Vehicle Handbook - Now Shipping!

[BP]

An air/raft taking up 4 dtons volume would break most existing starship designs - and be ludicrously big compared to all illustrations.

I'm afraid you'll need to specify that a little

Well, that could be misread out of context with my posts or if air/raft 'taking up' was read as meaning an air/raft bay. To rephrase, the Air/Raft itself as 4 dtons volume is ludicrous - not taking up that volume in a bay, which seems reasonable and is how it appears on most deckplans. If the Air/Raft itself was 4 dtons in volume, that would be impractical for 4 dton bays, which is the common objection.

Rephrasing my post before my last -> Mongoose Core only states 4 dton in ship section for the tonnage of a vehicle bay for an Air/Raft (p 111, and per that section, it can include extra space for maintenance and parts) - no tonnage at all is listed in the vehicles section (pg 103). I've used the phrase 'deckplan squares' to distinguish area vs volume ala your '4 dton area'.

As to CT Air/Raft tonnage (4 tons) and cargo tonnage (4 tons) - I addressed that too in said post. In the context of the CT page with a 6 ton Speeder and 100 kg cargo, it would be consistent that the 'tons' in the equipment section is mass, not volume. Nothing really about the size in the LBBs - 4 tons of feathers might not fit as well as 4 tons of lead (~0.35 cubic meters or 0.025 dtons per 1000 kg) - so it could be have a decent sized truck bed, or a compact trunk.

Just for grins - First Google hit for '4 ton truck' = http://www.usednissanudtrucks.com/inventory/used-nissancondorcargo-4ton-truck-mk260.html

Add 1/2 foot on either side, so you can chop off a couple feet on the back, make the cab deeper for more seating and cut the top half off (and the wheels) and you got yourself a pretty decent Air/Raft, IMO! (Of course, I've always gone in for the illustrations where it is more of a grav car than a truck, but I can see it either way.)

It does make much more sense that the stated tons for a vehicle is the required shipping/minimal bay required, and that the actual vehicle itself is about half that (imo)... it probably wouldn't be Traveller if we didn't have to houserule a few things

No house rule needed for Mongoose (Core anyway!)!

And CT was mass, not volume. So no corrective house rulings needed there either.

 

[Solomani666]

I've noticed that many of the vehicles have only about a quarter of the structure and hull from previous (old) designs of the same vehicle.

I look forward to your comments.

 

[Rusty_Unycorn]

AH the age old arguement... Well, age old from what I can tell. IIRC, we have addressed this issue before with the old Civilian and Military Vehicles books. (also, please note that I don't have the new Vehicle Handbook... Something about being too poor...)
The issue is this: People are taking a look at the raw numbers, doing some comparisons, and getting confused. What are they forgetting?
A: What the shape and layout of the vehicle is. (And maybe some of the numbers when it comes to Americans...)
If you take a look at the decplans (the updated ones that accurately reflect the tonnage and design guidelines), you will notice that the actual bay is 3dTons, with the fourth dTon being set aside for the passageway. So, our actual "bare minimum crawl-all-over-the-seats" bay measures 3m x 4.5m x 3m (minus the overhead for various pieces of "keep-hidden" equipment, but I digress). In feet, that's right about 9ft x 13.5ft x 9ft.
Now, onto the layout of the vehicles.
Using the archetypical Air/raft, let us examine some facts. In almost all human designed vehicles, we have the "2 by X" layout scheme, which basically means that you have two seats in the front and X number of rows of seats. then you have the engine/powerplant and the cargo space, which are usually added to the front and back of the vehicle, respectively. The compartments for both are almost never going to exceed the width set by the "2 by X" scheme, so there's something to consider.
Of course an Air/Raft doesn't take up a full 3 or 4 dTons! That's ridiculous in height! But, it is going to take up enough horizontal deckspace that it will be considered to take up that amount of dTonnage.
Of course, that's the Air/Raft standard issue, with things being how easy it is to get in or out of its open top. Once you start considering entrance and load/unload spaces for other vehicles, then it starts getting a bit more complicated. From what I can tell, I would expect the ATV to take up 6 to 8 dTons actual in terms of deckspace, but the bay is listed as 10dTons because you need that extra space to get in and out of the various hatches. In all things considering this, consider the layout of the vehicle, not just the raw numbers.
And, for a grand finale, the G/Bike. Oh my gods, is this thing simple, You can easily ship four or more of them in a single dTon! Unless you want to use them. Which is why I call it as a "Two G/bikes in a wall rack, one right above the other" 3/2dTon design/deckplan vehicle bay. Enough room for both riders to get those bikes down, straddle em, and launch out the side!
So remember, layout, common sense, layout, common sense, layout, common sense, raw numbers.

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

The Air/raft on p59 should have a shipping size of 2 tons (4 spaces x 05), not the 4 tons listed.

That should solve the discussion about the size of parking bay needed. 8)

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

I've noticed that many of the vehicles have only about a quarter of the structure and hull from previous (old) designs of the same vehicle.

A good thing.

Thought the jet airliner on p81 is still ridiculously tough, yes, as has been pointed out above, there is a chance of hits destroying the drive and so causing a crash, but that chance is only on a 4 on 2d6, so not likely. Most hits will inflict hull damage, and be easily absorbed.

Think that I will amend the locations table, for fixed wing aircraft, so all triple hull hits count as "lifting area damage", with the same impact as a drive hit.

Egil

 

[Sturn]

Glad to see the discussion spurred on by my post. But, I wasn't worrying at all whether a 4 ton Air/Raft should be 4 tons, more so how the rules sync (or don't) between Mongoose Core, Mongoose High Guard, and Mongoose Vehicle Handbook.

I cut down on my original post below to just leave the questions...

Cargo

How much cargo does one Space give you? I can't find it anywhere in the design rules. I see suggestions above of .25 tons per Space, but where was that stated? I had assumed it was .5 tons per Space due to reversing Shipping Size = .5 tons per Space.

Passengers

I can't find an answer to how many passengers you can stuff in cargo space?

 

[BP]

IIRC, one of the authors (Collin?) answered both of these in a recent thread... at least what was originally intended (sounds like revisions were made based play testing).

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Glad to see the discussion spurred on by my post. But, I wasn't worrying at all whether a 4 ton Air/Raft should be 4 tons, more so how the rules sync (or don't) between Mongoose Core, Mongoose High Guard, and Mongoose Vehicle Handbook.

I cut down on my original post below to just leave the questions...

Cargo

How much cargo does one Space give you? I can't find it anywhere in the design rules. I see suggestions above of .25 tons per Space, but where was that stated? I had assumed it was .5 tons per Space due to reversing Shipping Size = .5 tons per Space.

Passengers

I can't find an answer to how many passengers you can stuff in cargo space?

Cargo.
As far as I can see, one space = .25 ton cargo space, as used as an exemplar on p53, and other places (though not helped by a number of vehicle stat blocks having cargo space stats of "0.27" or "0.66" for no obvious reason beyond poor editting). The trouble with your reverse engineered .5 is that each space is supposed to include an amount of non-usable but vital construction, e.g. walls, wheels, suspension, engine etc.

Passengers
Normally have spaces allocated (and the availability of double and triple seating means that quite a lot of people can be crammed in). Otherwise, in an emergency, and/or for short journeys, put one passenger in each .25 of cargo space.

The thing about the new vehicle rules is that they are intended to produce playable props quickly, if you want a lot more detail, stick to the older vehicle rules, or FFS etc.

Egil

 

[Egil Skallagrimsson]

Glad to see the discussion spurred on by my post. But, I wasn't worrying at all whether a 4 ton Air/Raft should be 4 tons, more so how the rules sync (or don't) between Mongoose Core, Mongoose High Guard, and Mongoose Vehicle Handbook.

Not just between these three books, others, e.g. ship designs in Vargr work on the assumption that, e.g., a Ghoerruegh G/carrier occupies 3 tons of space, now it will take up 25 tons, with different costs as well (though the new design creates an over expensive and over large vehicle because of the fitting of a fusion power source).

To be honest, things have been sliding out of sync ever since HG, with CSC bringing in major changes, and now the new Vehicle Handbook (which, amongst other things, includes a complete re-write of battle dress rules and costs). It is just a case of deciding which books and amendments you are most convinced by, and then, where neccessary, working back and amending earlier material.

Egil

 

[Sturn]

Cargo
As far as I can see, one space = .25 ton cargo space, as used as an exemplar on p53, and other places (though not helped by a number of vehicle stat blocks having cargo space stats of "0.27" or "0.66" for no obvious reason beyond poor editting). The trouble with your reverse engineered .5 is that each space is supposed to include an amount of non-usable but vital construction, e.g. walls, wheels, suspension, engine etc.

Passengers
Normally have spaces allocated (and the availability of double and triple seating means that quite a lot of people can be crammed in). Otherwise, in an emergency, and/or for short journeys, put one passenger in each .25 of cargo space.

The thing about the new vehicle rules is that they are intended to produce playable props quickly, if you want a lot more detail, stick to the older vehicle rules, or FFS etc.

Egil

This works out great in my opinion. Thanks, I will be using it in my personal errata. It would be nice to make this official?

My reasoning?

1 space for .25 cargo makes sense (and not 1 per .5) as pointed out above by Egil.

Having 1 passenger take up .25 tons cargo works well also with the current rules:

Normal Seating: 1 person per Space. Required for crew stations and troops (gear on them).
Double Seating: 2 persons per Space. Passengers only.
Triple Seating: 3 persons per Space. Passengers only, very cramped (short duration only?).

When throwing someone in a trunk or bed of a pickup, it's 1 passenger per .25 tons of cargo, or 1 passenger per Space. This is the same as Normal Seating above. So, this will cut down on abuse. Obviously someone sitting in the cargo bed or trunk won't be driving the vehicle (crew). If you tried to abuse the rules by putting troops in the cargo area, you aren't gaining anything - still 1 person per Space. This way, cargo space is still best for hauling cargo and passenger space (double seating or more) is still best for passengers. To better explain, if you allowed something like 2 passengers per .25 tons (2 per 1 Space), someone abusing the construction rules would never put in Double Seating, just dedicate it all to cargo for more versatility since it would work as good as Double Seating in a pinch.

 

[GJD]

Q: Decreasing speed gives back spaces at the rate of 1/10% decrease. Can you get back more spaces than you started with, and if so, how do you figure the size of the vehicle for shipping porposes/cost.

For instance, I want to design a civilian vehicle. I want it to be slow, so I take a 50% decrease in speed, halving my final cost and giving me back 5 spaces. I could have started with a 1 space vehicle, which could now fit in 6 spaces of equipment/crew/cargo. SO, how much room does it now take up? 1 spaces worth? 6 spaces worth? I assume I still only pay the base cost of 1 space x 0.5 for my speed decrease?

G.

 

[Strithe]

Q: Decreasing speed gives back spaces at the rate of 1/10% decrease. Can you get back more spaces than you started with, and if so, how do you figure the size of the vehicle for shipping porposes/cost.

For instance, I want to design a civilian vehicle. I want it to be slow, so I take a 50% decrease in speed, halving my final cost and giving me back 5 spaces. I could have started with a 1 space vehicle, which could now fit in 6 spaces of equipment/crew/cargo. SO, how much room does it now take up? 1 spaces worth? 6 spaces worth? I assume I still only pay the base cost of 1 space x 0.5 for my speed decrease?

G.

The section on "Vehicle size & Layout" on page 7 says in part:

Spaces in a vehicle represent the inhabited
and/or optional parts of a vehicle. They do not include room for
the engine, fuel or transmission.

For vehicles other than heavy ships and heavy submarines, these
parts are roughly one quarter of the volume of the remainder of
the vehicle. For heavy ships and heavy submarines, this volume
is approximately one half to three quarters of the volume of the
inhabited parts of the ship. So a 200 Space heavy ship would
have engine and fuel requirements in the region of an additional
100 to 150 Spaces.

I would take that to mean that if you are trading off performance for increased space, you aren't changing the overall footprint of the vehicle: you're just trading space that was normally used up by mechanics & fuel. The same goes for price: the overall vehicle costs the same, it's just got different sub-systems in it.

I would also say the second paragraph implies that no, you couldn't create more spaces than you started with. If you had a 4-space ground car & took Decreased Speed, I'd say that you can still take the extra space but no more. The mechanicals are still there, just very & distributed in such a way as they don't take up a "space" as such.

 

[chrisboote]

So, do we have any errata yet?
Corrected design examples, the correct cost for pop-up turrets, the crew sizes for submersibles?
Also, none of the design examples give spaces or chassis type - you have to work backwards from shipping spaces & structure

 

[Sturn]

So, do we have any errata yet?
Corrected design examples, the correct cost for pop-up turrets, the crew sizes for submersibles?
Also, none of the design examples give spaces or chassis type - you have to work backwards from shipping spaces & structure

Any errata up yet? I have lots of notes from this thread in my book now (except the Hammer stuff) and would be willing to post it to get started if Mongoose didn't have an issue with it. What I have NOT done is go through all of the examples in the book, just a hand full.

QUESTION: AFV's provide a bonus of automatcially including the Off-Road modication. I assume this means for free (the cost included in the AFV mod). But what about the -10% penalty for speed? Is this somehow avoided in an AFV or automatically applied to all AFV's?

I also can't find what Off-Road capability actually means in game terms. Tracked vehicles gain a +3 DM when off road, but nothing specific for just "Off-Road capability" which can be applied to both tracked and wheeled vehicles as written. Note that a tracked vehicle could be considered only tracked with no off-road capability still with a +3 DM off road bonus, OR tracked and the off-road capability added.

EDIT: I did find an entry speaking of "Uneven" or "Rough" terrain (capitalized) like it was referring to a different entry of terrain types I've yet to find. Am I missing it someplace? Is there something similar in CT/MT?

On a related not, if an AFV is given tracks first, this reduces the speed by 1/2. So if the penalty for Off-Road applies, the speed of my tank is halved (for tracks) then reduced by 10% (for making it an off-roader)?

 

[Colin]

Some of the confusion may be due to the difference between a ton in the ship design system which is a measure of volume (displacement), and weight in the vehicle design system. The shipping size of a vehicle is the volume of a box placed around the vehicle, so there is waste space, likely between 33% and 50%. Weight isn't really a factor in the design system, however, and all weights are approximations.

1 Space of cargo is approximately 1 cubic meter, and holds 250 kg. Passenger seating is a little different, but in the same ballpark.

Maximum Space freed up by reducing range/performance should be no more than 50% of the original Spaces, combined for all Modifications.

I can't speak to any of the designs as I didn't do them. (Well, except for the examples, and the rules changed after I submitted them). I will see if I can dredge out a few minutes to revisit the examples given.

 

[Colin]

To be honest, I haven't been following this thread. I've been a little busy. If someone would like to compile a list of errata, and post it, I will try to answer all questions. I cannot speak to any of the designs incuded in the book, as I did not write any of them, but I can hopefully provide some clarity to the rules themselves. Please, just one set of questions. I will check back again on this thread on Friday, and hopefully have answers by Sunday.
Thank you.

 

[Sturn]

Colin I've gone through this thread and am slowly putting togather some errata. Some items will need questions answered. Some items of errata are of course up for debate.

Are there any other threads at this forum (or others) with potential errata?

I'm going to go ahead and start a new thread.