I've used the old Supplement 5-6 Vehicle Handbook for years and I like the results. I was impressed how they were able to create the WW2 tank books - the designs rang very true. Do I need the new 2nd edition Vehicle Handbook? Is it any different in content, or has it been given a stylish makeover? Was there anything fundamentally wrong with the older Supplement 5-6 rules? In other words ... was anything fixed? (or broken for that matter!)
Vehicle Handbook
- Thread starter Mithras
- Start date
The new one uses more streamlined rules (easier), which also allow for more "sway" of interpretation. The rules are simpler, but some edge cases might appear. However, I am not familiar with the rules of the 1st edition, only know that it's more complex.
Haven't made a comparison of weapon firepower though.
Haven't made a comparison of weapon firepower though.
NOLATrav
Cosmic Mongoose
2e Vehicle design is based on Traits and pre-sets (Light Ground Vehicle, Heavy Grav Vehicle, Light Watercraft, etc) as opposed to percentages, mass, maths, etc though it does give a slight nod to volume considerations. Mixing and matching different traits provides different capabilities, limitations, etc.
I find 2e to be more intuitive and it certainly is a lot faster and easier than 1e (the basic pre-set does much of the work automagically). But there is somewhat less detail and crunch, so depends on what you're going for.
I find 2e to be more intuitive and it certainly is a lot faster and easier than 1e (the basic pre-set does much of the work automagically). But there is somewhat less detail and crunch, so depends on what you're going for.
steve98052
Mongoose
For the people who are really into the crunchy details (you guys know who you are), can a certain set of assumptions with the more crunchy first edition rules produce the same results as the less crunchy second edition rules?
As a point of comparison with another game system, the much simplified (but still complicated) GURPS Traveller spells out the assumptions it makes within the notoriously complex GURPS Vehicles second edition rules. For example, I think a ship's hull is described as a "standard metal" structure with "expensive metal" for the armor, and the size and cost of any component that uses power includes the cost of increasing the power plant enough to supply the power-using component.
So, would it be possible to reverse engineer the Mongoose second rules to match what the Mongoose first rules would say?
As a point of comparison with another game system, the much simplified (but still complicated) GURPS Traveller spells out the assumptions it makes within the notoriously complex GURPS Vehicles second edition rules. For example, I think a ship's hull is described as a "standard metal" structure with "expensive metal" for the armor, and the size and cost of any component that uses power includes the cost of increasing the power plant enough to supply the power-using component.
So, would it be possible to reverse engineer the Mongoose second rules to match what the Mongoose first rules would say?
NOLATrav
Cosmic Mongoose
Good question. I went back to the last 1e vehicle I made, the Vargr Grav Barge:
The concept was a lumbering lifter vehicle that navigates with ducted fans/propellers, with a group of Vargr scavengers picking over scrapyards, old battle sites, etc. I liked the idea of front and rear pilots to maneuver into tight spaces with the underpowered propellers. 12 dtons cargo, workshop, crew of 2-10. Just over Cr450,000.
I should probably revise my comments because translating this to 2e, I feel there's a lot more detail in the Traits available despite the glossing over of the propulsion system. But I should have made a "Lifters with Propellers" trait to get the fluff across and explain the changes from Fast to Slow, range reduction and the Chassis discount. But here's the rub: 10 dtons cargo, workshop, crane, cutting tool, crew 2-10. A little less cargo but better, right? Oh, wait - over MCr4,000,000.
Apologies if the different formats bother anyone, wasn't ready to build a new spreadsheet for this quick n dirty comparison.
The concept was a lumbering lifter vehicle that navigates with ducted fans/propellers, with a group of Vargr scavengers picking over scrapyards, old battle sites, etc. I liked the idea of front and rear pilots to maneuver into tight spaces with the underpowered propellers. 12 dtons cargo, workshop, crew of 2-10. Just over Cr450,000.
I should probably revise my comments because translating this to 2e, I feel there's a lot more detail in the Traits available despite the glossing over of the propulsion system. But I should have made a "Lifters with Propellers" trait to get the fluff across and explain the changes from Fast to Slow, range reduction and the Chassis discount. But here's the rub: 10 dtons cargo, workshop, crane, cutting tool, crew 2-10. A little less cargo but better, right? Oh, wait - over MCr4,000,000.
Apologies if the different formats bother anyone, wasn't ready to build a new spreadsheet for this quick n dirty comparison.
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
It's worse... You have designed a vehicle with 40 Spaces = 10 tonnes of cargo, not 10 Dton.
Since a Dton = 14 m³ of cargo can easily mass 10 tonnes, that is a problem...
A 64 Space vehicle should have a Shipping Size of 30 Dton (64×0.5=32, down to 30 for Large Vehicles [p3]).
As far as I know there is no trivial and always applicable conversion between Spaces (mass) and Dtons (volume).
The MgT1 vehicle system (that I have never seen) looks better than the MgT2 system if you care for detail at all.
Since a Dton = 14 m³ of cargo can easily mass 10 tonnes, that is a problem...
A 64 Space vehicle should have a Shipping Size of 30 Dton (64×0.5=32, down to 30 for Large Vehicles [p3]).
As far as I know there is no trivial and always applicable conversion between Spaces (mass) and Dtons (volume).
The MgT1 vehicle system (that I have never seen) looks better than the MgT2 system if you care for detail at all.
baithammer
Mongoose
The mass comes from converting items in the Central Supply Catalogue which only specced in mass. ( 1 space = 250 Kg = 0.25dt )
AnotherDilbert
Emperor Mongoose
Yes, that is one conversion rate.
Another is the Shipping size of generally 1 Space = 0.5 Dt or 2 Spaces = 1 Dt.
Another is placing a spacecraft turret in a vehicle at 7 Spaces for a triple turret or 7 Spaces = 1 Dt.
Trivial, it is not...
Another is the Shipping size of generally 1 Space = 0.5 Dt or 2 Spaces = 1 Dt.
Another is placing a spacecraft turret in a vehicle at 7 Spaces for a triple turret or 7 Spaces = 1 Dt.
Trivial, it is not...
baithammer
Mongoose
I agree with that, vehicle rules are interesting.
Closest I've managed to get reasonable results was taking all the components and then applying the percentages to the sum.
Think I might've solved the shipping space setup, with 4 space = 1 dt but the shipping space being 2 spaces = 1 dt.
The 1/2 value lines up with a hanger where the displacement is twice the size of the occupying vehicle.
Closest I've managed to get reasonable results was taking all the components and then applying the percentages to the sum.
Think I might've solved the shipping space setup, with 4 space = 1 dt but the shipping space being 2 spaces = 1 dt.
The 1/2 value lines up with a hanger where the displacement is twice the size of the occupying vehicle.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
As I recall, they were super cheap.
I proposed lashing a couple of floating chairs together for an air/couch.
I proposed lashing a couple of floating chairs together for an air/couch.
