The Mark 1 tank in traveller... or not.

[barnest2]

So I study armoured warfare as part of my course at uni, and I decided to use the military vehicles rules to create the British Mark 1 tank from WW1.

I decided it would be TL 5 (I had to go for 6 for the weapons. damn you CSC) and started with a volume of 100, box shape, steel hull etc etc.

It all worked pretty much fine to be honest, even with the problems that military vehicles have. The armour is perfect (thin enough to be penetrated by MG fire), it doesnt have any environmental stuff, and even the weapons are fine, a pair of 60mm guns (they were really 57mm), and four medium machine guns.

So yeah, it went pretty well actually, up until the point where I got too its speed. Now in order to fill up volume, without breaking any of the other stats, I had to use an enormous engine (45 metres cubed). This wouldn't be that bad, I initially thought the weight of the thing would offset it, but no. The real Mark 1 can do 4mph, flat out. My Traveller designed one can quite happily potter along at about 25mph. So, only six times its original speed .

I'm not complaining really. It's amused me a lot actually. So I'm mainly posting this for people here to have a laugh at, though I do have one minor question:
What are peoples main issue with military vehicles? I mean, does it become useless at some point, do the rules break down? Because so far, they're fun, quite simple, and I've used them too make some pretty funky vehicles (i seem to remember a drone carrying mobile airstrip).
And can anyone see how to rectify my design? (If you say make the engine smaller, I want to know what you would put in instead, or you will get a slap )

Thanks, Barnes

 

[far-trader]

...it went pretty well actually, up until the point where I got too its speed. Now in order to fill up volume, without breaking any of the other stats, I had to use an enormous engine (45 metres cubed). This wouldn't be that bad, I initially thought the weight of the thing would offset it, but no. The real Mark 1 can do 4mph, flat out. My Traveller designed one can quite happily potter along at about 25mph. So, only six times its original speed .

A trade-off of speed for low-range torque? Maybe? So the CSC design is fast but can't do a tred spin in place and has a large turn radius?

Of course I find most game design systems broken when comparing and trying to recreate actual items (boats, vehicles, planes, weapons) in one or more ways of weight, size, performance, cost, etc.

It's not perfect but as long as all are built using the same rules I'm generally happy.

My general fix for something like this is fudge stuff until it works. Make the whole thing heavier, or smaller, or whatever. Or simply ignore the obvious issue and state the reasonable actual speed.

As for you choosing to make the engine larger, good call imo. In my experience the design rules are usually closer to the whole engine compartment and associated systems (radiators, exhaust, battery, etc.) including a lot of empty lost space for mechanics to get in for work, not just the actual engine itself. So sure, you could make the engine smaller, and fill the space left with that.

 

[DFW]

What are peoples main issue with military vehicles? I mean, does it become useless at some point, do the rules break down? Because so far, they're fun, quite simple,

As you have seen, even at lower TL they are too far from reality...

 

[rinku]

One of the problems is that tech levels equate only roughly to historical stuff. According to the core rules, MGT is using TL4 for late 19th/early 20th C. The engines used in the MkI and other WW1 vehicles would equate to late TL4, and the stats for TL5 are probably more appropriate for 1930-1950 or so.

Having said that, tech level is usually constrained by manufacturing capability, not knowledge, when higher tech examples are available. Imagine a 1916 tank designer who had full descriptions of WW2 tanks and other AFVs, including battle reports and tactical treatises, operating under instruction from an off-world armour expert. While he may not be able to match much of the technology, his design should be able to use concepts such as sloped armour, commander cupolas*, crew section isolated from the engine compartment, armour sufficient for the role and so forth. He would be aware of how important issues such as power to weight and ground pressure would be in combat, moreso than the 1916 engineers were before combat experience were gained. APCs may be built as well.

Engine designers with access to technical knowledge from a TL or two higher should also be able to produce better TL4 engines than were produced historically.

*Actually, the british tanks did have a sort of square cupola, but I'm sure examination of a Tiger Tank's one would have been instructive

 

[GJD]

There is a very good display on tank Evolution at the Bovington Tank Museum, which I get to visit every year as my fiancee's parents have a holiday home nearby.

The engine on the Mark 1 was large but not 45 cubic meters - more like 12-16, maybe 20 with rads and so on. They also had a HUGE crew - 4 or 6 guys just to steer (2 drivers, 2 high gearsmen, 2 low gearsmen), 2-4 gunners, 2 engineers and a commander.

G.

 

[simonh]

The engine on the Mark 1 was large but not 45 cubic meters - more like 12-16, maybe 20 with rads and so on. They also had a HUGE crew - 4 or 6 guys just to steer (2 drivers, 2 high gearsmen, 2 low gearsmen), 2-4 gunners, 2 engineers and a commander.

The Mark 1, like many first-of-it's-kind designs, may not be a fair test of the rules. It is an interesting exercise though.

Simon Hibbs

 

[barnest2]

Hmmm, where to begin...

Far trader, I like the idea of just having radiators and stuff as extra components to take space. I might be able to drop a good 15 meters cubed of volume for that. Sounds like a plan
And if I was gonna use it, I would just say *cough, cough* it goes at 4

DFW... it's not that bad, I don't think anyway... sure the speeds off by a little, but I still find it workable if you know what you are building...

Rinku, it sounds like an interesting experiments. TL 5 tech with what i know of TL8 armour (modern day, no?)
Also, the Mark IX was the first ever APC, produced towards the end of WW1. Fun fact for you there

GJD, i know its not that big, but I was filling space... I didn't have a choice really.
And the crew was ten men, including 6 gunners, gearman, steersman, commander and I think an engy? My designations might be wrong, but it was definitely ten men.

And simonh, yeah, but it was fun to do

 

[DFW]

DFW... it's not that bad, I don't think anyway... sure the speeds off by a little,

I wouldn't define ~600% as "a little". ymmv

 

[nats]

What are peoples main issue with military vehicles? I mean, does it become useless at some point, do the rules break down? Because so far, they're fun, quite simple,

As you have seen, even at lower TL they are too far from reality...

Sound quite close to reality to me if the only discrepency is a matter of 21 mph....,for a generic vehicle design rule made to enable everything from carts all the way to grav tanks, thats not bad accuracy for an old WW1 tank design and perhaps they could go faster on proper roads? I would be more than satisfied with that result.

Has anyone tried to design a Challenger tank I would be interested to see how accurate that would end up being using the Traveller vehicle rules.

 

[DFW]

Sound quite close to reality to me if the only discrepency is a matter of 21 mph....

Closer to reality than stating that chem reactions are more powerful than nuke reactions. OOPS! That's also in the design rules. :lol:

 

[barnest2]

Um... no... 4mph was max-speed, under any circumstances... such as down hill, with a strong wind

I'll have a crack at a challenger 2 in a bit, see how that turns out...

 

[DFW]

I'll have a crack at a challenger 2 in a bit, see how that turns out...

Are you going to stat out that nice armour that the UK invented for the Challenger & M1?

 

[GJD]

I'll have a crack at a challenger 2 in a bit, see how that turns out...

Are you going to stat out that nice armour that the UK invented for the Challenger & M1?

Chobham 7

 

[barnest2]

No i just used advanced composites (since thats pretty much what it is.).

Anyway, having had a go at it, i would say it turned out pretty well

Because of mass lightning issues, it didnt come out quite as armoured as I would have hoped, with only 28 points.

However the speed was good, nearly (50kmh top, as opposed to the true speed of 57kmh top), the weapons are correct and have the right ammo, it has all the correct sensors, and it manoeuvres like a minor god on crack. (+2 agility)

Any questions about my right-up?

 

[DFW]

Any questions about my right-up?

Would love to see it if you'd like to paste it in.

 

[barnest2]

ok, hold on... might take some editing



80m3 item m mass cost hull structure armour
Hull Ad comp 30 32.5 28
Configuration: Sloped
Qualities Sealed, V. rugged 10080 216000 cruise top speed
Propulsion tracks 16 8000 80000 37.5kmh 50kmh
power plant IE-8 25 1750 37500 Power:562.5
fuel 1000 litres 1 1000 30 hours
Armour Ad. comp (3%) 2.4 12960 12000
Weapons 120mm cannon 7.2 2812.5 900000 traversing, internal, TL 8 stabalisation
Medium machine gun 0.3 31.25 3750 traversing, external
Medium machine gun 1 25 3000 fixed, internal
Ammunition Main gun rounds (40) 6.4 3000 2600 50 rounds total for main gun
sensors comprehensive, extended range 2 3 2000 9km, +2
Decoys 3x smoke 0.5 1 150
Comms Radio-100 0.5 5 1000
Additions LS, imp 1.6 350 200000
Suspension, imp 1.6 800 80000 +1 agi
Controls, imp 0 0 20000 +1 agi
Crew 4 operator stations 5 500



For some reason i't doesnt like copying in... Please tell if that illegible and ill give it some better work... am in a rush, trying to cook dinner at the same time

 

[DFW]

For some reason i't doesnt like copying in... Please tell if that illegible and ill give it some better work... am in a rush, trying to cook dinner at the same time

Thanks! It is readable.

I might try it using TL 7 (our current TL) ans see if I can do it.

 

[barnest2]

See, i thought we were 8, and some of the stuff there indicates as such...

 

[DFW]

See, i thought we were 8, and some of the stuff there indicates as such...

No, "At TL 8, it is possible to reach other worlds in
the same system, although terraforming or full colonisation are not
within the culture’s capacity. Permanent space habitats become
possible. Fusion power becomes commercially viable."

We are still at 7. We can, at this time, only send humans within Earth's gravity well (Earth orbit). We don't have the ability to build perm space habitats and no sustained fusion power at all, much less commercially viable.

 

[barnest2]

oh ok...
Can you see any issues, or anything I have missed with the above design?