Updated Vehicle Handbook in the works

[WHULorigan]

So I thought about this and don’t know if it’s been brought up yet. So if you add a ship laser to say a tank you need to add a turret and the laser takes up space in that turret but barbette are self contained so what if you want to add say a laser barbette to a tank? Does it need a turret or is there some other fitting?

Is it possible to mount a ship-scale weapon in a vehicle? Vehicle scale weapons mounted in ships generally don't need ship-turrets or hard-points for mounting, whereas ship-scale weapons need a ship-hardpoint and either a turret or fixed-mount attached to it. Can one designate a ship-hardpoint for a vehicle?

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Per the Vehicle Handbook

"...To place a spacecraft weapon into a vehicle, simply multiply the tonnage of the weapon by four. This is how many Spaces it will consume, to a minimum of 1 Space. Unless it is to be placed in a fixed mount, it will also need a spacecraft style turret which, at one ton on a spacecraft, will mean another 4 Spaces is required. Any vehicle of TL15 or below will require a dedicated fusion plant (see page 49) to provide enough power to use a spacecraft weapon. Vehicles of TL16 are assumed to be able to produce power in sufficient quantities to not require an additional plant...."
​

To add a barbette, simply use 20-spaces (5 dtons x 4 spaces).

These become expensive vehicles, but very useful. I used quad-walkers with Grand Republic Railgun Barbettes that would crawl out of the cargo bay and grip themselves on the hull as a Q-Ship alternative.

I am hoping that @Geir "harmonizes" this in the next Vehicle Handbook update

 

[Arkathan]

So I thought about this and don’t know if it’s been brought up yet. So if you add a ship laser to say a tank you need to add a turret and the laser takes up space in that turret but barbette are self contained so what if you want to add say a laser barbette to a tank? Does it need a turret or is there some other fitting?

Modern turrets scale with weapon size. Consider Battleship sized main guns.
In the old book, weapons that can traverse are external or enclosed in turrets. Wholly internal weapons are fixed to a facing.
There is no reason to believe that things will change in that regard for things that are not meant to go between worlds on their own.

 

[Condottiere]

It's the power requirement that deep sixed that for me.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

It's the power requirement that deep sixed that for me.

The new Fusion-Plus reactors work well (Thanks JTAS 16)

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

@Geir can you clarify whether the Radiation trait 1) receives the barbette/bay multiplier, and 2) whether nuclear dampers removes the Radiation trait from fusion guns and particle beams (as it says in the current Handbook).

 

[tytalan]

Per the Vehicle Handbook

"...To place a spacecraft weapon into a vehicle, simply multiply the tonnage of the weapon by four. This is how many Spaces it will consume, to a minimum of 1 Space. Unless it is to be placed in a fixed mount, it will also need a spacecraft style turret which, at one ton on a spacecraft, will mean another 4 Spaces is required. Any vehicle of TL15 or below will require a dedicated fusion plant (see page 49) to provide enough power to use a spacecraft weapon. Vehicles of TL16 are assumed to be able to produce power in sufficient quantities to not require an additional plant...."​

​

To add a barbette, simply use 20-spaces (5 dtons x 4 spaces).

These become expensive vehicles, but very useful. I used quad-walkers with Grand Republic Railgun Barbettes that would crawl out of the cargo bay and grip themselves on the hull as a Q-Ship alternative.

I am hoping that @Geir "harmonizes" this in the next Vehicle Handbook update

That’s great except this whole thread is about the revised book and we already know thing are different so why post this. Which is why I asked Geir about the new book.

 

[tytalan]

Modern turrets scale with weapon size. Consider Battleship sized main guns.
In the old book, weapons that can traverse are external or enclosed in turrets. Wholly internal weapons are fixed to a facing.
There is no reason to believe that things will change in that regard for things that are not meant to go between worlds on their own.

Considering that a Barbette is a turret itself why would it be fixed to a facing. The whole reason this is in question is the barbette (turret) and weapon are a complete unit.

 

[Arkathan]

Considering that a Barbette is a turret itself why would it be fixed to a facing. The whole reason this is in question is the barbette (turret) and weapon are a complete unit.

In a ship it is. On a vehicle, you can put it in a turret, an external fixed mount, or an internal fixed or specific facing mount.
Point being, you'll be able to mount a barbette on a vehicle and it will be able to change its facing IF you want it to.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

That’s great except this whole thread is about the revised book and we already know thing are different so why post this. Which is why I asked Geir about the new book.

Probably because I thought it might be helpful, but I see that I was mistaken

 

[Lyckå]

Some more info.

As I mentioned earlier, every thing should have a Type, and Types can have Features. Below is a basic listing (not finalised, but close) with Types as columns and Features as rows. An 'X' means it is a valid feature for that type. Some Features contradict each other (like you can't be both Fast and Slow) and some have prerequisites (you need Jet Engines for both Supersonic and Hypersonic) but that's described with each Feature.

Features Available​

Features	Aeroplane​	Airship​	Grav Vehicle​	Ground Vehicle​	Hovercraft​	Rotorcraft​	Structure​	Submersible​	Watercraft​	Walker​
Aerodyne	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
AFV	-​	-​	X​	X​	-​	-​	X​	-​	X​	X​
Agile	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
ATV	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Biotech	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​
Fast	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Floats	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Folding Wings	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Hybrid	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Hydrofoil	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​
Hypersonic	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Jet Engines	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Locomotive	-​	-​	X​	X​	-​	-​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Monowheel	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Multi-Legged	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​
Off-Roader	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Open Frame	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​
Open-Topped	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​
Ornithopter	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Rail rider	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Slow	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	X​	X​	X​
Smart Wheels	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
STOL	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Streamlined	-​	-​	X​	X​	X​	X​	X​	-​	-​	-​
Supersonic	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tilt Engines	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tracks	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​
Tunneller	-​	-​	-​	X​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​	-​

(before anyone asks: A streamlined structure can be the basis of a rocket stage, and rocket thrusters, nearly directly lifted from the current version, makes a really simple basis for building actual rockets: the stages above are 'cargo' for multi-stage. Just as a test, the builds emulate a V2 pretty closely at TL5 and you can sneak a SSTO rocket in at TL8 (barely), so I think it's ballpark and all you have to do is count the number of rounds you have for rocket thrust - there's already rules for how you move up the speed bands, and I just expanded it for passing from Hypersonic to Orbital (based on world Size). And I then lifted Heat Shielding from High Guard, because you need to be able to slow down, either by thrust or by friction, if you want to re-enter.

(Grav vehicles don't need to worry as much, since they can float above the atmosphere at much slower velocity and even if moving fast, can slow down to safe speed above the atmosphere before re-entering at fairly slow Speed - it's a whole different paradigm than rocketry)

Streamlined doesn't apply to aeroplanes, because Supersonic and Hypersonic already cover that sort of effect and are costed well enough to take into account shape, materials, and engine changes needed to push the envelope.

An AFV Structure is a bunker...

Also, not on this are power choices as I mentioned and other auxiliary drives, including Lifters, which follow the T5 definition of being good for Very Slow movement at best (but you can tow them if you really want to try making a grav train).

And that's enough for now. Gotta write some stuff...

What about submersible grav vehicles? Starships can have a submersible trait, and as long as we're not talking about more than let's say 20 meters, it's just a matter of a couple of atmospheres. I was looking at Hexx in Tobia subsector, and I can just see before my eyes how their air/rafts plunge down in the water and enter vehicle bays of some underwater structure submerged a few meters. I hope I'm not repeating something which has already been discussed, I gave up reading replies long before I had finished all 1400 messages in this thread. @Geir has certainly chosen a subject people are interested in!

 

[tytalan]

One of the more interesting things about Aerodyne’s is they don’t have to be a helicopter (ie rotorcraft). A aerodyne can also be a freebie shaped vehicle with thrust vectoring over the top surface of the vehicle creating lift and thrust both. It was one of the original design but we didn’t have the appropriate gyro’s for the system durning WW2 when helicopters where first developed, we have since developed the ability to create one but because helicopters are so well understood nobody wants to put the money into developing them.

 

[Condottiere]

The principle behind the Aerodyne is the combination of lift and thrust production in a single construction unit and flow channel, i.e. a ducted fan.

I can't speak as to aerodynamic efficiency, but if you can bring the weight down of the airframe, and presumably they will discover something lighter and stronger than aluminum, and it's cheaper than the alternatives.

 

[tytalan]

There are many advantages to the freebie/flying disk aerodyne one of them is the engine is protected by the body of the unit. Most designs use a mouse trap system to intake the air from the center top then the drive (most likely a jet ) blows the increase air flow over the surface to create both lift and direction. The lack of both the main rotor and the tail rotor is a obvious advantage while keeping and improving the performance capabilities of a helicopter (it can hover, move vertically ) it also has a much higher top end than any helicopter (it lacks the stress point of the rotor’s shafts and as it speeds up its performance profile is more like a plane). The disadvantage is that it requires both a more advanced control system and a gyroscope to prevent it balanced. Another disadvantage is it requires a lot greater thrust to mass than a helicopter for hovering and vertical movement. There are always gives and takes

 

[Condottiere]

What I see in the future is unmanned hunter killer drones.

Then you have vibrating wings.

youtube.com/watch?v=ycB94jhcAwU

 

[tytalan]

What I see in the future is unmanned hunter killer drones.

Then you have vibrating wings.

youtube.com/watch?v=ycB94jhcAwU

Unmanned drones are more of a Robot Handbook thing than vehicle handbook. As for the sky bike great for civilian use horrible for military use

 

[Arkathan]

The current vehicle, chapter 8, covers vehicles as drones, either remotely piloted or with a robo-brain installed. There is no reason to believe that the new book will not also include that capability.

 

[Condottiere]

Our yardstick for viability is a high speed, six passenger, quarter megastarbux air/raft, with a thousand kilometre range.

 

[tytalan]

The current vehicle, chapter 8, covers vehicles as drones, either remotely piloted or with a robo-brain installed. There is no reason to believe that the new book will not also include that capability.

And pg 251-253 of robots actually has the rules for vehicle robot brains. Oh you’ll have some rules in Vehicles but I suspect especially since Gier wrote both of them that there will be mostly references to Robots and probably less that 5 pages on vehicle robots in VH2025

 

[Arkathan]

And pg 251-253 of robots actually has the rules for vehicle robot brains. Oh you’ll have some rules in Vehicles but I suspect especially since Gier wrote both of them that there will be mostly references to Robots and probably less that 5 pages on vehicle robots in VH2025

For page count, probably.