Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Geir]

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

Yep

 

[Condottiere]

More importantly, can you puncture a spacecraft hull armour factor/zero with your assault rifle?

When the natives get restless.

 

[Geir]

More importantly, can you puncture a spacecraft hull armour factor/zero with your assault rifle?

When the natives get restless.

That is another question that is outstanding (as in not answerable at the moment, but it actually is a really good question)
Since vehicles are getting armour equal to TL against non-DD, non-Blast weapons, then it stands to reason that starships receive the same advantage.
And then against a spaceship you're supposed to round down anything that isn't at least 10 points of damage.
So a 'standardish" TL12 hull gets 12 point by default, and if you cause 9 points, then that rounds down to zero, so it 'sort of' gets 21 points. And then what? A bullet sized hole? Bad for atmosphere, but not necessarily causing any damage, since you'd figure that a 100 ton hull has 40 spaceship points of hull, do we then effectively x10 the hull (400?) in terms of small arms damage. Here is one place where MegaTraveller got it better, starting with 40 points of armour.

 

[Shardan13]

Is it possible to get negative armor? You know, the cheap stuff that disintegrates just by someone glaring at it hard. (just joking)

 

[agentwigggles]

Is it possible to get negative armor? You know, the cheap stuff that disintegrates just by someone glaring at it hard. (just joking)T

Think this can be applied with the unreliable trait for weapons and gear. Though this edition hasnt applied such tags to armor (yet).

 

[Condottiere]

 

[phavoc]

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 it's expensive (so long as it's a reasonable expense compared to other things) grav will be common for starships that land. Otherwise they will have to land under thrust, and they sure as hell ain't gonna glide down or take off that way.

I can tell you from experience that tracked vehicles do require a lot more maintenance than wheeled ones. Ask anyone who's had to maintain their truck vs a track (for me it was a HEMTT vs an M270 Bradley-class track). More lubing of fittings, changing track pads (ugh) and god forbid you break a track. Changing a tire on a HEMTT (especially the back ones - simple!) was a cakewalk in comparison. BTW, the spare tire on the HEMTT weighs 540lbs - trivia question the answer which can get you out of guard duty!

 

[CordwainerFish]

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

In fact, it's exactly wrong as the two mechanics aren't isomorphic.

 

[Geir]

I can tell you from experience that tracked vehicles do require a lot more maintenance than wheeled ones. Ask anyone who's had to maintain their truck vs a track (for me it was a HEMTT vs an M270 Bradley-class track). More lubing of fittings, changing track pads (ugh) and god forbid you break a track. Changing a tire on a HEMTT (especially the back ones - simple!) was a cakewalk in comparison. BTW, the spare tire on the HEMTT weighs 540lbs - trivia question the answer which can get you out of guard duty!

Since tracks double the base cost of the vehicle (in the update this will be consistently true - no light/heavy distinction), it is already covered, so no need to pay for it twice. Plus, like I said, simple is, well, simpler.

 

[phavoc]

Since tracks double the base cost of the vehicle (in the update this will be consistently true - no light/heavy distinction), it is already covered, so no need to pay for it twice. Plus, like I said, simple is, well, simpler.

It's not a bad distinction. For most people the fact that the heavier tracked vehicles do take some extra work, and maintenance and cost, its of little consequence to them. Heavier tracked vehicles have more road wheels and the related costs to that. Beyond that nobody cares (I think).

 

[PeterDebney]

Which brings me to another goal: Structures. A structure (building, outpost, flying city, etc.) is about the right scale for a vehicles book and can use most of the customisations and options of a vehicle, so I am including structures as a vehicle ‘Type’ and structures will have more available spaces than other ‘vehicles’ (just like in Robots, where you can remove the manipulators to give yourself some more slots).

@Geir, I’m a structural engineer with a passion for making things as simple as possible, so happy to help or have ideas bounced off.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Like the current Vehicle Handbook, this book will use Spaces, and it’s basically 4 Spaces to a dton (as a general rule – some things, like a sailing ship, take up more volume than a boxcar). So, the assumption is still, as I did in Robots, that the basic structure, locomotion, fuel, power, and transmission eat half the volume by default and Spaces are what are left to mess with.

Please do away with the 'concealed drivetrain' and the 'automatically takes half the spaces' assumptions. Please let vehicle-designers choose how much volume to give over to how they choose to have the vehicle powered & driven.

Doing this will automatically align 'structures' with 'vehicles', as you make clear is your goal:

That varies, obviously, for things without an engine or without locomotion. And there will be other options for power – not just the stuff in there now, but there’s a Fusion Plus vehicle article already in the pipeline for JTAS, among other things.

Which brings me to another goal: Structures. A structure (building, outpost, flying city, etc.) is about the right scale for a vehicles book and can use most of the customisations and options of a vehicle, so I am including structures as a vehicle ‘Type’ and structures will have more available spaces than other ‘vehicles’ (just like in Robots, where you can remove the manipulators to give yourself some more slots).

If you make 'structures' 16 spaces per dTon, then robot 'slots' will be 16 per Vehicle/Structure space. Not ideal, but at least it would be consistent scaling.

The tag line in my head is ‘Build everything from a chariot to a grav tank and from an outhouse to a flying city’. I will also attempt to make some better construction rules for building your own outpost (or starport – but not at the level of counting all the freshers, or anything silly like that – but at the same level as you can make a starport with Highguard), but that chapter is only a title at the moment.

I look forward to a sensible, unified construction / manufacturing system. The basic concept of the 'person work hour' in the Drinaxian Companion was neat, but fell down by not taking force-multiplication by tools (and higher TL tools) into consideration -- and also by not being easily compatible with anything else. Much of High Guard seems to be written as 'this result for a day of work at some TL', and that could work.

Trains: went away with the current edition and the towing rules are not adequate. And Martin seems to put a train into many of his adventures somehow, so it would be nice to do it right. I think I have a handle on this one. In addition to vehicle Types (not irregularly broken down into various sizes for light and heavy – size is just a property, not a Type), the customisations on the bottom of the current Type pages are now Features that can be applied to various Types (Features like: ATV, Open Frame, Rail Rider, Streamlined, etc.). I just added a Feature of ‘Locomotive’, which has larger tow capabilities (and can also be applied to things like watercraft – it’s a tugboat!) and slower Speed Band changes (built for strength, not speed) and will increase towing capacity even further when vehicles are on certain types of rails. Grav trains… well that may be a can of rotten worms.

I like it; just like bigger TL-9 jump drives never allow Jump-2, the maximum speed / performance for a towing vehicle is set during design. Towing more might slow it down, but towing nothing does not suddenly turn a steam locomotive into a hypersonic racer.

[Edit: Wait -- why did that old post by Gier show as 'new to me'? Crud, I replied to something that was posted on page 2. Oops; mea culpa. Ah, well; I stand by my requests. /Edit]

 

[tytalan]

Please do away with the 'concealed drivetrain' and the 'automatically takes half the spaces' assumptions. Please let vehicle-designers choose how much volume to give over to how they choose to have the vehicle powered & driven.

Doing this will automatically align 'structures' with 'vehicles', as you make clear is your goal:

To quote Gier Simpler is better. It’s already been stated that we are keeping the chassis system if for no other reason than to keep this more friendly.

If you make 'structures' 16 spaces per dTon, then robot 'slots' will be 16 per Vehicle/Structure space. Not ideal, but at least it would be consistent scaling

this is another thing that has been stated as not changing if for no other reason than to keep things in line with Robots. 1 ton = 4 Spaces = 256 Slots is set in stone. The ideal is to change the VH to be inline with Robots and HG not to require an additional rewrite of HG and Robots.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And maintain the ridiculousness of the scale.

1 ton = 14 cubic metres.
1 space = 3.5 cubic metres (nearly 2 times the volume needed for a seated human at a workstation)
1 slot = 55 litres (about 18 times bigger than described in Robots)

It will have to be fixed at some point.

 

[tytalan]

And maintain the ridiculousness of the scale.

1 ton = 14 cubic metres.
1 space = 3.5 cubic metres (nearly 20 times the volume needed for a seated human at a workstation)
1 slot = 55 litres (about 18 times bigger than described in Robots)

It will have to be fixed at some point.

Not in this edition and Mongoose has stated they have no plans on a new edition anytime soon.

 

[Geir]

And maintain the ridiculousness of the scale.

1 ton = 14 cubic metres.
1 space = 3.5 cubic metres (nearly 20 times the volume needed for a seated human at a workstation)
1 slot = 55 litres (about 18 times bigger than described in Robots)

It will have to be fixed at some point.

Not going to defend Slots right now, but I will push back on the 20x comment for Spaces. Even the Gemini capsule, also know by larger astronauts as the Gusmobile, because it was a little difficult to fit into the seats if you were more than 5' 7", had 1.45 cubic metres per astronaut in pressurised volume. And Voskhod capsule, whose external dimensions was barely 6 cubic metres could only fit three cosmonauts in their underwear. No pressure suit, no parachute, surely no paunch. Plus, I am allowing 'clown seating' at 1/4 Space if you want to be entirely miserable and mostly useless. I should work out the available volume in a 737 with Jet Blue seating, and I bet it comes out better than space capsules (can't right now, supposed to be paying attention to all day 'workshop' on a product that won't go live until after I retire)

 

[J. L. Brown]

Not going to defend Slots right now, but I will push back on the 20x comment for Spaces. Even the Gemini capsule, also know by larger astronauts as the Gusmobile, because it was a little difficult to fit into the seats if you were more than 5' 7", had 1.45 cubic metres per astronaut in pressurised volume. And Voskhod capsule, whose external dimensions was barely 6 cubic metres could only fit three cosmonauts in their underwear. No pressure suit, no parachute, surely no paunch. Plus, I am allowing 'clown seating' at 1/4 Space if you want to be entirely miserable and mostly useless. I should work out the available volume in a 737 with Jet Blue seating, and I bet it comes out better than space capsules (can't right now, supposed to be paying attention to all day 'workshop' on a product that won't go live until after I retire)

I love the 'clown seating' option!

That is perfect -- but I thought fractional spaces were something to be avoided if possible. It seems simple -- multiply the number of spaces per dTon by four; make 'clown seating' = 1 space, and a more reasonable-sized workstation = 2 spaces (or more if the occupant is expected to be wearing bulky protective clothing like a vacc-suit or cold-weather gear). An empty dTon of volume (like 'structures') is 16 spaces, but vehicles fill some (to be determined by the vehicle-designer) of that volume with powerplant, drive, and suspension / running gear.

The side benefit of doing this is ditching all the multifarious pages used to describe 'chassis', AND all the various powerplant options (and so on) are easily usable in both 'Structures' and 'Vehicles'.

 

[Sigtrygg]

And I will push back on your push back.

I've already provided you with real world data on this.

"an airline pilot typically has around 1.8 cubic meters of space in the cockpit"

"an economy class passenger typically has around 0.50 cubic meters of space"

Not going to defend Slots right now, but I will push back on the 20x comment for Spaces. Even the Gemini capsule, also know by larger astronauts as the Gusmobile, because it was a little difficult to fit into the seats if you were more than 5' 7", had 1.45 cubic metres per astronaut in pressurised volume. And Voskhod capsule, whose external dimensions was barely 6 cubic metres could only fit three cosmonauts in their underwear. No pressure suit, no parachute, surely no paunch. Plus, I am allowing 'clown seating' at 1/4 Space if you want to be entirely miserable and mostly useless. I should work out the available volume in a 737 with Jet Blue seating, and I bet it comes out better than space capsules (can't right now, supposed to be paying attention to all day 'workshop' on a product that won't go live until after I retire)

 

[Sigtrygg]

And here are the links to the NASA studies in case you missed them back on page 20

Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS)

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

 

[Geir]

And I will push back on your push back.

I've already provided you with real world data on this.

"an airline pilot typically has around 1.8 cubic meters of space in the cockpit"

"an economy class passenger typically has around 0.50 cubic meters of space"

There is also an aisle, an overhead bin, and other space surrounding the exits, so I suspect the average is a lot more. Plus, that space is often computed without accounting for the space of the seats themselves. (I was going to check if the volume dimensions for passenger space accounted for seats and things in my car, but then decide that my methodology (buying manure by the 'cubic yard' (close enough) and seeing how much I could pour in there would probably impact resale value.