Conclusions about various types of vehicles

Having taken in much of the discussion and good points, I've tried
over the past few days to collect this summary.

Grav:
================
Just about the final evolution of the vehicle. After this, we move to
personal matter transport.

Travel Modes: on-road, off-road, fly (NOE), fly (mid altitude), fly
(high altitude), orbital interface, hover/VTOL

Terrains: Any. Because it can fly like a cross between a helicopter or
jet fighter, ground like a parked tank, and (if sealed) handle trips
to orbit, it can probably operate in any terrain - mountains, plains,
forests (though big trees would at least force you above the
treeline), rivres, lakes, oceans (including subsurface), airless
worlds, hostile environment worlds, deserts, scrub, etc. It really
melds the plane, the helicopter, the tank, the submarine, and the
interface shuttle all into one. If you follow a Traveller-esque PSB,
the thruster plates lose efficiency as you climb away out of the
gravity well, so they can't be used intra-system.

Forms: IFV, Transport, Tank, CEV, Artillery Platform, Attack/Assault,
EW, Bomber.

Armaments: If you believe in grav compensation and good computers,
probably anything. With available power, and gravity effect dampening
or control, they ought to be able to mount any kind of weapon and feel
a negligible effective recoil.

Armour: Presumably all you can pile on the frame. As long as your
power plant will lift cancel its mass.

Power: Grav presumes a huge available power base. Fusion or HMT.

Expense: Yes, expensive. At least in the GZGverse. It is available to
most major powers, but cost keeps them from making it their main
choice (despite its huge capability). Presumably grav plates or
generators are expensive, and the other kit on these (Avionics,
sensors) would make them costly.

Maintenance: Requires a high tech maintenance line for avionics, grav
generators, heavy weapons, ECM, etc. In the abscense of these, can
become a high tech paperweight pretty quickly.

VTOL:
================
The last evolution of air vehicle before the grav vehicle. It features
an ability to take off vertically or from short runways, to land in
constricted areas, to use vectored thrust to manoevre, and to bear a
fairly substantial weapons load, if not as heavy of an armour load as
a tank.

Travel Modes: fly (NOE), fly (mid altitude), fly (high altitude), LOW
orbital inserations/recoveries (a la Aliens), hover/VTOL/STOL

Terrains: Well, as a flyer, any terrain (or more correctly, over any
terrain).

Forms: Transport, Recon, Assault/Attack, EW.

Armaments: Basically it can carry anything an Aerospace fighter could
(GMS, salvo rockets, smaller CPR, gauss (MDC) and pulse laser canons)
and a number of artillery like bombardment systems for close air
support roles. This includes large ATGMS, AAGMS, large salvo rockets,
bomblets, FASCAM pods, etc.

Armour: All you can lift with vectored thrust. As long as your power
plant and the airframe will lift cancel its mass, which in the case of
a VTOL often means design choices - armour is sacrificed for ordinance
on attack variants. On transport, cargo beats armour. On recon
variants, speed beats armour. Only on certain heavy attack variants
will you have both armour and arsenal and those probably at the cost
of speed.

Power: Vectored thrust presumes a huge available power base. Fusion or
HMT. Primitive VTOL might get away with internal combustion or fuel
cells, but the ability to carry armour and payload are a product of
the better powerplants.

Expense: Not cheap, but cheaper than grav. It is available to most
major powers. Cost keeps them from appearing in grotesque numbers but
they do offer certain airmobile transport and attack options that are
desireable, so they appear in some varying formats and numbers in most
major forces.

Maintenance: Requires a high tech maintenance line for avionics,
thrust & controllable ducting, heavy weapons, ECM, etc. In the
abscense of these, can become a high tech paperweight pretty quickly.
Maybe a tad less high tech than Grav, but probably still maintenance
intensive.

Aerospace:
================
The last evolution of airborne high speed interceptor before the grav
vehicle. It often features an ability to take off short runways, to
land on short runways, to use vectored thrust to manoevre harder
(tighter turns, better attack angles, higher acceleration and
deceleration, slower speed airworthiness, etc), and to bear a fairly
substantial weapons load, though rarely would these have any armour to
speak of. Mostly they get by on EW, ECM and defensive countermeasures.

Travel Modes: fly (mid altitude), fly (high altitude), LOW orbital
sorties (with rocket or vectored thrust assist), STOL

Terrains: Well, as a flyer, any terrain (or more correctly, over any
terrain).

Forms: Transport, Recon, Assault/Attack, Bomber, Tanker, EW.

Armaments:  It can carry GMS, salvo rockets, smaller CPR, gauss (MDC)
and pulse laser canons and a number of artillery like bombardment
systems for close air support roles, though it is not as good at this
as VTOLs. This includes large ATGMS, AAGMS, large salvo rockets,
bomblets, FASCAM pods, etc. It can carry many precision guided
munitions for special deep strike attacks. It has far farther ranges
and higher speeds than a similar VTOL due to weight, propulsion
systems and airframe design.

Armour: Some ground attack variants have some and redundant systems.
Otherwise, mostly passive defenses like stealth and active
countermeasures and EW. And speed.

Power: Vectored thrust presumes a huge available power base. Fusion or
HMT. Primitive Aersospace might get away with internal combustion or
fuel cells, but the ability to carry payload and get the thrust
required for tight manoevres and high speeds are a product of the
better powerplants.

Expense: Not cheap, but cheaper than grav. It is available to most
major powers. Cost keeps them from appearing in grotesque numbers but
they do offer certain airmobile transport and attack options that are
desireable, so they appear in some varying formats and numbers in most
major forces. They tend to have longer legs and faster legs than
comparable VTOLs and can do deep strikes. But they tend to be less
effective at ground support.

Maintenance: Requires a high tech maintenance line for avionics,
thrust & controllable ducting, airframe maintenance, heavy weapons,
ECM, etc. In the abscense of these, can become a high tech paperweight
pretty quickly. Maybe a tad less high tech than Grav, but probably
still maintenance intensive.

GEV:
================
The primitive hovercraft was replaced by the AC vehicle of the 21st,
which was then superseded by the AVT (Assisted Vector Thrust - the
assist being from skirting) GEV of the 22nd century. Truly, GEVs
should also include the later day WIG ground effects aerospace planes,
but that isn't really what we're talking about. GEVs in 2183 parlance
are AC tanks using vectored thrust to move, hover, jump, manouvre, and
even climb hills. Active skirting assists and maximizes the vectored
thrust to provide greater efficiency. The Hammer's Slammer's GEV was
the 21st century ACV - which had problems with hills, and trenches,
and a number of other types of terrain. The modern GEV is far more
capable and less terrain obstructed.

Travel Modes: hover, ground (not really a travel mode), hop, normal
advance, boosted sprint

Terrains: Excellent for calm open water, flatter deserts, steppes,
plains, lakes, some small oceans, arctic tundra. With jumps, can cross
crevasses in tundra, trenches, defiles or gullies, and with vectored
thrust can climb hills, dunes, and move through scrub and light brush,
although more slowly. No sprinting in these types of terrain. Rough
seas can cause swamping problems. Thick forest is a no-go, except for
along roads.

Forms: MBT, Artillery Platform, GMS-AT platform, GMS-AA platform, MRLS
platform, APC/IFV, transport, med/ambulance, EW/Comms, Mine/CBW, CEV,
Recon.

Armaments:  If employed in fast strike variants, weaponry that isn't
too heavy but provides a lot of punch would be chosen - DFFG, HEL,
GMS. If deployed in a MBT variant, just about any MBT weapons system,
though MDCs would be favoured over HKPs due to a limited recoil
advantage. If employed as an arty platform, Artillery MRLS (GMS)
systems would be mounted, or if as AA artillery, an AAGMS would be
mounted. In an APC/AIFV variant, you'd find GAC, DFFG, and GMS
predominant. As a tank destroyer, GMS-AT in the heaviest available
variant. Just about any system can be mounted, given the mass of the
GEV and the power of the thrust engines, but the lower recoil, the
better. High recoil might just minutely spoil your aim unless you
ground first - and that robs you of mobility.

Armour: In fast strike variants, about as much as a conventional fast
strike AFV. As an MBT, possibly even more than a standard MBT as, for
the same surface pressure, they can pile on more gross weight of
armour. The fast strike variants would be quite speedy relative to
tracked or wheeled vehicles.

Power: Vectored thrust presumes a huge available power base. Fusion or
HMT. Primitive GEV might get away with internal combustion or fuel
cells, but the ability to carry armour and weapons are a product of
the better powerplants.

Expense: Only moderately expensive. Far cheaper than Grav. It is
available to pretty much every major and minor power. They appear in
some varying formats and numbers in most major forces, and even most
smaller but well equipped forces will have some of these, if only as
raiders. They tend to have faster legs than comparable tracked or
wheeled vehicles and can do deep ground penetrations and cross much
otherwise unfriently-to-vehicles terrain.

Maintenance: Requires a high tech maintenance line for thrust &
controllable ducting, some heavy weapons, ECM, etc. They are less
maintenance intensive than airframes or grav vehicles, but
significantly moreso than wheeled chassis. Maintenance shortages may
often manifest themselves in sporadic combat availability and less
than 100% combat operational capability - reduced speed, inoperative
weapons, sometimes even grounding.

Tracked:
================
The mid and low tech MBT and AIFV of the GZGverse, the tracked vehicle
offers good OR performance (until it gets stuck), robust capacity to
carry a load (limited by ground pressure) and a good anchor for heavy
recoil weapons. It also is one of the more maintenance neutral (not
incredibly simple to maintain, but far easier than grav and somewhat
easier than GEV) vehicles of the GZGverse. It is the workhorse of many
mid-grade forces in the GZG universe.

Travel Modes: parked, moving on tracks

Terrains: Good for flatter deserts, steppes, plains, some arctic
tundra (lighter vehicles). Can (with work) cross crevasses in tundra,
trenches, defiles or gullies, and can climb many hills, dunes, and
move through scrub and light brush, although more slowly. Thick forest
is a no-go, except for along roads, or very slowly by pushing down
obstructing trees (risky) or if proceeded by a CEV. Rough on roads if
heavy. Rough on ground too.

Forms: MBT, Artillery Platform, GMS-AT platform, GMS-AA platform, MRLS
platform, APC/IFV, transport, med/ambulance, EW/Comms, Mine/CBW, CEV,
Recon.

Armaments:  If employed in fast strike variants, weaponry that isn't
too heavy but provides a lot of punch would be chosen - DFFG, HEL,
GMS. If deployed in a MBT variant, just about any MBT weapons system
(MDCs, HKPs and such would predominate - HKPs for cost) If employed as
an arty platform, Artillery MRLS (GMS) systems could be mounted though
cost might dictate the use of howitzers. If as AA artillery, an AAGMS
would be mounted. In an APC/AIFV variant, you'd find RFAC, GAC, DFFG,
and GMS predominant (RFAC being cheapest). As a tank destroyer, GMS-AT
in the heaviest available variant or a big HKP on a low-profile
chassis with overgunning and overarmouring for the size of frame. Just
about any system can be mounted, given the mass of the MBT and the
solid anchor, but the limitation is ground pressure (this is minimized
by big track areas, but will never be as low as a correspondingly
heavy GEV). High recoil is reasonably acceptable (given the price
advantage usually) because of the firm anchoring of the vehicle by
tracks to the ground.

Armour: In fast strike variants, about as much as a conventional fast
strike AFV. As an MBT, as heavy as the groud pressure for a given area
of track-size will allow. The fast strike variants would be quite
speedy in comparison to other tracked vehicles, but not in comparison
to GEVs.

Power: Extra power would be useful for movement, but this type of
vehicle can probably use HMT, Fusion, fuel cells, or IC. This is a
significant cost savings and further encourages the selection of
projectile (rather than energy) weapons - cheaper power plant too!

Expense: cheap (relatively). Far cheaper than Grav. Cheaper than GEV.
If built with lower tech powerplants and weaopns, cheaper still. It is
available to every major and minor power and even third tier powers.
They appear in some varying formats and numbers in most major forces
(though in the larger forces, mostly as reserve unit equipment), and
most smaller forces will have some of these.

Maintenance: Some maintenance required, but compared to other options,
not too bad. They require more than a wheeled chassis, but less than
GEV or Grav and they can typically be worked on in a far lower tech
shop. They are less maintenance intensive than airframes or grav
vehicles, but slightly moreso than wheeled chassis. Maintenance
shortages may often manifest themselves in sporadic combat
availability and less than 100% combat operational capability -
reduced speed, inoperative weapons. But this takes longer to be the
case than with GEVs or Grav or airframes. Usually they will have some
level of function for quite a while even if supplies are short.

Wheeled:
================
This category can cover anything from sealed Moon Rover APCs/IFVs, to
4x4 pickups.

Travel Modes: parked, driving on wheels, sprint capable

Terrains: Good for flatter deserts, steppes, plains. Can climb many
hills, dunes, and move through scrub and light brush, although more
slowly. Thick forest is a no-go, except for along roads, or if
proceeded by a CEV. Faster than most vehicles on roads. Good for urban
combat, and don't chew up ground and roads like tracked - better if
you care about the ground you are driving on. Sealed, with fuel cells,
can operate on airless worlds. Better than tracked for those
conditions, and GEV is useless in that environment.

Forms: MBT, Artillery Platform, GMS-AT platform, GMS-AA platform, MRLS
platform, APC/IFV, transport, med/ambulance, EW/Comms, Mine/CBW, CEV,
Recon.

Armaments:  If employed in fast strike variants, weaponry that isn't
too heavy but provides a lot of punch would be chosen - DFFG, HEL,
GMS. If deployed in a MBT variant, just about any MBT weapons system
(MDCs, HKPs and such would predominate - HKPs for cost). If employed
as an arty platform, Artillery MRLS (GMS) systems could be mounted
though cost might dictate the use of howitzers. If as AA artillery, an
AAGMS would be mounted. In an APC/AIFV variant, you'd find RFAC, GAC,
DFFG, and GMS predominant (RFAC being cheapest). As a tank destroyer,
GMS-AT in the heaviest available variant. Just about any system can be
mounted, given the mass of the MBT and the solid anchor, but the
limitation is ground pressure (this is minimized a little by big tires
or lots of them, but will never be as low as a correspondingly heavy
tracklayer). Also transmission and suspension weight limitations on a
wheeled supsension tends to keep them lighter and more agile than
tracklayers. High recoil is somewhat acceptable (given the price
advantage usually) because of the anchoring of the vehicle by wheels
to the ground, though this anchor is not as good as tracks and some
designs of wheeled overgunned vehicle have tipped over under some
circumstances (firing the main gun perpendicular to the length of the
vehicle, tipping it on its side).

Armour: In fast strike variants, about as much as a conventional fast
strike AFV. As an MBT, as heavy as the groud pressure for a given area
of tire-size or the transmission and suspension capacity will allow.
The fast strike variants would be quite speedy in comparison to other
vehicles, but not in comparison to GEVs. Faster than tracked
equivalents, doubly so on-road.

Power: Extra power would be useful for movement, but this type of
vehicle can probably use HMT, Fusion, fuel cells, or IC. This is a
significant cost savings and further encourages the selection of
projectile (rather than energy) weapons - cheaper power plant too!

Expense: cheap (the number one advantage!). Far cheaper than Grav.
Cheaper than GEV. Cheaper that tracks. If built with lower tech
powerplants and weaopns, cheaper still. It is available to every power
right down to the I've-never-heard-of-your-little-dark-ages-fiefdom
powers. They appear in some varying formats and numbers in most major
forces (though in the larger forces, mostly as reserve unit equipment
or for special operations like airless worlds), and most smaller
forces will have some of these. Some forces can be expected to have
nothing BUT this type of vehicle due to its cheap cost.

Maintenance: Slight maintenance required, but compared to other
options, a good choice. They require less than a tracked chassis, and
less than GEV or Grav and they can typically be worked on in a far
lower tech shop including most civilian ones. They are less
maintenance intensive than airframes or grav vehicles. Maintenance
shortages may often manifest themselves in sporadic combat
availability and less than 100% combat operational capability -
reduced speed, inoperative weapons. But this takes longer to be the
case than with GEVs or Grav or airframes. Usually they will have some
level of function for quite a while even if supplies are short.

I think I've gotten it mostly right.

Thomas Barclay
Software UberMensch
xwave solutions
(613) 831-2018 x 3008