Vehicle Handbook Errata (unofficial)

[Sturn]

If you know of any errata (even typos) for the Vehicle Handbook please post them here or provide a link.

The errata in the next reply will be updated as new information is received.

 

[Sturn]

A work in progress:
Last edit 09/17/2012


My personal notes, usually explanations for the errata, are in italics.

Page 3 Design Checklist (Clarification & Corrections)

Under Step 2, replace , “Once this is complete, you can now calculate the vehicle’s Base Cost.” with, “After choosing chassis modifications and applying their costs, calculate the vehicle’s new Base Cost for all future steps.”

I was confused at first if the Base Cost included the chassis modifications or not. They do.

Step 3 should refer to page 29 instead of page 31.

Step 4 should refer to pages 30-34 instead of 33.

Page 4 Vehicle Roster (Clarification)

Add Chassis Type between Vehicle and TL. This should be added to examples throughout the book by slipping the chassis type under the Vehicle title (above the name). Possibly even add locomotion type (as in “Wheeled Heavy Ground Vehicle”).

Under Agility, slip in the Off-road modifier. Examples: "Off-road +3" for a tracked vehicle or "Off-road -2" for a non-Off-road vehicle.

Under Speed, note Cruising speed and Off-road speed.

Under Range, note Cruising range.

While it complicates the simple template, these will save time for a referee or player figuring them out during a game.

Page 5 Vehicle Movement (Clarification)

Make the following adjustment to the second paragraph: Replace "it suffers a -2 DM to Agility" with "it suffers an Off-road -2 DM".

I think this is simpler to remember especially when noting the off-road DM of each vehicle on the template.

Make the following adjustment to the third paragraph: "does not suffer the -2 off-road DM and the Movement rate is reduced only to 75%". Also add to the end for clarification, "Some off-road capable vehicles may even have a positive DM when off-road to offset negative terrain modifiers (but never give a positive bonus)."

Personal opinion only. Even vehicles designed for it should slow down off-road.

Remove the last paragraph of Vehicle Movement and replace with the following:

Any ground vehicle driving off-road may suffer terrain DMs as suggested in the following examples:

Road +1 DM (paved roadways)
Flat +0 DM (plains, open areas, gravel roads)
Uneven -1 DM (hilly, light forest, rutted pathway)
Rough -3 DM. -2 Agility all vehicles. Only off-road capable can even try (swamp, mountainous, heavy forest, broken ground).

Example 1: A tracked ATV with Agility -1 and Off-road +3 may make Manoeuvers on a Road with a net +0 DM (Off-road does not apply, Agility -1 plus Road +1). In Uneven terrain it have a net -1 DM (Off-road modifier removes the -1 DM, but does not provide a positive bonus, plus Agility -1). In Rough terrain it would have a net -3 DM (Off-road modifier removes the -3 DM, all ground vehicles suffer Agility -2, plus the vehicle's base -1 Agility).

Example 2: A ground car with Agility +1 but not Off-road capable (Off-road -2) on a Road has a net +2 DM (Agility +1 plus Road +1). Attempting to drive over Uneven ground would give it a net -2 DM (Agility +1 plus Uneven -1 plus Off-road -2). This ground car could not even attempt to cross Rough terrain without immediately getting stuck.

The terrains above are suggested by Colin, but streamlined.

Page 5 No Range Bonus Off-road (Clarification)

Under Speed, add the following to the last paragraph: "However, no vehicle driving off-road will receive this bonus Range even if reduced to a 75% or less Speed."

Page 9 Bicycle/Rickshaw TL Table (Correction)
The first TL, "5", should probably be "1-5" since TL 1 is listed as the minimum for a Bicycle/Rickshaw (personally I prefer min TL 2).

Page 11 Monowheel (Clarification)

Replace, "Speed is doubled and Agility is +2 on roads, Off-road Agility is -2", with "Speed is doubled and Agility is +2. However, monowheels can not receive the Off-Road modification and their Off-road penalty is doubled to -4." Less confusing in my opinion with the same net effect.

Page 11 Wheels (Clarification)

Replace, "Each set of additional wheels after the minimum reduces any terrain-based Agility penalites by one." with "Each set of additional wheels after the minimum gives a +1 Off-road DM. Note that unless the vehicle is also Off-road capable (see below) the -2 DM of a non-Off-road vehicle will still apply. Most extremely multi-wheeled vehicles will thus also be Off-road capable."

To Do Note: Correct terrain references to be equal to the list above. Also, clarify the Off-road capability DMs as being only able to negate terrain penalties. In some places this is stated, in others (tracked vehicles) it is not.

Page 11 Light Ground Vehicles Can’t be AFV’s vs. Size Examples (Corrections)

There are examples of ground vehicles which should be Light Ground Vehicles due to their small size (see page 109 AFV and ATAV). However, they are listed as AFV’s in their descriptions. Light Ground Vehicles aren’t allowed to be AFV’s as written. Going over the designs, it appears these vehicles were designed as Heavy Ground Vehicles, but they are too small to qualify (minimum 20 spaces / 10 tons for Heavy Ground Vehicles). Also, the APC example on page 112 appears to have been designed as a Light Ground Vehicle, but it is an AFV. It can’t be an AFV as written.

Possible solutions: 1) Leave the design rules as written and change the examples, or 2) Allow Light Ground Vehicles to be AFV’s and reduce minimum spaces of Heavy Ground Vehicles to 10, or 3) Mix of 1 and 2 such as reduce minimum spaces of Heavy Ground Vehicles to 10, but don't allow Light Ground Vehicles to be AFV's and go change the examples.

Page 12 Light Ground Vehicle Tracks and Off-road capability (Clarification)

To the last setence add, "(automatically considered off-road capable)."

Page 12 Light Ground Vehicle Off-road Capability (Clarification)

Add “wheeled” after the first word (“Any”). Railed or tracked vehicles do not suffer Off-road penalties.

Page 12 Heavy Ground Vehicle Tracks and Off-road capability (Clarification)

To the last setence add, "(automatically considered off-road capable)."

Page 13 AFV Example TL Added (Clarification)

In the first sentence add, “TL 6”, in the example for clarification.

Page 13 Heavy Ground Vehicle AFV (Question/Clarification)

Under AFV the last sentence in the first paragraph should read, “In addition, AFV’s automatically have the Off-road Capability modification without extra cost, and do not suffer the 10% Speed reduction (see below)". By looking at example AFV’s this appears to be the assumption. This is interesting though since vehicles designed as AFV’s will be slightly faster even though they have twice the armor when compared to a civilian version Off-road vehicle otherwise identical with half the base armor. I really don't have a problem with this, the AFV's as written suggest a much more powerful engine then their civilian counterparts.

Page 13 Heavy Ground Vehicle Off-road Capability (Clarification)

Add “wheeled” after the first word (“Any”). Railed or tracked vehicles do not suffer Off-road penalties.

Page 23 Heavy Jet Table (Correction)

Change Structure and Hull ratios to “1 per 4 Spaces” instead of 3 per 4. This brings the rules in-sync with the example Airliner on page 81, but the Supersonic Airliner on page 82 needs adjusted to 20 Structure and Hull.

Page 31 Pop-up Turrets (Correction)

Remove the paragraph above the Pop-up Turrets title.

Insert the following sentence after the first sentence in Pop-up Turrets: “Pop-up turrets give a -2 penalty to any Recon or Investigate checks to determine if a vehicle is armed.”

Page 41 Add Section Title (Correction)

There appears to be a section title missing such as, “Accomodation Modifications”. This title is above the table at the bottom, but not before the text descriptions.

Page 41/42 Add Cargo Space (Clarification)

Add Cargo Space entries in the text and table:

Cargo Space
Space (often left-over) may be dedicated to cargo hauling. Each Space roughly allows .25 tons of cargo. In a pinch, Cargo Space can be used to carry passengers whom take up .25 tons of cargo each. This will be very uncomfortable and provides no safety restraints. Note: .25 Vehicle tons is NOT equal to .25 Starship tons (1 Starship ton = 14 Vehicle Spaces = 3.5 Vehicle tons; 1 Vehicle ton = almost .3 Starship tons; .25 Vehicle tons = .07 Starship tons).

Table:

Cargo Space	2	1 per .25 tons	No Cost

Page 53 Ground Car Design Example (Corrections)

At the end of the 1st paragraph add, “It is designed upon a Light Ground Vehicle chassis.“

4th paragraph should read: “Base Agility is 0, while Base Speed and Range are 200 kilometres per hour and 500 km respectively.

8th paragraph should read: “Increasing speed twice now costs Cr. 2,160. A 20% increase in speed brings us an increase up to 240 kilometres per hour.

9th paragraph should have “Cr. 5,400” instead of “Cr. 5,800”.

Add a paragraph stating, “The two spaces remaining are converted to Cargo Space of 0.5 tons.”

14th paragraph should have a total price of Cr. 20,560.

In the table under the Vehicle title add, “Light Ground Vehicle”.

In the table change Speed to 240 and Cost to 20,560.

Page 54 G-Carrier Design Example (Corrections)

5th paragraph should have “MCr. 4” instead of “MCr. 5”.

6th paragraph second sentence should be, “That is three increases over the base armour value, which will cost 30% of the vehicle’s base cost (an additional Cr. 1,200,000), it also reduces speed by 20 kilometres per hour.”

In the table, cost should be 5,668,000.

VEHICLE EXAMPLES (Corrections)
Not Complete

Supersonic Airliner (page 82): Hull and Structure should both be 20. See page 23 correction above.

AFV (page 109): Designed as Heavy Ground Vehicle, but too small. Unless rules are modified, redesign as minimum 10 tons (20 spaces) or make it a non-AFV Light Ground Vehicle (then name is a misnomer).

All Terrain Assault Vehicle (page 109): Designed as a Heavy Ground Vehicle, but too small. Unless rules are modified, redesign as a minimum 10 tons (20 spaces) or make it a non-AFV Light Ground Vehicle (which works fine).

Armoured Personnel Carrier (page 112): It is a Light Ground Vehicle, but also an AFV (can’t be as written). Unless rules are modified, redesign as Heavy Ground Vehicle minimum 10 tons (20 spaces) or remove AFV mod and leave it a Light Ground Vehicle (doesn’t seem appropriate for an APC).

VTOL Fighter (page 119): Structure should be 2.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Looks good, Sturn, just about to start amending my copy of the book.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Page 11 Light Ground Vehicles Can’t be AFV’s vs. Size Examples (Corrections)

There are examples of ground vehicles which should be Light Ground Vehicles due to their small size (see page 109 AFV and ATAV). However, they are listed as AFV’s in their descriptions. Light Ground Vehicles aren’t allowed to be AFV’s. Going over the designs, it appears these vehicles were designed as Heavy Ground Vehicles, but they are too small to qualify (minimum 20 spaces / 10 tons for Heavy Ground Vehicles). Also, the APC example on page 112 appears to have been designed as a Light Ground Vehicle, but it is an AFV. It can’t be an AFV as written. Two solutions possible: 1) Leave the design rules as written and change the examples, or 2) Allow Light Ground Vehicles to be AFV’s and reduce minimum spaces of Heavy Ground Vehicles to 10.

I would go for changing the examples, and reducing the size required for Heavy Ground Vehicles to 2, to accomodate oddities like Bren Gun Carriers. It doesn't matter if size over-laps with the light ground vehicles, what you are paying (more) for is a vehicle that is a lot more robust.

At the same time I would forbid light ground vehicles to be tracked, the tracks themselves make them heavy vehicles.

Page 13 Heavy Ground Vehicle AFV (Question/Clarification)

Under AFV the last sentence in the first paragraph should read, “In addition, AFV’s automatically have the Off-road Capability modification without extra cost, and do not suffer the 10% Speed reduction (see below). By looking at example AFV’s this appears to be the assumption. This is interesting though since vehicles designed as AFV’s will be slightly faster even though they have twice the armor when compared to a civilian version Off-road vehicle otherwise identical with half the base armor.

Again, I would amend the examples, reducing the road speed of AFVs because they have off road capability makes sense.

And that leads us back to the cross-country performance of ground vehicles, the rules for which don't make a lot of sense at the moment. How about, speed given is the maximum road speed, cross country modified vehicles are 10% slower, tracked vehicles 50% slower, crusing speed 75% of top speed.
Off road, on good going (e.g. a lawn, a dry field, firm sand, mud track through a wood etc), road vehicles move at 25%, cross country wheeled at road speed, tracked at road speed, on poor going (e.g. uneven, wet field, moderate slope, through undergrowth etc) road vehicles move at 5% of road speed, and need to make an agility roll at -2 to avoid getting stuck each round, cross country move at 50% of their road speed, tracked at their road speed, on bad going (e.g. soft sand, ploughed, wet, fields, snow drifts, in woods off tracks etc) road vehicles get stuck, cross country vehicles move at 10% of road speed and need to make agility rolls to avoid getting stuck, tracked vehicles move at 25% of their road speed.

Egil

 

[Dave Chase]

...


At the same time I would forbid light ground vehicles to be tracked, the tracks themselves make them heavy vehicles.
...

Egil

What? :shock:

You never heard of something like the US M114?

Just to name one real world light vehicle that is tracked.

Dave Chase

 

[SSWarlock]

You never heard of something like the US M114?

I was just thinking the same thing.
http://eaglehorse.org/4_ftx_gunnery/equipment/m114/m114_intro.htm

Looks pretty light to me. I guess it comes down to how one defines "light". That said, I do like Egil's breakdown of the speed plateaus. Makes sense to me and easy to remember.

And thank you for posting your list, Sturn. Good, good stuff indeed.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

...


At the same time I would forbid light ground vehicles to be tracked, the tracks themselves make them heavy vehicles.
...

Egil

What? :shock:

You never heard of something like the US M114?

Just to name one real world light vehicle that is tracked.

Dave Chase

Yes, and the Bren Gun Carrier, and the Kettenrad, but then look at their size and the nearest wheeled equivelents, (perhaps a scout car, a jeep and a motor cycle sidecar) and you can start to see why I think they should be classified as "heavy" even though they are clearly lighter compared to, say, the M113, the M3 half-track or the Sdkfz 251. The heavy ground vehicles cost 3000cr per space, compared to the 1200 per space of the light vehicles, which, along with the 100% increase for tracked, should adequately represent the complexity and expense of a tracked vehicle compared to the cheaper wheeled vehicles. Otherwise the speed and range and other stats are pretty much the same as the light ground vehicle (size for size and TL for TL).

Clearer?

Egil

 

[Dave Chase]

Yes, and the Bren Gun Carrier, and the Kettenrad, but then look at their size and the nearest wheeled equivelents, (perhaps a scout car, a jeep and a motor cycle sidecar) and you can start to see why I think they should be classified as "heavy" even though they are clearly lighter compared to, say, the M113, the M3 half-track or the Sdkfz 251. The heavy ground vehicles cost 3000cr per space, compared to the 1200 per space of the light vehicles, which, along with the 100% increase for tracked, should adequately represent the complexity and expense of a tracked vehicle compared to the cheaper wheeled vehicles. Otherwise the speed and range and other stats are pretty much the same as the light ground vehicle (size for size and TL for TL).

Clearer?

Egil

Yes much clearer in what you meant.

But also take a look at any of those wheeled vehicles you mention and compare it to the capacity of the M114.

The M114 had a lower PSI than a combat infantry man with combat load. It also could could mount radios and .50 machine and was armored and still could go places that those vehicles mentioned and a human walking could not go.

Now, (my but excuse), I am not sure IF that is or could be represented fully in the Mongoose rules, so, IMO, your point probably stands to be more accurate in the rules than my real world example.

Dave Chase

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Yes, and the Bren Gun Carrier, and the Kettenrad, but then look at their size and the nearest wheeled equivelents, (perhaps a scout car, a jeep and a motor cycle sidecar) and you can start to see why I think they should be classified as "heavy" even though they are clearly lighter compared to, say, the M113, the M3 half-track or the Sdkfz 251. The heavy ground vehicles cost 3000cr per space, compared to the 1200 per space of the light vehicles, which, along with the 100% increase for tracked, should adequately represent the complexity and expense of a tracked vehicle compared to the cheaper wheeled vehicles. Otherwise the speed and range and other stats are pretty much the same as the light ground vehicle (size for size and TL for TL).

Clearer?

Egil

Yes much clearer in what you meant.

But also take a look at any of those wheeled vehicles you mention and compare it to the capacity of the M114.

The M114 had a lower PSI than a combat infantry man with combat load. It also could could mount radios and .50 machine and was armored and still could go places that those vehicles mentioned and a human walking could not go.

Now, (my but excuse), I am not sure IF that is or could be represented fully in the Mongoose rules, so, IMO, your point probably stands to be more accurate in the rules than my real world example.

Dave Chase

If you really want to get into ground pressure, then use the "old" vehicle rules which take that into account.

You will have no problem building a 4 space tracked AFV using the new rules, representing something like the M114. I think that it should use the "heavy ground vehicle" chassis because of the tracks, but if you use the "light" the stats will be almost the same except the price (it will be significantly cheaper).

A number of vehicles claim to have a psi lower than that of the human foot. The funny thing is they still sometimes get stuck in bad going, tracks get sucked in, the belly beaches, and the super mobile vehicle wallows around like a stranded walrus, and usually twice a noisy. The men with their heavier psi Mark 1 feet then have to squelch around trying to attach cables to pull the AFV out.

Happy Days :lol:

Egil

 

[Dave Chase]

A number of vehicles claim to have a psi lower than that of the human foot. The funny thing is they still sometimes get stuck in bad going, tracks get sucked in, the belly beaches, and the super mobile vehicle wallows around like a stranded walrus,

Well, being that I have two distant things that make me knowledgable but not an expert about the M114
1) I have driven one
2) I have study about them while stationed at Ft Knox, KY, U.S.

The ground pressure is actually lower than a combat loaded infantry man. I can't find the image on the website but we were shown (during our training with them) images from Vietnam where one was driving by (and through but not over ) troops in a bog. Now I would not want to swim one because of the shape and weight of the vehicle puts the water line right in line with the top of the vehicle (unlike the M113 where in the water its OK but leaving and entering are the most dangerous.)

and usually twice a noisy. The men with their heavier psi Mark 1 feet then have to squelch around trying to attach cables to pull the AFV out.

Happy Days :lol:

Egil

This part is the most true about any vehicle. Some are noiser than others.

Again while stationed at Ft Knox, I remember standing at Holder complex near one of the range access roads.

An M113 you could see about the same time you could hear it
An M1A1 you could see it before you could hear it
A Bradely AFV you could hear it long before you could see it.

:lol:

Thanks for the conversation. It was nice to discuss with out arguing.

Dave Chase

 

[Sturn]

Thanks for the replies. I'm not going to edit anything above yet. Hoping for some more comments, error checking (Errata for the Errata!) and some questions answered by Colin when he gets a chance.

EDIT: Removed some of the other speculation after receiving clarification from Colin and re-reading Page 5 Vehicle Movement.

 

[Sturn]

Speeds Off-road or over difficult terrains.

Past incarnations of Traveller included on and off road speeds for vehicles. MGT has only a single speed rating. Do we need an adjustment for different terrains? An off-road speed as percentage of the base speed?

Thoughts please.

EDIT: Nevermind found the off-road Speed reduction (25%) for non-off-road vehicles on page 5, Vehicle Movement. I myself think off-road capable vehicles should also be reduced in speed to perhaps 75%. There are realworld examples of this.

 

[nDervish]

EDIT: A simpler method for all of the above may be to simply consider Off-road capable vehicles "skilled" when Off-road and others "unskilled" and thus suffering a -3 DM. Some vehicles even get an Off-road +DM (walkers, tracked, etc) as written. A referee may apply a situational DM (as usual) for tougher terrains when Off-road. This would prevent rules gloat and allow using the rules as written with just some added explanation.

Either that or have off-road function similarly to MgT's version of JoT: Off-road negates up to three points of terrain (or other appropriate?) penalties, but will never provide a bonus.

 

[Sturn]

EDIT: A simpler method for all of the above may be to simply consider Off-road capable vehicles "skilled" when Off-road and others "unskilled" and thus suffering a -3 DM. Some vehicles even get an Off-road +DM (walkers, tracked, etc) as written. A referee may apply a situational DM (as usual) for tougher terrains when Off-road. This would prevent rules gloat and allow using the rules as written with just some added explanation.

Either that or have off-road function similarly to MgT's version of JoT: Off-road negates up to three points of terrain (or other appropriate?) penalties, but will never provide a bonus.

This is exactly how it is stated in the Vehicle Handbook in some places (negates penalties, doesn't give a bonus). In other places it specifies a +DM without stating the limit. I'm assuming all +DM Off-road bonuses could only remove penalties unless Colin states otherwise. If not, it's a little complex to have to recall which bonuses only negate -DMs and which can provide positive net DMs.

 

[Sturn]

By the way, this list of errata is not being made because I dislike Colin's system, I actually love it. Like any new system ever released for Traveller, there are going to be typos and clarifications needed. I was trying to get my own errata list in order when designing vehicles and figured I would share.

I even recently designed a modern M1A1 Abrams tank using Colin's system and was able to simulate it quite well without need of any rules changes or fudging. It surprised me that it worked so well.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

By the way, this list of errata is not being made because I dislike Colin's system, I actually love it.

Agreed

IMHO a much more usable system than that found in the first vehicle books, and able to generate more convincing vehicles.

Egil

 

[Colin]

My apologies. Real life and several writing projects have kept me from responding.

The whole Agility question was somewhat complicated, as the Core rules use Agility as a modifier for all control rolls. A tracked vehicle as a low Agility because it is slow, and does not respond as quickly as a wheeled vehicle. However, it more ably handles a variety of terrain. The +3 Control Modifier is not the same as the Agility modifier, which applies to all rolls. The control modifer only applies to rolls for terrain.
Some example terrain modifiers:
Road +1
Open Terrain 0
Rough Terrain -1 to -3
Hilly -1
Mountainous -3
Swamp or Bog -3
Light Forest -1
Heavy Forest -3

So in Rough Terrain (-2), the +3 Control roll cancels out the Terrain Modifier, but doesn't give a bonus. Agility Modifiers still apply as normal.

1 Space of Cargo is approximately 250kg. However, it is NOT equal to 0.25 starship tons. More like 0.07 starship tons.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

1 Space of Cargo is approximately 250kg. However, it is NOT equal to 0.25 starship tons.

I thought that was pretty obvious, but I suppose it is always good to have these point clearly stated, somewhere out there some clever player will be trying to assemble a Free Trader out of the cargo space in a heavy ground vehicle!

Egil

 

[Sturn]

My apologies. Real life and several writing projects have kept me from responding.

No need to apologize Colin. Most of us I believe realize you have other projects going on. I do NOT want you to be sidetracked by piddly questions, I want more 2300 AD.

Thanks for the responses.

Editing my errata list today with Colin's input.....