The Vehicle Handbook is Here!

[snrdg121408]

Hello again Condottiere,

Thank you.

I'll see if I can dig something up from older publications and adapt it.

Hopefully my response has in some small way repaid all the help you have provided me on the forums.

 

[arcador]

I got a few questions on the example vehicles, related to the weapons.

--- Page 78: Vanguard Air Superiority Fighter
It has (light autocanon x2) and (heavy machinegun x4).
Question: In the weapon stats I don't see the linked weapon damage bonuses. I assume it's an omission. Or is it something else - i.e. separate weapons?

--- Page 84: GVR Minicoin
It has 2 separate heavy machineguns fixed in front.
Questions: Are they linked, or are they separate weapons, which make separate attacks (even though the crew is one)?

--- Page 114: Violator Strategic Bomber
It has a multibay with 24 slots. I assume it can drop them all at once (according to the multi bay rules), although the practical reasons to do so might be low.

--- Page 141: Hydra Heavy Support Walker
It has five x twin-linked plasma missile racks. Only 1 pilot.
Question: does the pilot fire all five twin-racks at once?

--- Page 144: Predator Ambush-Hunter Tank
This tank has five x heavy gauss cannons and five x twin-gauss cannons. It has only a crew of 3
Question: Is this a mistake, or does that tank make 10 attacks (with the possibility of each being an auto attack)?

--- Page 146: WALKURE FIGHTING GRAV ASSAULT VEHICLE
The stats block says the heavy gauss cannon is twin-linked. The stats, however, say there is only one gauss cannon.
Question: Which is true - the stat block or the weapon lists? I.e. twin-linked or not?

 

[snrdg121408]

Morning PDT arcador,

Thank you for asking the questions here, I'm breaking down the record sheets by components and had wondered about them too.

I got a few questions on the example vehicles, related to the weapons.

--- Page 78: Vanguard Air Superiority Fighter
It has (light autocanon x2) and (heavy machinegun x4).
Question: In the weapon stats I don't see the linked weapon damage bonuses. I assume it's an omission. Or is it something else - i.e. separate weapons?

--- Page 84: GVR Minicoin
It has 2 separate heavy machineguns fixed in front.
Questions: Are they linked, or are they separate weapons, which make separate attacks (even though the crew is one)?

--- Page 114: Violator Strategic Bomber
It has a multibay with 24 slots. I assume it can drop them all at once (according to the multi bay rules), although the practical reasons to do so might be low.

--- Page 141: Hydra Heavy Support Walker
It has five x twin-linked plasma missile racks. Only 1 pilot.
Question: does the pilot fire all five twin-racks at once?

--- Page 144: Predator Ambush-Hunter Tank
This tank has five x heavy gauss cannons and five x twin-gauss cannons. It has only a crew of 3
Question: Is this a mistake, or does that tank make 10 attacks (with the possibility of each being an auto attack)?

--- Page 146: WALKURE FIGHTING GRAV ASSAULT VEHICLE
The stats block says the heavy gauss cannon is twin-linked. The stats, however, say there is only one gauss cannon.
Question: Which is true - the stat block or the weapon lists? I.e. twin-linked or not?

 

[arcador]

I also made some calculations to figure stuff out.

The Predator tank has only 1 heavy gauss turret and 1 twin-gauss turret because it has no slots for more. I have no idea what this x5 means.

A big turret takes 4 spaces + 1 space for a crew member + 8 spaces for the weapon itself (heavy gauss cannon)
Pintle mount takes 0 spaces + 4 spaces for each of the twin gauss cannons.

The tank has decreased fuel capacity in order to find space for the crew or the improved speed; couldn't figure it out. It's a minor thing anyway.
Also, the tank has Fast (medium) speed, which I assume is High (medium) since the difference is 2 bands and by the rules, it's 1 band.

---

The WALKURE FIGHTING GRAV ASSAULT VEHICLE is most likely twin-lined. My calculations weren't precise, yet the most slot elements are the armor and the twin heavy gauss turret.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello arcador,

I also made some calculations to figure stuff out.

The Predator tank has only 1 heavy gauss turret and 1 twin-gauss turret because it has no slots for more. I have no idea what this x5 means.

A big turret takes 4 spaces + 1 space for a crew member + 8 spaces for the weapon itself (heavy gauss cannon)
Pintle mount takes 0 spaces + 4 spaces for each of the twin gauss cannons.

The tank has decreased fuel capacity in order to find space for the crew or the improved speed; couldn't figure it out. It's a minor thing anyway.
Also, the tank has Fast (medium) speed, which I assume is High (medium) since the difference is 2 bands and by the rules, it's 1 band.

---

The WALKURE FIGHTING GRAV ASSAULT VEHICLE is most likely twin-lined. My calculations weren't precise, yet the most slot elements are the armor and the twin heavy gauss turret.

Before I try to recreate the samples I'm putting together a master table of the various weapons, mounts, and other components. Once I've got the tables I'll run a test. I have a working draft for the Honey Badger that actually matches the vehicle record sheet's information.

 

[arcador]

Nice!

Keep in mind minor discrepancies are ok according to the rules - i.e. they can be considered design choices.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello arcador,

Nice!

Keep in mind minor discrepancies are ok according to the rules - i.e. they can be considered design choices.

Thank you for the reminder that the included designs may have minor discrepancies when someone other than the designer tries to replicate the material. If my numbers are within about 10% of the example that means I've got a handle on the process. Of course if my numbers go over the or seriously under the total number of spaces that means I may have miss understood the directions.

 

[steve98052]

. . .
I've built a spreadsheet for light ground vehicles using the Honey Badger example without rounding the cost is Cr50,436. Using the Mass Production instruction of rounding to the nearest Cr1,000 my cost matched the listed one on MgT Vehicle Handbook p. 11 Step 7 and matches the price shown on the Vehicle Record Sheet p. 12. I must have done something wrong since I usually fail to match cost, but I'm happy that I appear to have at least gotten one right.
. . .

This message (from six weeks ago) gives me a suggestion box idea for the Mongoose web site: add to the downloads page build explanations for ships, other vehicles, and anything else that is built according to a procedure in the rules, as examples for players who want to put together spreadsheets. If the build explanation says, "Cost: Cr50436, rounded to Cr50,000", snrdg121408 and others could look at their spreadsheet and confirm that they got it right – or say, "Oops! I forgot to include fire retardant upholstery, and only got the price right because of rounding," if there's a mistake.

Such a thing would not not merit space in print (or even space in an electronic edition), because there are so many other things that belong in the print edition, and demand editorial time even in a PDF edition. But it might be worth some space on the web site.

 

[steve98052]

. . .
Based on my background in real world technology the Supercavitating Drive is something that I find very hard to suspend belief because cavitation gives notice a sub is in the area and if the hull is surrounded by a bubble how are the underwater sensors gathering information so the operator can avoid running into something.
. . .

A submarine using a supercavitating drive could operate on detailed 3D maps and inertial navigation without any external sensors at all. That has the problem of only being able to detect mapped hazards, not other underwater vehicles, constructed obstacles, geographic changes (underwater landslides, for example), and simple map errors.

With Traveller technologies available, it might be possible to add ultra-tech sensors that could see through the cavitation zone, to the real-world technologies of sonar (usable only at non-cavitation speeds) inertial navigation.

Another possible solution that wouldn't require ultra-tech would be to periodically switch off the super-cavitating drive, pause for the boat to stop bouncing around in its bubble and for the waters to quiet, scan ahead with sonar to make sure that there weren't any obstacles in the way, and then blast ahead again with the super-cavitating drive as far as the sonar scan had observed clear waters. That wouldn't work in hostile waters, because an enemy could toss a few mines into the waters ahead once the sub was cavitating, and watch while the sub charges right into them at full speed. But one wouldn't use a super-cavitating drive in hostile waters anyway, because it's noisy, and completely abandons one primary reason to use a sub in combat, which is its stealth.

Yet another application for a supercavitating drive would be a sub that serves as high-speed transportation on a world where surface travel is for some reason undesirable. In that case, the underwater highway could be marked with sensors that make sure the sea is clear for passing super-subs, and communicates its sensor readings to anyone within the range of underwater radio.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello steve98052,

Cavitation is noise that tells everyone that a submarine is present making detection so much easier if the platform is intended for combat. On the commercial side cavitation is not as big of deal unless the boat is in a war zone which means they are once again screaming sink me.

The super cavitating drive is not something that I would equipment a submarine with. Now if MgT had introduced the drive from the movie/book Hunt for Red October I would look forward to using the drive.

. . .
Based on my background in real world technology the Supercavitating Drive is something that I find very hard to suspend belief because cavitation gives notice a sub is in the area and if the hull is surrounded by a bubble how are the underwater sensors gathering information so the operator can avoid running into something.
. . .

A submarine using a supercavitating drive could operate on detailed 3D maps and inertial navigation without any external sensors at all. That has the problem of only being able to detect mapped hazards, not other underwater vehicles, constructed obstacles, geographic changes (underwater landslides, for example), and simple map errors.

With Traveller technologies available, it might be possible to add ultra-tech sensors that could see through the cavitation zone, to the real-world technologies of sonar (usable only at non-cavitation speeds) inertial navigation.

Another possible solution that wouldn't require ultra-tech would be to periodically switch off the super-cavitating drive, pause for the boat to stop bouncing around in its bubble and for the waters to quiet, scan ahead with sonar to make sure that there weren't any obstacles in the way, and then blast ahead again with the super-cavitating drive as far as the sonar scan had observed clear waters. That wouldn't work in hostile waters, because an enemy could toss a few mines into the waters ahead once the sub was cavitating, and watch while the sub charges right into them at full speed. But one wouldn't use a super-cavitating drive in hostile waters anyway, because it's noisy, and completely abandons one primary reason to use a sub in combat, which is its stealth.

Yet another application for a supercavitating drive would be a sub that serves as high-speed transportation on a world where surface travel is for some reason undesirable. In that case, the underwater highway could be marked with sensors that make sure the sea is clear for passing super-subs, and communicates its sensor readings to anyone within the range of underwater radio.

 

[egoaz2ca]

Hi msprange,

There are 2 more days of May left. Is the printed version going to meet the target date?

 

[Reynard]

Okay, a year later and I get down to build an armored fighting vehicle. Things going well and I begin to work on armor. I read the armor rules and look at the sample vehicles for inspiration. Something seems to be wrong. I'm not sure If I'm misreading or what.

The instructions say to decide on a tech level and cross reference the Vehicle Armor table to find the maximum protection a vehicle can have. The AFV note says a vehicle with the AFV trait can triple the amount of protection. I was working in the TL 12-14 area so that means (40 x 3) 120 points armor maximum but example vehicles, such as the TL 12 Armored Fighting Vehicle with 180 points total, the Lynx at 175 and the Manticore Fighting Vehicle, which does not have the AFV trait at 260 points, are obviously way over. Did I miss a note?

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

The way I understand it is that the maximum armour is per facing, not total. So your example would (if I’m right) have up to 120 armour per facing for a total of 360 points of armour. These points could then be reallocated as desired, as per p.35

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello Reynard and Annatar Giftbringer,

Okay, a year later and I get down to build an armored fighting vehicle. Things going well and I begin to work on armor. I read the armor rules and look at the sample vehicles for inspiration. Something seems to be wrong. I'm not sure If I'm misreading or what.

The instructions say to decide on a tech level and cross reference the Vehicle Armor table to find the maximum protection a vehicle can have. The AFV note says a vehicle with the AFV trait can triple the amount of protection. I was working in the TL 12-14 area so that means (40 x 3) 120 points armor maximum but example vehicles, such as the TL 12 Armored Fighting Vehicle with 180 points total, the Lynx at 175 and the Manticore Fighting Vehicle, which does not have the AFV trait at 260 points, are obviously way over. Did I miss a note?

Annatar Giftbringer's interpretation of MgT VHB Armor rules is how I understand the rules after I ran tests on the designs found in the book about two years ago. The Minimum/Maximum Armor values listed on the table is per front, left side, right side, and rear.

 

[Reynard]

I'm still having difficulty with armor and spaces it takes up. I wanted to back engineer the Manticore to help understand building a walker. The Maticore is 30 shipping tons. At half a ton per space it should have 60 spaces. I figured the allocation of the armor and determined it would start with 90 points on each location for 270 total minus 4 points integral to give 266. TL 13 armor would be .004 x 266 x 60 spaces for 64 spaces. I hope it's being tired from work and muddling the math.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

60 spaces, 90 armour is 0,004 x 90 x 60. I see I was a bit unclear in my previous post. You never add the facings together, not when deciding max armor, not when calculating spaces consumed. The value in one facing is the relevant number.

It’s like with spaceships. The amount of armour you want, 90 in this case, is assumed to be equally strong in all facings, so 90 front 90 side 90 rear. Don’t add them together, just calculate using the “base armour value” or what to call it, before any redistributions.

Calculate maximum armour (so you have an upper limit), decide what armour level you want on your vehicle, multiply according to the table on p.34 and consume that many spaces. Your vehicle now has the armour you chose, all around. Next you can redistribute if you want to.

The reason armour is written front/rear/side is because in vehicle combat, facings matter (unlike for spaceships) and it’s possible to move some armour around to for instance make it stronger up front.

This might take it above the allowed maximum value in one facing, but presumably this is ok, since it’s balanced by being weaker in another facing, and you can’t add additional armour to make up for the amount you lower on one facing, the spaces have already been allocated, you’re just choosing not to put it equally around the hull.

 

[Reynard]

Thank yo. I'm glad my mind made it clear as mud again. My bad reading. I'm going to leave a copy of your comment in my book as an addendum. Thanks.

Back to building the Martian Tripod walker.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Just to be clear, is this book, just vehicles, or are starships and smallcraft included as well, or is their going to be a separate book on starships and spacecraft?

 

[Reynard]

High Guard is the spacecraft/starship construction book.

 

[Skaran]

And now more years have passed.
Did anyone notice that the Vanguard air superiority fighter is listed as a TL5 vehicle but is armed with, according to the same book, a TL6 light autocannon. Is the TL of the autocannon in error or using the guidelines in the HG primitive and advanced craft should I give it an increased cost and a disadvantage such as -1 accuracy?

The easiest would be to lower the light autocannon to TL5 but either would work. What do people think?