Supplement 5 & 6 - The Vehicle Handbook

[BP]

Most likely that curve would be one that resulted in the majority of designs being equally distant from the median and so equally 'wrong'. Even in the best cases, TLs are just too compressed for an acceptable curve given the diversity that exists.

However, things being real-world, a conversion system for game mechanic relevant aspects is all that is needed (insert crack about re-inventing the wheel ). Just reference Jane's books (or any number of other sources). Most stuff requires no game conversions (other than normal real-world unit conversions for speed, volume, mass, duration, etc.) leaving only game type mechanics (like agility and armour points) to be dealt with.

Notably, games have a requirement the real world doesn't - their mechanics should provide balance. This puts a limit on design systems that inevitably makes them 'unbelievable' in a great many specific cases.

It sure sounds like Colin has attempted to maintain consistency, playable designs, game balance and flavor. By all accounts, that would be quite an improvement to what was previously on offer.

(I especially like his slant on materials - references to the like of 'Titanium' and 'Super Dense' make me wince every time. The design should provide the specs - leave the 'details' to the referees or settings specific material.)

 

[far-trader]

;-) (DITV drives me nuts too. If there are no skill rolls, how can it be an RPG?!)

Well, maybe because it's a ROLE Playing Game, I'm guessing

Not familiar with that game system but have seen one (name escapes me) where dice were not used. The game was truly role played with the ref (holdyourdicetight - this is a shocker... ) worked without tables and skill checks!! Always wanted to play and ref that (but it was ages ago, I can't recall the name of the game, think it was Sword and Sorcery genre) for the challenge and freedom and the emphasis on Role playing over Roll playing.

Anyway, back to the thread...

 

[DFW]

Given my understanding of the design system, the risk of not being able to reliably create the same design is FAR FAR less with this system than any detailed, math-heavy, fiddly-bits-based design system. You simply give the vehicle the same stats as the one you are trying to copy. Doesn't get much simpler than that!

Nope. Reread about it in this thread.

 

[rust]

Most likely that curve would be one that resulted in the majority of designs being equally distant from the median and so equally 'wrong'.

Well, no. There have been projects of that kind, for example to find a
formula for the speed of different types of surface ships and submari-
nes based upon their displacement and the power of their engines, and
the formulas produced results which were within 10 % of the real world
data for 90 % of the ships, only the more exotic designs like for exam-
ple SWATH ships and civilian research submarines made problems, be-
cause there is only a small number of them. True, there is a lot of di-
versity in engineering, but at the same time most engineering teams
have to work within the same technological framework and arrive at
approximately the same solutions for the same problems (which is why
they tend to accuse their colleagues from other countries to have co-
pied their designs).

Notably, games have a requirement the real world doesn't - their mechanics should provide balance.

I guess here we will have to disagree, balance is very low on my list of
priorities. Since technology in the real world is not designed with balan-
ce in mind, I do not see why technology in a fictional world should be.
If a lack of balance makes a setting feel more plausible and challenging,
I will always vote against balance.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

I am of a mixed mind on this system.

I find that I LOVE detailed starship design, but don't care that much for the same level of detail in my vehicles.

So, I think this new vehicle design system will be what I would use, but I like that the existing design system can also be used if I (or one of my players) wants to go to that level of detail. I don't begrudge them their details, it's just not what I want in a vehicle book, but somehow I do want it in a starship book (a bit schizophrenic there? Not Me!)

I think the Fluff that describes the basic assumptions at each Tech Level will be worth the book all by itself.

I look forward to this book!

 

[rust]

I am of a mixed mind on this system.

The same here.

On the one hand I love to "tinker" with design systems, on the other hand
I am well aware that all the vehicle data I use in actual play are the ve-
hicle's dimensions, weight, payload, speed and range.

 

[captainjack23]

I am of a mixed mind on this system.

I find that I LOVE detailed starship design, but don't care that much for the same level of detail in my vehicles.

You know, I've never looked at it that way, but I find that is how I feel also. Ships seem such an integeral part of Traveller , almost characters themselves, that it seems important and enjoyable to up the detail - whereas vehicles (loosely defined) are just plot devices to get places or make points (such as: "Really, really, don't do that").

YMMV, and I should note that I've never been a big modern armor wagamer, which was a major input into original traveller, and VERY gearheady, at least when GDW was doing it.

 

[aspqrz]

Do the rest of the Traveller rules include rules for TL cost efficiencies?

Not on any consistent - or consistently believable in real world terms - way.

Which is an inherent problem in the whole background, not just vehicle design.

Phil

 

[BP]

Most likely that curve would be one that resulted in the majority of designs being equally distant from the median and so equally 'wrong'.

Well, no. There have been projects of that kind, for example to find a
formula for the speed of different types of surface ships and submari-
nes based upon their displacement and the power of their engines, and
the formulas produced results which were within 10 % of the real world
data for 90 % of the ships, only the more exotic designs like for exam-
ple SWATH ships and civilian research submarines made problems, be-
cause there is only a small number of them. True, there is a lot of di-
versity in engineering, but at the same time most engineering teams
have to work within the same technological framework and arrive at
approximately the same solutions for the same problems (which is why
they tend to accuse their colleagues from other countries to have co-
pied their designs).

A bell curve with an optimal design normal for performance that covers from a tugboat, to a speedboat, commercial to sport fishing boats, dredging boats to landing craft? Submersibles from attack boats to research, rescue and salvage submarines to tourism and missile carrying?

Sounds like a whole lot of disparate curves - or a lot of deviation from any normal distribution designed to accommodate them. Any '90 %' matchup is in reference to a measure of popularity of use - not the diverse spectrum that truly exists in reality and which a design system, by its nature, should handle.

'Exotic' designs are exactly what you are using a game design system for - otherwise just use real world designs and change the names.

 

[BP]

Notably, games have a requirement the real world doesn't - their mechanics should provide balance.

I guess here we will have to disagree, balance is very low on my list of
priorities. Since technology in the real world is not designed with balan-
ce in mind, I do not see why technology in a fictional world should be.
If a lack of balance makes a setting feel more plausible and challenging,
I will always vote against balance.

In the game, the artificial TL mechanic provides the imbalance I think you speak of. In the real world, superior design and/or manufacturing can have this effect regardless of technology*.


*- until designs approach theoretical limits. Can't think of any but an extreme handful of RW systems that come anywhere close though. RW efficiencies - typically quoted as gospel for marketing purposes - almost always make open system assumptions based on relative implementations that don't hold true in reality when it comes to potential and a different paradigm for approaching the same problem with the same basic technology. Non-technical constraints like politics, banking and egos play a bigger role in the limits of most RW implementations.

 

[rust]

A bell curve with an optimal design normal for performance that covers from a tugboat, to a speedboat, commercial to sport fishing boats, dredging boats to landing craft? Submersibles from attack boats to research, rescue and salvage submarines to tourism and missile carrying?

No, of course not. But for example one formula for warships of the WWII
period, one formula for post-WWII merchant ships, and so on. In the end
the decisive factors were the hull shape and the period when the ship was
built, with the hull shape the far more important one - and there are not
that many different hull shapes in use, since naval engineers all have to
use the same hydrodynamics. With hull shape, displacement and power
output of the engine (which depends somewhat on the period the engine
was built), the speed of the ship falls within a rather narrow frame, no
matter whether it was designed to carry passengers, bulk cargo or ham-
sters.

It would be the same for the exotic designs, like the SWATH ships I men-
tioned, because they, too, use the same hydrodynamics. We just did not
have enough data of real world SWATH ships (or other exotic designs) to
find the formula.

Since I was only interested in ships at the time, I did not follow the other
parts of the project, but the author seemed very pleased with his results
for ground vehicles and aircraft, too, and I very much hope that he will
publish the vehicle design system he intended to build upon the project
in the not too far future.

By the way, an interesting "sideline result" of the project was that the da-
ta published for modern submarines are almost without exception far mo-
re intentionally misleading fiction than possible.

 

[BP]

I'm sure the author was proud of himself

But all the limits that had to be stated to qualify - same basic hull, same basic period, same basic power, etc. - naturally meant the results would be the same within some small range.

Not to mention, things like hull shape are 'copied' for most projects - because there are proven designs with at least known performance characteristics. Risk of untried design, inexperience of actual fabrication and time and cost all factor into that. In research and niche areas, quite different hull designs have proven quite successful for meeting 'specific' design goals.

And that is the key - design goals. Not what has been done before - but what one wants to accomplish. In a science fiction setting this seems quite important, otherwise, it is just a fictional, but RW, setting. Something that doesn't require a design system - it already exists.

 

[BP]

...By the way, an interesting "sideline result" of the project was that the da-
ta published for modern submarines are almost without exception far mo-
re intentionally misleading fiction than possible.

Some of my favorite fiction books begin with Jane's

 

[barnest2]

Wait, has this changed from a conversation on a vehicle design book to a conversation on nautical design...
'Cos that's awesome

 

[rust]

But all the limits that had to be stated to qualify - same basic hull, same basic period, same basic power, etc. - naturally meant the results would be the same within some small range.

Of course it is, but for a vehicle design system one has to determine what
the numerical value of that same is, just to enter same into a spreadsheet
would not do much good.

And since hydrodynamics, aerodynamics and thelike will not change that
much between now and the future, and the solutions we currently have
probably are already rather close to the possible optimum (where it co-
mes to configurations), the numerical value can be used for futuristic
vehicles, too.

As a concrete example, with the formula I can determine which speed my
TL 10 research submarine with a standard hull can achieve with a speci-
fic power plant output, and with a plausible formula for the output of a
fusion power plant I can determine how much of the submarine's volume
that power plant will need - and this is what I expect a detailed design
system to do.

 

[rust]

Wait, has this changed from a conversation on a vehicle design book to a conversation on nautical design...

No, only nautical examples for a vehicle design system that would be dif-
ferent from the one in the book - only 75 % off topic, not 100 %.

 

[barnest2]

Ah ok... you mean like the problem with submarines and ballast?

Or frigates with an impossibly short running time...

 

[rust]

Ah ok... you mean like the problem with submarines and ballast?

Or frigates with an impossibly short running time...

Please do not remind me of those, it is terribly bad for my blood pressure
to think of the time I have wasted by trying to make sense of that design
system ...