Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[J. L. Brown]

So J. L. Brown you think that a fusion plant that takes 2.5 tons of extra space with an endurance of 75 years is going to be t he primary power system for vehicles tech level 12+? You know if you want a system that breaks everything down to its individual components and takes hours to design anything I suggest you get a copy of MegaTraveller the rest of us support a system that gives a solid range of options and is accessible to everyone who plays the game

Crikey, just more of the same stuff repeated over and over again. Seriously, this is tiresome. But AGAIN, the Vehicle Handbook comes up short and you are blaming everything else in the universe except the Vehicle Handbook.

Do I think fusion will be ubiquitous and inexpensive in vehicles at TL 12+? Why, yes! Yes I do! Why? Because every single version of Traveller from 1977 to today (including Mongoose 1e and Mongoose 2e) has explicitly stated that this is EXACTLY what the Traveller universe looks like.

A fusion plant takes up 2.5 dtons worth of space and lasts 75+ years? Where are you getting that stupid stuff from? High Guard explicitly allows Fusion Power Plants that only take up 1 dTon (or maybe less), produce FAR more power (exactly how much more is a question that Vehicle Handbook went out of its' way to make impossible to answer) than a vehicle requires, and must be refueled every few weeks. So where is the dumb new rule on Fusion Power Plants coming from? Oh look, it is from the Vehicle Handbook, page 49!

Are you are seriously criticizing a rule from the Vehicle Handbook as support for your position that 'we need to keep the rules from the Vehicle Handbook'? That makes no sense whatsoever.


[Edit to add: Fusion power in High Guard is available at TL 8, and improves at TL 12 and TL 15; for some mysterious reason, the Vehicle Handbook has Fusion only becoming available at TL 9, and improving just once at TL 10. It is as if the author did not read any of the other source material. /Edit]

 

[tytalan]

Crikey, just more of the same stuff repeated over and over again. Seriously, this is tiresome. But AGAIN, the Vehicle Handbook comes up short and you are blaming everything else in the universe except the Vehicle Handbook.

Do I think fusion will be ubiquitous and inexpensive in vehicles at TL 12+? Why, yes! Yes I do! Why? Because every single version of Traveller from 1977 to today (including Mongoose 1e and Mongoose 2e) have explicitly stated that this is EXACTLY what Traveller the universe looks like.

A fusion plant takes up 2.5 dtons worth of space and lasts 75+ years? Where are you getting that stupid stuff from? High Guard explicitly allows Fusion Power Plants that only take up 1 dTon, produce FAR more power than a vehicle requires, and must be refueled every few weeks. So where is the dumb new rule on Fusion Power Plants coming from? Oh look, it is from the Vehicle Handbook, page 49!

Are you are seriously criticizing a rule from the Vehicle Handbook as support for your position that we need to keep all the rules in the Vehicle Handbook? That makes no sense whatsoever.

So you’re misrepresenting me. I’ve never supported keeping all the rules from the Vehicle Handbook not once!. You4 the one that started suggesting a fusion plant that takes up an extra tons worth of space and tracking vehicles power point requirements! Try reading your own words in the quote!
In fact I was the first one calling for an update and I’m the one that pointed out things like the fact that the fusion plant in the VH was inconsistent with everything else in MgT2! The only thing I’ve supported keeping is the chassis system and the existing ton/space/slot system because there’s no actual reason or need to throw out a good ideal. The chassis system is a nice compromise that allows a solid base design system without the insane complexity of MegaTraveller or FFS. Does it need work? Yes it does! Does it need to be expanded? Absolutely! But the chassis system can easily be expanded allowing all the needed options without requiring a spreadsheet to design a vehicle (they are nice but not every GM or Players wants to be forced to use one). Expanding and tweaking the chassis system, fixing things like fusion plants requiring extra space and the insane dton requirements for lasers and meson guns and other issues this is the goal not creating a new extra complex system from scratch.
You haven’t once given us a logical explanation of why you think we need to change the vehicle spaces from a quarter dton each all you done is say you don’t like the number progression! Well I’m sorry that’s really not a logical argument. Maybe you should stop trying to throw out the baby with the bath water.

 

[J. L. Brown]

So you’re misrepresenting me. I’ve never supported keeping all the rules from the Vehicle Handbook not once!. You4 the one that started suggesting a fusion plant that takes up an extra tons worth of space and tracking vehicles power point requirements! Try reading your own words in the quote!
In fact I was the first one calling for an update and I’m the one that pointed out things like the fact that the fusion plant in the VH was inconsistent with everything else in MgT2! The only thing I’ve supported keeping is the chassis system and the existing ton/space/slot system because there’s no actual reason or need to throw out a good ideal. The chassis system is a nice compromise that allows a solid base design system without the insane complexity of MegaTraveller or FFS. Does it need work? Yes it does! Does it need to be expanded? Absolutely! But the chassis system can easily be expanded allowing all the needed options without requiring a spreadsheet to design a vehicle (they are nice but not every GM or Players wants to be forced to use one). Expanding and tweaking the chassis system, fixing things like fusion plants requiring extra space and the insane dton requirements for lasers and meson guns and other issues this is the goal not creating a new extra complex system from scratch.
You haven’t once given us a logical explanation of why you think we need to change the vehicle spaces from a quarter dton each all you done is say you don’t like the number progression! Well I’m sorry that’s really not a logical argument. Maybe you should stop trying to throw out the baby with the bath water.

The chassis approach is exactly why the Fusion plant doesn't work! The problematic 1 -> 4 -> 256 scaling all started with the Vehicle Handbook!

Vehicle Handbook is exactly why fusion plants do not work in Vehicles, or Robots, or Central Supply Catalog, or Field Catalog, or any other not-a-starship scale!

You called for an update, but refuse to consider fixing the problems that you say need to be fixed. All of this has a very simple and obvious answer: Discard the current Vehicle Handbook. Find a consistent scale that makes sense, and use the tried-and-true design sequence from High Guard to build vehicles. Stop building on the exact errors that VH created that messed up other materials.

 

[Technetium 98]

You two have been arguing for four days now. Surely there's a better usage of your time.

 

[Terry Mixon]

You two have been arguing for four days now. Surely there's a better usage of your time.

You must be new to the internet. This is the way.

 

[tytalan]

The chassis approach is exactly why the Fusion plant doesn't work! The problematic 1 -> 4 -> 256 scaling all started with the Vehicle Handbook!

Vehicle Handbook is exactly why fusion plants do not work in Vehicles, or Robots, or Central Supply Catalog, or Field Catalog, or any other not-a-starship scale!

You called for an update, but refuse to consider fixing the problems that you say need to be fixed. All of this has a very simple and obvious answer: Discard the current Vehicle Handbook. Find a consistent scale that makes sense, and use the tried-and-true design sequence from High Guard to build vehicles. Stop building on the exact errors that VH created that messed up other materials.

The fusion plant doesn’t work because the author used 2300 standards for the fusion plant instead of regular Traveller. Gier and I already figured a fix for the fusion plant (no space requirements just a cost increase). The space system is not the problem because at its core it’s no different from dtons just a smaller increment. As for the chassis system it’s a find concept that from what I’ve been told by many people was great in MgT1 but the original author wasn’t the one who rewrote it for MgT2. So far all you’ve given us is you opinion no rational or logical argument. You fail

 

[Condottiere]

And, you don't take off your helmet.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Nah, this is all part of the Traveller fun.

The TML and some of the CotI discussions are truly epic.

MT tried to have a comprehensive design system, but failed. There was almost a damage scale that went all the way from handguns to meson spinals - look the the PH for that one.

TNE used FF&S to build everything, complete systems could then be presented to referees and players who couldn't be bothered to design their own. better stull it was integrated in such a way that the damage system scaled for handguns to meson spinals.

T4 superficially did this, but it has come to light that it suffered from Mongoose disease, individual authors making up stuff that was incompatible with the supposed tech manual, FF&S2.

Lessons could be learned, Mongoose now has TNR and T4 material - build a new technical architecture with two key features - consistency and scalability. The revision of Vehicles can only be a temporary fix, a third edition of Mongoose Traveller is a certainty - game companies make most of their money from core rule books. The update trick has been used, next time it needs to be a new edition.

 

[Sigtrygg]

So far all you’ve given us is you opinion no rational or logical argument. You fail

He has, many times. So have I.
I think you need to calm down a bit, especially the aggressive posting comments such as "you fail" - it is not necessary.

 

[Terry Mixon]

He has, many times. So have I.
I think you need to calm down a bit, especially the aggressive posting comments such as "you fail" - it is not necessary.

Seconded. We all get worked up, but this isn't the place for it. Disagree all you like, but take the habanero out of your chili, please.

 

[tytalan]

FF&S was so complex no one used it. you couldn't even recreate the stuff they supposedly created it using its rules. it was a broken rule set that was one of the major problems with TNE

there is no difference between using .25 dton as a volume instead of 1 space they are the same in the end one just simplifies the other.

the chassis system just bundles all the things you would have had to put in anyway in a simple to use framework.

 

[J. L. Brown]

The fusion plant doesn’t work because the author used 2300 standards for the fusion plant instead of regular Traveller. Gier and I already figured a fix for the fusion plant (no space requirements just a cost increase). The space system is not the problem because at its core it’s no different from dtons just a smaller increment. As for the chassis system it’s a find concept that from what I’ve been told by many people was great in MgT1 but the original author wasn’t the one who rewrote it for MgT2. So far all you’ve given us is you opinion no rational or logical argument. You fail

No! The Fusion plant does not work in Vehicles because the choice of where the power comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there have all already been made by the rule-maker; all that stuff -- including a 'power plant' that the vehicle-designer cannot examine or modify or account for -- is already part of the 'Chassis'. So a Fusion Plant ends up being a second powerplant; and the vehicle-designer does not have the option of removing the previous one. What we end up with is a pile of kludges all the way down.

In High Guard it is much cleaner*; the ship-designer chooses exactly what they want -- which powerplant, which drive, etc. None of that is chosen in the background by the rule-maker as part of the 'chassis'; and the result is that designers can choose to make ships that have excess power, or not enough power to run everything, or which have to shut down some things to run other things. All of the accounting for how stuff works is clearly visible, and it works well.

Vehicle Handbook took that away, and also took away 'how much power does a vehicle actually use?'; which lead to all sorts of furious hand-waving, and it snowballed. Now Robots cannot use power points, because they might want to recharge from a vehicle -- more hand-waving. How much power to recharge my weapon? More hand-waving. How much power does an Advanced Base use? More hand-waving, especially since vehicles might need to recharge (or fire weapons) using power from the base. It has created an avalanche, all because Vehicle Handbook was built around the incompatible, opaque 'chassis' core mechanic.

[Edit: High Guard is not without its' own flaws; again because stuff like 'Artificial Gravity', 'Acceleration Compensators', and 'Contra-Gravity Lifters' are all hidden behind assumptions in 'what is built into a hull'. Some of those hidden assumptions are VERY silly, but nearly impossible to fix because they simply cannot be defined. It works most of the time, but there are some very interesting things that simply cannot be examined because of a layer of opacity built into the rules themselves. /Edit]

 

[tytalan]

Fusion Fix (this is a example the numbers are not accurate)

Light Grav Vehicle
options:
TL 9 Fusion power this option replaces other power sources with a small Fusion+ system. it replaces the range on the vehicle with an endurance of 1 month cost 25000 cr. *
TL 12 Advance Fusion power 30000cr this option increases the Endurance of the vehicle to 3 months *
* Certain options like heavy energy weapons and increased speed will decrease this endurance.
there's you basic fusion fix that works with the chassis system

 

[tytalan]

No! The Fusion plant does not work in Vehicles because the choice of where the power comes from, where it goes, and how it gets there have all already been made by the rule-maker; all that stuff -- including a 'power plant' that the vehicle-designer cannot examine or modify or account for -- is already part of the 'Chassis'. So a Fusion Plant ends up being a second powerplant; and the vehicle-designer does not have the option of removing the previous one. What we end up with is a pile of kludges all the way down.

In High Guard it is much cleaner; the ship-designer chooses exactly what they want -- which powerplant, which drive, etc. None of that is chosen in the background by the rule-maker as part of the 'chassis'; and the result is that designers can choose to make ships that have excess power, or not enough power to run everything, or which have to shut down some things to run other things. All of the accounting for how stuff works is clearly visible, and it works well.

Vehicle Handbook took that away, and also took away 'how much power does a vehicle actually use?'; which lead to all sorts of furious hand-waving, and it snowballed. Now Robots cannot use power points, because they might want to recharge from a vehicle -- more hand-waving. How much power to recharge my weapon? More hand-waving. How much power does an Advanced Base use? More hand-waving, especially since vehicles might need to recharge (or fire weapons) using power from the base. It has created an avalanche, all because Vehicle Handbook was built around the incompatible, opaque 'chassis' core mechanic.

high guard only deals with one type of chassis Space craft so you can much easier give vast options Vehicle deals with a dozen chassis making this system much more complex and bloating a book that's already going to be the size of Robots or the World Builders Guide.

 

[Condottiere]

There is hull configuration.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Fusion Fix (this is a example the numbers are not accurate)

Light Grav Vehicle
options:
TL 9 Fusion power this option replaces other power sources with a small Fusion+ system. it replaces the range on the vehicle with an endurance of 1 month cost 25000 cr. *
TL 12 Advance Fusion power 30000cr this option increases the Endurance of the vehicle to 3 months *
* Certain options like heavy energy weapons and increased speed will decrease this endurance.
there's you basic fusion fix that works with the chassis system

Except it is not a fix at all, it is a band-aid. Is a fusion plant at TL 12 really the exact same volume in a vehicle as a steam boiler at TL 4? According to the 'Chassis' system, they are. They also produce exactly the same power.

The chassis system is used exactly nowhere else. Just scrap it already.

 

[J. L. Brown]

You two have been arguing for four days now. Surely there's a better usage of your time.

I think I have said everything that I need to say right now, and it seems clear that Tytalan will not be moved by my reasoning.

If I notice some other glaring error, or some promising approach, then I guess I will chime in. But it seems like discarding the 'chassis' system (and wasting more than an eighth of the book describing those 'chassis') means the updated book will be 95% cribbed off of stuff already defined in High Guard, and be dead easy to write as a result.

 

[collins355]

FF&S was so complex no one used it. you couldn't even recreate the stuff they supposedly created it using its rules. it was a broken rule set that was one of the major problems with TNE

there is no difference between using .25 dton as a volume instead of 1 space they are the same in the end one just simplifies the other.

the chassis system just bundles all the things you would have had to put in anyway in a simple to use framework.

I'm sorry but that statement is false. FF&S was widely used and it was not "one of the major problems with TNE". It gave TNE a relatively consistent technical architecture from guns to vehicles to starships. If referees/players didn't want to engage with it, supplements like "Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide" gave them ready-made gear. But, and this is crucial, that gear was consistent with a single technical architecture, and that came from having FF&S.

 

[Sigtrygg]

FF&S was so complex no one used it. you couldn't even recreate the stuff they supposedly created it using its rules. it was a broken rule set that was one of the major problems with TNE

I still use it, I think there are a few others on these boards who do so too. and you most definitely could reproduce their designs within experimental error
Could you give an example of where it is broken?

there is no difference between using .25 dton as a volume instead of 1 space they are the same in the end one just simplifies the other.

I have no problem with that, but if 0.25 displacement tons is one space than according to Robots that makes a Robot slot 0.055 displacement tons - or 55 litres, which is off by a factor of 18.

the chassis system just bundles all the things you would have had to put in anyway in a simple to use framework.

Yes, I quite like the chassis system, there just needs to be a scale factor underneath it for us gearheads so that when those of you who just want the chassis spaces build your lego kits we know the correct scale of theose pieces so everything works together rather than as disparate systems.

The revised Vehicles will have a chassis slot system I would think, but I would like to see steps taken behind the scenes to lay the groundwork for producing a comprehensive and scalable design sequence for all the tech.

 

[agentwigggles]

A new Module Tag for vehicles. Though only weapons have tags, so just a weapon tag.

Self Inflection. On a die result of 2 regardless if the Measure of Success was 0 or greater, the weapon causes one random critical hit of severity 1.
This kinda replicates what used to happen to the A10 when it fighted off its primary weapon, how the fumes from the spent rounds used to choke out the jet engine. Or something like that.