Post-post-apocalyptic roleplaying game where you play as a mercenary crew driving a tank across a severely depopulated...

Post-post-apocalyptic roleplaying game where you play as a mercenary crew driving a tank across a severely depopulated and Old West-style USA.

Would you play it?

I only ask because I'm designing a tank-based combat/RPG-tabletop hybrid system and struggling to find a setting for it. The tabletop part is easy it can just be muh Cold War but I don't think anyone wants to roleplay as an actual soldier. It's pretty boring. It's pretty much just "be yourself but incredibly bored and with a near unlimited amount of firepower and time."

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

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

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

w e a k

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Ignorance is bliss.

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.

>keep in mind that most modern tanks have autoloaders

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

Ignorance is bliss.

Add demons. Demons with HEAT rounds as a weakness.

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

>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.

>le "i am the only person who ever served in the military on Veeky Forums :)"

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.

Git gud or die trying.

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.

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.

I'd try it out for sure user. 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.

>Tanks aren't that complex a piece of machinery

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.

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

>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.

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.

>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

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.

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.

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

that's a myth and you know it

>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.

I'd play a Mad Max style game with tanks

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

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

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

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.

Where my SP-Art bros at?

WHAT? YOU NEED TO SPEAK LOUDER SONNY.

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?

user, they're going to run out of fuel week before that point

...

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

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

I'm honestly surprised nobody mentioned tanks with autoloaders.

>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.

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

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

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

Oh wait.

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.

>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.

>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.

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.

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

>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.

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.

play more twilight 2000

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

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.

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

>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.

>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.

>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

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.

>"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

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.

>nuclear-powered tank
Fixt it for ya

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.

>all the armour off
>armoured fighting vehicle

>"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.

...

Not him, but If you think APC and AFV are just glorified trucks with some thin armour, you are so wrong it destroys your argument.

>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.

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

>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.

>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.

Did you forgot to attach a pic?

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

>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.

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

Tanks are a type of AFV.

>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

It's a tank.

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.

>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

>Reading comprehension: 0

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.

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

...

>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

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

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.

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.

>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.

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/

>ITT: Bunch of asshats arguing about semantics
Just another day on Veeky Forums

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."

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

Metal Max is awesome.

It's the right kind of rule of cool.

>the dog can get a dogtank

Metal Saga has artillery doggos too.

>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.

>"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.

Different user, 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?

>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

>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.

>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.

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

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