Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[J. L. Brown]

Reiterating this, as may have been lost in the the... uh debate.
An amount of folks are in favor of something like this on the official discord.
There would be some interplay agility of vehicles.
So to expand upon this idea and not an execution;
The Difference between Min. Skill need to operate the vehicle and the traveller skill, caps the agility of the skill. Matching or exceeding the min. skill allows for the full use of the agility of the vehicle.
Those slick as fuck G Racers, arent easy to handle.
A scout buggy meant for crayon eaters, with agility five, can just about the suffer the inexperience of someone who never seen a wheeled vehicle.

As an example;
Scout Buggy has Agility 5, Min Skill of 1.
Traveller with a skill of Zero. The agility of the craft is capped at 0. The Vehicle is doing a lot of heavy lifting getting the driver from a to b.

I'm not terribly motivated to continue commenting on this, because it looks like this will be a re-hash of the flawed 'chassis' approach. I was serious when I warned against polishing a turd; if it contains the old design approach so that it can sell to folks who don't want actually use their brains to think through their design choices, then maybe it will sell -- but not to me. Do it right, or don't bother.

Still, a couple takes:

1} Skill minimums are a great idea, but they are kind of a big ask in a game with such a wide array of vehicles and a very limited chance at skills. May I suggest instead of an all-or-nothing approach, that we instead add together (or average together, if adding is deemed excessive) the vehicle agility & the pilot's modifier due to skill. The Scout buggy example above would be agility 5 -3 = 2 for an unskilled pilot; agility 5 for someone with skill-0, and agility 7 for someone with skill-2. High agility vehicles can only do so much to make up for being unskilled, but in the hands of a skilled pilot can offer them a real boost. Jack of Trades-1, reducing the unskilled penalty to -2 also feels about right, where otherwise JoT is likely to be useless for meeting vehicle skill minimums.

2} Fuel points can be defined right now in a meaningful way -- if we define them per dTon, and simply divide them as appropriate to get to whatever the final scale chosen happens to be. I don't mind working up a table if folks are interested.

3} More and more I am thinking the best scaling really is 4^0 -> 4^3 -> 4^6. This scales easily (multiply or divide dimensions by 4 to convert between scalings) and it turns out that the old VH and RH spaces and slots are all off by a constant factor of 16. It also puts Vehicle Spaces at ~218 liters, and Robot Slots at ~3.4 liters.

 

[tytalan]

Im going to point out yet again one of the main goals is to improve compatibility with HighGuard and Robots that means not rewriting Robots by changing the existing volume of slots. While I can see and possibly agree it might help changing the number of spaces to ton to 16 is probably reasonable. 1=16=256 is fine.

3} More and more I am thinking the best scaling really is 4^0 -> 4^3 -> 4^6. This scales easily (multiply or divide dimensions by 4 to convert between scalings) and it turns out that the old VH and RH spaces and slots are all off by a constant factor of 16. It also puts Vehicle Spaces at ~218 liters, and Robot Slots at ~3.4 liters.

1= 64 = 4096 is completely counter to that goal. This would require a complete rewrite of Robots. Since Robots works fine I can’t see a reason to push a rewrite for not apparent reason.

 

[tytalan]

I'm not terribly motivated to continue commenting on this, because it looks like this will be a re-hash of the flawed 'chassis' approach. I was serious when I warned against polishing a turd; if it contains the old design approach so that it can sell to folks who don't want actually use their brains to think through their design choices, then maybe it will sell -- but not to me. Do it right, or don't bother.

The vast majority of gamers don’t have hours of time to waste on designing a vehicle for a hobby. Additionally this is a hobby forcing people to jump through all the hoops you want is also counter to the purpose of being a form of relaxation. I think your failing to consider other players with you complaint

I also think that you are vastly underestimating the potential of the chassis system.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Im going to point out yet again one of the main goals is to improve compatibility with HighGuard and Robots that means not rewriting Robots by changing the existing volume of slots. While I can see and possibly agree it might help changing the number of spaces to ton to 16 is probably reasonable. 1=16=256 is fine.

You still don't get it do you?
The current scale of 1>4>256 makes a Robots slot vastly larger than the book says it is - 54 litres instead of 3. It is broken.

1= 64 = 4096 is completely counter to that goal. This would require a complete rewrite of Robots. Since Robots works fine I can’t see a reason to push a rewrite for not apparent reason.

No it wouldn't, it would require one change in a blue box.
The number of slots wouldn't change, they would just be the correct volume rather than 18 times bigger than pseudo-defined

 

[Sigtrygg]

The vast majority of gamers don’t have hours of time to waste on designing a vehicle for a hobby. Additionally this is a hobby forcing people to jump through all the hoops you want is also counter to the purpose of being a form of relaxation. I think your failing to consider other players with you complaint

How do you know what the vast majority of Traveller players get up to in their hobby time? Designing stuff is a fun, relaxing pass time for many a Traveller gearhead.
Why not just use the pre-designed vehicles?
Do you design every weapon yourself or just use the stock ones?
Do you design every robot yourself or just use the stock ones?
Do you design every vehicle yourself or just use the stock ones?
Do you design every ship yourself or just use the stock ones?

I also think that you are vastly underestimating the potential of the chassis system.

Change the scale and understand what is going on below the chassis system and I agree.

 

[Technetium 98]

Will you lot take this somewhere else? It's been established that the scale isn't changing, and yet you've kept arguing the same point for over a week, and you're right back where you bloody started! You're strangling any other topics of conversation - start a new damn thread.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Will you lot take this somewhere else? It's been established that the scale isn't changing, and yet you've kept arguing the same point for over a week, and you're right back where you bloody started! You're strangling any other topics of conversation - start a new damn thread.

If the scale isn't changing then the whole system will not work together, so We are wasting Our time updating anything. Currently 1 dton = 768 liters. Does that sound right to you? The whole point is to make the construction books work together and not have a separate system for everything.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Will you lot take this somewhere else? It's been established that the scale isn't changing, and yet you've kept arguing the same point for over a week, and you're right back where you bloody started! You're strangling any other topics of conversation - start a new damn thread.

Since you posted that immediately under my post I can only assumed it is aimed at me.

Discussions like this can go on for decades, let alone a week

[near c rocks, piracy in Traveller, do all Imperial marines receive BD training, to name but three]

 

[MasterGwydion]

One thing that I have not heard discussed when it comes to scale. Why don't We use Base-1,000? Robot Scale = 1 liter = 0.001m3. Vehicle Scale = 1 kiloliter = 1m3. Spaceship Scale = 1 megaliter = 1,000m3. If you absolutely had to keep dtons, 1 megaliter = 14.28m3. This means that there are 70 dtons per megaliter. Since everything is scalable, you can use any of the three scales that you wish when designing ships, vehicles, robots, structures, etc.

Then you just multiply or divide straight up and down the scale by moving the decimal point.

I understand this will make the math trickier when drawing deckplans (not that deckplans have ever been accurate anyhow, but whatever. People like them), but it would make things much easier for actually building and designing Robots, Vehicles, and Ships, as well as structures. Gives everyone a real-world frame of reference, which a lot of people seem to like, even though I am not one of them. (lol)

The other problem with this idea is that it would require changing other books, which I also do not like.

Maybe for a 3rd Edition instead of an update book. (For the record, I am still against using "real-world" measurements, but I can see the upsides of using them)

 

[J. L. Brown]

One thing that I have not heard discussed when it comes to scale. Why don't We use Base-1,000? Robot Scale = 1 liter = 0.001m3. Vehicle Scale = 1 kiloliter = 1m3. Spaceship Scale = 1 megaliter = 1,000m3. If you absolutely had to keep dtons, 1 megaliter = 14.28m3. This means that there are 70 dtons per megaliter. Since everything is scalable, you can use any of the three scales that you wish when designing ships, vehicles, robots, structures, etc.

Then you just multiply or divide straight up and down the scale by moving the decimal point.

I understand this will make the math trickier when drawing deckplans (not that deckplans have ever been accurate anyhow, but whatever. People like them), but it would make things much easier for actually building and designing Robots, Vehicles, and Ships, as well as structures. Gives everyone a real-world frame of reference, which a lot of people seem to like, even though I am not one of them. (lol)

The other problem with this idea is that it would require changing other books, which I also do not like.

Maybe for a 3rd Edition instead of an update book. (For the record, I am still against using "real-world" measurements, but I can see the upsides of using them)

You win, that is a much better scaling, and it fits naturally with the SI units used everywhere else in Traveller.

Defining 'Spaceship scale' around the dTon runs into problems; the 13.5 m^3 'standard' for deckplans creates two deck-squares per dTon instead of one. One approach I was thinking about was to use 15.635 m^3 (2.5m^3) as the standard dTon, and drawing up deckplans with 0.5 meter squares. It hardly seemed elegant. Making dTons a derived unit works better; and there are no starships which are only one megaliter in size.

One typo, though:

If you absolutely had to keep dtons, 1 megaliter = 14.28m3. This ...

I think you meant 'dTon' instead of 'megaliter'.

[Edit: I do think that it still makes sense to define dTons in-universe. Every major race will have discovered J-1, with minimal-sized craft -- and that leads to an acknowledged link between '10 dTons' in the Third Imperium and the Solomani Confederation and the minimal Jump fuel used by every other race. Aslan would probably divide that minimal fuel down into units in their own number system; Hivers would use theirs, Zhodani might use base ten math -- or might not, etc -- but they are all using a universal standard of 'this much volume of Jump fuel'.

Using megaliters (and having dTons be a derived unit) allows us to move to each race/culture having different definitions without the ship-building system needing to change for each one. /Edit]

 

[Geir]

(time for a megaliter of beer)

 

[coolAlias]

(time for a megaliter of beer)

It comes in megaliters? I'm getting one!

 

[Terry Mixon]

It comes in megaliters? I'm getting one!

I think they are measured in cubic lagers.

 

[MasterGwydion]

You win, that is a much better scaling, and it fits naturally with the SI units used everywhere else in Traveller.

Defining 'Spaceship scale' around the dTon runs into problems; the 13.5 m^3 'standard' for deckplans creates two deck-squares per dTon instead of one. One approach I was thinking about was to use 15.635 m^3 (2.5m^3) as the standard dTon, and drawing up deckplans with 0.5 meter squares. It hardly seemed elegant. Making dTons a derived unit works better; and there are no starships which are only one megaliter in size.

One typo, though:

I think you meant 'dTon' instead of 'megaliter'.

Crap! You are right. My bad.

[Edit: I do think that it still makes sense to define dTons in-universe. Every major race will have discovered J-1, with minimal-sized craft -- and that leads to an acknowledged link between '10 dTons' in the Third Imperium and the Solomani Confederation and the minimal Jump fuel used by every other race. Aslan would probably divide that minimal fuel down into units in their own number system; Hivers would use theirs, Zhodani might use base ten math -- or might not, etc -- but they are all using a universal standard of 'this much volume of Jump fuel'.

Using megaliters (and having dTons be a derived unit) allows us to move to each race/culture having different definitions without the ship-building system needing to change for each one. /Edit]

I never considered this last part. Interesting thought.

 

[tytalan]

I trust Gier to do a good job tho I’d like some confirmation that the vehicle weapons in the CSC especially the lasers and meson gun will be fixed? I just can’t see a vehicle meson gun being larger than 6 tons or being higher than TL 12 possibly 13

 

[Geir]

Remember that in High Guard there are no meson weapons smaller than 50 tons bays, and even then they were relegated to the 'And here are some other weird technologies' chapter prior to the 22 update. Going back to Classic Traveller meson battlefield weapons were TL15, so it takes a while for miniaturisation to take hold. They will get to be less than 60 tons, but 6 is a bit of a stretch.

Of course, at TL11 (should be 12, but no one asked me - or they did and I missed it - they scale backwards from what I would expect in HG22) you can always install a 50 displacement ton bay in your vehicle - 200 Spaces and you'd better have a fusion power plant to power it.

 

[tytalan]

Remember that in High Guard there are no meson weapons smaller than 50 tons bays, and even then they were relegated to the 'And here are some other weird technologies' chapter prior to the 22 update. Going back to Classic Traveller meson battlefield weapons were TL15, so it takes a while for miniaturisation to take hold. They will get to be less than 60 tons, but 6 is a bit of a stretch.

Of course, at TL11 (should be 12, but no one asked me - or they did and I missed it - they scale backwards from what I would expect in HG22) you can always install a 50 displacement ton bay in your vehicle - 200 Spaces and you'd better have a fusion power plant to power it.

I can understand the TL 15 from the miniaturization point of view but at that TL even the 50 ton bay is miniaturized to 35 tons and that with no power lost. I’m not saying it has to absolutely be 6 tons but I do think that it need to be much smaller than 35 tons when you consider the massive decrease in Damage since we are talking vehicle scale damage vs ship scale. Let’s be honest any weapon over 10 tons isn’t really a vehicle weapon at that point it’s an installation weapon or an emplacement.

 

[Condottiere]

Miniaturization isn't that much of an issue with energy weapon systems, since you could assume Moore's Law was in effect.

Since I don't recall an illustration of the meson sled, I do wonder how it elevates.

 

[tytalan]

Miniaturization isn't that much of an issue with energy weapon systems, since you could assume Moore's Law was in effect.

Since I don't recall an illustration of the meson sled, I do wonder how it elevates.

If it’s anything like the Meson batteries underground on some worlds it’s a ball with the actual Meson gun inside allowing a 360 by 360 arch. That would be a good example of a building at Ship scale Capital’s Meson Batteries were the largest possible spinal mount at the time.

 

[Condottiere]

Since you could turn the sled, more likely a wheel.