Please Mongoose Fix the Vehicle Handbook

tytalan

Cosmic Mongoose
I know I’ve complained a lot about the Vehicle Handbook but I’m starting this thread so you know what your audience needs/wants from the updated Vehicle Handbook.

Now there are many lesser issues like the fact that that Open Frame light ground vehicle are limited to a max of 3 spaces ( a rule that like others is often ignored in other of your Traveller products I.e. the Field Catalogue) and others I’m not going to get into I’ll let others do so.

No I’m going to start this with what I think is the biggest issue one that makes no sense whatsoever and counter dictates every other Traveller product in your catalog. Fusion Power Plants! For some unknown reason the author fusion plants are being an upgrade of fission plants which is ludicrous! He than precedes to make them 2.5 tons (10 spaces) minimum 20/25% of the vehicle spaces extra in size with a duration of 50 or 100 years to make matters worse he claimed that at TL12 they became ubiquitous when there’s absolutely no reason for them to be thus. These fusion plants are literally 95% fuel when there’s absolutely no reason to carry this level of fuel. Fission plants have such long lifespans because you can’t refuel them you have to replace the core since the fuel is a permanent part of the plant this is not the case with fusion plants which use Hydrogen as the fuel. Starships for example it takes 10% of the mass of the plant in the fuel tanks to run them for at month. For literally 80% of the vehicle fusion plant you could install a 1 ton ships plant and a single ton of fuel and produce vastly more power than is needed with a more reasonable longevity of 10 months. As it stands now Fusion Plants are unusable and worse than broken. I suggest the following changes which makes much more sense.

A fusion plant can replace the standard power plant on any vehicle of 20 spaces or more in size. It has unlimited range but must be refueled with refined hydrogen. It requires no extra spaces and uses the following chart.
Plant type: TL: Fuel Longevity:
Basic. 9. 2 weeks
Improved. 12. 1 month
Advance. 15. 3 months
I’ll let you guys figure the cost. This would make fusion plants ubiquitous at TL 12 and also explain why ultra-dense batteries are also used (primary for smaller vehicles or where fuel would not be easily accessible)

Now I know this would require some rewriting of existing vehicles outside of the VH but those are primarily in the imperial source book and could easily be ported over into the VH, this would also bring the size of the Astrin for example back down to its more reasonable original size of 10 tons. This should be considered quickly because of the upcoming FFW where such vehicles should be present.

Related this change would also effect section 4: Spacecraft weapons
This fix is both simple and important first a extra 2 spaces needed for power systems/ capacitors make sense also the rule is very vague since none of the standard turret weapons have a tonnage/space so the second fix would be including a simple chart with the vehicle size for Spacecraft weapons.

Now I think the original author had a great concept with the chassis system he created I just don’t think he understood fusion plants in Traveller.
 
Another thing to check out is walkers and drone size vehicles compatibility with Robots. The better the three books (Highguard, Robots, and Vehicle Handbook) the better and easier the game for both players and GM
 
Please turn the grav tanks into heavy fighters or gunships. They should be designed to fight an opponent that can attack them from any angle. At the moment the grav tanks seem to be designed for a two dimensional battlefield with the enemy attacking them head on.
 
I couldn't agree more.
Tech level 12: All vehicles have sufficient free-flight performane that ground combat
vehicles effectively no longer exist, having merged with aircraft.
The primary weapon of the
heavy gunships include plasma B guns, VRF gauss guns, and tac missiles. VRF gauss guns are
also widely mounted on personnel carriers, as are plasma A guns.
Tech level 13: More conventional gunships mount plasma C guns or fusion X guns along with missiles.
Tech level 14: Gunships now carry fusion Y guns or rapid pulse X guns.
Tech level 15: Gunships mounting rapid pulse X guns and heavier Z guns are virtually indistinguishable
from orbital craft.
 
Last edited:
They could start be removing the top turret and instead a heavy turret on both the port and starboard sides. That at least would give the grav vehicle a 360 degree firing arc.

If you still want grav tanks perhaps use the hover chassis with the description saying that they use low power grav units instead of air cushions.
 
Please turn the grav tanks into heavy fighters or gunships. They should be designed to fight an opponent that can attack them from any angle. At the moment the grav tanks seem to be designed for a two dimensional battlefield with the enemy attacking them head on.
This I think is more up to you since it’s looks more than anything else. A large portion of the grav tanks they made are canon conversions so I don’t see the need to change them just my opinion. Also remember this is more about rules than looks. So unless you have a rule that you think need changing
 
This I think is more up to you since it’s looks more than anything else. A large portion of the grav tanks they made are canon conversions so I don’t see the need to change them just my opinion. Also remember this is more about rules than looks. So unless you have a rule that you think need changing
My suggestion would be to look at the weapon mount rules on page 37-38 of the MGT VH (2017) along with the Fire Arcs rules on page 139 of the Core Rulebook (2022 Update) and tweak. Currently the assumption seems to be there that a turret fitted gives you 360 degree firing arcs. But that is in the horizontal plane, not the vertical (if you're a grav vehicle and the turret is mounted on the chassis top). There are no rules for the vertical arc. A turret mounted on the chassis top should not have the ability to fire at targets underneath the vehicle (at least, not in level flight).
 
aca5f68a5d3997a46ca0aa59d269e608.jpg
 
My suggestion would be to look at the weapon mount rules on page 37-38 of the MGT VH (2017) along with the Fire Arcs rules on page 139 of the Core Rulebook (2022 Update) and tweak. Currently the assumption seems to be there that a turret fitted gives you 360 degree firing arcs. But that is in the horizontal plane, not the vertical (if you're a grav vehicle and the turret is mounted on the chassis top). There are no rules for the vertical arc. A turret mounted on the chassis top should not have the ability to fire at targets underneath the vehicle (at least, not in level flight).
The problem is Traveller is not set up for 3D combat and it would add an incredible amount of crunch to do so. Also the assumption is that is as long as a vehicle has a turret it can fire at any other vehicle “A draw means that neither vehicle may attack the other unless it possesses a weapon in a turret. “ under dogfighting which is as close as you get. Under firing arcs “
FIRE ARCS
Weapons in turrets can fire in any direction.”

As soon as you include elevation you vastly increase the complexity of combat this is why even space combat is only 2D. Adding 3D combat to the game is unnecessary and would only be useful in miniature combat. Why multiple the complexity for no real reason?
 
For paper and pencil I agree that 2D combat is the way to go.

With VTT's now doing the calculating for the game 3D is very possible to run without taxing the players or referee too badly.

FG calculates ranges based on height differences (basic geometry) but I have not tried doing any of the vector combat things for a space combat yet.
 
If you still want grav tanks perhaps use the hover chassis with the description saying that they use low power grav units instead of air cushions.

And this works for TL10 and TL11 Grav-Tanks (and perhaps a few early TL9 cutting edge craft). Perhaps some specialized TL12 craft will also have the Grav-Tank look as well.
 
This I think is more up to you since it’s looks more than anything else. A large portion of the grav tanks they made are canon conversions so I don’t see the need to change them just my opinion. Also remember this is more about rules than looks. So unless you have a rule that you think need changing

This is also a good point. For many you can probably just use the numbers in the stat block and reimagine the configuration.

In a similar manner I am not overly fond of the visualization of a number of the standard Imperial Navy vessels (both aesthetically or in terms of construction-logic), but it is easy simply to use the stats and imagine the configuration differently.
 
For paper and pencil I agree that 2D combat is the way to go.

With VTT's now doing the calculating for the game 3D is very possible to run without taxing the players or referee too badly.

FG calculates ranges based on height differences (basic geometry) but I have not tried doing any of the vector combat things for a space combat yet.
Even if the VTTs might do the 3D you would be forcing the table top players to add an additional level of complexity.

No if you want 3D combat ask mongoose for a rule specifically supporting this and leave those modifications to that book
 
I believe the top-mounted turret look has some merit, even for grav tank/gunships.

The higher you fly, the more apparent target you become. More opponents can see and shoot you.

Stay low and hidden, with top-mounted weapons turret so you can shoot without exposing your entire vehicle.

For high speed attack runs there’s always the option to lock the turret facing forwards, and to cover the ground from on high a secondary weapon could be placed ventrally.
 
A 3d battlespace is pretty easy to model using range bands, you just use a die to indicate vertical range band

or for the sake of heresy break out a d20 or even d100 which you position next to the vehicle which gives you 20-100 vertical range bands.

Simple trig gives you actual range.
 
Back
Top