Supplement 5 & 6 - The Vehicle Handbook

[BP]

I don't know... Could you fit enough rodents under the hood of a car to move it even 5kph? :lol:

Sure. No problem.

'Course the 'car' is made out of an aerogel type substance, and the rodent's thermal energy is captured as well.

Glad you caught the humor there. But seriously, while this is a science fiction game - nothing in Colin's posts indicated this level of absurdity. Abstraction allows for it - if that is what certain gamers want - but that doesn't mean it implies such as a requirement for others who do not.

Mention of real world units of measure and tidbits such as 'world gravity' and crush depths along with TL indicates that this is not a pure fluff abstraction system, but rather reality 'based' - just not a simulation of reality.

So, as a handbook of applied engineering science - I wouldn't attempt to build anything on it.

Most of us house rule things and I doubt this book is gonna be so perfect as to rule that out - but it definitely sounds a lot better than what was offered before. Even to the point of addressing some of your particular concerns about consistency. It is unlikely to address your specific desires though - so share your version when you're done

 

[rust]

Heck - spelling out concrete masses and such is equivalent to giving set prices to gear regardless of technology and circumstances. That's absurd

A good detailed design system would of course result in different values
for different materials, technologies and technology levels.

 

[DFW]

A good detailed design system would of course result in different values for different materials, technologies and technology levels.

Yes, that it would. A TL 4 internal combustion engine will have a power to weight & mass ratio that is quite different than a TL 7 one. The price would also be different. Simple definitions and formulas would handle that with minimal fuss.

The key is backward design. Take real world examples for the TLs and design the rules/formulas to basically fit. A little more work but a system where you can actually design stuff that isn't 90% black box/handwavium.

 

[Mithras]

Have you tried GURPS Vehicles? I thought it would give me what I wanted, but its level of sophisticated detail goes far beyond anything that I want, and can manage. When I found I had to actively purchase and install a battery for my internal combustion engine, otherwise it wouldn't start, I thought 'too much detail! I shouldn't need to do that!'

But you might like it, alot.

The key is backward design. Take real world examples for the TLs and design the rules/formulas to basically fit. A little more work but a system where you can actually design stuff that isn't 90% black box/handwavium.

 

[DFW]

Have you tried GURPS Vehicles? I thought it would give me what I wanted, but its level of sophisticated detail goes far beyond anything that I want, and can manage. When I found I had to actively purchase and install a battery for my internal combustion engine, otherwise it wouldn't start, I thought 'too much detail! I shouldn't need to do that!'

Yes, I have it. No, that level of detail is too much. That's a bit on the other side of the scale. There's a middle ground between gerbil powered grav belts
(the new MGT vehicle book) & defining the microchips that go into the fuel regulators...

 

[Solomani666]

I was really disapointed by not finding or even being able to create the ATV from the origional books.

Hope they fix this.

 

[AndrewW]

I was really disapointed by not finding or even being able to create the ATV from the origional books.

There's an ATV in Supplement 6: Military Vehicles.

 

[rust]

Yes, I have it. No, that level of detail is too much. That's a bit on the other side of the scale.

The modular version of the GURPS Vehicles design system used in the
Transhuman Space supplements is at least a bit less unnerving, becau-
se it combines many of the smaller items into complete modules one
can choose from. Still, it it not exactly a fast system, and unfortunately
it contains some errors which crept into it when the authors converted
the standard unit of the original GURPS system (cubic foot) into the dif-
ferent unit used for the modules (VSP = Vehicle Space, 5 cf).

 

[DFW]

unfortunately
it contains some errors which crept into it when the authors converted
the standard unit of the original GURPS system (cubic foot) into the dif-
ferent unit used for the modules (VSP = Vehicle Space, 5 cf).

Yep, a problem when a system was originally designed to compete with an FRPG like AD&D. Not exactly set up for science stuff (metric).

 

[rust]

Yep, a problem when a system was originally designed to compete with an FRPG like AD&D. Not exactly set up for science stuff (metric).

The advantage is that the system's errors enabled me to design a perpe-
tuum mobile, a watercraft with a fuel electrolysis system which produced
more hydrogen from the sea water than the ship needed to power all of
its systems - including the fuel electrolysis device. :lol:

 

[Mithras]

Yep, a problem when a system was originally designed to compete with an FRPG like AD&D. Not exactly set up for science stuff (metric).

The advantage is that the system's errors enabled me to design a perpe-
tuum mobile, a watercraft with a fuel electrolysis system which produced
more hydrogen from the sea water than the ship needed to power all of
its systems - including the fuel electrolysis device. :lol:

Did you patent it? Are you now very very rich?

 

[rust]

Did you patent it? Are you now very very rich?

No, but my attempt to patent it helped me to find many new friends. Psy-
chiatrists, mostly.

 

[apoc527]

The key is backward design. Take real world examples for the TLs and design the rules/formulas to basically fit. A little more work but a system where you can actually design stuff that isn't 90% black box/handwavium.

See, I couldn't disagree more. It's not a "little more work," it's inevitably a LOT more work and I would argue that without going full-fledged engineer on the system, there's almost no way to make one that actually functions. If it was that easy, why aren't there tons of simple-to-use-yet-accurate-based-on-reality vehicle design systems out there?

This is why two design systems might as well be embraced for the two paradigms. One for gearheads who want to spend the time and energy on the above level of design and one for everyone else who just wants some workable vehicular stats.

 

[apoc527]

New question: can we expect to find some clarified vehicle combat rules in the new book? I thought that was one thing that was missing from the first one. I just need basic chase rules and some basic dogfighting rules.

 

[DFW]

See, I couldn't disagree more. It's not a "little more work," it's inevitably a LOT more work

No. It would only be a LOT more work if that's how the rules were designed..

 

[Mithras]

No. It would only be a LOT more work if that's how the rules were designed..

Can you explain...? 'if that's how the rules were designed' what post are you referring to, I can't tell.

 

[MongooseMatt]

However, how far does one take this. In the example above - 'could airlift' - really isn't all that useful unless one also knows height and duration limits as well as maneuverability effects. Then their is the potential for reduced lifespan and damage to the lifting vehicle - and, more immediately important to know, whether landing can be done without damaging the carried vehicle.

And we are _so_ not doing rules for all that

 

[atpollard]

See, I couldn't disagree more. It's not a "little more work," it's inevitably a LOT more work

No. It would only be a LOT more work if that's how the rules were designed..

Reality tends to involve a lot of design assumptions and non-linear formula - how do you differentiate a modern cesna from a learjet from a boeing 767 from an FA-22. All are around the same TL and no reasonable curve would allow one to extrapolate both a bomber version of the FA-22 and a freight version of the Cesna. Assumptions on the performance envelope for each class of vehicles generate not a single design curve, but a family of design curves.

That just leads to a performance based version of Fire, Fusion and Steel rather than a parts based version - still far too complex.

I am a civil engineer, comfortable with math and I couldn't find a simple way to match real world craft. If you think that you can, then go for it. I'd love to see someone succeed at it.

But please, don't just claim that it would be easy if you havn't tried it - it is very hard.

(Just look at any parametric conceptual design system for real world vehicles - Even first order approximations are too complex for use in a simple game - and it still needs to be recociled with the 'handwave' technologies.)

YMMV

 

[DFW]

Reality tends to involve a lot of design assumptions

YOU are making assumptions for level of detail I haven't called for.

 

[DFW]

Definitly one of the books I won't buy. I find the system used in HighGuard and the current Vehicle books not detailed enough for my likings so anything more "effects based" is totally uninteresting.

Yes, when a designed air raft can be fusion power or hamster powered, without design or performance differences, it isn't actually a vehicle design system at all.