Striker Vehicle Design

[Meteoric Assault]

Does it strike anyone that the vehicles are coming out way to heavy? Think as a military staffer.... the logistics foot print is huge for the 150dt+ grav tank they are talking about. Then there is the uplift to transport to other star systems.... just to get it off the ground you would need at least a 250dt orbital interface platform?

WTH over? o:

So I am asking are there any other CT compatible rules out there for vehicle design that don't make me want to execute a pocket calculator?

 

[aramis]

Does it strike anyone that the vehicles are coming out way to heavy? Think as a military staffer.... the logistics foot print is huge for the 150dt+ grav tank they are talking about.

a 150 Td tank is bolo or ogre sized. Even the largest real world modern tanks are under 20Td by bounding box

M1A1

Weight 67.6 short tons (60.4 long tons; 61.3 t)
Length, Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m)
Hull length: 26.02 ft (7.93 m)
Width 12 ft (3.66 m)
Height 8 ft (2.44 m)
(Wikipedia M1A1 Page)
​

2.44x3.66x9.77=87.25m bounding box (considerably less displacement)
dividing by 14 to get Td 6.24

 

[Meteoric Assault]

a 150 Td tank is bolo or ogre sized. Even the largest real world modern tanks are under 20Td by bounding box

M1A1

Weight 67.6 short tons (60.4 long tons; 61.3 t)
Length, Gun forward: 32.04 ft (9.77 m)
Hull length: 26.02 ft (7.93 m)
Width 12 ft (3.66 m)
Height 8 ft (2.44 m)
(Wikipedia M1A1 Page)
​

2.44x3.66x9.77=87.25m bounding box (considerably less displacement)
dividing by 14 to get Td 6.24

agreed absolutely also I just cant see high tech level vehicle weighing so much .....

 

[Dragoner]

agreed absolutely also I just cant see high tech level vehicle weighing so much .....

My criticism exactly....which is why I don't use striker.

 

[Dragoner]

So I am asking are there any other CT compatible rules out there for vehicle design that don't make me want to execute a pocket calculator?

Book 2, while it doesn't specifically say, a tank is a "non-starship" and the CT Tank, is 10 dtons or "around" 200 metric tons.

 

[aramis]

Book 2, while it doesn't specifically say, a tank is a "non-starship" and the CT Tank, is 10 dtons or "around" 200 metric tons.

1.5x the bounding box volume, and 4x the weight, of an M1 Abrams.

 

[Dragoner]

1.5x the bounding box volume, and 4x the weight, of an M1 Abrams.

M1 is around 62 metric tons (68 short tons), so closer to 3.23x weight and just over 5 dtons (5.7 rough) reasonable if one thinks of super dense armor, such as a Trepida. Which IIRC, MT put it close to those dimensions.

 

[aramis]

M1 is around 62 metric tons (68 short tons), so closer to 3.23x weight and just over 5 dtons (5.7 rough) reasonable if one thinks of super dense armor, such as a Trepida. Which IIRC, MT put it close to those dimensions.

I used bounding box, see calcs above, coming up with 6.24Td bounding box, and it's 61.3 tons metric, for 3.25x the weight, if one wants to be pedantic and assinine about it.

It's a level of accuracy totally unneeded in this conversation, however, and hence is a waste of time and annoyance.

 

[far-trader]

Book 2, while it doesn't specifically say, a tank is a "non-starship" and the CT Tank, is 10 dtons or "around" 200 metric tons.

I don't have my book handy here, are you sure it says 200 metric tons somewhere? I'm not recalling that but could have forgotten it. Got a page number?

What I do recall is CT stating that (for cargo, and imo generally) 1dton is 1000kg so a 10dton vehicle imtu would default to 10,000kg or 10 metric tons.

Being that the CT AFV (I presume that is the reference) is 10dtons for it to come in at about 10 metric tons weight seems in the right ballpark for what is described as a light armoured vehicle (it's not a MBT like the Abrams).

 

[Dragoner]

I don't have my book handy here, are you sure it says 200 metric tons somewhere? I'm not recalling that but could have forgotten it. Got a page number?

What I do recall is CT stating that (for cargo, and imo generally) 1dton is 1000kg so a 10dton vehicle imtu would default to 10,000kg or 10 metric tons.

Being that the CT AFV (I presume that is the reference) is 10dtons for it to come in at about 10 metric tons weight seems in the right ballpark for what is described as a light armoured vehicle (it's not a MBT like the Abrams).

No, it only says 10tons, which is vague, the 10 dtons, 200 tons is a figure I did in one of my engineering classes doing density of materials.

Forget about it though, I don't care.

 

[Hyphen]

Are we worried about dton volume or metric tonne weight? GDW at least acknowleged that the 20 dton tank was too big and unwieldy (esp. to transport), so introduced the 10ton version.

In comparison, the trendi Brunel combat command car is 2.2 dtons and 80 metric tonnes, using BSD to give AC 50 on all faces. It can also fly at Mach 2.2!
http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/trendi/brunel.htm

The trendi Belion is an example of a "rid-onk-yu-lus" (i.e. player-designed!!!) MBT. More like a grossly-armed small craft than a "tank", at 45 dtons and 5,500 metric tonnes, sporting a ship's fusion gun as its main weapon, max AF 90 (Min AF 71), it is a way-too-high value target. On the other hand, a platoon is capable of holding off a small pirate fleet... it's just that a flight of Ramparts could probably do the same job much more cheaply.
http://members.tip.net.au/~davidjw/tavspecs/trendi/belion.htm

(And although I'm suggesting to you that it's a little over-the-top, one would never suggest such a thing to the Count, of course...)

 

[Meteoric Assault]

Ummm I screwed up... I transposed dtons with metric tons.....I guess I will be eating my crap sandwich now.:frankie:

 

[aramis]

Ummm I screwed up... I transposed dtons with metric tons.....I guess I will be ceating my crap sandwich now.:frankie:

You're far from the first, probably won't be the last.

 

[Hyphen]

...(for cargo, and imo generally) 1dton is 1000kg so a 10dton vehicle imtu would default to 10,000kg or 10 metric tons.

Cargo is light (lots of air spaces); tanks (IMO) would be heavier than the average cargo weight.

How mush does 13.5 cu m of LHyd weigh, anyway?

 

[Tobias]

1 metric ton.

That's actually how the dton was defined.

 

[far-trader]

Cargo is light (lots of air spaces); tanks (IMO) would be heavier than the average cargo weight.

Definitely. That's why I said vehicles would default to that.

Some would be heavier (tanks, armoured cars, etc.) and some would be lighter (advanced materials basic transport) with the typical general purpose vehicle falling in the mostly empty space and bits of heavy stuff category (for example the average car being about 2 metric tons matches the CT one at 2dtons).

 

[aramis]

1 metric ton.

That's actually how the dton was defined.

Actually, 1 metric ton of HYDROGEN... and in the section on deckplans, noted as 1.5x3x3m.

Cargo tons are not clearly delineated.

 

[far-trader]

LBB2 page 48 always seemed pretty clear and definitive to me:

For example, the base price of a shotgun is Cr150, while a ton of firearms as trade goods has a base price of Cr30,000. A strict weight extension of the shotgun (3.75 kg per shotgun) would indicate 266 shotguns. Extension should be instead based on price, with weight as a limiting factor. Thus one ton of shotguns would contain 200 guns, at Cr150 each. The extra weight can be considered packing and crates. Similar calculations should be made to keep prices in line on other trade goods.

The most a ton of cargo will weigh is 1000 kg.

 

[Carlobrand]

I rather like Striker until you get to the high-techs. It seems to break down rather badly there. Most games I've played have quietly side-stepped the issue, but if you follow the logic of the rules and technology to their conclusion, you end up in some wierd places.

Most gamers like to play local tactical battles, but between extensive ECM and speed bonuses, it seems the best tactic for these grav-tanks is simply to zoom past any defending line, go blow up the rear-area target, and then zoom back home for supper. Not exactly something you can simulate easily in miniatures on a tabletop. Except ... tac-missiles. Fusion-powered grav vehicles are inherently expensive and either beat dead by cheaper chemically-fueled tanks and GEVs with large volleys of high-performance tac missiles, or have to be so heavily armored and expensively equipped to survive that nuc missile volleys start looking like an attractive counter - which is a nasty, nasty state of affairs as far as the locals and the ground-pounders are concerned. The game response - point defense systems and nuclear dampers - are simply too easy to overwhelm. In fact, their high cost just makes it that much more likely that the opponent will respond with overwhelming quantities of missiles.

Which leaves one wondering why anyone would bother to build and transport a multi-million credit 20dT war machine whose most likely fate is to get melted to slag by a missile force numerous enough to penetrate its point defenses and costing 1/20th as much as the tank they killed, taking out any accompanying infantry and a large part of the neighboring farmland in the bargain. Agreed, the Impies aren't going to let two countries under their rule go that route - but there's no reason to believe the Zhodani, Vargr, Solomani and so forth give a flip about Imperial rules of war.

Without a more effective answer to nukes, there's just no reason to believe anyone would bother with these overpriced nuke-magnets.

 

[aramis]

Which leaves one wondering why anyone would bother to build and transport a multi-million credit 20dT war machine whose most likely fate is to get melted to slag by a missile force numerous enough to penetrate its point defenses and costing 1/20th as much as the tank they killed, taking out any accompanying infantry and a large part of the neighboring farmland in the bargain. Agreed, the Impies aren't going to let two countries under their rule go that route - but there's no reason to believe the Zhodani, Vargr, Solomani and so forth give a flip about Imperial rules of war.

Well... thing is, the Imperial grav tanks are only 15 Td, not frightfully expensive, double as slow-but-very-deadly air/space fighters, and are not normally fielded where the locals exhibit no will to live nor technological parity.

1st nuke dropped gets the firer dumped on with a handful of nukes on the launcher. Followed by promises of saturation bombardment if another is dropped. And if another is, the combined meson and nuke fire takes out the ability to hide or fight, right after whatever is left bugs out.

As for missile saturation... it's not quite as easy as it looks, especially if there's a TL difference. Striker doesn't present the whole picture, but basically, the Trepida squadron includes a same speed Astrin-E ECM platform... which can jam and spoof missiles pretty well. It's not assured defense, but coupled with on-trepida PD capabilities, it's usually good enough. And the Trepida isn't heavy armored (only 40 - same as a starship), but it is mach-1... many tac missiles won't catch it, and it's orbit capable. And only MCr20... it's job is to protect deploying marines, not to be a MBT. And in that role, it's a wonderful boat.

Unless you're the poor schmuck assigned to one. Then it's a hot shakey ride straight into hell at mach 1+ as you fly with the drop troops. And you pray that the big boys got all the big PlanDef with Mesons from orbit. And that the Driver stops before you smoking hole.