![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are a lot of posts on here suggesting various vehicles that Teams could use, ranging from one-off prototypes to limited production vehicles to widely-fielded vehicles, and there seem to be realistic problems with all of these. So I wanted to ask some questions of the forum:
What percentage of equipment (especially weapons and vehicles) are obtained by: 1) Building them from scratch (like the MARS-One and Science-One vehicles) 2) Buying surplus 3) Buying commercial and modifying to "military" standards 4) Buying the production lines and running off extra Each method has problems: 1) A lot of engineering and lots of hard-to-conceal manufacturing 2 and 4) Most of the good stuff is watched pretty closely and might be hard to move 3) For most of the vehicles needed, this would be extremely difficult. The Project suffers from the problems of every large organization, a large variety of vehicles provides a diverse set of specialized tools that can handle a large range of problems, but logistically it is better to have few vehicles that can individually decently handle a lot of problems. So how is this balanced in your games? If we assume that the Project has 10,000 people (my low-end estimate of project strength), and that you need about 1 vehicle for every 8 people (accounting both for the fact that some teams have 2-3 vehicles and that a base of 50 might only have 2 vehicles) then that is still 1250 armored, fusion-powered vehicles that need to be acquired. If the Project has 50,000 people (my high-end estimate) then the same math gives us 6250 such vehicles. Any way you look at it, this is a lot of vehicles. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
This is a difficult question for me. I use many vehicles that are not military because not all of them need to be. Any decent tractor pulling a box trailer or flatbed trailer has lots of utility transporting materials in areas that seen as stable. Likewise a modified Conqueror UEV-490 pulled by a fusion powered Ford Expedition may serve a Science team quite well. Both cases, other than the conversion to fusion power adding run-flat tires, these are relatively common purchases. So for me, I first have to answer the question, how many vehicles need to be military vehicles or derived from them.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Remember also that you have some basic survivability requirements that are going to be pretty severe compared to civilian vehicles - even armoring to 7.62mm NATO will turn a well-performing vehicle into a beast that is straining just to move. And if you are going to put a nuclear reactor of ANY type into a vehicle I would really hope that armoring would be a high priority! |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
With the planned wake-up date being five years after, then planning on modified civilian vehicles becomes much more likely. V-150s are classed as police vehicles, so they don't come under the same level of scrutiny as saw, a M-113. Armored SUVs make sense in this scenario, there are over 200 companies involved in modifying such vehicles for government, corporate and personnel use. An a argument can be made for such modified vehicles, due to large sections of the road network still being usable. Playing with the 150-year wakeup...then these modified vehicles will be less likely to be useable over most terrain. In the end, it boils down to what the PD is most comfortable with.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The 150-year plan makes rebuilding much harder, but I think it is actually the safer scenario for the Project. 5 years in there are thousands of civilian 50-cal rifles and all those armored SUV's, most still operating and presumably many of them in unfriendly hands. The base APC perhaps, put a 20mm or a TOW on it and that goes out the window. Seriously, it is unlikely that any vehicle suitable for MARS, Recon, or Science (possibly) is going to pass as a police vehicle. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
They also have scout hovercraft and mortar carriers, not every canon decision makes sense. FAV's, if used, should be battery powered and charge off of some larger vehicle that can actually support a team in the field. |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|