VehicleMaker breakdown

[mvdwege]

Playing around a bit with the various Makers in T5, I noticed VehicleMaker breaking down when trying to model low-tech vehicles.

Let's take a WWI era fighter plane (a Scout, in that era's parlance):

The primary role is Protector. Scouts were used to keep other Scouts away from other planes actually flying a mission (Recon, Artillery Spotting etc.)

A Flyer-Protector-Winged is 20 tons according to the basic chart. This being a light biplane, let's make it Vlight. A Weapon Mount does not add any weight.

That gets us a Vlight-Flyer-Protector-Winged-7. TL-7 does not fit the era, but making it open (Air) subtracts 2 Tech Levels, making it a perfect fit at TL5. However, it's still around 7 tons (20 tons/3 + 1)

Obviously that's a bit heavy for a WWI biplane.

Now, no system is perfect, so I wouldn't mind a bit of breakdown, but it is still a curious result; or am I overlooking something?

 

[mvdwege]

I must note one further thing: being a bit of a WWI and WWII plane nut, I noticed that using the default settings, VehicleMaker starts generating more realistic results around 1944. Take-off weight of late WWII single-engine planes is around 6000-8000 kg (e.g. the P-47 Thunderbolt), which would fit with Vlight/Light-Flyer-Protector/Combat-6 vehicles.

 

[pendragonman]

I have found that most of the makers are fragile when replicating the early tech level equipment. Blademaker the somewhat exception.

However, if we want something that works for everyone at every tech level then we are back to forcing the GMs define equipment at all tech levels.

 

[Reban]

Let's take a WWI era fighter plane (a Scout, in that era's parlance):

<SNIP>

That gets us a Vlight-Flyer-Protector-Winged-7. TL-7 does not fit the era, but making it open (Air) subtracts 2 Tech Levels, making it a perfect fit at TL5. However, it's still around 7 tons (20 tons/3 + 1)

Obviously that's a bit heavy for a WWI biplane.

Thats 7tons volume. So lets take a WW1 biplane and see what volume it has. I'll sellect the Sopwith Camel which is 5.76m long, 8.5m wingspan, ans 2.65m high. That gives us a simple block 128.4m3 (9.5tons). A lot of that is waste space due to the shape. Note that I'm including the open spaces between the upper and lower wings which are necessary for the design to fly. Discard about 2ton for the space aft of the trailing edge of the wing to the tail. That takes us close to your 7tons.

I've found VehicleMaker doesn't use displacement tons to describe all the volume inside the skin of the vehicle but the space (including that required to open doors swing gun barrels etc.) that a vehicle occupies or dominates. this is best described visually with the Design Box.

I'd like to draw it out using a design Box before working out what its actual Mass is compared to the Sopwith Camel's 645Kg.

 

[mvdwege]

That sounds...logical.

So it's not as much of a breakdown as it first appears then.

 

[Reban]

Yeah, and remember what VehicleMaker is producing is representative of a class of vehicles. Imagine you took every aircraft in the Scout Class from 1914-18 (Actually probably 1914 right up to the mid 1930's). average them all together and you get what VehicleMaker is actually producing. Differentiating it within that class is up to the designer through his choice of weapons, sensors, fittings and description.

By the way. I think you could get away without the weapons mount if you're just fitting two fixed machineguns. Two of the Mg-6s from p.240 mass only 16Kg. A weapons Mount has a capacity of 200Kg - 100,000Kg (ref p.253).

I think of a weapons mount as volume dedicated to all the carriage, traversing equipment, space for an operator if needed and the volume of the free space needed for a weapon's barrel to traverse through.

My houserule is that you can fit up to 200Kg of personal and crew served weapons without needing a weapons mount. These are either fixed or fitted on simple pintel and ring mounts. To fire they require an operator to physically fire them, rather than controlling them from an operators console.

 

[robject]

Yeah, and remember what VehicleMaker is producing is representative of a class of vehicles.

I find that this is true for all the *Maker tools; it's just more apparent at "our" TLs. GunMaker, for instance, is not going to get you a huge variety of pistols at TL7, even though Earth produced a zillion different models.

So far, I have used Page 53's "Volume Production", "Typical Cost Modifiers", and "Supply and Demand" data to customize equipment beyond technical specs.

 

[Murdoc]

Hey, let's not forget QREBS!

 

[Licheking]

I find that this is true for all the *Maker tools; it's just more apparent at "our" TLs. GunMaker, for instance, is not going to get you a huge variety of pistols at TL7, even though Earth produced a zillion different models.

That might be true, but if you look closely at the 'zillion' different models you will find that they are essentially the same, different colours finishes, mag sizes grips which are all inconsequential to the overall effect of the weapon. The majority of handguns today are 9mm followed closely by 10mm/.40 but the difference realistically between them is infinitesimal certainly within the scale of the maker system. So sure we have a 'zillion' different handguns but actually they're the same handgun with cosmetic differences.

 

[arentol]

The real breakdown of the vehicle maker is that you can easily make things with negative tonnage.

Car +2 = 2 tons.
Grav -1 = 1 ton.
Light /2 = 0.5 ton.
Advanced -2 = -1.5 tons.
Days Endurance +1 = -0.5 tons.

Of course the saving grace is that such a vehicle would simply fail to exist and so the game is not negatively impacted by this, but it is annoying the system even allows this capability. If I were trying to fix this I would specify that divisors and multipliers are done absolute last, and I would set the base weights higher. However, it would take a bit of time to test out enough examples and determine what weights to use. I just think some of the base weights are a bit low, like the Tank. The tank is 5 tons tracked/TL7. Five tons as weight for a simple 1975 tank is well under what it should be, and given the volume based weight being used it is actually way way way under.

As to the Bi-Plane example, I can get you way under-weight (volume really) quite easily. Mission is optional and it would be quite an effective fighter without it. Therefore....
Flyer = 10 tons/TL7
VLight = 3.333 tons/TL6
Air = 3.333 tons/TL4 (1900AD)

 

[Reban]

The real breakdown of the vehicle maker is that you can easily make things with negative tonnage.


Of course the saving grace is that such a vehicle would simply fail to exist and so the game is not negatively impacted by this, but it is annoying the system even allows this capability.

All the Makers come with the caveat that they may return impractical results that should be discarded.

As to the Bi-Plane example, I can get you way under-weight (volume really) quite easily. Mission is optional and it would be quite an effective fighter without it. Therefore....
Flyer = 10 tons/TL7
VLight = 3.333 tons/TL6
Air = 3.333 tons/TL4 (1900AD)

This is a good observation. And while I was having doing up some quick examples yesterday I noticed Robject's VehicleMaker doesn't support this....so if you're reading this Robject, another one for the upgrade list

At that volume and TL it reminds me of a Bleriot Monoplane from 1910. Now just design a revolver and roll up a pilot, and take to the skies.

 

[robject]

The real breakdown of the vehicle maker is that you can easily make things with negative tonnage.

As you say, such things plainly do not exist. I tend to think of these things as having fractional, rather than negative, tonnage, but that's a personal interpretation.

 

[arentol]

This is a good observation. And while I was having doing up some quick examples yesterday I noticed Robject's VehicleMaker doesn't support this....so if you're reading this Robject, another one for the upgrade list

Speaking of the vehiclemaker... Where can I find that and all of Robject's other tools. I must be blind or something, but I can't find them.

 

[Reban]

Here: http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/scripts/omni_vehicle_maker.html

And here: http://eaglestone.pocketempires.com/

 

[sfchbryan]

That might be true, but if you look closely at the 'zillion' different models you will find that they are essentially the same, different colours finishes, mag sizes grips which are all inconsequential to the overall effect of the weapon. The majority of handguns today are 9mm followed closely by 10mm/.40 but the difference realistically between them is infinitesimal certainly within the scale of the maker system. So sure we have a 'zillion' different handguns but actually they're the same handgun with cosmetic differences.

Which is precisely why I can't believe MM wasted so much ink on them.

I truly believe that the monolith was made for people who don't actually PLAY Traveller, they just work the charts.

 

[robject]

Which is precisely why I can't believe MM wasted so much ink on them.

I truly believe that the monolith was made for people who don't actually PLAY Traveller, they just work the charts.

Don't believe it. I use those charts to equip my players ... and their adversaries.

 

[arentol]

Which is precisely why I can't believe MM wasted so much ink on them.

I truly believe that the monolith was made for people who don't actually PLAY Traveller, they just work the charts.

It's not that much ink, and it does make sense when you really look at it...

A TL4 revolver is turn of the century stuff. .38 nagant with weaker powder than we use today for example... So your basic 1D stuff.
TL5 is the 1930's. This would be the "improved" version, which is your lower level magnum, .357 for instance (which was developed in 1934, at the start of TL5). 2D
TL6 is the next step up, 1950, and .44magnum came out in the early 1950's. 3D
TL7 and TL8 introduced even more powerful revolvers of much larger caliber and far more powerful bullets, including the .500magnum, which is a bit ridiculous. 4D.

You may not think that these guns necessarily validate increases of a full D, but remember that T5 assumes that most combat will involve armor. So while .357 vs .44 may not be all that big a difference in real life against an unarmored foe, against armor it does make a bit more difference. Admittedly I myself would like to have half-dice (just a simple +2 to the Dice roll), but full dice is still a reasonable way to go for this kind of game system, especially since it allows someone to RP a revolver using character without ending up useless in combat against most armored foes.

The in-game gun equivalents btw...

.38 nagant = 1D = Base revolver, no mods
.357mag = 2D = Improved Revolver
.44mag = 3D = Improved Magnum Revolver (IMTU only revolvers can be magnums)
.500mag = 4D = Advanced Magnum Revolver

 

[Licheking]

.44mag = 3D = Improved Magnum Revolver (IMTU only revolvers can be magnums)

Magnum, in the real world, actually refers to a type of ammunition usually crammed with more propellant and therefore the most powerful type of round in that particular caliber. T5 typically of most rpg's has made the weapon the important part of the weapons damage dealing capacity when in actual fact its the round that the weapon fires that does the damage the weapon itself is little more than a vehicle to get it too its target with various degrees of accuracy and some minor variations in power due to barrel lengths etc. Magnum rounds can be found in most calibers except for some of the very largest and even in shotgun cartridges.

So i would say that Magnum should in fact be available to every weapon except maybe the artillery, launchers, projectors and anything with the Laser, Fusion or Plasma designators in the GunMaker system.

 

[Licheking]

The .44 Magnum as you call it is in reality called the Smith & Wesson Model 29 which fires a .44 Magnum round.

The Desert Eagle which Fires a .50AE (Action Express) is also synonymous with Magnum power levels.

 

[KDLadage]

It would appear that the various Maker systems in T5 could have used a few people like Peter Dell'Orto, Shawn Fisher, Dan Howard, Michael Hurst, David Morgan-Mar, Kenneth Peters, David Pulver, Matt Riggsby, William Stoddard, and Hans-Christian Vortisch.

For those of you that do not know these guys and their work, check out the various books they have written for GURPS, including the various maker-like systems within those books such as Vehicles and Robots.