MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Safari Ship with a pressure hull. easy. lol
Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works
- Thread starter Geir
- Start date
agentwigggles
Cosmic Mongoose
Okay, lets have some tuff love.
The space system that Mr. Dunn wrote up, I think was a worthwhile attempt at generizing vehicles.
Its a failed expirment. While I am sure some folks do quite enjoy engaging with the system to make Vehicles. I'm looking at you 51er on the fan discorder. And thank you for willingness to engage with it.
With spaces only exiting just for vehicles, I think we can excuse the need to backwards compatible it, as long as we have a means to forcompat them to a none space system.
But currently, cant quite have a Saber and Mig 15 fight each and it feeling any real difference between the two crafts.
I think at a min. we need to get rid of Speed Bands. I dont think range bands work well with vehicles. That needs to be replaced. I am weary of wanting to use literal distance. With 3d movement that can lead to bad table top math. I know that spaceship do 3d movement too, but with any two space ship, you can plot their relative position to each other as its a 2d plane. Dont think its quite as doable with jets/helicopter/grav tanks. Though maybe it is.
I think we need to add in acceleration, breaking, cruise speed (duration), max speed (duration). Agility is still great for showing how the vehicle can take turns. Though a system where changing direction as a target number, may be worth exploring. Then not requiring a roll unless the turn matches the agility of the vehicle. The Turn TN gains DM from the Vehicle Speed at the start of turn and if its overlayden. For simplicity, I would expirment with overlayden as a binary.
Towing rules need to be worked over. I need trains.
I also want to do daring races of hand pulled ricksaws down an open market.
The space system that Mr. Dunn wrote up, I think was a worthwhile attempt at generizing vehicles.
Its a failed expirment. While I am sure some folks do quite enjoy engaging with the system to make Vehicles. I'm looking at you 51er on the fan discorder. And thank you for willingness to engage with it.
With spaces only exiting just for vehicles, I think we can excuse the need to backwards compatible it, as long as we have a means to forcompat them to a none space system.
But currently, cant quite have a Saber and Mig 15 fight each and it feeling any real difference between the two crafts.
I think at a min. we need to get rid of Speed Bands. I dont think range bands work well with vehicles. That needs to be replaced. I am weary of wanting to use literal distance. With 3d movement that can lead to bad table top math. I know that spaceship do 3d movement too, but with any two space ship, you can plot their relative position to each other as its a 2d plane. Dont think its quite as doable with jets/helicopter/grav tanks. Though maybe it is.
I think we need to add in acceleration, breaking, cruise speed (duration), max speed (duration). Agility is still great for showing how the vehicle can take turns. Though a system where changing direction as a target number, may be worth exploring. Then not requiring a roll unless the turn matches the agility of the vehicle. The Turn TN gains DM from the Vehicle Speed at the start of turn and if its overlayden. For simplicity, I would expirment with overlayden as a binary.
Towing rules need to be worked over. I need trains.
I also want to do daring races of hand pulled ricksaws down an open market.
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
You're quite right - its not just the holes in the Vehicles book, it is also the core rules around vehicles that are not fit for purpose. The speed bands and range bands just don't work well. I appreciate that Mongoose said its all "cinematic" and "theatre of the mind" when developing 2e and these issues were raised, but the vehicles and the rules just don't result in a compelling experience.
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
Yes it was! It was detailed using the Striker design system in CT/Striker Book 3 on page 29, and appears again in MegaTrav 101 Vehicles on page 19, and again in TNE/Regency Combat Vehicle Guide on pages 16-17.
Last edited:
Talon Greyfeather
Banded Mongoose
I think it should be renamed "The Construction Handbook" and bring everything together.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
So to be clear: I don't like Spaces, but I can make them work: A Space a unit that corresponds to the configurable half of a quarter of a dton. So from the outside, a quarter-dton cube (1.5 meters on a side at 13.5m^3 for a dton - not so much at 14m^3, but let's try to imagine this like a deck plan for now. Humour me.)
If a deck plan was 3D, then a 'dton' would be two squares across and two high, and one of those squares would be the outside of a one Space vehicle. If that vehicle was a box (Structure with no power plant or locomotion) you could cram 2 Spaces worth of stuff in that box. If it's anything other than an empty box, it's less - again half full (half empty?) is the default, but if it's part of an airship, you only get a small little fraction to work with.
As long as I remember that and fill in within the lines, it all seems to work out without having to compute actual volumes of spheres, cylinders, streamlined shapes, or what-have-you (it also gives artists some freedom to... hopefully not make human vehicles look like monkeys... but that a different Chirper ball). It does mean that a 100 Space Structure with nothing in it (it's a box! or a shipping container.) can have up to 200 Spaces of stuff inside, but I've carefully fixed the internal bays (and added Docking Space as an option) so you can't start a Tardis chain of bays (as written, with the current VH you can do that... easily!).
So you've got that table I posted above. 10 Types of 'vehicles', 28 Features, and then you can still mess with your Spaces to add different (or multiple) power sources, change the range and speed further and then add options to the hull or interior to your heart's content. And weapons. If you want one TL6 jet fighter to have different characteristics than another, then you can make one Fast, the other Agile, throw on some more Range (eat Spaces for auxiliary tanks or whatever) and mess with the size of the machineguns or cannons. A hundred variations of a TL6 20 Space fighter (not to be confused with a spacefighter).
If a deck plan was 3D, then a 'dton' would be two squares across and two high, and one of those squares would be the outside of a one Space vehicle. If that vehicle was a box (Structure with no power plant or locomotion) you could cram 2 Spaces worth of stuff in that box. If it's anything other than an empty box, it's less - again half full (half empty?) is the default, but if it's part of an airship, you only get a small little fraction to work with.
As long as I remember that and fill in within the lines, it all seems to work out without having to compute actual volumes of spheres, cylinders, streamlined shapes, or what-have-you (it also gives artists some freedom to... hopefully not make human vehicles look like monkeys... but that a different Chirper ball). It does mean that a 100 Space Structure with nothing in it (it's a box! or a shipping container.) can have up to 200 Spaces of stuff inside, but I've carefully fixed the internal bays (and added Docking Space as an option) so you can't start a Tardis chain of bays (as written, with the current VH you can do that... easily!).
So you've got that table I posted above. 10 Types of 'vehicles', 28 Features, and then you can still mess with your Spaces to add different (or multiple) power sources, change the range and speed further and then add options to the hull or interior to your heart's content. And weapons. If you want one TL6 jet fighter to have different characteristics than another, then you can make one Fast, the other Agile, throw on some more Range (eat Spaces for auxiliary tanks or whatever) and mess with the size of the machineguns or cannons. A hundred variations of a TL6 20 Space fighter (not to be confused with a spacefighter).
Last edited:
The Empress Class G-Carrier had a RPF-X but the Astrin pg 87 Rebellion Source Book did not. The imperium had Multiple different classes of G-Carriers. This is also true in 101 Vehicles and the wiki . There are actually 3 different families of Grav APC you have the Astrin/Trepida/MAV these were originally TL 14 and specifically made to drop from orbit and where lighter and cheaper to produce with the MAV actually being TL 15. The Trepida was produced starting 1109 and the Astrin production was started in 1112. The turret was added to the Astrin in 1116 but with the rebellion very few were released. Once things settled down in the regency they continued to add the turret to the Astrin but few Astrin’s with the turret ever saw combat durning the rebellion and were basically limited to the regency.
Then you have the Imperial Class Grav APC there were many different models all using the same hull, these were design for both the Army and Marines. These vehicles were heavier and had many more versions. The Empress Class was in direct competition with the Imperial class and was an attempt for an all in one Armored Grav Vehicle. Both the Imperial Class and the Empress Class were done at TL 15.
Last edited:
collins355
Cosmic Mongoose
No, the Empress APC had a RP-Y Gun. Because it is the same vehicle as the CT/Striker Book 3 Imperial Marine APC and the Kinunir Marine Grav APC.
Agreed that the Imperium had multiple different vehicles. The Marines used the 12dT Empress. The Army used the 20dT Grav APC (and then as you point out from 1112 the 10dT Astrin began appearing). The designer told me he originally had the Astrin (and Trepida) as TL15 designs when he submitted them to DGP, but when the publication appeared they had been changed to TL14. We'll probably never know why as the DGP crew have long since moved on. The MegaTrav Astrin was designed with a hardpoint included, it just wasn't filled.
These aren't the G-carrier though. That is a completely different vehicle. Different size. Different capacity. Different armament. etc.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
When I get the rules and the spreadsheet nailed down a bit better and a display form that doesn't look like crap, I'll take a few requests for 'classic' (small c) vehicles like the Trepida and Astrin and I can post the results to see if they at least somewhat correspond to the 'originals'. I can guarantee that not all of them will, but I'd like to get at least near plausible facsimiles. I'm getting pretty close on the design rules and options and starting to build out the test weapons - though all I have right now are direct fire projectile weapons, mostly from the CSC with just a few tweaks.
(Still some things that don't look right: modelling a diesel submarine, for instance - in the current VHB the range and speed correspond to what it can do underwater, but if you look at at say WWII subs, they can do a faster speed and much more range on the surface. Two ways to handle that: either just say that they can do that, or give them an explicit secondary locomotion system for surface travel and work out the kinks in that - the latter is probably a more realistic of a solution, but might become a mess to implement... which reminds me... can't forget to add torpedoes to the weapons section.)
(Still some things that don't look right: modelling a diesel submarine, for instance - in the current VHB the range and speed correspond to what it can do underwater, but if you look at at say WWII subs, they can do a faster speed and much more range on the surface. Two ways to handle that: either just say that they can do that, or give them an explicit secondary locomotion system for surface travel and work out the kinks in that - the latter is probably a more realistic of a solution, but might become a mess to implement... which reminds me... can't forget to add torpedoes to the weapons section.)
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
I don't know, maybe the scale was off.
After all, ground scale should be a tenth of space scale.
After all, ground scale should be a tenth of space scale.
agentwigggles
Cosmic Mongoose
The only way to do that is to give vehicles more stats.
Which I agree with. Though I dont think it can just be just a different acceleration stat.
Also need a Breaking stat.
Which I agree with. Though I dont think it can just be just a different acceleration stat.
Also need a Breaking stat.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
ICE on the surface. Battery power underwater. One is a primary propulsion, the other is secondary. Non-nuclear subs are designed to be used on the surface most of the time, only diving for combat operations. So using ICE as your primary and battery as your secondary would work.
For Nuclear subs, since modern nuclear subs are faster submerged than on the surface, use a nuclear powered motor but give then a "terrain" modification to slow them down on the surface since running on the surface is not what nuclear subs are designed for.
MasterGwydion
Emperor Mongoose
Make acceleration be measured in Gs, same as spacecraft. Use the same G number for breaking, same as spacecraft. This allows everything you want and keeps it as the same system for spacecraft and for vehicles. Much easier to learn that way.
What I would like to see is the size engine you put in gives you a "point pool". Baseline engine gets you the baseline stats for that engine. Install a bigger engine, and you get percentage points that you can add to more power, or more speed, or more acceleration.
Gavain
Banded Mongoose
Yeah I assumed symmetrical acceleration and breaking. I use one stat which is the number of rounds (R) to get to the top speed (TS). From there I either use linear acceleration 50% TS in R/2 rounds. Or split it 50% TS @ R/3 rounds and 75% TS in 2/3R. Which is ok if using spreadsheets.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
I already wrote "takes twice as many rounds to change a Speed Band" into locomotive and I can do the same for really big vehicles. That would control it on both acceleration and deceleration.
(but I have to be careful, because I don't want to break the really simple but workable thing I did for rockets).
Didn't make it a Trait though... Sluggish? Okay, that needs a thesaurus.
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Hmm... from Thesaurus.com:
Strongest matches
heavy inactive lethargic listless slack slow stagnant
Weak matches
apathetic blah comatose dopey down dragging draggy drippy hebetudinous indolent inert laid-back languid languorous leaden lifeless lumpish mooney off phlegmatic pokey sleepyheaded slothful sluggard slumberous stiff sullen torpid unresponsive
As fun as some of those are, since I already use heavy for size and slow as a feature... unresponsive seems the best fit, but a bit blah. Definitely not going with hebetudinous.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Geir
Emperor Mongoose
Hah! Coffee kicks in: Unresponsive # (it takes #rounds to change Speed bands up to Fast and #minutes beyond Fast). Rockets are not affected by Unresponsive.
Which also gives me a good justification for JATO (well actually RATO, but it never occurred to me that the acronym was off until I checked the wiki)
Which also gives me a good justification for JATO (well actually RATO, but it never occurred to me that the acronym was off until I checked the wiki)
