Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[chibiko]

I like the Vehicle Handbook and am glad to hear that there will be an update.

Can I request that the installation of spacecraft weapons on vehicles and vehicle weapons on spacecraft rules be revised/fixed?

Currently, the Smaller Weapons rules on p.40 of High Guard Update seems to be conflating mass tons and dtons. I usually handwave this away by declaring the remaining volume is used for connections, automation, dead space, etc.

However, the Spacecraft Weapons rules on p.44 of Vehicle Handbook requires us to multiply the tonnage of a spacecraft weapon by four to get the number of spaces. The first problem with this is that the tonnage (mass tons or dtons) of spacecraft weapons (other than for spinal weapons) is not listed anywhere. The second problem with this approach is that it results in spacecraft weapons taking up far fewer spaces than equivalent vehicle weapons despite the fact that they are described as being larger.

For example, adding a turret with a spacecraft beam laser, which inflicts 1DD ground scale damage, to a vehicle would take up four spaces. Adding a medium laser cannon (CSC Update, p.167), which does equivalent ground scale damage, to a vehicle would take up 24 spaces (6 tons x 4 spaces).

Unless I'm severely misunderstanding something (which is possible), this is an inconsistency that needs to be resolved somehow.

Thanks

 

[Condottiere]

On the other hand, endless ammunition supply.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Well I had no intention of including personal energy shields. Fusion Plus is here and the distinction between a maker and a fabricator may be more a distinction in naming.

Energy shields are now Third Imperium canon, with vehicle and ship screens being TL14 - so are you going to introduce another inconsistency I kid

Personally I would have increased the TL of the research station weapons and shields produced on Sabsee and had drawbacks since these are TL15 experimental or prototype devices.

ion rifle 14/16*
ion rifle 15/17*
ion shield 14/16*
personal energy shield 15/17*
stun rifle 13/15*

*prototype TL in book/standard TL

 

[Shardan13]

Geir - how well do your revised version work with the some of the additional vehicle stuff scattered through the various such as the flying grav submarines found in Solomani front pg 174? Also are some of these additions going to be added in your version?

 

[ottarrus]

So, when are we gonna start with the Robot Handbook?
Asking for a friend....

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

I'm glad that the Vehicle Handbook is finally getting some love, and that you are the one in charge of it, Geir! I'm looking forward to see what you cook up.

If you need help porting older vehicles to your new system, feel free to recruit me and @Technetium 98 (yes, I'm drafting you into this Tech)!

As for requests and suggestions... I guess something I'd like for the book is rules on how to allow vehicles and characters to play nice together; by that I mean, if I am using a character-scale map (1.5 meter squares/hexes), how can I use vehicles within that play-space, as they use speed bands, and how to handle facing changes.

There's an argument here that referees and players should probably use theatre-of-the-mind for these situations, and I actually agree, but some sort of system for handling situations like these, even if not fully comprehensive, would be a welcome addition.

Otherwise, if I can think of anything else or have any suggestions, I'll let you know.

Energy shields are now Third Imperium canon, with vehicle and ship screens being TL14 - so are you going to introduce another inconsistency I kid

Slightly derailing the thread's main subject...

I, too, was bothered by energy shields, but I eventually thought of something while writing the Gravitics chapter of the new SOM that has soothed me somewhat; those shields are simply personal-scale repulsors.

They can deflect incoming missiles (bullets, spears, arrows, flechettes, etc.), can deflect away the flame/plume of a PGMP/FGMP but not protect you from the heat nor radiation, and it simply cannot do anything against lasers as its gravitic fields are entirely too weak to deflect light.

I'd still increase their TL, and have mixed feelings about their inclusion in the first place, but this rationalisation has helped me accept their existence a lil' bit better.

 

[ottarrus]

In re: the Vehicle Handbook, can we stop with some of the stupid vehicle designs?
You know, like the Aslan vehicles that look like a crouching kitten with 4 sets of independently powered tracks. Who the Hell is driving this thing? The Thundercats? ANYBODY who's ever turned a wrench in the military know how catastrophically dumb that is.
Yes it is true that there were some remarkably stupid designs in human history too, but that doesn't mean that Traveller has to encourage those design decisions. At some point, Traveller has to quit designing vehicles like RIFTS... drawing a design like a 13 year old on their notebook cover and then come up with some bullshit stats later.

 

[MasterGwydion]

So dangerous, I know. And towing is one of those "The rulebook doesn't say an Elephant can't play ball" things (I know that's not the right quote, but that's the way I remember it)

Case in point: I am writing a general statement that a vehicle can tow another vehicle if they both have the capability to operate in the same general environment (air, land, sea, submerged). So, an aeroplane can tow another aeroplane: That's how gliders work, they can't get off the ground without it (unless they get pushed off a cliff), but just because that's allowed does not mean an aeroplane is going to be successful towing a helicopter as anything other than dead weight (which will likely result in bad things). And it doesn't prevent a speedboat from also pulling a glider, but don't expect the speedboat to tow a powered down grav vehicle...

At some point the Referee and the players are going to have to agree that the literal words on the page are guidelines, and just because something doesn't say it's not allowed doesn't mean it should be, and vis versa, just because the rules say something is allowed, doesn't mean it has to be allowed in every situation. But you can't teach common sense and you can't waste endless pages on every single edge case; all you can do is write something that applies most of the time and gives someone a clue as to what might not be a good thing to 'allow'.

Make a thing called, "Towing", make it a simple reduction of the vehicle's speed when towing, just like using an M-Drive after you have increased the size of a spaceship. Air vehicles can only tow if their towing speed is high enough to fly. Keeps it simple and infinitely variable, but with no need for huge detailed rules. All vehicles can tow. Towing simply increases the power available for towing and reduces the top speed of the vehicle even when not towing.

 

[ottarrus]

Regarding towing submarines...
I'm a lifelong military historian and live in an area that is infested with bubbleheads [some of whom are my friends] and I have NEVER heard of a submarine towing another submarine while submerged. On the surface, yes, but the physics of hydrology is gonna put a great big 'NOPE' on the idea that there is a submarine tow 'truck' out there.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Regarding towing submarines...
I'm a lifelong military historian and live in an area that is infested with bubbleheads [some of whom are my friends] and I have NEVER heard of a submarine towing another submarine while submerged. On the surface, yes, but the physics of hydrology is gonna put a great big 'NOPE' on the idea that there is a submarine tow 'truck' out there.

Could be done, but you'd need active control surfaces and buoyancy controls on whatever is being towed as well. It would basically be a second submarine, just without the engines. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.

Although, you could "tow" a smaller sub by using a docking clamp, like the rescue subs do.

 

[Libris]

The A, B, C plasma and X, Y, Z fusion guns are a bit disappointing. They’re all 4 tons in the CSC Update 2023. Other than range and no ammo requirements they are very pale comparisons to the originals in Mercenary.

Mercenary LBB started them off at 4 tons (kg not dTons!) but at TL+1 down to 2 tons, at TL+2 down to 0.5 tons and gaining Auto fire - the Rapid Pulse version - likely Auto-3 or Auto-5
I do think that at TL+2 the reduction to 0.5 tons and gaining RP capability is a bit extreme.

I tend to think along the lines a slightly smoother curve but enough to bring High Energy cannon back as the go to vehicle weapons they were in previous incarnations.

My House Rules - work in progress
At each tech level after introduction the weapon halves in weight until it reaches 0.5 tons.
At four Tech Levels after introduction it halves in price.
Rapid Pulse High Energy become available two tech levels after the initial weapon at a base of 2 tons and x2 cost with Auto-3, the Auto-4 and finally Auto-5 at TL+2, TL+3 and TL+4 respectively. They follow the same progression as standard High Energy weapons for weight.

TL TL+1 TL+2 TL+3 TL+4
Standard Mass 4 2 1 0.5 Obsolete
Price X1 X1 X1 X0.5
RP Mass - - 2 1 0.5
Price - - X2 X2 X2
RoF - - Auto-3 Auto-4 Auto-5

At TL12 you could field a RP Plasma-A gun. It’d weigh the same in as a Heavy Gauss cannon and while it’s got longer range and a higher rate of fire it’s over four times the price and the cannon can also fire specialised ammunition.
At TL15 the APC weapon of choice would be a RP X-Gun 2 tons and Auto-3

 

[Geir]

In re: the Vehicle Handbook, can we stop with some of the stupid vehicle designs?
You know, like the Aslan vehicles that look like a crouching kitten with 4 sets of independently powered tracks. Who the Hell is driving this thing? The Thundercats? ANYBODY who's ever turned a wrench in the military know how catastrophically dumb that is.
Yes it is true that there were some remarkably stupid designs in human history too, but that doesn't mean that Traveller has to encourage those design decisions. At some point, Traveller has to quit designing vehicles like RIFTS... drawing a design like a 13 year old on their notebook cover and then come up with some bullshit stats later.

I'm not in charge of art. I can make suggestions, but its up to artists and editors to make the pictures happen - even if I provide a sketch, which normally I would not.

However... you're particular example made me laugh, because in the back of the vehicle yard at work, we have this little vehicle that can take four triangular track section to fit over each wheel, which is exactly the sort of thing that you mentioned. And one of our managers bought something similar to fit on his jeep. I suppose it works in the snow, but, yeah, only semi-practical as an add-on, and not what you would do on a clean vehicle design.

 

[Geir]

Regarding towing submarines...
I'm a lifelong military historian and live in an area that is infested with bubbleheads [some of whom are my friends] and I have NEVER heard of a submarine towing another submarine while submerged. On the surface, yes, but the physics of hydrology is gonna put a great big 'NOPE' on the idea that there is a submarine tow 'truck' out there.

Yeah, that is a marginal case for those, but we don't live on a water world. I image something like that would be more practical in the oceans of Io. So think Science Fiction and not Puget Sound.

 

[Geir]

Geir - how well do your revised version work with the some of the additional vehicle stuff scattered through the various such as the flying grav submarines found in Solomani front pg 174? Also are some of these additions going to be added in your version?

I'm under no obligation to include every vehicle ever created (I was with robots, but there were less than 50 out there - making them all work took some rule gymnastics). A flying submarine, while not impossible under the rules, seems suboptimal (get it! Oh never mind.)

Right now, my thought is to do about 100 vehicles, including updated standard (air/raft, ATV. et. al.) and to try to focus on vehicles that would either have widespread use or that demonstrate (and test) some more obscure aspects of the rules.

It's not supposed to be Charted Space specific (in my mind), so at least some will look more suited to 2300AD, like aerodynes and rockets. And wet naval warfare has been a bit neglected, so for sure there will be trireme, viking longboat, ship-of the line, and dreadnaught-class battleship.

 

[Geir]

I like the Vehicle Handbook and am glad to hear that there will be an update.

Can I request that the installation of spacecraft weapons on vehicles and vehicle weapons on spacecraft rules be revised/fixed?

Currently, the Smaller Weapons rules on p.40 of High Guard Update seems to be conflating mass tons and dtons. I usually handwave this away by declaring the remaining volume is used for connections, automation, dead space, etc.

However, the Spacecraft Weapons rules on p.44 of Vehicle Handbook requires us to multiply the tonnage of a spacecraft weapon by four to get the number of spaces. The first problem with this is that the tonnage (mass tons or dtons) of spacecraft weapons (other than for spinal weapons) is not listed anywhere. The second problem with this approach is that it results in spacecraft weapons taking up far fewer spaces than equivalent vehicle weapons despite the fact that they are described as being larger.

For example, adding a turret with a spacecraft beam laser, which inflicts 1DD ground scale damage, to a vehicle would take up four spaces. Adding a medium laser cannon (CSC Update, p.167), which does equivalent ground scale damage, to a vehicle would take up 24 spaces (6 tons x 4 spaces).

Unless I'm severely misunderstanding something (which is possible), this is an inconsistency that needs to be resolved somehow.

Thanks

I'll look at it carefully. Haven't written that section yet. Not sure what the answer is going to be, though, because you can slip three starship-grade lasers into a ship turret. I think the best approach will be to see if weapons doing equivalent damage scale back and forth.

The conflation is a bit tricky, especially since a Space is often described as 250kg equivalent and 4 Spaces make a dTon, but very few things have the density of liquid hydrogen (but a small amount of metal in a larger volume of air does sort of fit the bill... headache.

 

[Geir]

The A, B, C plasma and X, Y, Z fusion guns are a bit disappointing. They’re all 4 tons in the CSC Update 2023. Other than range and no ammo requirements they are very pale comparisons to the originals in Mercenary.

Mercenary LBB started them off at 4 tons (kg not dTons!) but at TL+1 down to 2 tons, at TL+2 down to 0.5 tons and gaining Auto fire - the Rapid Pulse version - likely Auto-3 or Auto-5
I do think that at TL+2 the reduction to 0.5 tons and gaining RP capability is a bit extreme.

I tend to think along the lines a slightly smoother curve but enough to bring High Energy cannon back as the go to vehicle weapons they were in previous incarnations.

My House Rules - work in progress
At each tech level after introduction the weapon halves in weight until it reaches 0.5 tons.
At four Tech Levels after introduction it halves in price.
Rapid Pulse High Energy become available two tech levels after the initial weapon at a base of 2 tons and x2 cost with Auto-3, the Auto-4 and finally Auto-5 at TL+2, TL+3 and TL+4 respectively. They follow the same progression as standard High Energy weapons for weight.

TL TL+1 TL+2 TL+3 TL+4
Standard Mass 4 2 1 0.5 Obsolete
Price X1 X1 X1 X0.5
RP Mass - - 2 1 0.5
Price - - X2 X2 X2
RoF - - Auto-3 Auto-4 Auto-5

At TL12 you could field a RP Plasma-A gun. It’d weigh the same in as a Heavy Gauss cannon and while it’s got longer range and a higher rate of fire it’s over four times the price and the cannon can also fire specialised ammunition.
At TL15 the APC weapon of choice would be a RP X-Gun 2 tons and Auto-3

Those energy guns were taken from the original Vehicle Handbook that I'm now fixing, so it is a carried-forward problem that needs to be fixed.

Problem number one is that as written, the g/carrier can't actually carry a fusion gun-z in its small turret, so that has to be fixed by making a smaller set of energy weapons. No reason why the larger set can't be looked at. When we get into weapons of that (larger) scale it will make sense to make them equivalent to spacecraft weapons. In fact making, them scale appropriately and be 'interchangeable' would help enormously.

 

[Geir]

Don't forget mole vehicles. Have to have something to use my Drive (mole) on while digging out MasterGwydion's underground volcano lair.

Tunneller

 

[Technetium 98]

If you need help porting older vehicles to your new system, feel free to recruit me and Technetium 98 (yes, I'm drafting you into this Tech)!

that is a dreadful plan

Annoyingly, I don't have any major criticisms for the book besides making the vehicles themselves a bit smaller - makes assault ships nightmares to put together - and keeping consistency to multiplicative/additive modifiers.

 

[Condottiere]

If you can't get a submarine to fly, make an aircraft dive.

 

[ottarrus]

I'm not in charge of art. I can make suggestions, but its up to artists and editors to make the pictures happen - even if I provide a sketch, which normally I would not.

However... you're particular example made me laugh, because in the back of the vehicle yard at work, we have this little vehicle that can take four triangular track section to fit over each wheel, which is exactly the sort of thing that you mentioned. And one of our managers bought something similar to fit on his jeep. I suppose it works in the snow, but, yeah, only semi-practical as an add-on, and not what you would do on a clean vehicle design.

Maybe it's the fact that I'm a former tank crewman and have a BUNCH of experience in the Mystical Art of the Care and Feeding of Tracked Vehicles that this particular designed got on my one good nerve so much.
And art has been something that Mongoose REALLY needs to get a handle on. The pairing of the art with the stat-sheet is important and gives the reader a major impression of the described equipment.
Need another example? How about the STUPID dog-headed 'sighting systems' on two Vargr firearms in the same book, Aliens of Charted Space 1?
That is literally the most ignorant illustration I've seen in Mongoose Traveller 2e and it needs to excised from any future printings.