Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[Condottiere]

Requirement for a specific space volume, doesn't mean the object takes up that volume.

 

[tytalan]

I proposed that the current 1 -> 8 -> 256 (2^0 -> 2^3 -> 2^8) scaling should be made explicit; but the more I look at it the wonkier it seems. I think it would be more sensible and consistent to use a constant factor to scale between all the levels; 1 -> 16 -> 256 (2^0 -> 2^4 -> 2^8) or 1-> 8 -> 64 (2^0 -> 2^3 -> 2^6)

Since Traveller is almost exclusively metric, a 1 -> 10 -> 100 scaling appeals to me as well; but scaling volume is talking about cubes & '10 times' really does not fit neatly into that paradigm. Factors of a thousand could work, but runs into large numbers pretty quickly.

That’s not the current scaling it’s specific in Robots that the scaling is 1->4->256 pg 14 Robots “A spacecraft ton – approximately 14 cubic metres – is the equivalent of four Spaces or 256 Slots. Of course this would make a Space equal to more than 54 litres of volume but only if all Spaces were perfect cubes.” Even the Vehicle handbook supports this pg 14 1 available space equal.5 tons

 

[tytalan]

Requirement for a specific space volume, doesn't mean the object takes up that volume.

No but Robots says specifically this “A spacecraft ton – approximately 14 cubic metres – is the equivalent of four Spaces or 256 Slots. Of course this would make a Space equal to more than 54 litres of volume but only if all Spaces were perfect cubes.”

 

[Condottiere]

Unless everything is compacted together, sometimes you need buffer space.

 

[Condottiere]

Speaking of cubes ...

 

[J. L. Brown]

Gier might change it but as of right now it is both Robots and the vehicle handbook supports this. Vehicle handbook 1 available space equals .5 tons pg 14 VH. I actually suggests this does not change since it will invalidate the information in Robots 1-4-256 ton-space-slot

You are referring to Vehicle Handbook Update p14? In the 'Light Ground Vehicle' chassis design template it does specify 0.5 dTons per vehicle space. It also uses that same factor in many other chassis designs -- but it is an awkward and awful kludge.

On page 26, in the 'Heavy Aeroplane' template, it specifies 1 dTon per space. Same for 'Light Jet' on page 27; and page 29 under 'Helicopter, Aerodyne, and Ornithopter'. For 'Heavy Jet' on page 28 it actually specifies 2 dTons per space of vehicle.

Going the other direction, the 'Unpowered Boat' design template (page 19) specifies 0.25 dTons per space of vehicle; and the 'Airship' template calls for 0.1 dTons per 'space' of vehicle.

All of this is exactly the problem -- each of these has some assumptions built-in in the background that never get explicitly declared to the person who is designing a vehicle. I advocate doing away with this BS 'padding' and make the correlation exact.

Do not include 'Well, we will just assume that every vehicle will be using a Full Hangar and not be collapsed for transport or maybe sometimes it is' in the background; do not include 'half of the usable volume in a vehicle is taken up by stuff like engines and so on' -- just let the players know exactly how much volume is contained inside the outermost layer of hull of the vehicle, and then let them decide whether to fill up half (or less, or more) the interior with powerplant, fuel, suspension, drivetrain, and so on. Let players and GMs decide whether their vehicle is taking up Space Station 'Docking Space', High Guard 'Full Hangar' space, or packed into crates, or simply using the High Guard 'Docking Space' rule, or even being sized for a High Guard 'Launch tube'.

 

[Anstett]

Unless everything is compacted together, sometimes you need buffer space.

The master of memes for explanations.

 

[Geir]

That is not my understanding. Gier mentioned earlier that a dTon is eight vehicle 'spaces' -- but that the assumption in the vehicle handbook is that when you are designing a vehicle, half of the spaces are automatically taken up with power-plant, drive-train, suspension, and other stuff; so that a designer only has 4 vehicle 'spaces' per dTon to work with. That assumption is an awful kludge, and needs to go away.

Except I corrected myself later. It is 4. Needs to be four. All the strings in the ball of wax... er... strings... come apart if it's not four. I double counted or double divided - which is why I hate Spaces I just have to remember 64 -> 4 -> 1 and stop thinking deeply. The only real constant across all of Traveller seems to be displacement tons (although we can argue about how big they are exactly. So maybe next version we use milli-displacement tons (mdtons). Only half kidding. Maybe three-quarters.

[Edit: Also, another feature request -- dedicated contra-grav 'lifters', perhaps with a 'fixed height' or 'maximum ceiling' option, that provide zero thrust. It seems silly, I know, but there are folks out there who would love to be able to design a grav push-cart. And please, as much as possible, try to cleanly separate 'gravitic' effects from 'magnetic' effects; folks get confused enough as it is. /Edit]

Lifters are defined pretty clearly in T5 and I stole that. They move at no more than 50 kph, but can still (eventually) climb to 1D, which, the surface being a half D, is another half D above that.

 

[Geir]

Speaking of cubes ...

Okay, I'm going to use cat-cubes as the measure of volume from now on.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Except I corrected myself later. It is 4. Needs to be four. All the strings in the ball of wax... er... strings... come apart if it's not four. I double counted or double divided - which is why I hate Spaces I just have to remember 64 -> 4 -> 1 and stop thinking deeply. The only real constant across all of Traveller seems to be displacement tons (although we can argue about how big they are exactly. So maybe next version we use milli-displacement tons (mdtons). Only half kidding. Maybe three-quarters.

Lifters are defined pretty clearly in T5 and I stole that. They move at no more than 50 kph, but can still (eventually) climb to 1D, which, the surface being a half D, is another half D above that.

If it only needs to be four because the assumption is that 'that is the only usable volume left after the drivetrain, powerplant, and fuel', then I strongly disagree. Give that volume to the designer. Likewise, please abolish the 0.5 dTons per space for shipping' (sometimes, but sometimes not) stuff as well. 2^0 -> 2^3 -> 2^6 is much cleaner.

The T5 lifters which can reach space are NOT what I am asking for -- I want to be able to design Luke's landspeeder. It is a gravitic vehicle that has a maximum height of ~1m, and it can be pushed along by the engines at several hundred kmph. It is not a flyer in any sense of the term, and Traveller does not appear to have an equivalent.

 

[Terry Mixon]

If it only needs to be four because the assumption is that 'that is the only usable volume left after the drivetrain, powerplant, and fuel', then I strongly disagree. Give that volume to the designer. Likewise, please abolish the 0.5 dTons per space for shipping' (sometimes, but sometimes not) stuff as well. 2^0 -> 2^3 -> 2^6 is much cleaner.

The T5 lifters which can reach space are NOT what I am asking for -- I want to be able to design Luke's landspeeder. It is a gravitic vehicle that has a maximum height of ~1m, and it can be pushed along by the engines at several hundred kmph. It is not a flyer in any sense of the term, and Traveller does not appear to have an equivalent.

Gotta have these to kill Wamp Rats in Beggar's Canyon.

 

[J. L. Brown]

Gotta have these to kill Waprats in Beggar's Canyon.

Nah, Luke hunted Womp rats in his T-16 -- that was a skyhopper (more of a traditional Traveller qrav-flyer), not a landspeeder.

 

[Shardan13]

The T5 lifters which can reach space are NOT what I am asking for -- I want to be able to design Luke's landspeeder. It is a gravitic vehicle that has a maximum height of ~1m, and it can be pushed along by the engines at several hundred kmph. It is not a flyer in any sense of the term, and Traveller does not appear to have an equivalent.

Also it would show that military grav technology had early in between period before full gravtic developed. Perhaps this might be best shown by making the hover chassis cover very early grav as well as the traditional air cushion?

 

[agentwigggles]

Build Quality and Social Status differences in vehicle construnction and utility. Even something as desired Soc Score for the vehicle as a cost addition would be good enough. "This BMW, is often seen with folks around Soc 10 and comes with ameneities and comfort for the cost and status."
Though honestly, I am more in favor of "Simming" the cars, and have a selection of options, which will be mostly cost related without requiring additional squares.

More civilian and construnction modules. Drills. Buckets. Stabilization legs. Cranes. Vaccuum equivilent as well. Things used to construct space stations or space rock mining.

 

[collins355]

If it only needs to be four because the assumption is that 'that is the only usable volume left after the drivetrain, powerplant, and fuel', then I strongly disagree. Give that volume to the designer. Likewise, please abolish the 0.5 dTons per space for shipping' (sometimes, but sometimes not) stuff as well. 2^0 -> 2^3 -> 2^6 is much cleaner.

The T5 lifters which can reach space are NOT what I am asking for -- I want to be able to design Luke's landspeeder. It is a gravitic vehicle that has a maximum height of ~1m, and it can be pushed along by the engines at several hundred kmph. It is not a flyer in any sense of the term, and Traveller does not appear to have an equivalent.

In TNE contragrav merely nullified gravity. It provided no ability to move. You had to attach some form of thrust agency to move, be that a propellor, a turbofan or Heplar. (so, in TNE a grav belt also had a propellor to move you about!) But in the rest of Traveller you're right that grav drives nullify gravity and provide thrust.

 

[Condottiere]

 

[MasterGwydion]

Build Quality and Social Status differences in vehicle construnction and utility. Even something as desired Soc Score for the vehicle as a cost addition would be good enough. "This BMW, is often seen with folks around Soc 10 and comes with ameneities and comfort for the cost and status."

This is already covered in the Dilettante book. It gives a percentage increase in price based on the SOC that the vehicle was built for, up to 500% for SOC 15.

Though honestly, I am more in favor of "Simming" the cars, and have a selection of options, which will be mostly cost related without requiring additional squares.

More civilian and construnction modules. Drills. Buckets. Stabilization legs. Cranes. Vaccuum equivilent as well. Things used to construct space stations or space rock mining.

Wouldn't this just be a simple set of Construction Equipment or Mining Equipment from the Robot Handbook, bought multiple times to scale it up to Vehicle Size?

 

[Jame Rowe]

This is already covered in the Dilettante book. It gives a percentage increase in price based on the SOC that the vehicle was built for, up to 500% for SOC 15.

There are a number of people who came to Traveller after that book went out of print, or who (like me) weren't able to buy a copy.

It is a good idea, though, so perhaps it's a good idea to incorporate the rule into a book that's compatible with the present edition, and what better place to start than the revised Vehicle Handbook?

 

[Geir]

There are a number of people who came to Traveller after that book went out of print, or who (like me) weren't able to buy a copy.

It is a good idea, though, so perhaps it's a good idea to incorporate the rule into a book that's compatible with the present edition, and what better place to start than the revised Vehicle Handbook?

Interesting. I was thinking of luxury space for the inside, but a 'styling' option for the outside would also work.
"That's a cool wing! What does it do?"
"Well, nothing, but it makes it look snazzy. Costs twice as much in red. And the flames cost extra."

 

[Jame Rowe]

Interesting. I was thinking of luxury space for the inside, but a 'styling' option for the outside would also work.
"That's a cool wing! What does it do?"
"Well, nothing, but it makes it look snazzy. Costs twice as much in red. And the flames cost extra."

There's plenty of room for luxury options, both inside *and* out!