# Please Mongoose Fix the Vehicle Handbook

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
IF you want the complexity of 3D combat and have a VTT it is a good thing. No additional rules needed.

If you want to keep it simpler for those at a tabletop use the same rules.

As pointed out it is simple trigonometry. Anyone could do it now, it just would slow down the tabletop play so (almost) no one actually does it.

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.
Spoken like someone who’s never actual done 3D combat. If you have to break out a calculator every combat round your game has just gotten vastly more complicated.

But it doesn’t matter there just no need to add a bunch of new rules for ship construction just to add a complexity that’s not needed for the game.

This is a TTRPG not a miniature wargame

Battlestar Galactica Deadlock does it - it's a lot easier with a computer game.

Yet again with the snark. I will rise above it.
I have played lots of 3d combat games, including Traveller ground combat where sometimes the bad guys are hiding on a building roof - so 3d is needed.
If you find Pythagoras difficult you can always use an online calculator to do it for you.

Or keep it simple, just use a ruler, gives you LOS and distance at the same time.

(personally I could do the maths but wouldn't want to be holding up a game to measure angles and calculate mid turn)

Laser rangefinder - gives distance and line of sight.

Laser rangefinder - gives distance and line of sight.

Or you could always give your wargaming the more realistic feel and upgrade to their 10.0 Watt Laser Pointer.

Yet again with the snark. I will rise above it.
I have played lots of 3d combat games, including Traveller ground combat where sometimes the bad guys are hiding on a building roof - so 3d is needed.
If you find Pythagoras difficult you can always use an online calculator to do it for you.
I’m guessing you don’t read your own post because I’m returning your snark. “Simple trig gives you actual range.” now while I’m fairly good at trig there are many who are not so maybe don’t disrespect them.

If you want a Traveller wargame that great but rules like that which will have such a vast impact and major change to game play doesn’t really need to be added to the vehicle handbook which is a core book and current doesn’t have and combat rules in it(it’s a pure vehicle design book). It would make more sense for you to propose a new Striker Book (maybe as part of the mercery sub line since that seems to be the place it’s most likely needed). Now before you tell me this isn’t a major change to the rule set I’d like to point out other than VTT the vast number of groups run the game Minds Eye In fact the rule set is very supportive of this style of play. Most of us don’t want to break out miniatures and calculators for our RPGs.

I think the VHB is just a wash. I think its a wash, because its just not, fun to make stuff with it. I think it has a fundemetal problem, of making generic crafts, where I think personal scale vehicles, need more variance, as a lot of adventures, which requires vehicles, needs diversity even among, what is essentially the same vehicle. Such as Grav Tanks, or air/rafts.
While I think the rules for vehicle interaction are fine, minus the speed/range band. Like its odd, you cant make a beater car all that different than a bugatti.

I’m guessing you don’t read your own post because I’m returning your snark. “Simple trig gives you actual range.” now while I’m fairly good at trig there are many who are not so maybe don’t disrespect them.
There is no snark in that statement unless you want to see it because you are snark filled
If you want a Traveller wargame that great but rules like that which will have such a vast impact and major change to game play doesn’t really need to be added to the vehicle handbook which is a core book and current doesn’t have and combat rules in it(it’s a pure vehicle design book).
Which is why I suggested range bands and vertical distance indicated with a die. This is something that is quite abstract.
It would make more sense for you to propose a new Striker Book (maybe as part of the mercery sub line since that seems to be the place it’s most likely needed). Now before you tell me this isn’t a major change to the rule set I’d like to point out other than VTT the vast number of groups run the game Minds Eye In fact the rule set is very supportive of this style of play. Most of us don’t want to break out miniatures and calculators for our RPGs.
I don't use wargames at the rpg table, I won't even bother with a map for space combat most of the time. if a bit more detail is needed then a quick sketch on a whiteboard and the Starter Edition (CT) range band system is used.

I'm not keen on active duty campaigns or merc campaigns because unless the PCs hace cartoon action hero levels of plot armour the risk if random death is too great to justify.

Have you ever opened a scenario with
"Ok you are out on patrol"
random die
"Bob your head explodes, roll a new character" Bob was the unlucky recipient of a concealed sniper using PC tactics.
"Ok, the rest of you what are you doing?"

Ted "I dive into the ditch"

"Ok you are blown into a fine mist by the concealed IED"

Carol "run forward to cover"

"OK you are concealed and can take stock"

Jeb "emm"

Everyone having fun?

There is no snark in that statement unless you want to see it because you are snark filled

Which is why I suggested range bands and vertical distance indicated with a die. This is something that is quite abstract.

I don't use wargames at the rpg table, I won't even bother with a map for space combat most of the time. if a bit more detail is needed then a quick sketch on a whiteboard and the Starter Edition (CT) range band system is used.

I'm not keen on active duty campaigns or merc campaigns because unless the PCs hace cartoon action hero levels of plot armour the risk if random death is too great to justify.

Have you ever opened a scenario with
"Ok you are out on patrol"
random die
"Bob your head explodes, roll a new character" Bob was the unlucky recipient of a concealed sniper using PC tactics.
"Ok, the rest of you what are you doing?"

Ted "I dive into the ditch"

"Ok you are blown into a fine mist by the concealed IED"

Carol "run forward to cover"

"OK you are concealed and can take stock"

Jeb "emm"

Everyone having fun?
Here’s the thing this post is about updating the vehicle handbook. My point is adding and actual new combat rule sets are not the purpose of this. We are here to make suggestions to the vehicle handbook not rewrite vehicle

The biggest headache with 3d combat is the requirment to do pythagorean theorem to figure out distances. When I was trying to do something similar for dragonball ball Z. I thought about having a chart of pre determine results. But that slowed things down a lot. And it wasnt obvious how to do it for two oppenent at two different z levels.

And it wasnt obvious how to do it for two oppenent at two different z levels.

The diagonal is always the square of all of the side-dimensions in ANY number of dimensions.
So in three dimensions:

D^2 = x^2 + y^2 + z^2​

(BTW, How DO you get the superscript BB-Code tag to work on here??)

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.
So yes we all know the how to figure out the distance we also know that there’s more to it like intervening structures that are not as tall but still block the Target. That said I’ll address the comment that started this.

Grav tanks should not be either fighters or gunships because they have a very different purpose on the battlefield. Armor is ground support and part of any ground assault which means they need to be with the infantry. They provide cover, very heavy weapon to name a few things. fighters are very limited in their ability to support ground troops and are more often better at attacking ground troops. At grav tech levels fighters are more often for air superiority and Areospace battles. The grave gunships are for the most removed from the battlefield because grav tanks have all their advantages while retaining the ground assault role they were made for. The only fix I can see actually needed in this case when they rewrite the VHB is actually acknowledging the turrets ability to elevate the weapon by 180 instead of just implying it.

Now could we please get back to the purpose of this thread giving Mongoose the information we think they need to update the VHB so we can use it to design vehicles that make sense

(BTW, How DO you get the superscript BB-Code tag to work on here??)
Yeah, how do you? Anyone?
I saw someone do a superscripted Trademark symbol, so I thought it was possible, but Object™ is done, I presume using ALT-0153, not some /SUP code.

Stealth is underbaked. Idealy, it should relate to how it works with spaceships.

Acceleration, and turn rate should be worked in.

The ability to compress passengers into one square.

Build Quality and Social Status differences in vehicle construnction and utility. Even something as desired Soc Score for the vehicle as a cost addition would be good enough. "This BMW, is often seen with folks around Soc 10 and comes with ameneities and comfort for the cost and status."
Though honestly, I am more in favor of "Simming" the cars, and have a selection of options, which will be mostly cost related without requiring additional squares.

More civilian and construnction modules. Drills. Buckets. Stabilization legs. Cranes. Vaccuum equivilent as well. Things used to construct space stations or space rock mining.

Now of course, I know that VHB selection isnt suppose to be exhaustive but more illustrative, and there isnt anything stopping us from makinig a back hoe. A lot of GMs and myself included from time to time, just wont cosndier it, if its not there as an option.
And why include more civilian and construction stuff. Its traveller, worksites, at least for me, come up semi often. I can imagine cool encounter with someone with a backhoe being very rude.

And trains! Need trains. And stuff for trains!

And trains! Need trains. And stuff for trains!
There is a much more seasoned and prolific writer than I who seems to like to put training in many adventures. Me, not so much. But technically, the Ground Vehicle 'Rail Rider' option for ground vehicles covers this. But that's really only good for the locomotive. All the other rail cars and any mechanic for the effects on speed from pulling many rail cars, not so much. Unpowered Vehicle doesn't really cover it (plus, it's still 0.5 tons per space, and you don't have an engine or transmission, just wheels (or magnets) and perhaps a power conduit, so an unpowered vehicle should be more 'compact' per space).

Yeah, so towed vehicles, whether rail cars or barges, not so well-represented, though at least Unpowered Boat is only half the shipping size of the Powered Type (but Unpowered Boat does not have a 'Wind-powered' option (which should be TL1, not 3 even for 'Unpowered Vehicle') which means a barge or clipper ship is all the same...) Yep, perhaps this book does need some rethinking...

Drones, robotic vehicles, micro scale vehicles as it stands now the smallest vehicles are .5 tons now I know a lot of this can be done with the robot handbook but many drones don’t fit the robot format so some of the new rule need to be set up to interface with the RH

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'd expect that as weapons got more deadly and longer-ranged, old-fashioned tactics would return. A direct-fire energy weapon has a long range and the higher you fly the more likely you can be detected, tracked and the more weapons that can be brought to bear. A vehicle in ground mode can take advantage of terrain for cover, concealment and protection. Lasers and plasma weapons can't shoot through a hillside, but they sure can shoot at an object high in the sky.

I always thought that the RL universe did a good job with grav vehicles - grav tanks could be deployed in orbit, but operated much like regular tanks of today - just without tracks. While they could indeed fly over a mountain or any ground terrain - doing so opened them up to being shot down. Plus they were optimized for ground combat, not aerial. They could mount armor a lightweight fighter could not. Operating like a normal tank also means you can put the most armor where it's needed most - front towards the enemy (just like it says on the Claymore). Anything operating in a 360 environment has to assume incoming fire from any direction, thus universal armoring.

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.
Another thing that you are missing is that is by TL12 the concept of a gunboat is obsolete. Gunboats are high speed terrain hugging anti armor attack craft. They are heavily armed lightly armored high mobility attack craft but with an advent of Grav Tanks/APCs the role of ground armor and mobile anti-armor are merged.

Grav tanks are heavily armored, heavily armed, and highly mobile merging the regular tank (Heavily armed and armored but not as mobile) with the Gunboat (Heavily Armed and highly mobile but lightly armored).

Or to put it another way modern attack vehicles have four traits that define them all are heavily armed so that leaves us with three traits Armor, Mobility and Speed. Currently we have three types of vehicles that are based on one of these traits. Tanks: Armor, Gunboats: Mobility, and Fighter: Speed. Grav Tech lets us combine two of these traits but armor and speed opposed each other so that leaves us with two combinations. Grav Tark: Heavily Armored and High Mobility, Grav Fighter (also called speeders): High Speed and High Mobility.

Replies
10
Views
718
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
651
Replies
62
Views
3K
Replies
167
Views
3K