>From Burton Choinsk [email removed]
>>From: John Wilber [email removed]
>
>>VEHICLE DESIGN
>>
>>I think that TDR should have a vehicle design system that would apply
>>across the whole range of vehicle sizes- kind of like a "unified field
>>theory" of vehicle design. Again, I think _Striker_ has the right
>>idea. I like Striker's system because you know that the resultant
>>vehicle is x meters wide, y meters tall, and z meters long, unlike
>>MegaTraveller. The designer would use the same rules for designing any
>
>I feel that unifying this much is too much of a good thing. A car is not
>a boat, nor is a sub a spaceship.
If you think about it, there's less truth to this statement than you may
think. At the current TL (ours; 8, I think) cars and boats are almost
identical: they both have internal combustion engines; they both are
semi-waterproof (cars from the top, boats from the bottom); they both
have similiar ranges, speeds, and capacities. The same is true for
subs and spaceships: both have self-contained life support systems;
both are large, cumbersome, and expensive; both require extremely high
tech guidance and propulsion systems; both require crews of >1; both
require exotic fuels (LOX and hydrazine for the rockets, uranium for
the subs); etc.
> There should probably be three sets of
>design rules, based on a common core:
>
> Ground vehicles: Cars, trucks, etc. No grav stuff, but includes hovercraft.
> Watercraft: Boats, subs, etc.
> Aircraft: Grav craft, spacecraft, etc.
>
>I think it should be broken up a bit just because of the differences in design
>philosophy. If you wish to make an aero-car, you would use the basic aircraft
>rules and add vehicle stuff. A sub-plane would use either the aircraft or
>watercraft rules, depending on primary emphasis.
Well, at high TLs, where do you draw the line? When does a gravitic ground
vehicle stop becoming a ground vehicle and start becoming an air vehicle?
If you're going base your rule separation strictly on type of propulsion
system, how granular to you get? What is an air cushion vehicle: ground,
water, or air? Why slam it into ground vehicles when it could just as
easily be put in one of the other two? This seems highly arbitrary to me.
By creating a single "unified" set of design rules, you no longer have
to worry about those (artificial) boundaries. If the rules big enough
to cover everything seem unwieldy, you simply design them such that
certain unneccessary components become optional (like weapon, environment,
and computer control components for a skateboard). In a modular, unified
system, you have the best of both worlds: everything is designed the same
way, but you only use what you need. And the biggest plus of all is that
you don't have to duplicate common design rules for separate systems.
>IMHO, the "overall body damage" system is outdated and should be
>eliminated. Also, the direct use of characteristics for "hitpoints"
>should be dropped in favor of a more abstract system (perhaps similar to
>"STAR WARS"). Each character is given a "toughness" rating (based on
>Strength, Endurance, and some racial modifiers -- kkee should be tougher
>then humans). When a character's armor is breached, the "degree of damage
>(DOD)" is determined. If an optional hit location table is used, head hits
>might be DODx10, arms DODx1/2, etc. By cross referencing the DOD with the
>toughness, you can determine wounding (superficial, light, moderate,
>serious, critical, lethal).
>
>This system would retain enough of the old system, but add some "space
>opera-ish" taste.
If this is the kind of combat system you want, then you're probably gonna'
love the one Iain Fogg and I are almost finished with. Heavily based on
Cyberpunk's "Friday Night Firefight", it uses weapon damage translated
into wound types: Flesh, Serious, Critical, Mortal, and Dead. These
wounds are modified by a BODY TYPE (Very Weak, Weak, Avg., Strong, Very
Strong), so that a K'Kree would naturally be tougher that a Human.
Wait and see.
Mark F. Cook
USMail: User Interface Technical Support
Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
[address removed]
INTERNET: [email removed]
[email removed]