Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[J. L. Brown]

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.

Meh, if you want to separate the internal structure from the outer skin, then just call it a 'frame' or something. Frame + one powerplant + one drivetrain (those two can be combined in ICE vehicles) + light wheels = a dune-buggy. All of that stuff + an Armor 0 coating = a car. Frame + powerplant + heavy drivetrain + heavy tracks + construction equipment = Bulldozer. Multiple drivetrains and/or powerplants offer redundancy, but take up extra space and budget.

Instead of spending 20 pages (more than the current VH spends on 'Vehicle Options') just detailing 'what a chassis is', just have a basic frame which defines how many 'spaces' the finished vehicle has. Let the vehicle-designer choose between steam power, ICE, fission, pack animals, fusion+, anti-matter, broadcast power, or whatever. Fill those 20 saved pages with more options that can fit into the vehicle -- sure, some of that stuff will just be re-scaled reprints of stuff out of High Guard or Robots, but there will still be plenty of room for creative options to let designers build 'light trucks' that do not all look exactly the same.

And yes, track 'power' similar to how High Guard does. This lets you have different efficiencies and capabilities for different drivetrains -- and it forms the natural basis for a rational system for 'towing' stuff.

 

[Condottiere]

I'm guessing there's a mechanical efficiency that demonstrates itself in how much percentage of the vehicle it takes up.

A horse taking up more volume than an internal combustion engine.

 

[J. L. Brown]

I'm guessing there's a mechanical efficiency that demonstrates itself in how much percentage of the vehicle it takes up.

A horse taking up more volume than an internal combustion engine.

Yes; every powerplant has different strengths or weaknesses, different costs, availability by TL and so on. Powerplants turn fuel per time into 'Power' or otherwise bring 'power' to the vehicle.
'Drivetrain' turns 'X' power into 'Y' motive force each round. Each different type takes up different percentages of the finished vehicle -- and each with maximum acceleration, vehicle-spaces affected, top speed, and so on.
'Suspension' is where the motive force meets the road, and affects how the vehicle performs on different terrain. Again, each takes up a different percentage of the vehicles volume, each with a different cost, availability by TL, and so on -- different types of wheels, different types of treads or tracks, the 'rail rider' approach (which is just optimizing for the 'rail' terrain type), repulsor-lift, rotary wing, propeller, paddle-wheel, impeller, magneto-hydrodynamic, electrotether, etc.

So: Pick frame & hull & armor; pick powerplant; pick drivetrain; pick suspension; pick options, done.

Some choices allow doing two things with the same component; like 'Deisel Engine' is a combination powerplant & drivetrain, as opposed to (for example) a pantograph external power option and an electric motor where the powerplant & drivetrain are separated. Pack animals can be all three, powerplant, drivetrain, and suspension. Wacky combinations are possible -- wood-fired boilers on grav-vehicles. fusion powered 'praerie schooners', etc.

Structures do without the drivetrain; suspension is 'foundation' and might range from 'none' to 'staked down' to 'sits on pilings' to 'poured in place', etc; and often either do without a powerplant or use an external power option.

ThIs gives the vehicle-designer (and structure-designer) lots of options. Since fuel, power, and power usage are tracked, it is possible to scale stuff down from High Guard for use on the vehicle. It is also possible to finally formalize power usage for Robots and equipment; and establish a scaling which allows using Robot components and normal equipment on a vehicle as well.

 

[Condottiere]

Upto (or down to) seventy cubic metres.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Yes; every powerplant has different strengths or weaknesses, different costs, availability by TL and so on. Powerplants turn fuel per time into 'Power' or otherwise bring 'power' to the vehicle.
'Drivetrain' turns 'X' power into 'Y' motive force each round. Each different type takes up different percentages of the finished vehicle -- and each with maximum acceleration, vehicle-spaces affected, top speed, and so on.
'Suspension' is where the motive force meets the road, and affects how the vehicle performs on different terrain. Again, each takes up a different percentage of the vehicles volume, each with a different cost, availability by TL, and so on -- different types of wheels, different types of treads or tracks, the 'rail rider' approach (which is just optimizing for the 'rail' terrain type), repulsor-lift, rotary wing, propeller, paddle-wheel, impeller, magneto-hydrodynamic, electrotether, etc.

So: Pick frame & hull & armor; pick powerplant; pick drivetrain; pick suspension; pick options, done.

Some choices allow doing two things with the same component; like 'Deisel Engine' is a combination powerplant & drivetrain, as opposed to (for example) a pantograph external power option and an electric motor where the powerplant & drivetrain are separated. Pack animals can be all three, powerplant, drivetrain, and suspension. Wacky combinations are possible -- wood-fired boilers on grav-vehicles. fusion powered 'praerie schooners', etc.

Structures do without the drivetrain; suspension is 'foundation' and might range from 'none' to 'staked down' to 'sits on pilings' to 'poured in place', etc; and often either do without a powerplant or use an external power option.

ThIs gives the vehicle-designer (and structure-designer) lots of options. Since fuel, power, and power usage are tracked, it is possible to scale stuff down from High Guard for use on the vehicle. It is also possible to finally formalize power usage for Robots and equipment; and establish a scaling which allows using Robot components and normal equipment on a vehicle as well.

The power plant is also going to be responsible for electricity generation - powering the electronics and energy weapons may put quite a drain on dobin. We also have to decide crew at some point.

"So: Pick frame & hull & armor; pick crew size; pick powerplant; pick drivetrain; pick suspension; pick electricity generation (in EPs?); pick options, done."

 

[agentwigggles]

What if we gave ship modules tags too?
Some of that may be redundant to description though I can see it working as a description short hand to keep vehicle oddities in mind.

(Below are surrender of all copyright and given to the public domain )
Slow to start : This vehicle requires an additional combat round to start.
Ease Egress: This vehicle was made to be fast to exit and takes a free action to do so.

Ease Ingress: This vehicle was made to be fast to enter and operate. This is a free action.

Slow To() this tag gives a vehicle movement of any axis it's able to move in an Agility Dm-2 and the clarified in the parens. Eg Slow to (LEFT) and so when it tries to go left it's agility DM is at DM-2.

Fowls Up (): When the vehicle is operating near its max capability roll D6 vs 14 every combat round. When successful that module ceases working until a Mechanic or Engineering roll (1d6 seconds) is successfully rolled.

For this I want multiple tags to add dice. But for other tags I have given additional negative dm. So Dm-2 to the tn?

Sophont Ergonomic() This tag will impose DM-2 if the sophont operating that module is similar enough. Like it was made for Vegan and your a Bwap. Everything is so tall and lots of simultaneous button presses. Untagged, assumed to be the sophont of the polity it was made for.

Overclocked (): This module that is not used for location is an after market replacement which grants a DM +2 to its function.

 

[agentwigggles]

We should also have skill Minimals for vehicles.
I know for aircraft there is an measurement of operation complication. At my town spaceship museum, the Rotary Rocket was rated as a 10 form difficult to operate. Which meant that is was dangerous to fly.

 

[Condottiere]

Spacecraft can have quirks.

 

[J. L. Brown]

High Guard specifies one skilled engineer or mechanic per 35 dTons of powerplant; on the one hand it is easy to extend to drivetrains and suspension -- on the other hand adding all of them still only requires far less than one per (typical) vehicle.

Basically all (non-self-driving) vehicles are going to need a driver; everything beyond that is about having enough crew to perform needed tasks in various situations. Sure we can make 'x crew required' if we want, but it might be a bit too far off into the weeds.

We could also specify typical tasks required during operation of the vehicle -- it would have much the same effect. A person shovelling coal into a boiler is not also steering or handling shore-lines.

We might also specify what frequency & tasks are required for 'routine maintenance'. It is not specifying crew, but it has a similar effect.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It's a question of where in the design system you consider the crew for your vehicle
Driver/pilot/helmsman: yes or no
Co-driver/navigator: yes or no
Vehicle commander: yes or no
Gunners
Loaders
Sensor operators
Maintenance crew

Does the vehicle design system cover ocean vehicles such as nuclear subs and nuclear carriers?

 

[tytalan]

Meh, if you want to separate the internal structure from the outer skin, then just call it a 'frame' or something. Frame + one powerplant + one drivetrain (those two can be combined in ICE vehicles) + light wheels = a dune-buggy. All of that stuff + an Armor 0 coating = a car. Frame + powerplant + heavy drivetrain + heavy tracks + construction equipment = Bulldozer. Multiple drivetrains and/or powerplants offer redundancy, but take up extra space and budget.

Instead of spending 20 pages (more than the current VH spends on 'Vehicle Options') just detailing 'what a chassis is', just have a basic frame which defines how many 'spaces' the finished vehicle has. Let the vehicle-designer choose between steam power, ICE, fission, pack animals, fusion+, anti-matter, broadcast power, or whatever. Fill those 20 saved pages with more options that can fit into the vehicle -- sure, some of that stuff will just be re-scaled reprints of stuff out of High Guard or Robots, but there will still be plenty of room for creative options to let designers build 'light trucks' that do not all look exactly the same.

And yes, track 'power' similar to how High Guard does. This lets you have different efficiencies and capabilities for different drivetrains -- and it forms the natural basis for a rational system for 'towing' stuff.

Well let’s see I can name off the top of my head 3 very different (as in completely different performance and size profiles) Steam power system including one that can be used for planes, ICE has another 4 very different with different specifications than there’s all the ones you missed sail (3 kinds) for example. Now we have the different drives trains about 15+, now frame your system just traded 20 pages for 60+ pages easily. Next we have all the stuff from the CSC that has to be included and fix (these are not optional) and the ton of new stuff we want. than building construction system and options. Next we have new vehicle operating and combat rule we all agree we need. Finally there’s all the vehicles that need rewriting with the fixed system. Wow we now have a 400+ book for comparison Robots is less than 300pg.

Now here’s the problem with this.
1) there’s no way Mongoose is going to a book this size there limit seem to be around 300 pgs
2) in a age where gamers are demanding less complex game systems doing away with the Frame system for such a complex system is going to chase away new players. Highguard has 1 interstellar drive and 2 system drives. 2 power plants (Tho it’s actually one) which is vastly less complex than your proposed system.
I understand the desire to make everything work like HighGuard but I don’t think it’s practical or even needed.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Well let’s see I can name off the top of my head 3 very different (as in completely different performance and size profiles) Steam power system including one that can be used for planes, ICE has another 4 very different with different specifications than there’s all the ones you missed sail (3 kinds) for example. Now we have the different drives trains about 15+, now frame your system just traded 20 pages for 60+ pages easily. Next we have all the stuff from the CSC that has to be included and fix (these are not optional) and the ton of new stuff we want. than building construction system and options. Next we have new vehicle operating and combat rule we all agree we need. Finally there’s all the vehicles that need rewriting with the fixed system. Wow we now have a 400+ book for comparison Robots is less than 300pg.

Now here’s the problem with this.
1) there’s no way Mongoose is going to a book this size there limit seem to be around 300 pgs
2) in a age where gamers are demanding less complex game systems doing away with the Frame system for such a complex system is going to chase away new players. Highguard has 1 interstellar drive and 2 system drives. 2 power plants (Tho it’s actually one) which is vastly less complex than your proposed system.
I understand the desire to make everything work like HighGuard but I don’t think it’s practical or even needed.

All of the powerplants -- and their tech level improvements -- can likely summed up on a table which fits on a single page. Drivetrains probably on a total of two pages. Suspensions about the same. This is a strength of 'Frames' over the 'chassis' system -- where the exact same 'rail rider' option had to be printed on two different pages, because each one was a band-aid which only applied to a particular type of 'chassis'.

If you cannot stand the complexity of High Guard, then don't use it. There are pre-mades.

A 400+ page book? You are making stuff up in order to have a strawman to attack.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Now here’s the problem with this.
1) there’s no way Mongoose is going to a book this size there limit seem to be around 300 pgs

Your page count projection is definitely inflated .

2) in a age where gamers are demanding less complex game systems doing away with the Frame system for such a complex system is going to chase away new players.

How do you have the authority to speak for all new gamers? Many new players will be gearheads. The design systems are not meant for the hoy paloy, only the elite. I kid, there is a fraction of Traveller fandom that enjoys the construction systems, while others prefer a fast and loose approach, and another that is happy with the generic vehicles that are in the core rules.

Highguard has 1 interstellar drive and 2 system drives. 2 power plants (Tho it’s actually one) which is vastly less complex than your proposed system.

Umm, no it doesn't. There are other drive systems in the alternative technology chapter.

I understand the desire to make everything work like HighGuard but I don’t think it’s practical or even needed.

You do not speak for everyone, I would even go as far as to say you speak for a minority.

Do you want to design vehicles and starships or just configure them?

 

[tytalan]

All of the powerplants -- and their tech level improvements -- can likely summed up on a table which fits on a single page. Drivetrains probably on a total of two pages. Suspensions about the same. This is a strength of 'Frames' over the 'chassis' system -- where the exact same 'rail rider' option had to be printed on two different pages, because each one was a band-aid which only applied to a particular type of 'chassis'.

If you cannot stand the complexity of High Guard, then don't use it. There are pre-mades.

A 400+ page book? You are making stuff up in order to have a strawman to attack.

Yup you can do the chart on a single page than you have multiple pages of descriptions and information charts don’t exist in vacuum. I use high guard all the time never said I had a problem with high guard but than that’s the true strawman’s argument claiming I’m complaining about high guard. If all you want is a book of chart go play T5 but we all see how well that works in general. High Guard deals with one type of vehicle maybe two if you count none jump ships as separate and one type of structure the whole book is set up on a chassis basis. I’m guessing you’ve never done game design. You keep calling the chassis system a band-aid well it’s not it’s a design system that actually work well and keeps things accessible to all. Your band-aid argument is another of your strawman argument based on a misrepresentation of what the chassis system is and can be.

So quit misrepresenting what I’m saying and lying about what I’ve said. So we one actual quote where I said high guard is bad! You can’t

 

[tytalan]

My suggestion would be a modification of the chassis system that’s uses it as basic framework for building a vehicle. With a baseline of speed, endurance and agility for the vehicle than options like different power plants and other options. With this type of system you can have a power plant section that gives a quick description of the various power plants while customizing they’re use for various vehicle chassis types. This would simplify designing while being able to give lots of design options. For example a light ground vehicle could have a steam engine option, heavy load ICE option, high performance ice, MHD all modifying aspects of the chassis. If you look at the 2300 vehicle book you can see the expanded the VH chassis system and I believe Gier can go to the next level using the system while keeping the system reasonably usable without unneeded and unnecessary complexity with ends with the same numbers just taking a lot more work.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Yup you can do the chart on a single page than you have multiple pages of descriptions and information charts don’t exist in vacuum. I use high guard all the time never said I had a problem with high guard but than that’s the true strawman’s argument claiming I’m complaining about high guard. If all you want is a book of chart go play T5 but we all see how well that works in general.

You can fill up pages with fluff if you want; but there is no point wasting page count. Each different powerplant type needs maybe a sentence or two of description -- beyond that, the actual useful portion is the numbers which describe how the powerplant fits into the rules, and that is easily summarized by a single line of numbers. You will need AT MOST one single line per TL which the powerplant is available at -- fewer, if the powerplants plants do not improve at every TL. How much verbiage is wasted in High Guard describing all the different types of Fusion powerplant? Outside the (small) table on page 17, two paragraphs cover everything from TL 6 to TL 20 -- the rest of the space is taken up describing what power is used for, and is not about the powerplants themselves at all.

High Guard deals with one type of vehicle maybe two if you count none jump ships as separate and one type of structure the whole book is set up on a chassis basis.

High Guard & the ship-building rules is used to build craft with reaction drives, solar sails, maneuver drives, hop drives, jump drives, hyperdrives, warp drives, skip drives, space-folding drives, time drives, and things with no drives at all. It covers craft which dive to the deepest depths of gas giants and oceans, to the vacuum of space; from craft that can never enter atmosphere at all, to craft perfectly capable of going hypersonic; from unmanned smallcraft, to vast highports that house hundreds of thousands. Tell me again how these are 'all the same thing'.

I think you are only pointing out the real strength of the HG design sequence -- it is versatile and allows a great degree of choice for the ship-designer. It does NOT waste 20 pages on describing 'This is a hull specifically for warp ships, and it already has all the things that we assume (but refuse to tell you) that a warp ship requires; and here are some options specifically for this one particular chassis that can never be applied to any other kind of chassis'

I’m guessing you’ve never done game design. You keep calling the chassis system a band-aid well it’s not it’s a design system that actually work well and keeps things accessible to all. Your band-aid argument is another of your strawman argument based on a misrepresentation of what the chassis system is and can be.

So quit misrepresenting what I’m saying and lying about what I’ve said. So we one actual quote where I said high guard is bad! You can’t

So make up your mind; you cannot have it both ways.
1} High Guard is '... the whole book is set up on a chassis basis ...' already exactly like VH, so VH is awesome.
2} High Guard is inferior to VH because the chassis system is 'a design system that actually work well and keeps things accessible to all', so HG sucks and we ought not to change VH to be like HG.
You are clearly being dishonest. If High Guard is already based on the chassis system, then why all the bellyaching over bringing the chassis system in VH more in line with how it is handled in HG? If HG is different from VH, then explain why VH deserves to be it's own unique design sequence completely different from the (perfectly workable and not-in-need-of-a-rewrite) design sequences already in the game?

Meh. I'm gonna ignore you until you have anything new to contribute.

 

[agentwigggles]

If you were wanting to do a burn out competition, how one do so mechanically

 

[tytalan]

So make up your mind; you cannot have it both ways.
1} High Guard is '... the whole book is set up on a chassis basis ...' already exactly like VH, so VH is awesome.
2} High Guard is inferior to VH because the chassis system is 'a design system that actually work well and keeps things accessible to all', so HG sucks and we ought not to change VH to be like HG.
You are clearly being dishonest. If High Guard is already based on the chassis system, then why all the bellyaching over bringing the chassis system in VH more in line with how it is handled in HG? If HG is different from VH, then explain why VH deserves to be it's own unique design sequence completely different from the (perfectly workable and not-in-need-of-a-rewrite) design sequences already in the game?

Meh. I'm gonna ignore you until you have anything new to contribute.

See I can actually see that while the vehicle handbook use of the chassis system is poorly done and the book itself has many counter dictating concepts that doesn’t means that High Guard doesn’t use the same basic system to a much better effect. But than you keep twisting my words because that’s the only way you can support your extreme argument. It’s very possible to use the same base system and have a much different outcome. As for why not bring it in line with Highguard my question is why add three to five extra steps just to have the end result being the same.

This whole statement of yours is a strawman argument. You twist and misrepresent what I say to try to support your argument. I’ve never been dishonest in fact your the one who has repeatedly lied and misrepresent my post.

Maybe consider that the problem with the vehicles handbook chassis system is not the concept but instead it’s the execution.

But I’m going to ignore you now because I can’t stand dishonest people like you

 

[tytalan]

High Guard & the ship-building rules is used to build craft with reaction drives, solar sails, maneuver drives, hop drives, jump drives, hyperdrives, warp drives, skip drives, space-folding drives, time drives, and things with no drives at all. It covers craft which dive to the deepest depths of gas giants and oceans, to the vacuum of space; from craft that can never enter atmosphere at all, to craft perfectly capable of going hypersonic; from unmanned smallcraft, to vast highports that house hundreds of thousands. Tell me again how these are 'all the same thing'.

You naming options some of which for example Hop and Skip drive use the exact same size formula. Tell me why you can use the chassis system and still have a vast range of options like High Guard. Wait you do have many of those options you have ships, walker, b round vehicles, hover, exc. Wow funny how you again misrepresent things

 

[agentwigggles]

Is it worthwhile to consider doing silly things, like lift kits in VHB.
Like what if I want to put in airplane hydrlics into my vehicle to make ride low and high and or take part time job as a motion adventure seat.

Though if we can do silly things like that, then we can make Mach 5 or various Batmobiles.