Military Vehicles

[alex_greene]

The blurb at the top of the page says it all. Military Vehicles is here, or it's coming soon.

I know that the vehicle design system in this book is identical to that of Civilian Vehicles, so all you really need is just the one book if the vehicle design system is all that you need.

However, who is actually going to buy the book for the vehicles within? You know, the tanks, AFVs, scout vehicles and so on (I heard that there could be a Valiant / Captain Scarlet - style Cloud Base helicarrier somewhere in the book)?

Also, howmany of you have held back on buying Civilian Vehicles because you wanted to buy Military Vehicles and only Military Vehicles?

Personally? I want to see the new vehicles. So I can look past the fact that the design system's the same in the sequel.

Anyone else want to comment, rant or speculate here?

 

[AndrewW]

However, who is actually going to buy the book for the vehicles within? You know, the tanks, AFVs, scout vehicles and so on (I heard that there could be a Valiant / Captain Scarlet - style Cloud Base helicarrier somewhere in the book)?

Well there is an assault station and a grav station.

 

[The Chef]

i will be buying both at some stage, once chrimbo is over..

but i want military vehicles for the possible combat walker stuff

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

You can build a combat walker using 'Civilian Vehicles'.

 

[The Chef]

oooooh shiney

 

[aspqrz]

Military Vehicles. Hmm.

Sum it up in a word?

Underwhelmed :shock:

For a start, repeating exactly the same design system twice is padding. The two books should have been combined, IMO ... YMMV.

Then, well, remember the controversy over the idiocies of Mercenary?

Well, Military Vehicles is as bad ... and possibly worse.

Only had it for a few days, so I've only skimmed some of it, but the following idiocies stand out ...

The so-called All Terrain Assault Vehicle at TL7 ... which has a massive 18 kph offroad speed! The Pointless Road Bound Vehicle would be more accurate.

The All Terrain Fortress on page 29. A 45 ton, TL9, Fission powered hunk of junk with a top speed of 18kph offroad. A pointless vehicle ... with frontal armour that can be taken out by the TL9 All Terrain Gun Transport on the next page half the time or better. Except for the fact that the ATGT is only 1kph faster offroad that the ATF, making it almost as pointless ... except for the fact that the ATF costs over 2.5 MCr while the ATGT costs a mere 52 KCr.

The ATGT - 14 kph offroad at TL6 (which is possibly reasonable), 19 kph offroad at TL9, which is ludicrous ... and 20 kph at TL14, which would be side splittingly laughable if it weren't pathetic.

It's not even that its impossible to design a vehicle with a decent offroad speed in the system - as evidenced by the All Terrain Vehicle on page #32, which has an offroad speed of 67 kph. Or the Anti-Personnel Tank on the next page, TL6, but an offroad speed of 30 kph.

Of course, there would be no such thing as an Anti-Personnel Tank as such, it would simply be an alternative armament fitout for a standard tank, which makes the design ... silly ... from a military point of view. Tanks aren't designed for use against personnel, they're too vulnerable in such a role (not being designed for it does not mean they can't do it, if properly supported ... but there's a reason why there aren't a whole hell of a lot of historical or current "anti-personnel tank" designs ... which the writer doesn't seem to understand).

The Assault Tank - a piece of silliness at TL8, with twin 120mm cannon. Pointless. Stick an autoloader on one is more cost effective and sensible.

The so-called Battle Tank on page #40 ... a TL8 monstrosity based on the proven stupid land battleship designs that the Russians and a few others went in for in the inter-war years ... the T-35, for example ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35

... only someone with absolutely no knowledge of military history and even less understanding of why such designs were abandoned and simply aren't used would include it at TL8. An experimental failure at TL6, just barely possibly. No way at TL8.

Then there's the Main Tank on page #42 ... not the Main Battle Tank as is correct, because they've already given the title to the pointless monstrosity mentioned above.

Its like Howitzers in Mercenary ... if you are going to use actual military terminology, at least have the courtesy and common sense to use it accurately and correctly.

These are somewhat better in offroad performance ... but the TL10 version is slower than the TL7 one in all aspects, which is ... unbelievable.

The Walkers ... seem OK enough, though they would never make much sense in most real life combat applications.

The Grav vehicles ... are still far too overpriced to be viable combat vehicles.

Aircraft -- the 1200 ton Assault Station ... a flying aircraft carrier, for ghu's sake, powered by Nuclear Fission. AT TL9 ... or any TL, indeed ... 'nuff said.

The Choppers seem fine. The Carry All seems pointless. The assorted conventional aircraft ... haven't had a look at them in detail.

Watercraft. Another mixed bag of pointlessly silly design decisions.

The Coastal Submarine, TL10, with a Fusion generator, but fuel for only 8 hours operation. Say what? Eight hours? Even for a coastal defence sub that's ludicrous. And it masses 341 tons, which hardly makes it a lightweight coastal boat.

The Corvette. At TL6 38 kph, 3 weeks operational fuel, 2000 tons, Cargo, 63 tons. At TL9, 56 kph, 18 hours operational fuel, 1100 tons, Cargo 82 tons.

See the idiocy? Why carry over twice the cargo in proportion to weight and have the darn thing with such pathetically ridiculous short legs. A vessel with an 18 hour operational range doesn't need 82 tons of cargo space. What it does need is 50 tons more fuel for another 90 operational hours ... 108 hours (4 days, basically) is reasonable for most modern corvettes.

The Frigate has the same problem. At TL7 60 kph, fuel for three weeks operations, 3600 tons, 100 tons of Cargo. At TL10, 74 kph, fuel for 24 hours. 2600 tons, 129 tons of cargo.

See the repetition of the Corvette idiocy? The TL10 model has, proportionally, twice the relative cargo capacity of the TL7 model, and only 24 hours operational radius ... 60 tons more fuel makes that at least three days ... and even that is, well, marginal.

I am less than impressed. Some of the above problems may have been acceptable ... or at least marginally explainable ... in civilian vehicles, but in military vehicles ... they display a level of ignorance of military realities that is ... stunning :shock: :shock: :shock:

YMMV of course :wink: :roll:

Phil

 

[SSWarlock]

Me, I just want to see if I can build a Bolo.

 

[aspqrz]

Me, I just want to see if I can build a Bolo.

You probably can. As long as the offroad speed is 0.19 kph (or less) :roll: and as long as it bears not the slightest practical resemblance to the "real thing"

Phil

 

[PFVA63]

The Frigate has the same problem. At TL7 60 kph, fuel for three weeks operations, 3600 tons, 100 tons of Cargo. At TL10, 74 kph, fuel for 24 hours. 2600 tons, 129 tons of cargo.

See the repetition of the Corvette idiocy? The TL10 model has, proportionally, twice the relative cargo capacity of the TL7 model, and only 24 hours operational radius ... 60 tons more fuel makes that at least three days ... and even that is, well, marginal.

Hi,

Although I haven't seen the Military Vehicles Book yet, something to consider when talking operational range is whether you are talking about how long the ship can go based on stores capacity or fuel capacity. For example, while it might be typical to design a conventional 28 to 32 kt (52 to 59 kph) ship with 30 to 40 days of stores, actual endurance based on fuel available can be much lower. Specifically a frigate like the FFG-7s are said to be capable of about 4500nm @ 20kts which works out to about 9.375 days.

For a more modern higher speed ship like a Littoral Combat Ship things may be even more reduced. Based on the original specs for the LCS type ship, they were required to have a fuel based range of at least 1000nm @ 40 to 50kts (74 to 93 kph), as well as a range of at least 3500nm @ 18kts. This works out to an endurance of only 20 to 25 hrs at full speed, or an endurance of 8.1 days @ the 18kt cruise speed.

Regards

PF

 

[aspqrz]

The Frigate has the same problem. At TL7 60 kph, fuel for three weeks operations, 3600 tons, 100 tons of Cargo. At TL10, 74 kph, fuel for 24 hours. 2600 tons, 129 tons of cargo.

See the repetition of the Corvette idiocy? The TL10 model has, proportionally, twice the relative cargo capacity of the TL7 model, and only 24 hours operational radius ... 60 tons more fuel makes that at least three days ... and even that is, well, marginal.

Although I haven't seen the Military Vehicles Book yet, something to consider when talking operational range is whether you are talking about how long the ship can go based on stores capacity or fuel capacity. For example, while it might be typical to design a conventional 28 to 32 kt (52 to 59 kph) ship with 30 to 40 days of stores, actual endurance based on fuel available can be much lower. Specifically a frigate like the FFG-7s are said to be capable of about 4500nm @ 20kts which works out to about 9.375 days.

For a more modern higher speed ship like a Littoral Combat Ship things may be even more reduced. Based on the original specs for the LCS type ship, they were required to have a fuel based range of at least 1000nm @ 40 to 50kts (74 to 93 kph), as well as a range of at least 3500nm @ 18kts. This works out to an endurance of only 20 to 25 hrs at full speed, or an endurance of 8.1 days @ the 18kt cruise speed.

The fuel consumption cited is at (from the stats in the book) cruising speed, which is (per the rules) 75% of top speed ... so that's 18/24 hours for Corvettes/Frigates at cruising speed ...

The game system doesn't give fuel consumption (as far as I can tell) for top speed, but my understanding is close to yours, that it will be 2-3 times higher ... which would mean that, at combat speed, the Corvette would be able to operate for only 6 hours, and the Frigate for only eight hours.

That is simply ludicrous.

Note, the TL10 Frigate with the 8 hour or less combat radius and 24 hour non-combat radius is armed with - 2 VRF Gauss Guns, 2 x 35mm Rail Guns, 2 Light AA Tac Missile Launchers, 2 Light AT (Surface Attack) Tac Missile Launchers. It has a crew of 161.

Ah. It has a Fuel Processor which, allegedly, allows it to produce its own fuel from seawater ... producing 20 times its volume in 24 hours, with a volume sufficient to produce 30m3 (fuel bunkerage is 21.6m3).

Apart from the problem that this makes it a perpetual motion machine, see the real problem? The Frigate goes through 64.8m3 of fuel in 24 hours at full speed, but only has 21.6m3 of actual bunkerage and can only produce 30m3 of fuel in that period ... a shortfall of around 12-13 m3.

The Corvette also has a fuel processor, and produces 20m3 per 24 hours for its 11.4m3 per 6 hours requirements ... which means it can only operate for a bit over 12 hours even with the Fuel Processor.

Don't make sense. Even assuming speeds somewhere in between cruise and full, and assuming only double fuel consumption, it's a losing game.

Phil

 

[Libris]

Ah, so the design rules are exactly the same as in civilian vehicles? That's a pass on that then. I was quite impressed with the Main rules book but after the release of Mercenary I'm kind of coming round to the opinion that we have a runner up for T4

 

[aspqrz]

Ah, so the design rules are exactly the same as in civilian vehicles? That's a pass on that then. I was quite impressed with the Main rules book but after the release of Mercenary I'm kind of coming round to the opinion that we have a runner up for T4

I don't (entirely) agree.

For a start, I didn't dislike the T4 rules, per se. Sure, the artwork sucked majorly (Chris Foss couldn't draw his way out of a wet paper bag, as far as I am concerned ... his artwork simply ... sucks ... and whomever advised the publishers that people would buy the game for his artwork were ... compleat maroons, to put it mildly :? ) but the rules were OK ... yes, even the 1/2 die :wink:

Some of the stuff was actually pretty good ... the Central Supply Cattledog, for example (anything Greg Porter has a hand in is bound to be 8) )

Which means we probably disagree somewhat :wink:

As for MongTrav?

Sure, there are weaknesses in the core system ... but they're fixable, I think.

However, we do agree that some of the supplements have been pretty awful and/or marginal.

The best so far, and it has its problems, is Central Supply Catalog - the weakest have been things like Mercenary and Scout and High Guard (and probably the other Career books, but after the aforementioned three I didn't bother to buy them).

Certainly, both the Vehicles books are big disappointments.

In fact, if I had to point at what I find ... unfortunate ... about the above books (and even CSC) it would be the lack of crunch. Not necessarily in the way of equipment (though there is a problem with silly and pointless stuff, IMO anyway :wink: ) but in the way of game related things.

Forex, Scout should have had expanded system/planet generation systems rather than the grab bag of mostly useless miscellanea it contained.

The Ticket generation system and Base explanations (which made no sense) in Mercenary were, IMO, a waste of space.

High Guard should have had an expanded space combat system with high tech bells and whistles, and didn't.

Lots of missed opportunities.

Of course, T5 doesn't look anywhere close to perfect, either :wink:

A lot of this is, IMO, down to either the authors doing these books being constrained in tight jackets by the licensor's demands or simply not having much of a grasp of things technical ... and I am not sure entirely which.

YMMV of course :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Phil

 

[Libris]

I don't (entirely) agree.

For a start, I didn't dislike the T4 rules, per se. Sure, the artwork sucked majorly (Chris Foss couldn't draw his way out of a wet paper bag, as far as I am concerned ... his artwork simply ... sucks ... and whomever advised the publishers that people would buy the game for his artwork were ... compleat maroons, to put it mildly :? ) but the rules were OK ... yes, even the 1/2 die :wink:

Some of the stuff was actually pretty good ... the Central Supply Cattledog, for example (anything Greg Porter has a hand in is bound to be 8) )

Which means we probably disagree somewhat :wink:

As for MongTrav?

Sure, there are weaknesses in the core system ... but they're fixable, I think.

However, we do agree that some of the supplements have been pretty awful and/or marginal.

The best so far, and it has its problems, is Central Supply Catalog - the weakest have been things like Mercenary and Scout and High Guard (and probably the other Career books, but after the aforementioned three I didn't bother to buy them).

Certainly, both the Vehicles books are big disappointments.

In fact, if I had to point at what I find ... unfortunate ... about the above books (and even CSC) it would be the lack of crunch. Not necessarily in the way of equipment (though there is a problem with silly and pointless stuff, IMO anyway :wink: ) but in the way of game related things.

Forex, Scout should have had expanded system/planet generation systems rather than the grab bag of mostly useless miscellanea it contained.

The Ticket generation system and Base explanations (which made no sense) in Mercenary were, IMO, a waste of space.

High Guard should have had an expanded space combat system with high tech bells and whistles, and didn't.

Lots of missed opportunities.

Of course, T5 doesn't look anywhere close to perfect, either :wink:

A lot of this is, IMO, down to either the authors doing these books being constrained in tight jackets by the licensor's demands or simply not having much of a grasp of things technical ... and I am not sure entirely which.

YMMV of course :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Phil

I love crunch. At least crunch that works, even kinda works is fine.

My Porter's stuff was excellent and I do believe that HE ALONE could have saved the line - at least if his EABA and Stuff! er... stuff is anything to go by.

I did actually like some of T4. T5 is, is em well, lets no even go there - frisbies CDRom across room.

The Mongoose Traveller rules are fine but I do get the impression that the technical ability of some of the writers is somewhat challenged.

 

[GypsyComet]

A lot of this is, IMO, down to either the authors doing these books being constrained in tight jackets by the licensor's demands or simply not having much of a grasp of things technical ... and I am not sure entirely which.


Phil

Based on Matt's comments*, I suspect that his license is just for the RPG, which means the ancillary games (yes, that includes the original High Guard, as well as TCS, Mayday, Striker, Snapshot, AHL, FFW, etc) are not in Mongoose's purview. What THAT means is that everything we get from Mongoose is expressly for an RPG experience. As we are finding out, that has a downside.

My question is 'who thought those ancillary products weren't worth licensing?' For good or ill, that crop of CT side-games did a LOT to shape Traveller. With them in half-baked reprints from FFE, if that, they are basically gone from the consciousness of new Traveller players, and Matt's sales suggest there are a lot of those folks running around now.

---
* which comments? To paraphrase:
"Any Traveller minis we do will be 25mm"
"No, we don't plan to do (insert side project that is basically a boardgame)."
"Our OGL release only covers the RPG."
---

This shows a blindspot, either in Matt's thinking or Marc's. Knowing the history and public statements of both, it could still be either one of them...

 

[aspqrz]

... I do get the impression that the technical ability of some of the writers is somewhat challenged.

I couldn't agree more. That is, I believe, the core reason why the crunch factor in the books where it should be strongest is ... weak as p*** :?

Ah well. I am sure there are people working on non-Mongoose solutions, by all accounts.

I know that Audace ad Gloriam ... the project I am working on ... is close to completion. Just a couple of more items in the Utility Vehicles section, an introduction, ToC and Index, and its done ... a week, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less.

It'll weigh in at around 180 pages and covers all sorts of crunchy survival and exploration related goodness ... doesn't compete with CSC, which really has little on either area.

And I believe others are working on supplements that should have more crunch as well.

Phil

 

[The Chef]

well for some of us who like things simple, Mongoose Traveller offers something that in a way classic traveller lacked. Accessibility.

I am not a scientist, theoretical theorist, planetologist, geologist. I do not work in areospace, engineering or have a background in the military. Adding more than three numbers gives me a headache.

And i love MGT. agreed, Merc lacked.... clarity, but the other books so far, besides a few technical errors, and a few points that needed explaining, worked great!

i don't mind Scout not having expanded planet/system creation. if the players want to go to the fourth moon i will knock up a description for it on the fly. if i have lots of tables, rules, cross references that i have to refer to to make it "real" or "believable" then as a GM i'm not doing my job right. and for me it takes away from the important thing, which is the story!.

Yes MGT concentrates on the RPG side of things. But for me, personally, thats what i want it to do.

i have a design idea in my head right now that isn't presented in the main rule book. i don't care if it isn't possible or pratical in real life, i just care that i want to get this idea down on paper so it can interact with the rest of my world. to do that i will probably refer to both books. so i will be buying both at some stage.

points about editing aside, the basic premise; to recreate one of the premier science fiction rpgs of all time, mongoose is doing a great job.

keep it up!

Chef

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

Again I have an issue with mechanics that require more that a few calculations (I find both 'G.U.R.P.S. Vehicles' and 'VDS' make my head hurt far too much). 'Civilian Vehicles' has maths about as complex as I can cope with.

That said, I do like things to be reasonably accurate. Thus I like a design system that has been well play-tested and as water-tight as possible.

Sadly, I'm increasingly of the opinion that 'Civilian Vehicles' might be somewhat lacking in water-containment... the problem is that it seems to be the best usable system out there.

It is usable (just about), but does require a bit of gumption to come up with usable, workable designs—one can't just use it without thinking ahead (and I can manage that!).

 

[aspqrz]

Again I have an issue with mechanics that require more that a few calculations (I find both 'G.U.R.P.S. Vehicles' and 'VDS' make my head hurt far too much). 'Civilian Vehicles' has maths about as complex as I can cope with.

That said, I do like things to be reasonably accurate. Thus I like a design system that has been well play-tested and as water-tight as possible.

Sadly, I'm increasingly of the opinion that 'Civilian Vehicles' might be somewhat lacking in water-containment... the problem is that it seems to be the best usable system out there.

It is usable (just about), but does require a bit of gumption to come up with usable, workable designs—one can't just use it without thinking ahead (and I can manage that!).

Try Stuff! by Greg Porter, from BTRC ... all of its calculations are based on simple addition and subtraction ... and if all that is too difficult for you, Greg has created PDF based calculation pages (Spreadsheets, in effect) for, well, all the stuff that you can design with the rules ... weapons, vehicles, all sorts of gadgets, creatures and even civilisations.

And, believe me, as someone who had a small (but, I like to think , significant) part in playtesting it, it does more than "sort of work".

It's available as both a download and as a PoD book through the usual sources for such things

Phil

 

[SnowDog]

Have you given it a try to convert Stuff to MGT rules? I mean if you create weapons using Stuff! how hard it is to convert them to MGT weapon stats?

 

[Klaus Kipling]

The best so far, and it has its problems, is Central Supply Catalog - the weakest have been things like Mercenary and Scout and High Guard (and probably the other Career books, but after the aforementioned three I didn't bother to buy them).

Agent and Scoundrel are rather spiffing, actually, also is Psion, if that's your thing.

There are.... issues with the vehicle design rules, but they are somewhat servicable.

Main issues :
1. high tech armour heavier per point of protection than low tech armour.
2. sloping of the hull actually makes the vehicle worse off when it comes to weight, volume, and protection.
3. petrol turbines are the best power plant.
4. no batteries.
5. ground pressure rules don't make sense.

I replicated an Abrams at TL8, but it's armour rating is only 32, not enough for good protection vs 75mm guns.