Topic: Classifications of Vehicles

[markc]

  I was wondering if you could help me out a bit I am trying to develop a top down list of some vehicle types. So far for the top areas I have ; Civilian, Industrial and Military. I was thinking about putting Scientific in the top list but for some reason it just does not seem to fit in my mind.
  Do you see any other's I did not?
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

  So far for the top areas I have ; Civilian, Industrial and Military. I was thinking about putting Scientific in the top list but for some reason it just does not seem to fit in my mind.

Mine either, but I have a reason why: Civilian/Scientific, Industrial/Scientific and Military/Scientific. In the same way you could have Civilian/Exploratory, Industrial/Exploratory and Military/Exploratory.

In other words, I think Civilian/Industrial (Corporate?)/Military is a major method of division according to who the end user is, but there is another major division by function that has little to do with that, too. It ends up being a matrix, like climate types varying along major axes of hot/cold and wet/dry.

[Marc R]

Industrial, likely it's worth splitting in two.

Bulk Transport: Tend to be low cost, light as they can get away with, and generally if not always low power to weight ratios (Slow acceleration, if possibly high top speeds).

Heavy Machinery: Tend to be high cost, heavily overbuilt, usually overpowered, and highly specialized.

Think the difference between say Semi Trucks, Crude Tankers and Barges vs Dump Trucks, Front end Loaders, Bulldozers and Tugs.

[markc]

 I agree.


 I was going to have further types spin off below the top divisions. Each type would have specific requirements or mins is areas. For example starcraft of civilian/industrial/military would be required to have at least 2 life support systems for long duration ships and maybe transports might be required to have 3 life support systems.


Below the top fields I have the following:
1) Scientific
2) Exploration
3) Transport (people)
4) Transport (goods)
5) Work Related (mineral extraction, building, very short range cargo movement, repair, etc)
6) Defense Related (Protection, Escort, EW, Carrier-V(ee's), Carrier-P(ersonel), Carrier-C(argo), Patrol, X-Craft)
7) Living (space station, hab colony, slow moving settlement) 


 More comments would be appreciated greatly.
MDC   

[markc]

Industrial, likely it's worth splitting in two.

Bulk Transport: Tend to be low cost, light as they can get away with, and generally if not always low power to weight ratios (Slow acceleration, if possibly high top speeds).

Heavy Machinery: Tend to be high cost, heavily overbuilt, usually overpowered, and highly specialized.

Think the difference between say Semi Trucks, Crude Tankers and Barges vs Dump Trucks, Front end Loaders, Bulldozers and Tugs.

 I agree that both are valid areas that I would place either in the work related or transport-goods sections I have below the top fields.


 I can also see the difference between a Fed-X/UPS fast Vee and as you say a Fed-X/UPS long hall Vee. One or both could be Civilian or could be Industrial in nature. I do not see the Companies getting the Military classification but then again in space with lots of room maybe various companies expand their areas of delivery and require and acquire the Vee's necessary to do the job.


Thanks
MDC   

[JimiSue]

I do not see the Companies getting the Military classification but then again in space with lots of room maybe various companies expand their areas of delivery and require and acquire the Vee's necessary to do the job.

Not just in space. Once you get away from "civilian light transport conveyances" (i.e. cars) with custom coffee and donut holders, a privatised police force (esp. SWAT-type police) such as that in the Robocop films (that dates me!) make use of vehicles which have a very military look and feel. On less civilised worlds, a transit company might use of vehicles that bear a closer resemblance to an APC than a minibus.

Which is why I would agree that it would be better to classify by function rather than end user - Civilian, Corporate or Military will all end up using the best vehicle to do whatever task is required. Also, are you limited to ground vehicles only? Or would you also wish to include water-borne craft and (exclusively atmospheric) aircraft as well?

[markc]

I would include any type of craft, starship, sub, aircraft, G Vehicle, etc.


MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

Civilian, Corporate or Military will all end up using the best vehicle to do whatever task is required.

The best available to them, sure, but corporate vehicles are likely to have features that civilian vehicles don't, and military vehicles are likely to have features that corporate vehicles don't. So it might be worthwhile to do a major division by functionality (ex. long mission exploration watercraft, small) and then further subdivide by civ/corp/mil. I suspect the biggest factor for change between those 3 types will be the willingness to commit extra resources to account for possibilities or whether low price trumps everything and you only allow for likelihoods.

[markc]

Civilian, Corporate or Military will all end up using the best vehicle to do whatever task is required.

The best available to them, sure, but corporate vehicles are likely to have features that civilian vehicles don't, and military vehicles are likely to have features that corporate vehicles don't. So it might be worthwhile to do a major division by functionality (ex. long mission exploration watercraft, small) and then further subdivide by civ/corp/mil. I suspect the biggest factor for change between those 3 types will be the willingness to commit extra resources to account for possibilities or whether low price trumps everything and you only allow for likelihoods.

 I have decided to go the other way from your statement, so you could  say my idea is to go backwards from yours.
MDC

[pastaav]

What is purpose of the list? What division of vehicles that make most sense is probably a function of the intended use of the list.

[markc]

What is purpose of the list? What division of vehicles that make most sense is probably a function of the intended use of the list.

 I am thinking again of making my own starship/Vee creation system and the beginning set of questions help the creator make the design they would like to make. If I can I will also incorporate the qualifier's into the creation system. I plan on working the system out first on paper and then an Excel spread sheet to help me out when making stuff.
MDC   

[JimiSue]

The best available to them, sure, but corporate vehicles are likely to have features that civilian vehicles don't, and military vehicles are likely to have features that corporate vehicles don't. So it might be worthwhile to do a major division by functionality (ex. long mission exploration watercraft, small) and then further subdivide by civ/corp/mil. I suspect the biggest factor for change between those 3 types will be the willingness to commit extra resources to account for possibilities or whether low price trumps everything and you only allow for likelihoods.

It's a tuffie. But build quality wouldn't be enough to distinguish between the types. Look at the huge range of SUVs marketed at today's civilian population - from something that just looks like a 4x4 but barely has enough grunt to do the school run, to vehicles that could do a school run up a vertical cliff in a hurricane while housing enough space in the back for a symphony orchestra (OK, slight exaggeration, but you know what I mean.)

Rather than answer questions of this type, maybe a more workable solution would be to have build options. So you might start with a cost from 2 axis grid - civilian/industrial/military along one and light/medium/heavy along the other. Then you could have build options like an over-engineered chassis having a base cost multiplier of 1.2; high power engine x1.5, towing capability +200; 4 wheel drive x 1.4; 4 wheel steering x1.7; atmospheric sealing x2; mounted weaponry.... and so on. I suspect trying to get too pinned down on classifying every potential vehicle will just be a short road to a headache - chances are that anyone creating a vehicle will already have a pretty good mental picture of what they are wanting anyway - they just need to pick the kind of chassis and what they want bolted on.

[markc]

Jimisue;


 I agree with your last post and the idea is to basically provide some type of frame work to help the creator make decisions on what they need to make. It can also be used to restrict some equipment based on initial selections.
MDC


Edit: I forgot to say it can also help the GM for those who say "why can I not put this on X, it is in the book?"
MDC

[markc]

Jimisue;
 I also just thought of another way to create things. One in which as you say you state with a base hull and add descriptors that reduce the various limitations on the hull. IE limitations might be space, power, TL, faction, etc.
MDC

[JimiSue]

That would also work, but the real world rules are slightly different with a terrestrial vehicle then they would be with spacecraft - e.g. engine power can be increased on a terrestrial vehicle to the point where some or all of the engine is actually outside the body shell, but it's a different story when there is a finite shell into which everything needs to be crammed.

And it would need to be flexible enough that when you're creating a vehicle that it feels like you're actually making choices rather than having them made for you. In the SPAM 2 Star Strike rules, I've had to make several amends to the formulae because so often it feels like you're being railroaded just to make everything fit in. There's a few parts where it talks about having backup and redundant systems, but when there's not enough space to squeeze in a bridge, having a back up life support is just impossible - even if it is very desirable.

[GrumpyOldFart]

That would also work, but the real world rules are slightly different with a terrestrial vehicle then they would be with spacecraft - e.g. engine power can be increased on a terrestrial vehicle to the point where some or all of the engine is actually outside the body shell, but it's a different story when there is a finite shell into which everything needs to be crammed.

Actually with a spacecraft that's even easier, pretty much anything except living space can be outside the pressure hull if need be... as long as it isn't designed to operate in atmosphere. Where the size and shape of the hull is a real limiting factor is in aircraft and watercraft, particularly submarines... vehicles where the shape of the outer hull is integral to how it moves.

[arakish]

IMHO I think there are only five classifications for vehicles.  At least there are only five I use.

Civilian - nothing more than simple conveyances, whether utilitarian or sports.
Commercial - mostly includes passenger and commodities transports.
Industrial - includes manufacturing, mining, etc, not covered by commercial.
Exploration - these would actually be the only vehicles which would include defences and weapons and not be military battle wagons.  Most often, the defences and armaments are minimal.
Military - I think everyone knows what these are.

But that is just my opinion.

rmfr

[JimiSue]

Actually with a spacecraft that's even easier...

Actually I would disagree with that to a certain extent - from an aesthetic point of view I want to fly in a visually pleasing spacecraft Good looking vehicles sell better - looks often trump function, particularly when talking about personal conveyances.

I think Arakish's split is a sensible one. Although I would argue that Exploration vehicles would normally be custom jobs rather than something you'd buy off the production line - a lot of what we might consider Exploration vehicles (e.g. a chunky 4x4 SUV) I would be happer classifying as an offshoot of Military (e.g. Jeep) or Commercial (a pick up is really about light haulage but the high power/weight ratio of the unladen vehicle makes it suitable for off-road applications as well).

[arakish]

I think Arakish's split is a sensible one. Although I would argue that Exploration vehicles would normally be custom jobs rather than something you'd buy off the production line - a lot of what we might consider Exploration vehicles (e.g. a chunky 4x4 SUV) I would be happer classifying as an offshoot of Military (e.g. Jeep) or Commercial (a pick up is really about light haulage but the high power/weight ratio of the unladen vehicle makes it suitable for off-road applications as well).

Quite right.  Guess I should have elaborated further on the Exploration class.

The builders of star vessels (Terran Emperial Star Vessel Construction Company, yes that's its name) do specialize in an Exploration class of star vessels.  Basically, it is a military class framework with median civilian-military hulling and components.  In other words, the Exploration class hulls are better than anything civilians can get, but not as good as military hulls.  Also, the weapons rarely rank higher than Mk.25ex4.  Civilian weapon systems never exceed Mk.1ex3.

Additionally, I'd like to show off the Repriser.  A new vessel class created by one of my players.  He gave me permission to post it here.



rmfr

[markc]

Nice.
MDC