"Grav Tank Surface Detailing Question. Opinions please." Topic

Hi,

I have another question along similar lines to my previous one.

As mentioned, I am working on some Grav Tanks for my own use, and to sell to Sci-Fi gamers, and would like to know if you prefer lots of raised detailing, a limited amount of raised detailing (so the tanks are sleeker, faster, and harder to detect), or a mix of raised detailing and plain surfaces on the hulls of your miniatures.

I think more futuristic vehicles would tend to be smoother than older tech ones, but thought I would inquire to see what you think.

Opinions?

I don't care either way, but no matter how hi-tech the vehicle is, some grease-smeared schmuck is going to have to perform maintenance on it. Access panels and hatches are good details to include.

Personally, I'd take my cues from the original Star Wars movies – Lucas wanted things to look "lived in". The opposite approach was taken in the original Star Trek – everything was smooth and only paint brought out features.

Wyatt

Possibly, although an ultra-tech, roto-molded titanium/crystalline tank produced in a zero-gravity environment may not, at least on the sides, and upper surfaces, and most of the lower ones as well.

This ultra-tech manufacturing process is used in order to produce the strongest hulls possible, to withstand powerful, futuristic weaponry.

Most of the service required can be conducted by removing the turret, and then the internal powerplant (if it has to be removed), through that large opening created. Powerplants can be switched out and replaced at a repair depot in just a few minutes, with the right equipment.

Obviously, such maintenance would be difficult to perform on the battlefield, but since they rarely break down, unless damaged in combat, that isn't really an issue.

Wyatt and TGA have covered the two ends of the spectrum; Guess it's your choice. I prefer the medium appraoch myself, as I have grave doubts if Anti-G technology will appear until many other technologies are around, if at all, but it will be high tech. :)

Don't forget lots of skulls!

TGA, you seem to have done an excellent job of answering your own question there.

Sci Fi is not really my thing, but for what its worth I think you need to match the overall "theme" of the army. If your infantry are in sealed hardsuits with no packs, belts etc then go with sleek uncluttered vehicle designs. But if the troops are more retro, belts, packs, weapon slings, open helmets then the vehicles need to be covered with panels, applique armour and storage.

I don't care how smooth the surface is. After it makes the drop onto planet and the troops load all their gear on it it will look like gypsy wagon.

No one is EVER going to pay for enough storage space under armor to keep the crews gear and other 'stuff' they need off the outside of the vehicle.

Jake

Actually, under Imperial Edict 98745.11, "…it is forbidden to hang clothing and other kit on the outside of Grav vehicles, upon pain of death…", since it might interfere with the effecient employment of the vehicle's sensors, reactive armor, and/or hull and turret mounted passive defense weapons, thereby compromising the vehicle and crew's safety.

Violators are subject to summary field trial, and immediate execution. To date, none of the few that have violated this order (there's always at least one in every bunch) have been found innocent of their crimes.

A "stealth" hull would be meaningless at the level of tech required to produce A-G or micro-fusion plants in the first place. You think that going undetected by radar is a big deal when there's the possibility of many other types of sensors that could be in play, such as those that could detect gravitic/air pressure anomalies, electronic signatures from targeting/comm systems, mass detection, and probably a few others?

Radar? How passe. It's, like, soooo 20th century.

A moderate amount of gribblies, please. ;)

Jake,

one must also remember the first rule of the tankie is that "if it's not welded down, it's mine. If I can cut it loose with a fusion beam, it's not welded down."

WW2 tankies were just as adept at "acquiring" things as their footsloggin' brethren-in-arms. I see no reason why 29th Century members of Her Imperial Terran Majesty's 199th Grav Hussars "Divine Thunder" would be any less adept at "acquiring" rocking chairs, holovid players, cages of the poultry to supplement the rations…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

"But, Lootenant, Ma'am, we really did find those hens just wanderin' around the side of the road, so we just couldn't leave 'em to starve! Wouldn't be humane and all! You like yer eggs over easy, right?"

"Imperial Edict 98745.11" must mean the Imperium spends a fortune to put the volume of space under armor on the vehicles needed to support troops on campaign, or that they spend a fortune on armored grav supply trucks for personal gear, extra ammo, water, POL products/lubricants batteries spare antennas vission blocks tool sets for each tank/armored vehicle they field.

Just saying. Add in all the 'stuff' that Black Widow Pilot mentions and troops need space to put things they really do need.

I guess I just prefer my Sci Fi a little more gritty, and assume troops in the future are going to be similar to troops today or in the past. Look at a modern Stryker on patrol in Iraq or A-stan. Look at how the troops pack the space between slat armor and hull. Look at the tops of the vehicles. Sensors/hatches and vision blocks are generally left uncovered, but any extra surface area tends to be used to store something.

Actually, cost really isn't an issue, since the titanium is usually mined from asteroid belts in a star system close to the targeted planet(s), and turned into Grav Vehicles by the large, mobile manufacturing ships which support the invasion fleets.

Fusion reactors are very efficient, powerful, compact, and don't need much periodic maintenance. They are rather like a smaller, but more powerful version of nuclear submarine powerplants, which don't need refueling for years.

I concur though, that some armies will go different paths for their vehicle designs, e.g. having lots of reactive or ablative armor, or other bits on their hulls and turrets, while others will be more streamlined, and sleek.

Whether it rides on wheels, tracks, a fusion-driven air cushion, anti-gravity generators, or legs, a tank just isn't a tank if it isn't festooned with stowage…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Of course, since you are the potential customer, you are welcome to do whatever you like to the vehicles in your unit.

I agree, adding a bit of stowage to some, does make them look a bit battle-hardened, and more realistic.

AFVs just look a lot better if they take a wash and drybrush nicely – which means raised detail (or a least panel lines and plenty of hard edges).

Personally I think it depends on the overall look of the faction's equipment.

What you probably want to avoid are large, flat, featureless areas on your miniature. For a highly advanced technology, panel lines and smooth, clean curves can substitute for raised greeblies. An example of this kind of approach are the Eldar and Tau factions from GW, the Centauri spacecraft from B5wars, and (to a much lesser extent) the Pelagic vehicles from Khurasan.

Note that the Tau use slats for their intakes, and the Eldar grills, and they fit in perfectly well to the overall look of the vehicle.

When people talk about bolting on extras, I think they are burying in a lot of assumptions about the game world, which you might or might not hold to. A robotic or bioconstructed infantry force might not need the stowage, for example. Similarly, it depends on your decision about whether a grav tank will maneuver more like a tank or more like a helicopter in your gameworld. Looking at helicopters in RL, we see streamlined designs, with panel lines but minimal greeblies (other than weapon pods).

So does grav tech give you more mobile tanks? Or far more survivable helicopters with much longer mission durations?

As to the look and feel, leave that to the painter. A "beaten up" look is perfectly defensible, and so is a brand new, fresh out of the box look. If warship transit times are more than a few weeks, for example, obsessively cleaning and maintaining the equipment could be a way to keep the troops busy. And adaptive paint jobs could use bold, patriotic colors and still switch, on the fly, to environment-specific camoflage jobs when deployed. OTOH, heavy extended fighting will take its toll. Either way, this is a painter's decision.

Imperium Edicts are usually the first casualty of a shooting war. So is the parade-ground prettyness because something is going to scuff the paint job. It isn't treason if the transporter carrying the Field Inquisitors "accidentally" didn't fire its braking thrusters during the landing but instead heroically took out a previously overlooked concentration of enemy troops.

Sure, it might be the 200-gigawatt phased plasma cannon that survived the orbital bombardment and took out three of the spiffy new toys and partially slagged two others before being blitzed, or it could be the equally awesome Republic assault gun that puts 10mm holes through the drive train, knocking the grav tank out, but leaving it salvageable, or it could be PFC Fumblethumbs slewing the tank sideways and taking out the Field Inquisitor that was about to write up his TC over the girly art – and the Inquisitor's power armor energy pack left a gouge on the iridium skirting.

In short, never underestimate the ability of the common soldier (yours or the enemy) to break your toy. Pulling out the innards through the turret to replace a capacitor takes a vital weapon off the line for a considerable amount of time. There's a reason that the F-15 Eagle has around a thousand access panels – and the time to replace a component is less than a third of that on the F-4 Phantom.

Wyatt

I care more about how cool it looks that how 'plausible' it might be.
I like the contrast of having smooth organic curves with 'breakaway' areas of higher detail/gadgetry.
link
link
link
link
picture
picture
link
picture
picture

Not all are tanks… but they've got a 'tension' between the broad curves and the more angular greeblies that really appeals to me… and curvy/smooth stuff looks more 'high tech' to me.
A nice change to the blocky stuff I've been seeing a lot of lately. I think there is a whole lotta low-tech/near-future armor available these days compared to relatively scarce sculpts of fancy sci fi/ultra-tech stuff.

I'd also go for completely smooth stuff:
picture
picture

A unique, compelling look will win out over the same old thing every day in my book. I totally agree with VenusBoys3 (despite the disturbing implications of his handle).

Option X: Streamlines with access panels. Add on stoawage kit

This covers both sides. One needs to consdier that in some backgrounds Grav is capable of rapid flight (no stowage) and in others it is not (lots of stowage)

Whether it rides on wheels, tracks, a fusion-driven air cushion, anti-gravity generators, or legs, a tank just isn't a tank if it isn't festooned with stowage…

If it's a grav tank, the first time it hits 800 kph, it isn't going to be "festooned" with anything.

Exactly.

I subscribe to the Renegade Legion, and Traveller/Striker model for these, at least the more advanced ones, e.g.:

- they can drop out of orbit to assault planets and moons, and climb back up out of orbit, if desired;

- they are sub-mach 1, just barely, under normal power, but can be supersonic, Mach 2 – 3+ for the dive down to the planet's surface, much like the space shuttle, which is an unpowered glider (slower on the climb out, e.g. just under Mach 1 again);

- during NOE flight, they can zip along at about 120 – 200 MPH (200 – 300 KPH), safely, assuming the pilot is awake and uninjured, and the autopilot/low terrain nav gear is undamaged;

- for low flight (tree-top or hill-top level) the speed increases to about 400 MPH;

- for flight above that, the speeds are just under Mach 1, e.g. about 600 – 700 MPH.

Thanks for all the input everyone.

A lot of good suggestions.

Now, I will just need to figure out how to implement them, while addressing some of the views you all have.

Of course, I am always interested in more comments as well, so keep them coming.

Sincerely,

Rob