Civilian Vehicles

[Dave Chase]

Unless Mongoose (or any company) really, truly wants to devote a large amount of time and money to promote collectible miniatures and the games that they are part of,

I say no to collectible miniatures.

I was just referring to the Clix style of miniatures as an example of how some could be done.

Dave Chase

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

So, if one was building a trireme... how would you handle the bow ram?

It could be done as added armour applied entirely to the front face, or as a home-brewed equipment add-on (the same applies to dozer-blades).

As written, a 'lightweight' constructed vehicle (which I would say a trireme certainly is) can't have armour—however frontal only armour of, let's say, 0.25% of volume seems the best fit.

Ideas/opinions.

 

[Poi]

TBH having seen Mongoose's designs for other games, I may run with GZG hover and antigrav vehicles for any Traveller wargame.

Sorry guys, but IMHO Mongoose haven't demonstrated the skills as yet.

If they come through with something sexy, I'm prepared to be swayed, but they aren't there yet.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Has anyone built any vehicles yet with the construction rules?

 

[atpollard]

Has anyone built any vehicles yet with the construction rules?

I have.

 

[atpollard]

So, if one was building a trireme... how would you handle the bow ram?

It could be done as added armour applied entirely to the front face, or as a home-brewed equipment add-on (the same applies to dozer-blades).

As written, a 'lightweight' constructed vehicle (which I would say a trireme certainly is) can't have armour—however frontal only armour of, let's say, 0.25% of volume seems the best fit.

Ideas/opinions.

I don't think that a trireme is lightweight construction for its TL.
A hide boat would be 'lightweight construction' and I don't remember them being fitted with rams.

Use standard wood construction and add armor in the front.
[EDIT: After thinking about it, another option would be Standard wood construction with no extra armor and leave one point of base armor on each side and move the rest to the front giving wood armor 2 (7/1/1/1/1/1)].

'Old Ironsides' would be rugged wood constriction with extra wood armor all over.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

I don't know... I still think a trireme would be 'light' construction.

An ancient merchant-man would certainly be 'standard', but a trireme is really just a ram with a lot of seats behind it. Triremes even had to have "anti-hogging" ropes tensioned along their length to stop them snapping—that says "light" construction to me.

That said, I still think a small amount of iron armour, with all of it moved to the 'Front' facing, leaving nothing but the base armour everywhere else, is the best way of depicting it. It's annoying that the rules don't allow for this eventuality—but it's easy to "fix" with a simple "house-rule".

 

[aspqrz]

I don't know... I still think a trireme would be 'light' construction.

As I understand it the "lightness" or otherwise of the construction is somewhat misleading to the point ... perhaps more important is the strength of the construction ... and since triremes (and merchantmen) in graeco-roman times were made by building the hulls first from morticed flush-fit planks to which a light and incomplete frame was added after the hull was complete rather than by the later clinker built method over an existing frame, this is perhaps more relevant.

As I understand it, the morticed flush-fit construction method was very strong, but slow (relative to clinker built) and expensive, and more difficult to repair.

Check out ...

http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/trihrhs_en.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympias_(trireme)
http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/trireme/

... if, of course, you haven't already done so!

Phil

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Many years ago.

That still doesn't seem to alter the constructional weight issue though.

Without the hypozomata (the anti-hogging hawser) a trireme (or other early aphract galley) would simply break its own back (the length/depth ratio is so great). Other ancient "shell-construction" non-galley vessels usually didn't have a hypozomata, so it strikes me that such early galleys were generally lighter in structure.

I wouldn't make cataphract galleys "lightweight", as that feature seems to have largely made the hypozomata unnecessary.

Of course, triremes could be still "lightweight" construction but with a "supported" quality to enable them to have a ram (frontal armour) fitted... or they could have the ram added as an equipment upgrade (the other alternative method of depicting a ram).

However, I really, really don't think a caravel should have the "lightweight" construction quality. That one should be "standard" (possibly even "rugged"... but maybe not).

 

[aspqrz]

Many years ago.

That still doesn't seem to alter the constructional weight issue though.

Didn't suggest it did.

I do understand that the attachment of the Ram to the Olympias caused considerable heartburn and that they weren't entirely satisfied with the results ... and, yes, you're quite right to point out the difference between the early open trieres and the decked trieres (and xxx-eres) of post-classical Greece (assuming for the sake of argument that "Classical Greece" is largely the Peloponnesian War era).

And, of course, as you probably also know, clinker built construction doesn't always ensure a strong frame is used ... as was the case with Viking longships.

Phil

 

[Charakan]

A little away from the topic of building ancient ships using the construction rules, what's the consensus on civilian vehicles from those who have a copy?

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

The reason why I've been focusing on the vehicular extremities like triremes, is that I'm actually trying to find loop-holes and faults in the construction system (test it 'til it breaks).

Apart from the inability for "lightweight" constructed hulls (and I do think aphract galleys should be "lightweight"...) to be fitted with armour to model a ram (which can be fixed by adding a "supported" Hull Quality), I have not found any real glaring klangers.

I have also modelled a TL12 1,000 m3 gasbag/grav airship (the Baischormth from an old FGU 'Space Opera' adventure), which worked fine. I had to use the "hanger" Equipment entry from the 'Military Vehicles' preview, but that was just porting the entry over.

Perhaps the only other thing that I've found that isn't done well in the construction rules is the necessity to use the Crew Component "utility area" for almost every sort of additional room type (from lounges, to games rooms, ballrooms, ornamental swimming pools, and most importantly bathrooms and heads). The lack of a fresher entry is perhaps the most perplexing, as even airliners have toilets, and I don't feel that "life support" really cuts muster for modelling a toilet/fresher, it strikes me as being a separate thing.

That said, the rules are simple, flexible and pretty solid. Most things can be sorted by adding in custom Qualities and Equipment Upgrades... simple stuff with a bit of lateral thinking.

I haven't thought of anything that might break the system too severely—but I haven't started on the hand-crank operated Da Vinci wooden land-tank yet.

 

[Charakan]

The reason why I've been focusing on the vehicular extremities like triremes, is that I'm actually trying to find loop-holes and faults in the construction system (test it 'til it breaks).

Apart from the inability for "lightweight" constructed hulls (and I do think aphract galleys should be "lightweight"...) to be fitted with armour to model a ram (which can be fixed by adding a "supported" Hull Quality), I have not found any real glaring klangers.

I have also modelled a TL12 1,000 m3 gasbag/grav airship (the Baischormth from an old FGU 'Space Opera' adventure), which worked fine. I had to use the "hanger" Equipment entry from the 'Military Vehicles' preview, but that was just porting the entry over.

Perhaps the only other thing that I've found that isn't done well in the construction rules is the necessity to use the Crew Component "utility area" for almost every sort of additional room type (from lounges, to games rooms, ballrooms, ornamental swimming pools, and most importantly bathrooms and heads). The lack of a fresher entry is perhaps the most perplexing, as even airliners have toilets, and I don't feel that "life support" really cuts muster for modelling a toilet/fresher, it strikes me as being a separate thing.

That said, the rules are simple, flexible and pretty solid. Most things can be sorted by adding in custom Qualities and Equipment Upgrades... simple stuff with a bit of lateral thinking.

I haven't thought of anything that might break the system too severely—but I haven't started on the hand-crank operated Da Vinci wooden land-tank yet.

This sounds like the attitude needed in a play tester, thanks for the insight, I've mail ordered from my FLGS on the strength of this post.

Appreciated.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Well, I hope you like it.

I have problems with maths (still can't do long division), and find the stripped-down structure of the system quite easy to follow. It isn't for "gear-heads" (as say 'Fire, Fusion & Steel' was), but it does produce playable, workably believable results.

The system is basic, but the apparent simplicity of the mechanics allow for all sorts of applications and iterations. Sometimes you have to think a little about a configuration, but not much.

It could certainly do with more options, qualities and widgets (there's room for 3rd party supplements there), but most things are covered—at least in simple outline form.

Also, it's a design guide for vehicles at the end of the day. Vehicles are tools, they move a game situation along (nice pun!!!), they aren't the core of the whole 'Traveller' experience, so I'd say the book fulfils its purpose.

 

[Dave Chase]

Ok, if you want to test the Civilian Vehicles to the limit, try building farm equipment like;

Tractors
Combines
Swathers
Balers

Then try making some earth movers/construction equipment like;

Dozers
Excuvators (spelling I know but lazy tonight)
Cranes
Forklifts

Then try making some rescue equipment like a firetruck.

Did that with T5 playtest, it showed that it was possible but the PSI ground pressure (farm and earth movers) and some power ratios where not super accurate.

They later determined that it was close enough. But it did make for some interesting discussions.

Dave Chase

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Ok, if you want to test the Civilian Vehicles to the limit, try building farm equipment like;

Tractors
Combines
Swathers
Balers

Those would be possible but not really differentiable as they would be mainly modelled by their custom component Equipment.

Then try making some earth movers/construction equipment like;

Dozers
Excuvators (spelling I know but lazy tonight)
Cranes
Forklifts

Then try making some rescue equipment like a firetruck.

Did that with T5 playtest, it showed that it was possible but the PSI ground pressure (farm and earth movers) and some power ratios where not super accurate.

They later determined that it was close enough. But it did make for some interesting discussions.

Dozers can be done via moving armour around 'til it's all at the front. Cranes and ladders are another blind spot (personally I would nick the necessary items from BRTC's 'VDS' which has a much larger list of equipment add-ons—but that shows up the lack of equipment that Mongoose has provided at present...). S&P might cover such things, or a 3rd party publisher, of course.

'Civilian Vehicles' does use ground pressure, but doesn't mention the point at which a vehicle starts sinking (I'd say a ratio of 8 for ground vehicles, and a ratio of less than 1 if m3 is divided by mass in tons for water—none of the examples are that heavy enough to do so though).

An additional custom Equipment component of "load- spreader" could sort that out of course.

As I mentioned, it isn't a "gear-head" system, but it does the job. There is certainly the need for more widgets and upgrades to cover some situations (freshers/toilets in particular), but most things can be modelled.

I hope this helps.

 

[lastbesthope]

Picked mine up today, have yet to get the cellophane off it :lol:

LBH

 

[Libris]

Looking at the tables for fusion power plants, the fuel consumption seems pretty rubbish compared to other nuclear plants. Indeed for the cost it seems nuts to install them instead of a hydrogen fuel cell.

 

[aspqrz]

Picked up a copy yesterday and, while I haven't had a chance to do more than a preliminary scan of the creation rules, I have noted that there seem to be some problems.

The creation system seems to work well enough, afaict, but it is completely hobbled by an almost slavish following of canon imitations ... now, nothing against the author or Mongoose, I'm sure (based on previous comments) they were constrained by contractual requirements and, of course, a desire to not be strung up (perhaps only metaphorically, perhaps not :shock: ) by the odd few rabid canonmongers out there in the wild ... but it makes the whole thing, really, less than useful.

What do I mean, specifically?

Well, conceptually I have see some serious problems.

For example, Materials. There is no developmental sequence for any of them.

You have Wood at TL1. Mass per cu.m. 85 kg. Cost per cu.m. 100 Cr. And no development on that.

At the very least there should be mass and cost changes over the next several TLs ... I could explain in detail why, but it would take a lot of space and be pretty historically heavy (read: boring for a lot of people.

But there is a short, simple, explanation -- there are always developmental sequences. So, forex, you start off with wheels made from sawn off and roughly rounded sections from tree trunks with holes drilled in them and then progress to early 4 spoke chariot wheels and then to the later 8 spoke and multi-spoke designs. All of wood. For the structure you start off with chunks of solid wood and then progress to laminates, plywood, and etc.

For the construction cost, well, it is simply meaningless (and effectively impossible) to truly compare prices over extended periods of time (again, there's a long, involved, probably boring explanation, which I'll forebear to give) but with wood, well when you're producing it at TL1 it costs a hell of a lot more in labour to cut down, cure, shape etc. using hand tools of copper or bronze (or possibly still stone, which seems to be what the Egyptians did in early times that we would regard as "TL1" ... given that the TL system is so flawed as to be mostly unusable if one looks at it all too closely) and in a society where there is no concept of mass production and specialisation on the scale that we use today.

In terms of man hours, the cost will be far, far higher at TL1 than it will be (say) in a more technologically advanced society ... the big drop in cost to produce will probably hit in TL4/5 (roughly the late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Industrial Revolution) and then again in TL5/6 (late 19th and early 20th centuries -- Industrial/Atomic Age) and then in TL7/8 (late 20th century/early 21st -- computer age) and it is likely that such "disconnects" or massive shifts in production cost will occur at higher TLs beyond those we can be assumed to be at as well.

The same sort of problem applies to all of the materials and other technologies represented, and makes the whole idea of the cost of the items (as well as performance, mass and other factors) ... skewed (and, probably, sc****d as well :wink: ).

Take a for example.

Model T Ford (TL4). Original production cost $850 before Henry introduced the Production line. Dropping to $550 within 5 years and then to $290 in the 1920's.

Now, these prices are meaningless in and of themselves, unless you compare them to what people actually earned (remember, Henry - no friend of the working man - actually raised the wages of his increasingly less skilled workers [the consequence of the introduction of the Production Line] so that they could actually afford to buy the cars they were making ... a bastard he was, but a smart bastard ... economies of scale and all that).

In 1910 average US wages were around $1000 per year.

Average wages today (US) are $41000 or so (2005 figures).

If prices were directly comparable across a mere 90 years, then that would mean that a Model T Ford equivalent would cost at least 40 times more today -- or 41 x 850 = $34850.

Since a compact car can be purchased for around $12000-13000 (afaict from online searching) that would obviously be wrong.

It's actually not that simple. That's using raw average wages. If we use CPI figures, the difference between 1910 and 2005 prices is approximately 26x, so prices should be 26 x 850 = $22100, which is closer, but still way off.

If we use average unskilled wages, however, the difference is around x100, so the price should be $85000 (if you consider that as hourly wages, its even worse, as the working hours in 1910 were far longer than they are today!)

Of course, a cheap compact car of 2009 is far better than a Model T Ford in all respects, so the comparison is even more meaningless.

A better comparison would be between a Model T and a Tata Nano, which evidently sells for around US$2500 for the base model.

Using the x41 wage difference, that would mean, in relative terms, its $60 in 1910 dollars. Using CPI it's $96 1910 dollars, and using unskilled wages, its $25 1910 dollars.

So, as you can see, as the old saying goes, there's lies, damn lies, and statistics ... but cross TL pricing is meaningless.

The best solution I can suggest for the moment is to use the assumption for Retrotech from the core rulebook that items produced at a lower TL are halved in price for each TL difference - but for vehicles I'd probably limit the difference to no more than 2 (possibly 3) TLs.

That then raises the problem of what a credit is worth ... but that's a whole other nest of hornets best left undisturbed for the moment :wink:

Phil

 

[aspqrz]

This has got be a joke, right?

Either that or I have something seriously wrong.

I have tried to design a Model T Ford.

The stats are 562 kg, c, 12m3, top speed c. 72 kph. Cost $850 (in 1908)

It's TL4 - early 20th century.

Iron Hull = 1320 kg (110 x 12), 1800 Cr (150 x 12)
Standard Hull = no modifiers
Qualities = none (it's heavy and simple, but not "rugged", I suspect MTBF is no more than a couple hundred miles)
Propulsion = Wheels 1.2m3, 120 kg, 1200 Cr
Power Plant = c. 3m3 on the original (TL4 IC = 30 Power, 270 kg, 2400 Cr)
No Armour
No Weapons
Minimal Sensors = 0.25m3, 100 Cr
No Misc Systems
Crew Facilities: Operator Station x 2, 1.25m3, 125 kg x2 = 2.5m3, 250kg
Passenger Seat x 3 = 3m3, 60 kg

Total Mass = 2020 kg.
Total Cost = 5500 Cr.

Power = 3 x 10 = 30.
Power to Weight Ration = 30/2020 = 0.01485
Speed = 100 0 0.01485 = 1.5 kph top speed, 1.1 kph cruising speed, 0.225 kph offroad speed.

Sounds like a Mouse designed by a Committee (aka Elephant) :shock:

Almost 4x too heavy.

Assuming 1 Cr = US$2.50 (and the figure 1 Cr = US$2-2.50 seems commonly assumed), that means US$13750 or 16x too much.

Even if we assume 1 Cr = US$1 (which causes problems with prices of other things), it's 6.47 times too much.

Let's try some fiddling, and see if we can change things a bit.

Assume the Retrotech rule applies and Henry designed it at TL4 using TL3 tech (Iron chassis), that halves the cost and, presumably, the mass.

So now it's only 2x to heavy and 3.23x too much.

Assume it's Lightweight that multiplies the mass by 0.8, which means that even with the Retrotech assumption, it's still 800 kilos, or 240 odd kilos too much, but you've just multiplied the cost by 1.5, so it's now back to +900 Cr without or +450 Cr with the Retrotech rule applied.

Please tell me I have missed something, and that the "system" isn't stuffed ... for TL4 ground cars, anyway :wink:

Bumping it to TL5 helps slightly with the mass, but nowhere near enough, and makes it even more expensive.

You could create a "mass production" bonus, halving cost again - halved for retrotech then halved for mass production to 2750 then to 1375, but that's still US$2750, or 3.2x too much

(An Aside: Using BTRC's Stuff PDF Spreadsheet I get an 0.69 ton [or just over 700 kilos, but that's with 2 crew, so its almost spot on) Model T with a top speed of 75.6 kph (almost spot on again), and only the cost, at 7657 Cr, is way off ... and a BTRC Cr is about the same as a Traveller one. But halve it for Retrotech and again for mass production and you have just over 1900 Cr, which is is only 4x too much :wink:

Using their CORPS VDS rules, which are more finely tuned than Stuff, but more time consuming [and Stuff is based on them anyway], I could probably get it even closer).

Given that I believe, with some justification, that cross TL pricing attempts simply cannot be believably done, that's not unexpected, but at least the mass and speed stats are spot on!)

Of course, all the above assumes that I haven't made some really, really, really ... astoundingly ... downright stupid mistake somewhere

If I have, I await being head butted with extreme violence by canonistas and other assorted and sundry outraged gearheads :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

In the meantime I will be using Stuff and simply rewriting the final numbers (except for prices) in Mongoose Traveller terms, unless and until someone can show me that the design system in Civilian Vehicles actually works across all designs and all TLs

Phil