Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[MasterGwydion]

Turn speed of weapons is something to consider maybe. Sailing ships cannon, had no turning. CWIS has wicked fast turning speed.

One is a turret weapon, the other isn't. This should already be accounted for.

 

[Tupper]

I like the inaccurate trait. I think it'll give cannon behaviour one would want to see:

* Difficulty hitting ships when fired individually at reasonable ranges.
* A strong incentive to fire barrages to mitigate that.

I still think there may be merit to having a range longer than extreme for vehicle combat for more modern weapons, though, to avoid the problem that when they shoot at big vehicles they suddenly go from hitting on 4+ (-4 for range, +6 for size, +2 for skill) at extreme range to being unable to hit beyond there.

That said, with the new size scale, simply hitting a big target probably isn't going to achieve much: you really need to critically hit it, and that would need 10+ at extreme range.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Question, why is the boon/bane mechanic not used more for this stuff?

It is a core rule and offers solutions to problems, especially if you let them stack (there was a discussion about this way back in the day during playtest IIRC)

You are on a moving ship - bane
target is moving - bane
sea is smooth - normal
sea is rough - bane

Roll 5 dice and take the lowest 2.

Agility - if your skill and attribute DM are less than the agility of the craft - bane

 

[MasterGwydion]

Question, why is the boon/bane mechanic not used more for this stuff?

It is a core rule and offers solutions to problems, especially if you let them stack (there was a discussion about this way back in the day during playtest IIRC)

You are on a moving ship - bane
target is moving - bane
sea is smooth - normal
sea is rough - bane

Roll 5 dice and take the lowest 2.

Agility - if your skill and attribute DM are less than the agility of the craft - bane

I never use Boons and Banes. I just change the Difficulty level to match the action. Boons and Banes are a stupid add-on that is already covered by Difficulty. It is an extra mechanic that duplicates another mechanic.

 

[Sigtrygg]

They are a core rule for Mongoose Traveller, your prejudice not withstanding , every group I have ever used the boon/bane mechanic keeps it - players like it for some reason.

 

[GabrielGABFonseca]

I never use Boons and Banes. I just change the Difficulty level to match the action. Boons and Banes are a stupid add-on that is already covered by Difficulty. It is an extra mechanic that duplicates another mechanic.

From a statistical standpoint, they're two different things, actually.

Adding or subtracting DMs simply displaces the ""bell curve"" (it's more like a triangle, really) to the left or right.

A Boon and Bane each ""shear"" the probability curves to one side or another, such that its shape somewhat resembles (I'm sorry, but I really cannot think of a better example at the moment) the side profile of a breast.

So while the merits (or lack thereof) of Boons/Banes is up for debate, saying it ""duplicates"" another mechanic isn't exactly right.

 

[Geir]

They are a core rule for Mongoose Traveller, your prejudice not withstanding, every group I have ever used the boon/bane mechanic keeps it - players like it for some reason.

They are a core rule, but the guidance I've been given is to not write them into specific tasks, but leave them for a conditional modifier for the Referee to apply as deemed appropriate for the situation.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Which is why I suggested them as conditions for ships - how is it different to adding a "tag" that grants a DM, why can't a "tag" grant a boon or bane?

eg Armour piercing could be boon on your damage dice roll, low penetration could be a bane on your damage dice roll

 

[MasterGwydion]

From a statistical standpoint, they're two different things, actually.

Adding or subtracting DMs simply displaces the ""bell curve"" (it's more like a triangle, really) to the left or right.

A Boon and Bane each ""shear"" the probability curves to one side or another, such that its shape somewhat resembles (I'm sorry, but I really cannot think of a better example at the moment) the side profile of a breast.

So while the merits (or lack thereof) of Boons/Banes is up for debate, saying it ""duplicates"" another mechanic isn't exactly right.

View attachment 2320

To Me, that is not enough of a difference to warrant a different mechanic. All Boon or Bane is descriptively, is something makes the task you are trying to accomplish a little easier or a little harder. That is almost the exact same thing descriptively as Difficulty. So, like I said, I don't use it. I do use the things that can give you Boons and Banes, but I just change the difficulty instead.

 

[agentwigggles]

Gos bless anydice

 

[agentwigggles]

Tag
Transverse #: This gun has an agility score. If this gun is targeting a moving vehicle with greater agility then the gun agility score, the the difference is a DM- to the Travellers Gunner skill. While in a dogfight the attacking vehicle have a base 4? agility. Traveller adjacent to close have an agility of 4?

 

[agentwigggles]

This covers close range inaccuracies and now the big slow WW2 guns can be slower than the grav tank turret
Big guns can't be used for anti fighter duties or can't used for it well.

 

[phavoc]

Once grav tech becomes available I think only tight-fisted PCs would opt out of using lifter technology for a vehicle where it may prove to be useful. Sure, wheeled and tracked vehicles will still exist, but for anything that flies and lands on a planet grav tech would (or should) be the defacto standard.

It's too useful and practical to not use it.

I do agree with your point that committing to it and actually stating it and explaining it is nothing but advantageous to the reader. Inference amd assumptions are good, but not when it comes to rules.

 

[Condottiere]

At this moment, well, actually about six hours ago, I'm wondering if engineering units still bother with bridging equipment.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Once grav tech becomes available I think only tight-fisted PCs would opt out of using lifter technology for a vehicle where it may prove to be useful. Sure, wheeled and tracked vehicles will still exist, but for anything that flies and lands on a planet grav tech would (or should) be the defacto standard.

It's too useful and practical to not use it.

I do agree with your point that committing to it and actually stating it and explaining it is nothing but advantageous to the reader. Inference amd assumptions are good, but not when it comes to rules.

The problem there is that Mongoose has committed to 'Grav is expensive and requires cost prohibitive maintenance'. Page 42 of 'Mercenary Book 2: Running a Mercenary Force' makes it clear that grav vehicles cost 5x as much to maintain and repair as wheeled vehicles, and 2x as much as tracked vehicles. There is no allowance for TL at all.

Also -- I question the assumption that tracked vehicles require 2.5 times the maintenance of wheeled vehicles. I seem to remember a modern defense budget analysis where they were basically equivalent in cost.

 

[Geir]

The problem there is that Mongoose has committed to 'Grav is expensive and requires cost prohibitive maintenance'. Page 42 of 'Mercenary Book 2: Running a Mercenary Force' makes it clear that grav vehicles cost 5x as much to maintain and repair as wheeled vehicles, and 2x as much as tracked vehicles. There is no allowance for TL at all.

Also -- I question the assumption that tracked vehicles require 2.5 times the maintenance of wheeled vehicles. I seem to remember a modern defense budget analysis where they were basically equivalent in cost.

Yeah, I'm sticking to the percentage cost method (0.5% per month) with no multipliers. Too complicated otherwise. Don't care if it's an air/raft or a tractor. The air/raft is already more expensive than the go-cart.

I did provide enough detail to optionally help figure out how big a maintenance staff and supply closet you need for something really big (building or outpost big), but as it's a fraction of the overall cost (no, really a fraction, as in 10% goes for labour, so you can bake that into staff if you want that detail and ignore if you don't, and the cost stays the same either way).

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

(not gonna put ion guns in the Vehicle Handbook. Maybe a stunner cannon for crowd control, but the only reference to ions is not a reference to ions, just the message that you can install starship-grade weapons - and yes, they have to scale properly I know, I know...)

Can you include a ship scale profile for weapons that do 1DD damage or more?

 

[agentwigggles]

The problem there is that Mongoose has committed to 'Grav is expensive and requires cost prohibitive maintenance'. Page 42 of 'Mercenary Book 2: Running a Mercenary Force' makes it clear that grav vehicles cost 5x as much to maintain and repair as wheeled vehicles, and 2x as much as tracked vehicles. There is no allowance for TL at all.

Also -- I question the assumption that tracked vehicles require 2.5 times the maintenance of wheeled vehicles. I seem to remember a modern defense budget analysis where they were basically equivalent in cost.

Even if Merc was well liked module, it was position in its totality, as modular and wholely optional.
Which means none of it, should taken as universal and used as basis for anything else.
Even if it wasnt; it would be hard pressed to not acknowledge that maintaince cost, in that book are just shit. They're terrible. The first draft had it, that it was cheaper to buy new vehicles every month then to change the oil. And the tl and kind of equipment also doesnt actually matter for its mass combat rules.
Its just, its a bad series of books. The worse of this edition so far.

 

[Geir]

Can you include a ship scale profile for weapons that do 1DD damage or more?

That gets a bit tricky around range.
The firmpoint rules limiting range to about 10 km rears it's ugly head. You can drop a D off the DD easy enough, but range gets problematic.

In some future version I'm in favour of making sensors, not size the differentiator of spacecraft range (well, the weapons will still have range limitations but the nerfing of a weapon, even if turret installed, to Adjacent or Close range because it's on a sub-100 ton platform) is one of the things that make my teeth grind) - that and the magical turret size that lets you store 12 missiles and 20 sandcaster canisters regardless of what else in in there (so a triple turret with missile, sand, beam, 12 missiles, and 20 canisters will all fit in the 1 ton turret, but stored separately, not so much) - of course I want hardpoints (unconfigured, still use a dton) back as well.

So to answer your question. Not sure how to do it, other than dropping a D.

 

[MasterGwydion]

That gets a bit tricky around range.
The firmpoint rules limiting range to about 10 km rears it's ugly head. You can drop a D off the DD easy enough, but range gets problematic.

In some future version I'm in favour of making sensors, not size the differentiator of spacecraft range (well, the weapons will still have range limitations but the nerfing of a weapon, even if turret installed, to Adjacent or Close range because it's on a sub-100 ton platform) is one of the things that make my teeth grind) - that and the magical turret size that lets you store 12 missiles and 20 sandcaster canisters regardless of what else in in there (so a triple turret with missile, sand, beam, 12 missiles, and 20 canisters will all fit in the 1 ton turret, but stored separately, not so much) - of course I want hardpoints (unconfigured, still use a dton) back as well.

So to answer your question. Not sure how to do it, other than dropping a D.

1DD Vehicle-Scale = 1D Ship-Scale. yes?