Basic Vehicle Info

[DrSkull]

What are the basic vehcile information categories needed to desrcibe a ground vehicle? I'm in favor of making them as few as possible. If you make it simple enough, then the GM can "eyeball" it and create new vehicles without a design system at all (but ssshhh, don't tell anyone)

I think you need:
TL
cost
speed kph (and per combat turn)
range/how far it can go
armor protection
number of guys it can carry
amount of weaponry it can carry
amount of cargo it can carry

I'm sure there a few moe basic things, what are they?


------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[DaveShayne]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
What are the basic vehcile information categories needed to desrcibe a ground vehicle? I'm in favor of making them as few as possible. If you make it simple enough, then the GM can "eyeball" it and create new vehicles without a design system at all (but ssshhh, don't tell anyone)

I think you need:
TL
cost
speed kph (and per combat turn)
range/how far it can go
armor protection
number of guys it can carry
amount of weaponry it can carry
amount of cargo it can carry

I'm sure there a few moe basic things, what are they?


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For ground vehicles you need road and cc speed values.

Range you have but how about the size of the gas tank? This is not something that's going to come up often but if your setting out on a month long journey into the bush you need to know about how much extra fuel to haul allong.

If I think of anything else I'll post here

David Shayne

 

[Skoo]

You might also want to include the vehicle's purpose (military, civilian, exploration, etc), "crew" size (drivers, gunners, commanders, etc), transport mode (wheeled, tracked, winged, a-grav, etc), and any special equipment/considerations that it might carry (eg., bridge-carriers, have a portable bridge, bulldozers have a dozing blade, rescue vehicles may have medical equipment onboard, etc).

I don't know what else would have to be considered necessary before any design system becomes too complex.

Skoo

 

[DrSkull]

Would it be a good idea to have a UVP (universal vehicle profile) in the form of a string of numbers, like the UPP, UWP, and High GUard USP? That way the main book might include 30 or so vehicles without taking up a huge amount of space.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[DrSkull]

Oh, I just realized that you'd need to note whether there was life-support or not, and how much and for how long.


------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[hunter]

So give us a sample of how you think a sample vehicle should be written up. We can hash it out and see about using it in any new material published by QuikLink/RPGRealms!

Hunter
The GRIP/RPGRealms Team

 

[Skoo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DrSkull:
Would it be a good idea to have a UVP (universal vehicle profile) in the form of a string of numbers, like the UPP, UWP, and High GUard USP? That way the main book might include 30 or so vehicles without taking up a huge amount of space.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A UVP sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't doing so imply a vehicle construction system of some form (a la High Guard or Striker... k, maybe not quite as complex as Striker)... and wouldn't such a construction system be counter to your original idea of a vehicle creation/design system that could be "eyeballed"?

Now, if the design rules were as simple and as flexible as High Guard was, *that* wouldn't be a bad idea.

Just an observation...
Skoo

 

[DrSkull]

How about:

ATV 12345-6789A-B 40,000cr
fuel=hydrogen, 200 kg, range=1 week

1=volume in Dtons
2=type/"suspension" codes for track/wheeled/grav etc
3=speed (x20 kph?)
4=off-road/noe speed
5=armor
6=crew
7=passengers
8=cargo (x100kg?)
9=weaponry slots (or something like that)
A=life support (0=none, 1=basic air, 2=long terms etc)
B= TL
Perhaps the fuel and range could also be made into quick codes.

I'll play around with details but I was thinking of something that would look like this. I would think it would be nice to have a nice pile of vehicles for use in play availiable in the main book, and something like this might make that easier, but would the code system complicate things more that the benefits? I mean I just want to be able to buy T5 and fight a few small merc battles right off the bat.




------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[PVernon]

How about the vehical's out-side dimentions. So that people who design ships (or what ever) can design vehical bays that make sence. It is a real drag to design a ship and then realise that you have to estamate the ATVs dimentions from the art work in order to create something that is logical.
Peter V.

 

[DrSkull]

I don't see outisde dimensions as all that important. If you have the volume in displacement tons, and hae a fixed volume allowance in your starship desgins rules for carried vehicles, and you assume vehicles are longer than they are wide, it should work out. If you are doing a full paragraph description, then outside dimensions are cool, but if you want to get away from the Striker/MT multi-paragraph descriptions to something short, then I think dimensions have got to go.

------------------
Dave "Dr. Skull" Nelson

 

[aramis]

External Dimensions are critical in narrative styles of many GM's. UVP's being all well and good, but if they constrain the design system too hard (like HG did), they are bad. Personally, I think MT was a tad much on the vehicle design score, but would like something at least striker detail, but with the additional options of MT with WWF&S, and the early spacecraft stuff. The MT control points stuff just bit hard, though.

------------------
-aramis
========================================
Smith & Wesson:
The Original Point and Click interface!