No grav tanks needed at higher TL's

[Infojunky]

Since I asked Matt the question that this topic grows from I will put in my 2 cents.

While I asked if smallcraft would beat tanks the question really was about if the we where going to follow Travellers tech level progression in that after TL 10 pretty much everything is a gravity vehicle. Thus what does the range of gravity combatants look like?

 

[CosmicGamer]

Small craft can hover down an urban street at .05 kph if desired.

Could you please point me to rules that either specifically state this or imply it?

The only reference to flight capability I have is where it states the need for ships, including small craft, to be streamlined if operating in atmosphere and equating it to "function like a conventional aircraft".

A standard-configuration ship [without streamlining] can also enter a planet’s atmosphere, but is reliant on its thrusters to keep it aloft at all times and is extremely ungainly. Pilot checks are required for all movement and suffer a –2 DM.

To me, if it is streamlining and not the drives that make a ship stable then this implies a ship must stay moving to remain stable.

For the grav vehicle, adding streamlining is for operating at higher speeds and not a necessity - it works in atmosphere without any DM penalties when not streamlined.

 

[dragoner]

but it doesn't mean tanks are necessarily obsolete.

They just merge. Become a couple of different models. Why spend MORE on a "tank" when you can get much better for less? A 20t fighter is only 8 meters in diameter. The tank as depicted in MGT would logically have no place at high TL's. Look at the cost alone.

Sure, by game rules, which don't necessarily follow reality and the rules only look at base cost and combat ability. The real military is different, however, things such as logistics are of huge importance; weapons systems, such as tanks or fighters, have a large logistical footprint, plus chain of command and component force consideration (command and control, combined arms). These are the unsexy parts of the military that the game won't cover, even pure wargames don't cover them a lot of the time. As far as what it means thousands of years in the future? Well, I'm leery of a single vehicle that can do it all, as too often that means that enough compromises in it's design are done so that it does nothing well. I feel that there will be differences in combat vehicles that roles are disparate as deep space ship to ship, and ground combat; mobility for example (which is the limitation on MBT weights today). All things considered equal, if an SDB can clear space and the air of fighters, then high TL forces might consist of only SDB's and launches as APC's for BD equipped infantry. There are a lot of considerations that the rules don't cover, range is a big one for example; but I don't expect the rules to cover everything.

 

[sideranautae]

Small craft can hover down an urban street at .05 kph if desired.

Could you please point me to rules that either specifically state this or imply it?

They can land on an airless world. Extrapolate the rest of the physics of the situation from that one data point. :shock:

 

[CosmicGamer]

Small craft can hover down an urban street at .05 kph if desired.

Could you please point me to rules that either specifically state this or imply it?

They can land on an airless world. Extrapolate the rest of the physics of the situation from that one data point. :shock:

My understanding is that a chemical thrust ship could operate and land on an airless world. I have a vision of a rocket ship landing on it's tail.

Sorry, you will have to explain. I'm far from knowing the science behind such things. Not sure how landing on a airless world equates to the abilities you mention even on the airless world let alone in an atmosphere.

Please, I'm not saying space ships can or can't do such according to the rules. My point is that with what little I know of the rules and science, I'm not clear on what the exact maneuvering capabilities of a space crafts drives is far from any gravity or atmosphere let alone within a gravity with or without an atmosphere. Can a single drive in the back of a spacecraft provide full thrust in any direction at will or are their multiple drive thrusters that propel the ship in a specific direction based on their alignment? If the first, the thrust does not turn the ship around then use breaking thrusters - it slows the ship down via thrust generated from the front. If the first, to go "up", the ship does no need to turn it's nose up then thrust forward, it just produces upward thrust and the ship "lifts". If the first, the ship does not rotate it's nose left 90 degrees then thrust forward to turn, it just produces sideways thrust and it's momentum vector "turns". Don't know if I'm understanding or explaining that right. But, if the first, it seams the thrust would move the ship forwards, backwards, sideways, diagonal, up, down, without changing the orientation of the nose of the ship - so how does a ship rotate/spin/ do barrel rolls? If the second, multiple directional thrusters, it seams obvious there would be some limitations on maneuverability based on quantity and placement, no? Sorry if these may be stupid questions, like I said, I'm no expert on the rules or the science.

I just fill in the gaps with what seams right and is fun. For me, that means using my own logic and ideas that space craft that are designed for space don't maneuver as well in gravity and atmosphere as vehicles specifically designed for such. Do the rules back me up? Do the rules say otherwise?

I do try to use the rules as written, so if somewhere the rules help clear this up, please let me know.

 

[sideranautae]

Sorry, you will have to explain. I'm far from knowing the science behind such things. Not sure how landing on a airless world equates to the abilities you mention even on the airless world let alone in an atmosphere.

The ships we're talking about get parked in ships with artificial grav. People walk up to them in ships and drive them in and out of cargo bays and the like. That and landing at a port (airless) requires the ability to maintain precise control at zero speed and higher. Airless means that the ONLY control available is the anti-grav (no control surfaces, no gliding, etc) They simply operate like any other anti-grav vehicle.

p.s. I'll never take offense or get angry because a person asks me to clarify or totally disagrees with my ideas. We're all good people trying to have fun. There are many things I'm sure that you would have to go over more than once with me do to my unfamiliarity.

 

[CosmicGamer]

The ships we're talking about get parked in ships with artificial grav. People walk up to them in ships and drive them in and out of cargo bays and the like.

While it makes perfect sense, is such stated in the rules or is this activity a detail of your personal setting?

I always assumed the mother ships gravity for the bay was matched to the outside gravity (in space zero, on an asteroid or moon some fractional amount to match the surface) when small craft come and went.

That and landing at a port (airless) requires the ability to maintain precise control at zero speed and higher.

Using my chemical rocket landing on it's tail example, I see no reason landing in gravity need imply an extensive degree of maneuverability.

I'm not trying to fault your logic, or even facts. Both are very important and can be discussed. But the concept here in this thread I believe is rules as written that show some differences between the small craft and grav vehicle. Right?

So I agree that the following is a good point

Airless means that the ONLY control available is the anti-grav (no control surfaces, no gliding, etc)

And one that I've noticed and wondered about because if a ship relying only on its drives is "extremely ungainly" in atmosphere unless streamlined, to me, it implies without an atmosphere, the ship could likely be ungainly too? But is there any other rule to support this?

The rules do say that landing a ship is a routine task. I assume this included airless worlds with gravity. I don't believe there is any rule that requires one to perform a flying(grav) check every time they land their personal grav car.

Rules as written:

A standard-confi guration ship can also enter a planet’s atmosphere,
but is reliant on its thrusters to keep it aloft at all times and is
extremely ungainly. Pilot checks are required for all movement and
suffer a –2 DM.

vs a grav vehicle in atmosphere without streamlining:

Grav vehicles have theoretically perfect
manoeuvrability and can hover, but skill checks may be
necessary when performing high-speed aerobatics.

Anyways. For me, using just the rules as written, there seams to be some slight amount of support for small craft being less maneuverable than grav vehicles. How one wishes to role play this out or GM DMs is up to them.

 

[sideranautae]

Rules as written:

A standard-confi guration ship can also enter a planet’s atmosphere,
but is reliant on its thrusters to keep it aloft at all times and is
extremely ungainly. Pilot checks are required for all movement and
suffer a –2 DM.

vs a grav vehicle in atmosphere without streamlining:

Grav vehicles have theoretically perfect
manoeuvrability and can hover, but skill checks may be
necessary when performing high-speed aerobatics.

Anyways. For me, using just the rules as written, there seams to be some slight amount of support for small craft being less maneuverable than grav vehicles. How one wishes to role play this out or GM DMs is up to them.

These rules were miswritten. There are no "thrusters" in the MGT ship design. (only Gravity drives) Also, if you note, the rules state that ships with NON lifting hulls (bricks) "glide" to a landing. The rules also read that elaborate launch structures are required to get non-lifting ships off of a planet (and therefore lifting body ships off of an airless world) It is obvious that the final editor took that rules section from a hired gun writer and mangled them credulity while "editing". Out of 1,000 ship landings (routine difficulty roll each time) how many are damaged? Once you do a calc you will see how much the Editor screwed the pooch...

I don't understand why Mongoose REFUSES to issue errata on this stuff. I just searched and this particular issue was brought to their attention years ago. Perhaps the company can't afford to have one of their staff take 10 minutes to post a text document, in the last several years. :roll:

 

[phavoc]

These rules were miswritten. There are no "thrusters" in the MGT ship design. (only Gravity drives) Also, if you note, the rules state that ships with NON lifting hulls (bricks) "glide" to a landing. The rules also read that elaborate launch structures are required to get non-lifting ships off of a planet (and therefore lifting body ships off of an airless world) It is obvious that the final editor took that rules section from a hired gun writer and mangled them credulity while "editing". Out of 1,000 ship landings (routine difficulty roll each time) how many are damaged? Once you do a calc you will see how much the Editor screwed the pooch...

I don't understand why Mongoose REFUSES to issue errata on this stuff. I just searched and this particular issue was brought to their attention years ago. Perhaps the company can't afford to have one of their staff take 10 minutes to post a text document, in the last several years. :roll:

Well, technically, no mention of thrusters doesn't mean they aren't present, just that they aren't mentioned in the rules. It wouldn't be the first time "obvious" things were glossed over or not put down in print. Having thrusters makes a ton of sense though, so I've always assumed they were present due to their great utility and just plain logic (to me at least).

But I do echo your frustration about the holes in the rules and a wish for clarifications. The original Traveller had an article by Miller that went into great detail about how jump worked (for CT). But that sort of detail rarely gets published in the core books anymore.

 

[sideranautae]

Well, technically, no mention of thrusters doesn't mean they aren't present, just that they aren't mentioned in the rules.

What powers them then? It has no tonnage, fuel or cost... If it has no physical dimensions or power requirements... Also, where are all the crashed ships?

 

[crazy_cat]

Also, where are all the crashed ships?

Good question. Sounds like a good adventure seed.

 

[sideranautae]

Also, where are all the crashed ships?

Good question. Sounds like a good adventure seed.

With the amount of crashes that HAVE to occur upon landing, the insurance monthly payments will equal the monthly loan payments for a ship.

Just think of all the star port crew members that are killed weekly at a busy port like Regina. No one would work on the tarmac for less than a couple MCr/year.

 

[dragoner]

Armord Cav - the highly mobile speedbump of the Cold War. Find the enemy (Easy, it's the one with the 4-digit number of tanks coming from the east), delay the enemy (Yah, sure) and get out alive (In your dreams). For bonus points repace M1/M2 with M551/M113 and try again

Me, I'd choosen a save job back then. Find a nice, expendable city (say Braunschweig or Hannover), dig in with a couple of guys, panzerfausts, MG3, tons of ammo and some beer and wait for the bad guys to dig you out or your allies to nuke the place to stop the red flood. Make sure to find a nice place, it will likely be the last.

Yes, up in Fulda, lifespans were measured in minutes. Down south, Dragoons regroup halfway down the trail to hell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segFpceQUFk . Though I spent as much time in Heidelberg as I did in Bamberg. Mmm ... is the Bitburger still cheap and good there? During my career, my duties could be best described as an "errand boy sent by grocery clerks", holding my man's hat at logistics meetings and such. It was cut short by a crushed foot, I left with a shinier dingus on my collar and a junior achievement medal, usual service caca.

 

[Anonymous]

With the amount of crashes that HAVE to occur upon landing, the insurance monthly payments will equal the monthly loan payments for a ship.

Just think of all the star port crew members that are killed weekly at a busy port like Regina. No one would work on the tarmac for less than a couple MCr/year.

Careful there, you're taking a rational approach...

Looks like I'll mention again the need for a design sequence that covers from HPVs all the way to starships...

 

[sideranautae]

Armord Cav - the highly mobile speedbump of the Cold War. Find the enemy (Easy, it's the one with the 4-digit number of tanks coming from the east), delay the enemy (Yah, sure) and get out alive (In your dreams). For bonus points repace M1/M2 with M551/M113 and try again

Me, I'd choosen a save job back then. Find a nice, expendable city (say Braunschweig or Hannover), dig in with a couple of guys, panzerfausts, MG3, tons of ammo and some beer and wait for the bad guys to dig you out or your allies to nuke the place to stop the red flood. Make sure to find a nice place, it will likely be the last.

Yes, up in Fulda, lifespans were measured in minutes. Down south, Dragoons regroup halfway down the trail to hell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=segFpceQUFk . Though I spent as much time in Heidelberg as I did in Bamberg. Mmm ... is the Bitburger still cheap and good there? During my career, my duties could be best described as an "errand boy sent by grocery clerks", holding my man's hat at logistics meetings and such. It was cut short by a crushed foot, I left with a shinier dingus on my collar and a junior achievement medal, usual service caca.

You guys should write all this down for posterity. Great stories.

 

[dragoner]

You guys should write all this down for posterity. Great stories.

Nah. But last night for giggles, I fired up the old HGS and made a small craft grav tank in High Guard, just to see:

hip: 213
Class: Conqueror
Type: Grav Tank
Architect: Robert Vurrich
Tech Level: 15

USP
GT-0601L01-000000-05000-0 MCr 12.400 10 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 15

Cargo: 0 Fuel: 2 EP: 2 Agility: 0
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops

Architects Fee: MCr 0.124 Cost in Quantity: MCr 9.920


Detailed Description
(High Guard Design)

HULL
10.000 tons standard, 140.000 cubic meters, Flattened Sphere Configuration

CREW
Pilot

ENGINEERING
Jump-0, 1G Manuever, Power plant-20, 2.000 EP, Agility 0

AVIONICS
No Bridge Installed, Model/1 Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 Hardpoint

ARMAMENT
1 Single Fusion Gun Turret organised into 1 Battery (Factor-5)

DEFENCES
None

CRAFT
None

FUEL
2.000 Tons Fuel (0 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
4 Acceleration Couches, 0 Ton Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 12.524 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 0.124), MCr 9.920 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
5 Weeks Singly, 4 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS



Conqueror Class Grav Tank

HULL
Hull: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.800
Armour Factor-0: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000

ENGINEERING
M-Drive Factor-1: 1.000 Td; MCr 1.500
J-Drive Factor-0: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000
P-Plant Factor-20: 2.000 Td; MCr 6.000; +2.000 EP

FUEL
P-Fuel: 2.000 Td; MCr 0,000
J-Fuel: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000
Scoops: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000
Purification: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000
L-Hyd Drop Tanks: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000

AVIONICS
Bridge: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000
Computer Model/1: 1.000 Td; MCr 2.000; -0 EP

WEAPONRY
1 x Energy Turrets: 2.000 Td; MCr 2.000; -2 EP

SCREENS

CRAFT

ACCOMODATIONS
4 x Couches: 2.000 Td; MCr 0.100
Cargo: 0.000 Td; MCr 0.000

USER DEFINED

 

[sideranautae]

You guys should write all this down for posterity. Great stories.

Nah. But last night for giggles, I fired up the old HGS and made a small craft grav tank in High Guard, just to see:

hip: 213
Class: Conqueror
Type: Grav Tank

Good stuff. Haven't used that system in quite a few years.

 

[Condottiere]

Notice the engines on rotating joints.

 

[sideranautae]

Notice the engines on rotating joints.

Yep. That's what you have if you got reaction drives. You can spec those using chemical M-Drives in HG book. Low tech stuff.

 

[dragoner]

Good stuff. Haven't used that system in quite a few years.

It just shows where Mongoose picked it up; we used to use the non-starship table in book two. It was quick and easy. Mongoose is a bit more crunchy, which isn't as good for pbp style games, loads up the GM with some more work as well. Each system has it's strengths and weaknesses though.