Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Radio Controlled]

Modularity is nice, but not limitless, and increases cost. A tank will need a different shape/frame than a transport, for example. That said, that resembles a bit the design I had worked out, though mine was a bit more restrained on what could be swapped. I'll try to post in next week somewhere, not like there's a hurry here.

[tryrar]

Modularity is nice, but not limitless, and increases cost. A tank will need a different shape/frame than a transport, for example. That said, that resembles a bit the design I had worked out, though mine was a bit more restrained on what could be swapped. I'll try to post in next week somewhere, not like there's a hurry here.

Well yeah, but that's the beauty of our system: need an extended/widened chassis to support your load? Can be done by adding extra chassis sections! Need a narrower base? can do! Need heavy armor? Yup! And so on...

I realize this might make vehicles a bit more expensive, but the sheer flexibility of what we can do with vehicles with this might actually mean more people BUY vehicles in the first place. I mean, only one person has actually bought a vehicle(salvaged rocketbikes from anomalous planetoid don't count )

[Radio Controlled]

And if you want a small, low frame for your tank? Adding on things is easy, but unless you just wanna make a big parts list and pretend they're lego's you can snap into each other, there's limits to your modularity. A single frame should be more robust than one from many parts glued together, afte all.

Though, one of the things I wanted to investigate was using (modified) sharkmist for the main frame. If that works, you can have a 'programmable' chassis, where you can indeed choose a main shape, let the sharkmist take that form, then slot in whatever the sharkmist can't form (generators, weapons, whatever).

Note that I imagine the biggest buyer of vehicles will be the team fund, since that allows more flexibility, and makes sense ic.

[Parisbre56]

Modularity is nice, but not limitless, and increases cost. A tank will need a different shape/frame than a transport, for example. That said, that resembles a bit the design I had worked out, though mine was a bit more restrained on what could be swapped. I'll try to post in next week somewhere, not like there's a hurry here.

But we're not looking for a mainline tank here, something we will use in the front lines of the war. We're looking for a versatile vehicle that can be useful on various missions.

I dunno, some variants could be used in the war for a support role, I guess. But Hephaestus and our allies can probably mass produce various vehicles that fill that role much better, so there's no real need for modularity there, beyond a minimal "allow turret/cannon/armour/engine to be replaced with something better with some work at a machine shop".

And I disagree that a tank has to be different. The only thing a tank can benefit from is a lower profile and thus a smaller target. Other than that, with the armour we're using and the weapons we're facing, a simple APC shape would be fine, something like the Armata but maybe a bit bigger.

If that is a concern though, then there could simply be two chassis, one more combat oriented with fewer/smaller module slots and the other more support oriented, with a larger payload compartment. EDIT: Although I don't see why you would want a tank on a mission when you can probably buy a battlesuit or an Avatar with the same money.

Kinda reminds me of those mech games where you can select different mechs with different module slots.

[Hapah]

I don't see anyone sinking the tokens into a vehicle if it costs much, really.

[Radio Controlled]

That's the point I was making, that modularity wouldn't be able to get you every kind of vehicle you could need.

And a tank can be very different. For example, it could be generally egg shaped, to get sloped armor effect (depending on what armor type you're using) and for deflecting off shots. You could place the command center at the back, and build it to only allow for a braincase, so you can make the whole thing even smaller.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Why is a modular vehicle alright, but a modular suit not? T-T

[Parisbre56]

That's the point I was making, that modularity wouldn't be able to get you every kind of vehicle you could need.

And a tank can be very different. For example, it could be generally egg shaped, to get sloped armour effect (depending on what armour type you're using) and for deflecting off shots. You could place the command centre at the back, and build it to only allow for a braincase, so you can make the whole thing even smaller.

And the point I'm making is that it will be able to get us the kind of vehicles we might need on missions. What kind of mission needs a tank when you can buy a battlesuit or avatar with the same money?

The example you give proves that for the war, single purpose vehicles are the best, which is exactly what I'm saying. But I'm talking about missions here, which are different.

I don't see anyone sinking the tokens into a vehicle if it costs much, really.

I was going to buy an ARSC for Mission 20 so that the team could stay inside it in the landing zone and move around with it once we found the brain and be safe while I and Lars checked for nerves ahead of them, but it could only hold 5 people and could not be extracted from the planet, so I didn't buy it. If I could either extract it or put the entire team in there, then I would had bought it. Hence why we need a more versatile platform, something that would had allowed me to buy something like the ARSC but tailored to the mission's needs.

Why is a modular vehicle alright, but a modular suit not? T-T

See Hapah's quote. People usually don't want to have to spend money to get something that costs more than it should. While with the team fund you can afford to spend a few extra tokens to add wheels instead of spiderlegs for the next mission, because it's a few tokens that help the entire team instead of a single person. Assuming the vehicle survives, you get more use out of it in the long run.

[Radio Controlled]

Well, what were the main issues or complaints about that modular suit idea? Depending on the level of modularity this system has, the same applies. Next to that though, a lot of the problems with it were the cost (which is inherent to modularity), and the systems proposed to circumvent that. This thing will also have the cost issue.

@paris: yes, I was also talking about general war use (as I usually seem to do), sorry if that wasn't clear from the start. I often think in terms of resources instead of tokens, even though those don't translate 1 on 1.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Why is a modular vehicle alright, but a modular suit not? T-T

See Hapah's quote. People usually don't want to have to spend money to get something that costs more than it should. While with the team fund you can afford to spend a few extra tokens to add wheels instead of spiderlegs for the next mission, because it's a few tokens that help the entire team instead of a single person. Assuming the vehicle survives, you get more use out of it in the long run.

But the whole point of the MACS was to provide a way around that. A collection of parts sold as a whole, a core suit with attachments, with re-equips possible as if they were repairs instead of selling and re-buying parts. The only thing nobody agreed on was how it was supposed to be paid for.

Think Battlesuit variants. Most have pros and cons, and end up costing the same. The MACS is basically the same thing, except the differentiating parts are made to be modular, so one could simply have them swapped out for another set in place of maintenance, with only a token (literally) payment.

[Unholy_Pariah]

@nik/forcefield sword.
Why stop at a vibrating monofilament when you have a hyper-rotational matter annihilator?

Seriously, its a postage stamp that can project a field a meter or so in front of it.
Why not set the filament to point at the target, offset it by 45° and rotate at ludicrous speeds so that you can bore a hole straight through the target or gouge out large chunks of material with every swing?

[Parisbre56]

Why is a modular vehicle alright, but a modular suit not? T-T

See Hapah's quote. People usually don't want to have to spend money to get something that costs more than it should. While with the team fund you can afford to spend a few extra tokens to add wheels instead of spiderlegs for the next mission, because it's a few tokens that help the entire team instead of a single person. Assuming the vehicle survives, you get more use out of it in the long run.

But the whole point of the MACS was to provide a way around that. A collection of parts sold as a whole, a core suit with attachments, with re-equips possible as if they were repairs instead of selling and re-buying parts. The only thing nobody agreed on was how it was supposed to be paid for.

Think Battlesuit variants. Most have pros and cons, and end up costing the same. The MACS is basically the same thing, except the differentiating parts are made to be modular, so one could simply have them swapped out for another set in place of maintenance, with only a token (literally) payment.

Did piecewise ever accept that system though? Because I thought that was the problem.

If it's not, then I don't see why it isn't being used. It's not like extra equipment is bad. If it gets used and is useful, good. If it looks like it's never going to be used, just put it in a dusty corner of the armoury page and forget about it.

@nik/forcefield sword.
Why stop at a vibrating monofilament when you have a hyper-rotational matter annihilator?

Seriously, its a postage stamp that can project a field a meter or so in front of it.
Why not set the filament to point at the target, offset it by 45° and rotate at ludicrous speeds so that you can bore a hole straight through the target or gouge out large chunks of material with every swing?

Idea: Take a scout eye. Put a monoatomic forcefield projector in its centre that makes a cloud of tiny monoatomic filaments around it. Spin the projector at ludicrous speed. Send it towards the enemy. Watch it tear everything apart and then explode like 100 pounds of C4 when destroyed. EDIT: Could call it the Urchinbot.

I'd propose we put it on bullets, but they may end up too expensive to use. EDIT: On the other hand, it might be a great Avatar killer, thus justifying its cost.

[Radio Controlled]

For the vehicles, remember I once made a parts list for designing vehicles (made this back when I was designing my own system, but then something came inbetween, so I only ever 'published' that). One can use that as a checklist of sorts. http://einsteinianroulette.wikia.com/wiki/Tinker

@paris: yikes, one small disagreement and you start talking about killing avatars. 

[Unholy_Pariah]

Urchin bot wouldnt work that way, postage stamp is the minimum effective size so tiny clouds of filaments is a no-go.

I wonder if monoatomic corkscrew rounds would work?

[Parisbre56]

Urchin bot wouldnt work that way, postage stamp is the minimum effective size so tiny clouds of filaments is a no-go.

I wonder if monoatomic corkscrew rounds would work?

Nope. Postage size is the minimum size of the forcefield projector. The forcefield itself can be as small as you want. So with a few postage stamps attached on a rotating inner sphere in the scouteye (or a single one if it can be made multi-directional), you could get that.

EdIT: @RC: Well, on the list of the worst thing we could to face is the AM's sister and a Titan. So I'm always trying to find ways to kill those things, since synthflesh and physics breaking is notoriously tough.