Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Geir]

I went off on a tangent trying to find the battery rules that snuck into The Imperial Navy book (except I couldn't remember which book: it's on page 113 if someone want to look at them).

Tangent:

Random Rules Sprawl Question

I'm going to write up a Battery (X) - sort of option for vehicles with an unwieldy number of weapons (think a ship-of-the-line broadside), but rather than invent a new rule, I'd rather co-opt some else's new rule (and then if I don't like it, modify it on purpose, a.k.a. with malice, not...

forum.mongoosepublishing.com

Anyway. I'm trying to work out a Battery fire rule without reinventing the wheel and after a rambling post, I've sort of come up with a hybrid of the 'Harmonised' version from the Imperial Navy book and the Missile rules from the Core book.

Goes like this:

1. Gather your identical weapons into batteries (I have options for fire directors to use instead of fire control for batteries - now I get to use them - not sure if I should combine fire control and fire director DMs - probably should, they do different things, but with overlap... grumble).
2. Roll to hit, with the Battery DMs from the table below added to any others.
3. Roll for damage like a missile (roll once for the weapon's damage (no effect), subtract armour ,multiple result by effect) - except there is no maximum Effect - if it's better than the number of guns, then since criticals by Effect aren't possible under this method, fine, extra damage compensates for that.

Thought? Problems? Cries of despair? What this 'solves' or tries to solve is dealing with something like a ship's broadside fire without having to roll 30-odd times or making a hit (or multiple hits) a certainty, with minimal disruption to rules already out there (or improvements to them perhaps?)

("Why would you make a battery of less than 4 weapons, Geir?" "Well, because you can use the fire director DM!" - Yes talking to myself out loud, but it does answer the question about making the Fire Director DM add to the Fire Control DM.)

 

[MasterGwydion]

I went off on a tangent trying to find the battery rules that snuck into The Imperial Navy book (except I couldn't remember which book: it's on page 113 if someone want to look at them).

Tangent:

Random Rules Sprawl Question

I'm going to write up a Battery (X) - sort of option for vehicles with an unwieldy number of weapons (think a ship-of-the-line broadside), but rather than invent a new rule, I'd rather co-opt some else's new rule (and then if I don't like it, modify it on purpose, a.k.a. with malice, not...

forum.mongoosepublishing.com

Anyway. I'm trying to work out a Battery fire rule without reinventing the wheel and after a rambling post, I've sort of come up with a hybrid of the 'Harmonised' version from the Imperial Navy book and the Missile rules from the Core book.

Goes like this:

1. Gather your identical weapons into batteries (I have options for fire directors to use instead of fire control for batteries - now I get to use them - not sure if I should combine fire control and fire director DMs - probably should, they do different things, but with overlap... grumble).
2. Roll to hit, with the Battery DMs from the table below added to any others.
3. Roll for damage like a missile (roll once for the weapon's damage (no effect), subtract armour ,multiple result by effect) - except there is no maximum Effect - if it's better than the number of guns, then since criticals by Effect aren't possible under this method, fine, extra damage compensates for that.

View attachment 2277

Thought? Problems? Cries of despair? What this 'solves' or tries to solve is dealing with something like a ship's broadside fire without having to roll 30-odd times or making a hit (or multiple hits) a certainty, with minimal disruption to rules already out there (or improvements to them perhaps?)

("Why would you make a battery of less than 4 weapons, Geir?" "Well, because you can use the fire director DM!" - Yes talking to myself out loud, but it does answer the question about making the Fire Director DM add to the Fire Control DM.)

My thoughts are using a bonus of nothing to hit. It is just as easy to miss with battery fire all firing at the same point as it is with a single weapon. Just add them as per regular weapons +1 per weapon in the battery. Crits are not possible with battery fire except as Sustained Damage as the accuracy of battery fire is less than for a single weapon.

 

[Geir]

My thoughts are using a bonus of nothing to hit. It is just as easy to miss with battery fire all firing at the same point as it is with a single weapon. Just add them as per regular weapons +1 per weapon in the battery. Crits are not possible with battery fire except as Sustained Damage as the accuracy of battery fire is less than for a single weapon.

The theory on the 'harmonised' rule is that you're firing into an area, not fully aligned, hoping that some of the shots will intersect with the object being targeted, so the more guns, the more likely a hit becomes. In The Imperial Navy book, there is also a 'focused' mode, where they all converge on one point, and you only get the basic roll, but can cause more damage. My thinking is that, especially at lower techs, that level of accuracy (the focused kind) isn't all that achievable, and even if it is, it would be better to fire each gun individually if you're going to hit anyway.

Harmony is more like a narrow barrage (not sure that is a t-shirt slogan).

 

[MasterGwydion]

The theory on the 'harmonised' rule is that you're firing into an area, not fully aligned, hoping that some of the shots will intersect with the object being targeted, so the more guns, the more likely a hit becomes. In The Imperial Navy book, there is also a 'focused' mode, where they all converge on one point, and you only get the basic roll, but can cause more damage. My thinking is that, especially at lower techs, that level of accuracy (the focused kind) isn't all that achievable, and even if it is, it would be better to fire each gun individually if you're going to hit anyway.

Harmony is more like a narrow barrage (not sure that is a t-shirt slogan).

Harmonizing seems more like carpet bombing or an artillery barrage as opposed to actual targeted strikes. In none of those cases do you actually aim at the target, you target an area.

If you actually are aiming at the target, doesn't matter how many guns you are aiming. Use the rule I wrote above, unless you can find a flaw with it?

 

[Geir]

Harmonizing seems more like carpet bombing or an artillery barrage as opposed to actual targeted strikes. In none of those cases do you actually aim at the target, you target an area.

If you actually are aiming at the target, doesn't matter how many guns you are aiming. Use the rule I wrote above, unless you can find a flaw with it?

I find flaws in it.

As I said, that is similar to the focused approach in that other book. But two approaches is too messy and I want to pick one that actual serves a purpose. The purpose is to simulate a random distribution similar to the Core missile rules. Nobody hits the bullseye all the time. Even perfectly calibrate weapons take a slightly different path which has variables (even lasers, unless you're in a vacuum, and even then if they were so well-calibrated to hit the same every time then... they would be one bay weapon and you wouldn't need battery rules.)

I also want avoid the 'all or nothing' approach. If you fire 30 cannons individually, you'd get a certain percentage of hits, you wouldn't get them all to hit or miss - but if you did, also no need for the rules.

And +1 per weapon doesn't cover the range of damage dice done by a weapon. The missile rules already work, so I might as well use them rather than add another odd way of doing it.

 

[Geir]

Need to add +1 to all the DMs so the modifier for 1-3 guns is still +1, because otherwise a hit with Effect zero does no damage - same as with missiles. So now 20+ is DM+6.

 

[Heretic]

I hope I'm not too late to the party. I happen to like the Vehicle Handbook but I do have one quibble and that's about Towing trailers. Currently it's "Towing
Most vehicles are capable of towing heavy loads, usually a form of trailer or, in an emergency, other vehicles. All checks using a vehicle’s Agility suffer DM-2 while it is towing. Its Speed is reduced by one band for every 25% of its Spaces (or 25% of its Spaces multiplied 250 kg)it is towing, or part of."

If we just look at spaces, this seems ungenerous to things like cars towing caravans, or articulated lorries in general.

A caravan is often at least the same size as a car (often bigger) which would mean that the VHB implies that a car CANNOT tow a caravan (negative speed)
The average trailer towed by an 'artic' is (of course) many times bigger than its prime mover. Again we have an implied speed of... nothing.

Obviously, we should be looking at weight vs power. But I don't see any specifics on calculating that in the Vehicle Hand Book and I don't really want this added complexity.

I suggest that the 'towing' rules change to something like

'A light ground vehicle can tow a payload equal to its own size without penalty to movement speed, but takes an agility loss of -2. Its maximum towed payload is twice its own size (at which point, it reduces max speed by one band and also loses 4 points of agility). It cannot tow more than this.

Heavy Ground Vehicles may tow a payload equal to their own size without penalty. For bigger payloads (that is up to 5 times their size), they lose one speed band and 2 points of agility' . This is cumulative (ie: 6 to 10 times size means losing 2 speed bands and 4 agility)

Please feel free to modify these numbers

 

[Geir]

I hope I'm not too late to the party. I happen to like the Vehicle Handbook but I do have one quibble and that's about Towing trailers. Currently it's "TowingMost vehicles are capable of towing heavy loads, usually a form of trailer or, in an emergency, other vehicles. All checks using a vehicle’s Agility suffer DM-2 while it is towing. Its Speed is reduced by one band for every 25% of its Spaces (or 25% of its Spaces multiplied 250 kg)it is towing, or part of."

If we just look at spaces, this seems ungenerous to things like cars towing caravans, or articulated lorries in general.

A caravan is often at least the same size as a car (often bigger) which would mean that the VHB implies that a car CANNOT tow a caravan (negative speed)
The average trailer towed by an 'artic' is (of course) many times bigger than its prime mover. Again we have an implied speed of... nothing.

Obviously, we should be looking at weight vs power. But I don't see any specifics on calculating that in the Vehicle Hand Book and I don't really want this added complexity.

I suggest that the 'towing' rules change to something like

'A light ground vehicle can tow a payload equal to its own size without penalty to movement speed, but takes an agility loss of -2. Its maximum towed payload is twice its own size (at which point, it reduces max speed by one band and also loses 4 points of agility). It cannot tow more than this.

Heavy Ground Vehicles may tow a payload equal to their own size without penalty. For a payload that is 5 times their size, they lose one speed band and 2 points of agility' . This is cumulative (ie: 10 times size means losing 2 speed bands and 4 agility)

Please feel free to modify these numbers

Thanks, I am definitely looking at the towing rules in general (need to at least double the towing capacity) and adding (back) train rules to allow reasonable, um trains (and for that matter tug boats and tractor-trailers, and um, tug-submarines?? Well why not?). If you look back in the (getting very long) thread I mention adding a Locomotive feature which is a simple way of providing for more, well, horse (poni ?) power without necessary creating a speedster.

You're not too late for the party! I have most stuff sketched out, but there's holes to fill and some things need to be dug up and examined once more.

 

[Heretic]

Thanks, I am definitely looking at the towing rules in general (need to at least double the towing capacity) and adding (back) train rules to allow reasonable, um trains (and for that matter tug boats and tractor-trailers, and um, tug-submarines?? Well why not?). If you look back in the (getting very long) thread I mention adding a Locomotive feature which is a simple way of providing for more, well, horse (poni ?) power without necessary creating a speedster.

You're not too late for the party! I have most stuff sketched out, but there's holes to fill and some things need to be dug up and examined once more.

Sounds good! May I suggest, in addition to 'Locomotive" you could add "Prime Mover" as a relevant wording that could be added to Heavy Ground Vehicles and (perhaps) things like designated tugs? You could say that Prime Movers have much greater towing capacity

 

[Geir]

Sounds good! May I suggest, in addition to 'Locomotive" you could add "Prime Mover" as a relevant wording that could be added to Heavy Ground Vehicles and (perhaps) things like designated tugs? You could say that Prime Movers have much greater towing capacity

I think Locomotive should cover it, though I have yet to build a test train to see if I have it correct.

Okay, checking the document... As of now, towing is changed to allow 50% of its Spaces per Speed Band reduction and double that (one speed band per 100%) if what is being towed doesn't have its own power (or at least not enough to be a powered vehicle in the conventional sense - that covers caravans, railcars, extended trailers, and the like).

If you add the Locomotive Feature to a Heavy vehicle then you get an additional 4x (so 200% or 400% per Speed Band reduction) and then I added another 2x for being on a rail (and 2x more for maglev) - then just to keep too many variations, you could increase the initial Speed Band to something a little unreasonable, so a Very Fast (7) locomotive could haul 32 railcars its own size at Slow (3) hmm. Maybe... like I said, haven't built a test train - at least not until I started typing this. Big trains often have multiple locomotives, though. And a tugboat can push a 10000 TEU container ship (usually that takes more than one and it's really slow, but it is a thing - no 'sea rails', though).

Need to look at some more real-world examples (a.k.a. do research)

 

[agentwigggles]

Vehicles could use different sensor systems, beyond whats established for space ships.
Such as; Chemical Sniffer, tremor sensor, ground penetrating radar, thermalgraphic, night vision, sonar, EMF scanner and probably a high tl psionic sensor thingy. Xray?

 

[Tupper]

Regarding battery fire, I think any rule needs to give an advantage to forming a battery over firing individually, otherwise no-one will want to do it (except to save time at the table).

The trouble at the moment (with individual shots) is that if you have +6 to hit your target due to size, +2 for a competent gunner, and -4 for the longest range you can engage at, you're hitting on 4+. At those odds, ye'd be more takin' the cat o'nine tails to those as missed than handin' out a tot of rum to those as hit, matey.

So step one is to fix accuracy. @tytalan commented that cannons were very inaccurate. Normally that's reflected in low range. However, since range penalties are capped at -4, all that does is create a smaller distance where you're still super accurate. Maybe a better fix is to say that ships provide an unstable platform, which nets an additional fire penalty (or triples the range penalty or somesuch). Or create an "inaccurate" feature for cannons that gives a penalty (although that may be messy, since they don't have it in CSC).

Once you've got a penalty that makes individual shots dicey, then adding a bonus for battery fire will become more attractive. For instance if you hit on a roll of 12 with one gun, then you only expect one of your 37 cannons to hit if you fire individually (ahrrr... they be 74s, not 72s). Give a +6 for firing all at once, and you've got something that ships want to do at that range.

 

[Geir]

Regarding battery fire, I think any rule needs to give an advantage to forming a battery over firing individually, otherwise no-one will want to do it (except to save time at the table).

The trouble at the moment (with individual shots) is that if you have +6 to hit your target due to size, +2 for a competent gunner, and -4 for the longest range you can engage at, you're hitting on 4+. At those odds, ye'd be more takin' the cat o'nine tails to those as missed than handin' out a tot of rum to those as hit, matey.

So step one is to fix accuracy. @tytalan commented that cannons were very inaccurate. Normally that's reflected in low range. However, since range penalties are capped at -4, all that does is create a smaller distance where you're still super accurate. Maybe a better fix is to say that ships provide an unstable platform, which nets an additional fire penalty (or triples the range penalty or somesuch). Or create an "inaccurate" feature for cannons that gives a penalty (although that may be messy, since they don't have it in CSC).

Once you've got a penalty that makes individual shots dicey, then adding a bonus for battery fire will become more attractive. For instance if you hit on a roll of 12 with one gun, then you only expect one of your 37 cannons to hit if you fire individually (ahrrr... they be 74s, not 72s). Give a +6 for firing all at once, and you've got something that ships want to do at that range.

Fair enough on the 74s - but 72 is a more convenient number - need to build the time machine and go back and tell the shipwrights to drop two guns from the standard plan- but as I think I said earlier, they weren't all identical in any case, so batteries would more likely be by deck.

I'm playing (er, working on) a wet navy combat section (not chapter, that would get cut for sure ) and sea state could be a factor too, but I'm not doing climate rules - that's something for some other book- just tossing in a DM for heavy winds (as a stand-in for waves).

But turn it around: on the wall of a fort firing at a siege engine and now the platform is stable (yes, I know, focus on the sci-fi, not the historical, but why not cover both: TL1 and 2 are just as valid as TL14 and 15 and we actually know something about them. Plus I keep thinking back on some of the Keiths' Dark Nebula books - the trick is to make something that works with a third-rate broadside AND with a gauss cannon firing from a hydrofoil - but if it's a contest between a third-rate and the hydrofoil, there should be no question about who wins.)

Can't waste too much time on redoing the Napoleonic wars but this is what I'm currently looking at for cannons (I mean, I could do page of them, but that page is then likely to get cut... so these 3 are probably what can sneak through for direct fire):

( spreadsheet cut and paste: 'RpSpace' is rounds per Space for storing ammo, and ROF, well, it's a slow rate of fire.)

Technically, without the Scope trait, anything above 100m becomes extreme range (-4), so there's that. And a Fire Director is a TL5+ thing so no help to cannon.

I'm already (very occasionally) messing with the CSC values where I've found they need tweaking, but these are 'new' guns and there's no reason why I can't add an Inaccurate trait for anything that isn't rifled (maybe the TL3 version is? US Civil War era?), but I can't make it so bad that a single gun will always miss, either.

Thanks for giving me some more to think about (no, really, I mean it!)

 

[laughdad]

Just to let you know and to solicit, well, opinions and frustrations, I am working on an update to the Vehicle Handbook to address at least the things that have left me a bit frustrated with the current edition and some other things.

Sorry I'm late to the party.
This might be of some interest--I'm still digesting it: The NASA Man-systems integration standards. Chapter 3 has a lot of human measurements in various postures (and a neat chart on how far you can reach at different g-strain levels). I just found it tonight.


More research based on the volume that a seated human takes in a vehicle from our previous discussion.

R//

 

[agentwigggles]

I'm interested in that. I have half a jtas article about rdrive racing written and that sounds neat

 

[tytalan]

Fair enough on the 74s - but 72 is a more convenient number - need to build the time machine and go back and tell the shipwrights to drop two guns from the standard plan- but as I think I said earlier, they weren't all identical in any case, so batteries would more likely be by deck.

I'm playing (er, working on) a wet navy combat section (not chapter, that would get cut for sure ) and sea state could be a factor too, but I'm not doing climate rules - that's something for some other book- just tossing in a DM for heavy winds (as a stand-in for waves).

But turn it around: on the wall of a fort firing at a siege engine and now the platform is stable (yes, I know, focus on the sci-fi, not the historical, but why not cover both: TL1 and 2 are just as valid as TL14 and 15 and we actually know something about them. Plus I keep thinking back on some of the Keiths' Dark Nebula books - the trick is to make something that works with a third-rate broadside AND with a gauss cannon firing from a hydrofoil - but if it's a contest between a third-rate and the hydrofoil, there should be no question about who wins.)

Can't waste too much time on redoing the Napoleonic wars but this is what I'm currently looking at for cannons (I mean, I could do page of them, but that page is then likely to get cut... so these 3 are probably what can sneak through for direct fire):
View attachment 2278
( spreadsheet cut and paste: 'RpSpace' is rounds per Space for storing ammo, and ROF, well, it's a slow rate of fire.)

Technically, without the Scope trait, anything above 100m becomes extreme range (-4), so there's that. And a Fire Director is a TL5+ thing so no help to cannon.

I'm already (very occasionally) messing with the CSC values where I've found they need tweaking, but these are 'new' guns and there's no reason why I can't add an Inaccurate trait for anything that isn't rifled (maybe the TL3 version is? US Civil War era?), but I can't make it so bad that a single gun will always miss, either.

Thanks for giving me some more to think about (no, really, I mean it!)

Artillery didn’t get rifled until late. There’s some serious issues with rifling a cannon. While small firearms are much easier to rifle (muzzle loader started using over size balls that were hammered into the barrels rifling grieves and later a bullet with a conclaves base was used ) none of the methods usable on small arms will work on cannons or artillery.

I really think your going to have to throw out much of the vehicle weapons stats in the CSC they really are unrealistic as well as incompatible with High Guard. As i pointed out earlier all the lasers and the meson gun in the CSC are completely incompatible with High Guard. 60 tons for a Meson gun at TL 15 for a vehicle is stupid when you get a small meson gun bay for 35 tons at TL 15 and the bay ten times the damage. Just using the small bay as an example in theory the vehicle meson gun would be 3.5 tons tho considering the bay would have economy of size I could see 7 tons in a vehicle. I don’t think any other books were considered when the CSC was rewritten because vehicle weapons are not the only mass inconsistently.

The chart on pg 167 of the CSC has to be rewritten otherwise the goal of fixing the VH and making it compatible with HG is never going to succeed.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[Sigtrygg]

Sorry I'm late to the party.
This might be of some interest--I'm still digesting it: The NASA Man-systems integration standards. Chapter 3 has a lot of human measurements in various postures (and a neat chart on how far you can reach at different g-strain levels). I just found it tonight.


More research based on the volume that a seated human takes in a vehicle from our previous discussion.

R//

Useful stuff - and here is the link.

Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS)

Can't find the updated document as yet.

and no sooner do I post that...

NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standard Volume 1, Crew Health | Standards

standards.nasa.gov

NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standard Volume 2: Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health | Standards

standards.nasa.gov

Human Integration Design Handbook - NASA

A companion document to NASA-STD-3001 Volume 2 is the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). The HIDH is a compendium of human space flight

www.nasa.gov

 

[laughdad]

Useful stuff - and here is the link.

Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS)

Can't find the updated document as yet.

and no sooner do I post that...

NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standard Volume 1, Crew Health | Standards

standards.nasa.gov

NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standard Volume 2: Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health | Standards

standards.nasa.gov

Human Integration Design Handbook - NASA

A companion document to NASA-STD-3001 Volume 2 is the Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH). The HIDH is a compendium of human space flight

www.nasa.gov

Thanks! It was late.

 

[laughdad]

I went off on a tangent trying to find the battery rules that snuck into The Imperial Navy book (except I couldn't remember which book: it's on page 113 if someone want to look at them).

Tangent:

Random Rules Sprawl Question

I'm going to write up a Battery (X) - sort of option for vehicles with an unwieldy number of weapons (think a ship-of-the-line broadside), but rather than invent a new rule, I'd rather co-opt some else's new rule (and then if I don't like it, modify it on purpose, a.k.a. with malice, not...

forum.mongoosepublishing.com

Anyway. I'm trying to work out a Battery fire rule without reinventing the wheel and after a rambling post, I've sort of come up with a hybrid of the 'Harmonised' version from the Imperial Navy book and the Missile rules from the Core book.

Goes like this:

1. Gather your identical weapons into batteries (I have options for fire directors to use instead of fire control for batteries - now I get to use them - not sure if I should combine fire control and fire director DMs - probably should, they do different things, but with overlap... grumble).
2. Roll to hit, with the Battery DMs from the table below added to any others.
3. Roll for damage like a missile (roll once for the weapon's damage (no effect), subtract armour ,multiple result by effect) - except there is no maximum Effect - if it's better than the number of guns, then since criticals by Effect aren't possible under this method, fine, extra damage compensates for that.

View attachment 2277

Thought? Problems? Cries of despair? What this 'solves' or tries to solve is dealing with something like a ship's broadside fire without having to roll 30-odd times or making a hit (or multiple hits) a certainty, with minimal disruption to rules already out there (or improvements to them perhaps?)

("Why would you make a battery of less than 4 weapons, Geir?" "Well, because you can use the fire director DM!" - Yes talking to myself out loud, but it does answer the question about making the Fire Director DM add to the Fire Control DM.)

Initial thoughts on things to look at for ideas: Wooden Ships and Iron Men (sailing ship board game), Clear for Action (WW2 miniature naval), and...the Saganami Island Tactical Simulator (Honorverse). I have Wooden Ships and Saganami and can pull them out to see if there's anything there if you are interested.