's happening right now.

File: cool dragon sunnies.jpg (113KB, 684x690px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 684x690px

>>52238391
>So you are just an asshole for the sake of it?
I didn't start it.
>your idea is bad because maintenance and fuel
"Sure but those can easily be handwaved away."
>NO FUCK YOU YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD YOUR IDEA IS SHIT I ONCE HELD A RIFLE I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT

>>52238377
The "armoured car" is Finnish, actually.
And as far as I'm concerned, they are making the backbone of Polish mechanised forces, since they were considered good enough, while much, much cheaper. So instead of investing into buying 20 more tanks, Poles decided to buy 150 more of those if I recall the price ratio.
Quite a good choice with limited budget if you ask me, forming an entire division instead of two batallions.

>>52238412
It doesn't matter who started it.

Sometimes I wish /tg/ was like GURPS threads, where even "fierce" arguments are civic and well-thought.

>>52238377
>nigger
Out of curiosity, are you actually racist or just so hopped up on the post trump mentality that you're posting like this? I've seen this word crop up more and more here and outside of /b/, /v/, and /pol/ where I expect this kind of slur to be common place /tg/ is usually pretty sparse with it.

>>52238420
Yeah, that is a good idea. I completely agree. Tanks will never truly be obsolete (at least not the concept of them) but they are becoming increasingly more vulnerable. There's not much anyone can do against an ATGM from a fixed-wing aircraft.

In Poland's position the only conventional war it's going to fight is going to be with neighbours that are vastly superior to it, so it's either
a) not going to have air superiority and its AFVs will get blown the fuck out regardless
b) have a powerful ally on its side and therefore not need to do anything other than act as an attachment to a much larger force

In that situation it makes sense to go for a larger and only marginally more vulnerable force so that it can participate more fully in curbstomping uppity brown people who are taking too long to get with the neoliberal globalist program.

So yes, the armoured car is a good decision. I still don't think it's as well-protected as a tank, and I don't think its protection qualifies as "good". Maybe good relative to other armoured cars, sure, but not "good" on a scale of everything you could reasonably be protected by while in an AFV.

>>52238441
It depends on what you perceive as racist but if you're the standard left-of-centre generally apolitical person that inhabits the majority of the developed word it doesn't matter what my opinions are because just using the word makes me racist by default, nigger.

>>52238441
Nigger is pretty standard fare on every board, barring /co/ since they have a tyrannical lefty jannie.

>>52238377
>What's that? The Wolverine took 3 RPGs in Afghanistan and was generally considered pretty lucky to survive?
Try 25 and needing just a new paint job. Which, as anyone interested will tell you, is a fucking lot for something that is not even a tank.
And for a "car" it had an uncanny survivality rate in Afganistan, with grand total of ONE being destroyed over all those years. I'm waiting for some "b-but they were using outdated ordnance!" bullshit. Come on, the popcorn is ready

Newsflash - armouring advanced "a bit" for past few decades, so you can have "super armoured car" that is literally super armoured and effortlessly fight against everything that is not an actual tank or a gun battery.

>>52238440
>It doesn't matter who started it.
Then why do you feel the need to assign blame?

>Abrams M1 got blown the fuck out by slimes using a 9M133 Kornet bought at the fraction of a price as to the tank

Asymmetrical warfare shits on tanks.

File: ss+(2017-03-18+at+11.29.02).png (8KB, 1690x66px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 1690x66px

>>52238532
>25
The only account I can find says 3, unless you've got some Polish language source.

>I'm waiting for some "b-but they were using outdated ordnance!" bullshit.
To start with, they literally were.

Secondly, the Poles are cowards who did nothing but hide on their base, which probably explains why their tanks and cars took as little of a hit as their soldiers.

Take your pick. You can choose whichever one floats your boat.

>>52238471
The only such "neighbour" (and quotation mark is really needed here) is Russia. Which, not counting Kaliningrad, is cut by other countries.
And just to remind, Poland is a member of NATO, almost entirely due to being this close to Ruskies.

And it's not an armored car. Have you looked up what armored car is? I'm not even talking about definition, but pictures of them.
So if you are seriously looking for offensive (even if non-intentionally) ways to describe those, just call them APCs. It's also closer to their role and design, since they can carry 8 soldiers inside that aren't the crew. Armoured cars by default can't do that.

>>52238541
>Seriously trying this hard
Rest my case, you are intentionally trying to antagonise entire thread against yourself, like with this one >>52238578 and then saying it's their fault.

>>52238578
>the Poles are cowards who did nothing but hide on their base
You know what, it's called eristics. The shit you are doing here. When can't face enemy - INSULT THEM.
Not gonna take the bait, but you've just proved to me you not only know jack shit about modern combat vehicles, but you also don't care about having or not that knowledge and in face of any opposition, you are just going to try to insult people.

Polish cowards hiding in their bases... my fucking sides.
No wonder you are also talking about outdated ordnance used by Afgani, since you are literally having an imaginary version of war and post-war Afganistan, rather than what really went there.

No, seriously, it takes to be really dull to try pull this one. Poles hiding in their bases... And you were complaining about sources, while using wikipedia yourself... Jesus.

>>52238511
The standard on 4chan is racist. That's the deal.

>>52238587
They're an IFV, not an APC, but it's also an armoured car. IFV and APC describe roles. Armoured car describes actual design.

You could have an armoured car that is employed as a artillery spotting vehicle, a command vehicle, an ambulance, an NBC vehicle, so on and so forth. The "armoured car" is what it is. The "IFV" is what it does. It's supposed to provide direct fire support to infantry and carry them around - this is the role of an IFV. An APC is essentially a battle taxi - it moves troops to the fight in more safety than a covered truck, but doesn't fight with them (or at least isn't supposed to).

The Bradley is an IFV despite having tracks and a turret like a tank. The M113 is an APC (or at least they originally were APCs, modern ones morphed into bad IFVs through their modernisation) despite having tracks and, some of them, really really shitty turrets.

Tank is where role and design come together. A tank is both designed a certain way (tracks, turret, armoured) and does a certain thing (assaults the enemy across open ground).

>you not only know jack shit about modern combat vehicles
"THE ROSOMACK TOOK 25 RPGs AND ONLY NEEDED NEW PAINT. I HAVE NO SOURCE EXCEPT MY ASSHOLE BUT IT TOTALLY HAPPENED. ALSO WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT STOPPED WITH THE RPG-7 AND THE AFGHANIS HAD WEAPONS STRAIGHT OFF THE ASSEMBLY LINES IN THE ST PETERSBURG ARSENAL"

You want to believe something and will deny all evidence that disproves it. It's just not possible for an armoured car to be better protected than a tank because if it works on an armoured car it will ALSO work on a tank, AND WORK BETTER because you can have that much more of it thanks to the bigger size and advantage of tracks.

If an RPG-32 can frontally penetrate an Abrams it can crack your armoured car right open.

>you were complaining about sources, while using wikipedia yourself
http://wyborcza.pl/1,86669,4295479.html

>>52238578
>If you don't have casualities, it means you hide in your bases and do nothing
Or maybe, just maybe, you have effective protection against all those attacks and aren't brash American, while your entire contingent at it's peak was barely 2k people.

File: i love how shitty this place is.png (175KB, 236x349px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 236x349px

>>52238673
Or maybe it means you did nothing.

Don't pretend anyone except the US was doing any heavy lifting in Afghanistan or Iraq. Everyone else was there for participation awards.

File: 2233791_1323549177749.21res_468_462.jpg (155KB, 468x462px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 468x462px

>>52238657
... are you at least aware that 2/3 of your reply should be adressed to different anon?

File: 317.png (90KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x501px

>>52238690
The only reply you are going to get

File: pepe rain.gif (421KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 700x525px

>>52238693
I have been made aware of it.

>>52238657
for >>52238627

File: xrodPqH.jpg (29KB, 514x388px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 514x388px

>>52238708
>mfw he actually believes Poland was the heavy-lifting rough and tumble badass of the Middle East whose invincible armoured cars shrugged off RPG-32s, cruise missiles, and phasers, and the only reason the US lost so many men is because they charged their obsolete tanks in blindly

Slavoj Zizek talks about Pure Ideology.

This... this is Pure Patriotism. When the facts and the world itself lose all relevance and you view existence through a lens of maximising national prestige regardless of how dumb it makes you look.

>>52238732
You are implying so hard, it hit the bottom, crushed through it and started falling further.
But sure, keep going. Apparently pointing out you are baiting not only changed my nationality (I'm Dutch), but also made me Polish patriot.

Also, explain me something - how to call a guy who pretends (for bait or not) that the only one doing anything at all in Afganistan was US Army and Marine Corp?

File: fear and loathing.jpg (32KB, 199x280px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 199x280px

>>52238747
>mfw i've been talking to a fucking windmill nigger swamp german
Go back to your chocolates and leave war to the grown ups.

>""""pretends""""
>the only one doing anything at all in Afganistan was US Army and Marine Corp?
Call him a historian.

>>52238768
>>the only one doing anything at all in Afganistan was US Army and Marine Corp
Pretty sure the Afghanis were doing a bunch too.

>>52238768
Chocolates are Belgian... I mean it even exists in English as a term by itself - "Belgian chocolates"

And I will just call you stupid asshole arguing for the sake of it. Suits you much better.

>>52238788
>stupid asshole arguing for the sake of it
There is a word for that, too:
American

>>52238783
Yeah but you might as well call history "whitestory."

>>52238471
>It depends on what you perceive as racist but if you're the standard left-of-centre generally apolitical person that inhabits the majority of the developed word it doesn't matter what my opinions are because just using the word makes me racist by default, nigger.
Nah, >>52238640 is right and if I couldn't stand to see the word nigger on an vietnamese shadow puppet board I wouldn't be happy in real life either. I'm just curious because you're the first person in some time on /tg/ that I've seen throwing the word around as a casual insult. Sandnigger I'm more used to seeing, not the lack of adjective though. And you can drop the "muh leftist" windmill, I'm not making any value judgements here since I admittedly have racist tendencies as well.

>>52238840
In that case I'd say that I definitely believe that niggers and sandniggers and other variations of niggers are genetically less intelligent than dear old whitey, but at the same time I don't believe that lacking 10 or 20 IQ points means you no longer get human rights. Niggers are like dogs. You don't really expect them to turn into professors or really do anything valuable (though it's nice when the stars align and they do, and we should treasure those dogs... uh, I mean niggers) but at the same time you don't just get to beat them for fun. We have both a moral duty of care to our fellow Americans and we the state has a far more formal duty of care to our citizens.

However, I don't think that replacement-tier immigration policy is desirable. White countries should stay white. Nonwhites should be able to live peacefully in these countries, but our immigration should be keyed to ensure minorities never reach the critical mass necessary to start taking over. I'm not even against importing skilled migrants to plug economic gaps where necessary. In fact it's a good thing because it simultaneously strengthens us and weakens whichever country is the source of the migrants.

>>52224499
>le "i am the only person who ever served in the military on 4chan :)"
>le

>>52238913
The "ironic le" is similar to the "royal we."

File: 1489392162926.png (586KB, 680x645px) Image search: [Google]

586KB, 680x645px

Man, this thread is such a shitfest, it's hilarious. I can't even tell anymore if OP was simply baiting from the start or if he's just that assblasted by everyone else.

>>52238058
>2017
>neckbeards falling for this kind of trolling

>>52222889
I have somewhere written down on a notepad something similar.
Apoclypse scenario where these groups of mercenary types fight for the controlling powers of a valley called Eden.

Larger more powerful factions had more and better equiped war machines.
I think there was one of those big trench diggers with the giant saw.

Anyway not everyone was in said warmachines as some units needed to spot, sapper and prevent counter snappers from destroying the rig

The person with the warmachines focus was punishing flanked or exposed units and killing other machines, lots of fun.

>>52228726
That's not how you spell Judge Dredd: Cursed Earth

>>52238890
Two potential gaps in the apologist ethnic nationalist narrative. The first isn't as important but builds into the second. Stick with me, I'm not baiting, I'm interested in what's going on.

Structural constraints that benefit whiteness strongly influence testing scores, educational practices, socioeconomic status, law enforcement procedure, etc. From an ethnic nationalist perspective this is fine, even desirable, but you can't really frame it as maintaining human rights and white man's burden. Its more a way to continue justification for having slave casts. Again, not really a thing you're against, but have to couch in humanist language for a variety of reasons be they personal ethics, public presentation of ethics, etc.

These ethics and presentation of civilization seem key to your position, which leads to the second part.

The larger gap is in the conflict between your position's interest in maintaining a semblance of civility in regards to maintaining globalized exploitation along ethnonational lines with an acknowledgement of the need to integrate small numbers vs the needs to mobilize more openly violent racists. How do you reconcile the political block formations of groups who are all for some minor immigration as long as it remains minor and beneficial to strengthening economic stability internally (and instability externally), with groups who's primary interest is a more strongly ideological and violent need for whiteness in a literal sense and a more strict isolationism?

tl;dr it seems like the need to form political bases has internal instabilities between your paternalistic view and other part's more violent ideological views. How deal?

>>52239119
>tl;dr it seems like the need to form political bases has internal instabilities between your paternalistic view and other part's more violent ideological views. How deal?
By not dealing with it.

I don't run a political party and building coalitions to contest the next election isn't my job.

I suppose that strategy would revolve around using the extremist groups to push the Overton window ever further right while relying on increasing instability (or making instability if you want to go full Machiavellian "burning down the Reichstag" levels of roleplaying) to cause the general public to actually shuffle along that Overton window. Then present a more moderate version of the extremism that appeals directly to this "prepped" voting block and you don't even need the extremists in your party.

I'm not a political strategist but that would be my plan.

>you can't really frame it as maintaining human rights and white man's burden.
I don't have to. White countries already invade brown ones and murder literal millions to export "freedom" and "democracy."

Everybody's on board with the "Western" man's burden of keeping the brown people down. The only threat to this is the internal erosion of whiteness, not a lack of political will. The countries on top will always fight to stay on top and they will always conjure up bullshit reasons to do so to disguise the raw struggle for power. The US is currently securing South-East Asia against China, Despite the US being the main source of insecurity in South East Asia for the past 70 years everybody believes that we are saving them from China, instead of China saving them from US.

File: 1482182690870.jpg (112KB, 498x490px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 498x490px

>>52239119
>it seems like the need to form political bases has internal instabilities
Truly, a revelation for the ages

>>52239213
Cool, so you've got a fading of lipservice to human rights/whiteman's burden and acknowledging the monopoly of violence? Suits your position, doesn't endanger your desires or security, if shit gets more violently oriented you just dial the pretence back. It hangs together, there were just some interesting parts in your previous post I was curious about. Thanks.

>>52239222
questions amirite? how do they work?

>thought this would be a cool thread about post-apocalyptic tanks
>instead it's a thread with the OP being retarded and autists giving a shit about realism on /tg/.

I'm sad.

File: Over the line 2.jpg (41KB, 166x231px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 166x231px

>>52239796
>throwing realism overboard while playing pretend

>>52239816
I mean yeah, within reasons, but plenty of games don't bother equipment upkeep, or the very least make the rules optional. And there are hundreds of fucking ways to explain how tanks and fuel could exist in a post-apocalyptic setting that's good enough to suspend your disbelief, saying it's impossible is stupid as fuck.

That said OP is just as stupid for acting like an ass and not just going "I'm not too worried about realism" or the like.

You know, I've been thinking.

Maybe it's time we butt heads against the loader problem properly.

None of this "Well technically there's all sorts of other stuff the loader could be doing besides loading the gun, you know, the thing he will do 100% of the time in tank on tank combat".

None of this "The tanks have autoloaders, or the loader is an NPC."

How do we make a mechanic for loading a gun interesting enough to be diverse and enduring for an entire combat? It must be possible.

File: 1473749726139.jpg (15KB, 201x247px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 201x247px

>>52239924
>How do we make a mechanic for loading a gun interesting enough to be diverse and enduring for an entire combat?

>>52239796
>>instead it's a thread with the OP being retarded and autists giving a shit about realism on /tg/.

I stepped away for a few hours and the retard OP is STILL defending his idiocy.

Sad indeed.

>>52239924
No, no, you're not going deep enough.

How do we design an entire system where the PCs play ONLY as loaders?

>>52240021
I'm more amazed this thread didn't hit page 11 or archive after OP made sure to piss off everyone enough to simply leave the thread and stop replying to him

>>52240076
Deeper.

A system where they do nothing.

File: BptVE1JIEAAA3dT.jpg (21KB, 600x405px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x405px

>>52240087
How do you know you're not replying to him right now?

File: 1456241663103.jpg (231KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 700x525px

>>52240087

>>52240087
I mean we could still have a decent thread about post-apoc tanks without OP

File: tankduel.pdf (155KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 1x1px

>>52239924
Loader has to run across the room, grab the right coloured card indicating the right type of shell, sit back down, slap the card on the table, lift their hand fully off the card, and call ready.

File: 1474949969240.jpg (55KB, 600x623px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 600x623px

>>52240014
To prove we still have what it takes.

It's clearly an enduring problem. This isn't exactly the first time we've had people try to, or think someone is trying to, make a game where the PCs are the crew of a tank, only to realise that a very traditional role (to the point that some models of tank had multiple of them), the loader, is not going to be very fun. If we succeed here, then we can immediately clear this hurdle again in future.

For what it's worth, I can think of a good number of vidya that made reloading fun. Gears of War, that Lost Planet 2 level where you're ziplining around reloading a massive artillery cannon manually, etc.

I think an example of something that would help is multi-stage loading. In the real world it's only a feature of large artillery batteries, but having the loader choose between combinations of rounds, payloads, and propellant charges with different properties would offer some choice. It also means that you can split their loading actions down into smaller parts, and maybe have some tests to save on time, which are modified by shell components that may do worse damage but be easier to install quickly in a moving tank or whatever. It also means you might have some spare actions on some turns to do non-loading stuff without letting the gunner down.

I'm not sure that's enough though, but I feel like it's a good start.

>>52240076
Wait, WAIT.

The PCs are workers at a munitions factory. They can inscribe names onto the bullets as they pass through the line. Playing GOD.

File: RBL_20_pounder_Armstrong_field_gun.jpg (166KB, 1000x507px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1000x507px

>>52240217
In a post-apocalyptic setting it could very easily be made sense of in the way you describe by being a breechloading canon of a sort-of Civil War vintage where the shot is loaded, then a bag of propellant, and so on.

Imagine this but in a casemate tank mount, for example. They've lost the tech to make high-tech shells but still have some dirty tanks still running so they rip the old guns out and put low-tech canons in.

File: 1454354524038.jpg (36KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 500x364px

>>52240217
Man, that pic always cracks me up. If my surname was Money I'd do that as well though

>>52239816
that is what the fiction in almost all game settings is about, you moron. lord of the rings and star wars didn't become the cultural phenomena they are by being "realistic" in any sense of the word.

>>52240273
lindybeige made a vidya about tanks of the future some time ago, it involved liquid propellants

File: Anon does his best.jpg (23KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 640x480px

>>52240330

>>52240268
No, the PCs are slave labour in a copper mine that feeds the foundry that makes brass for the shell casings.

Maybe they used to be part of a tank crew before they were captured.

>>52240217
If we wanted to go a bit more game-y, we could have different types of shells for different things, giving the loader the job of making the decision of what kind of shell to use at the time.

This course wouldn't solve the problem with more realistic games, though.

>>52222889
I did something similar to this for my post-apoc quest, but, we found a old abrams and a bradley.

It's funny, one of the GURPS Ogre campaign suggestions is a wandering scholar-Ogre in the post-apocalyptic wastes, trading knowledge for repairs and resupply (and also being, you know, a fucking Ogre).

Could always go with some sort of super-tank. Early-model Bolos, maybe.

>>52238191
You seem to have some difficulty understanding that a tank is a subset of the AFV class of vehicles...

File: 9096726.jpg (26KB, 400x462px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x462px

>>52240354
>lindybeige