43's Truck Stop: Tale Of The Tate

[43Supporter]

[WRITER'S NOTES: One of my interests when looking at vehicles in any game is "what's the story behind the vehicle, the maker, and so on". The blurbs in the _Vehicle Guide_s are part of the story; but is there a "theme" to a particular company's designs -- does the company specialize in a particular body style, or use a particular weapon, or...? What follows is my interpretation of the life, and death, of a _CW_-universe car-maker, based on what designs were published.

The _Challenger_, and _Enforcer_, became "illegal" after publication, as a result of rules changes. In keeping with my policy of "make an illegal design legal with the absolute minimum of changes", I have ignored the "official" _Combat Showcase_ errata in favor of the following:

-- _Challenger_: Remove the now-illegal 3-RL Component Armor; add a full Extra Mag to the SD, retaining the CA; downgrade the SD ammo to regular. Armor (Metal): F: 10; L, R: 9; B: 8; T, U: 5. $14,750.

-- _Enforcer_; Remove the now-illegal 2-AC CA; add a full Extra Mag to the SD, retaining the CA; convert WGs and WHs to 10-pt Plastic. Armor (M/P): F: 10/0; L, R, B: 8/0; T: 0/2; U: 1/0. $26,090.]

In every industry, there are names which are famous, and names which are infamous. For every North American Aviation, there is a Brewster Aircraft Company. In recent years, Tate Manufacturing is one of the latter, appearing and disappearing in just three years.

Tate appeared on the scene in 2034 with the _Bombardier_, a "hit fast, hit hard" design -- acceleration 10, a 120-MPH top-speed, and an ATG forward. Unfortunately, that was about all that design had in its favor. Riding a Standard chassis, its armor was weaker than some compacts. It had two crew, but only one gun; in some respects, later variants which replaced the single gun with multiple smaller weapons were superior to the original. Being built on a Luxury body did it no favors; nearly 1/3 of the design in empty space (one could build the same design on a Midsize body, have nearly as much armor, and similar performance, for a lower cost; or use a Wagon body and have a decent low-cost cargo-hauler). Not an auspicious debut for the company.

Three years later, Tate's booth at the 2037 New Car Exposition featured a pair of Luxury designs, the Division-15 _Challenger_, and Division-30 _Enforcer_ -- and a near-complete 180-degree turn in design. While both design featured massive Forward-facing batteries (_Challenger_ with triple RLs; _Enforcer_ with twin ACs), gone was the spectacular acceleration and top speed of the _Bombardier_. Instead, both designs used a Medium plant with HD Transmission; while this saved some weight, it also made them achingly slow, both off the start line and at the top end. Worse was the armor: Both designs used Metal, backstopped with extensive Component Armor; while this was effective against low-calibre fire, big guns like the ATG or AC would rip through like a hot knife through butter (a bitter irony, considering...), and anything with a burst-effect would strip away what Metal there was in a heartbeat (never mind the later discovery of "spalling").

Come _Vehicle Guide 2_, and Tate Manufacturing is nowhere to be seen; nor does it appear in _VG3_, or anywhere else. The company just disappeared.

So what went wrong? Best I can figure: The same thing which kills most duellists also kills companies -- designs unsuited to the modern duelfield. Advances in duel-tech like HESH ammo would not have helped the situation. Tate had some good ideas, like the massive F-mount battery; but was behind the curve to begin with, and never managed to catch up.

[baakyocalder]

Nice little bit of fiction there. It also makes sense, given how much time you can spend designing in Car Wars, to have failed vehicle designers.

That reminds me of a Sergeant in a mecha campaign who had two failed tours as game designer, a 'dangerous occupation' and lost 2 points of physical ability scores as a result. He was behind the curve and ultimately died in combat.

For my own designs, I tended to put them all under a company in my name, but it's been years since I worked on them. It even got to be in one Car Wars campaign at college that one of the players, who also had an in-universe company for their designs, had a license agreement with my in-universe company to be our exporter in Japan and other areas outside North America. That player was the one who challenged me most, as they knew how to build cars.

I can see how HESH armor made the Challenger and Enforcer bad designs--that metal armor needed more plastic underneath for the high rolls from guns bigger than a Recoiless Rifle (RR).

Thanks--and if there are more designer stories, I'm sure we'd love to hear them. Even in the new edition, which will be card-based instead of so math-oriented, there's room for 'this vehicle was designed by this famous designer.'

[swordtart]

Personally I never bought into the whole mass production of cars in CW.

The number of custom cars and the ease of customisation (and the modular nature of the components) mean I imagined construction more like server racks with 1/2, 1 and 2U components that could be slotted in. Armour panels are heat formed or made using some form of additive manufacture (usually one per fire arc) and these are bolted on.

On that basis, the majority of car designs are "printed" on demand. Designs would be put together for display at shows, and you would buy them by getting a licence which would be send to a manufactory of your choice (in one of the corporate enclaves) for it to be "printed on demand".

Illegal designs would have used non-standard components and so you would have been unable to actually get yours made or modified at a normal factory. Some might get made by the designer using the non-standard components he originally used and you might therefore find the odd one on used car lots.

"Poor" designs would still end up getting made as there is always someone who has an unreasonable desire for the cranky (and prolific designers might showcase the physical design at several shows, make review copies etc. and therefore make several copies). Some might end up getting produced as "vanity" projects or in a deluded attempt to publicise a designer.

Popular designs might be "Printed" in bulk in advance more efficiently (increasing the profit to the factory) and corporations, government departments and arenas might order dozens at a time. A good designer might even get commissions directly from factories or be taken on as a staff designer. Rarely these might become marques that follow a more conventional manufacturing pattern.

Some hyped designs may never actually have made it to physical versions but remained as theoretical models (vapourware).

In this model the factories don't risk anything, the designer can have a few duff designs before the cost of failure becomes too high and there is scope for plenty of one-offs.

[43Supporter]

"Mass production" is relative -- _VG1_, for ex., only lists vehicles for which "5,000 examples" exist (1,000 for commercial vehicles and choppers). And in the CW-verse, Poor Designs are going to get Darwined-out fast.

In my studies of military history, I do gravitate toward the "failures", and try to understand *why* they failed. For ex.: The Boulton Paul _Defiant_ turret-fighter -- a nice idea, but by the time it hit production, it was too slow to accomplish its role.

Another example, or trio of same: Ed Heinemann's XSB2D, BTD, and XTB2D -- all three were too heavy and cumbersome to accomplish their assigned missions. However, Heinemann *was* able to take the knowledge gleaned from those three failures, and use it to create the A-1 _Skyraider_, a *very* successful design. So it isn't always necessarily "failure" which is important -- it is how one *deals* with the failure. (Learned that from _The LEGO Movie_. :) )

As to the "backstory" in general: There's the old saying "the difference between Reality and Fiction is that Fiction has to make sense"; well, History *does* make sense, but it takes a while to collect all the needed data to understand what was actually going on. In this case: Tate's design team went with Metal Armor, not knowing that HESH Ammo for civilians was in the pipeline; the CA backstop was nice, but just not quite enough to save the designs ("field experience" supports this statement, he said, looking at his raft of HESH-loaded-RR-or-BC designs :) ).

[swordtart]

I was looking at the Defiant recently and it seems that it could be effective with certain tactics (a circling decent), but too many were lost before that tactic was developed.

Had it also been intermixed with hurricanes and reserved for close in defence (once the fighter escort had turned back due to fuel shortages) it might have made a better show.

I came up with the following as a result, addressing one of the short falls of the air version by HTMs (the vulnerability from an attack from below is not usually an issue for cars)

Defiant by Swordtart:
Sedan; Extra Heavy chassis; Heavy suspension;
Large PP w/PCs, HTMs, Overdrive; 4 Solid tires.
Driver. Passenger.
2s Pintle T (rear facing). 2 x Linked Heavy Machine Gun w/40xHD. Sunroof;
HD Shocks, HD Brakes.
230 pts. Sloped Plastic (F: 50 R: 50 L: 50 B: 45 T: 20 U: 15);
2x5 pt. Plastic Hubs F; 2x5 pt. Plastic Guards B.
Cargo 4 space, 35lb
Cost: $22,254, Wgt: 6,085,
HC: 3, Top Speed: 90 (67.5, 110), Accel: 5 (10, 2.5).

The Defiant is a poor mans tail-gunner design. Whilst the twin linked HMGs are quite potent, putting them on a pintle makes them a handful. The "gunners" exposed position makes him vulnerable and the designer allowing 35lb for personal protection or gun shield is hardly sufficient. The mortality rate in Defiant gunners is alarming.

The defiant is adequate in low risk areas but even with the enhanced performance, that was hastily rushed in when it was noted how infrequently Defiants were able to outrun a superior aggressor, it is unsuitable for highway combat.

Defiants are perhaps best in the role of militia checkpoint vehicles and will usually be seen parked up fifty yards or so before and after of a checkpoint in order to discourage breaking through without stopping. In this role they are usually hull-down behind fixed barricades providing additional protection. When stationary and fitted with a laser scope and tracer those heavy guns become capable of delivering on their promised performance.

[Daimyo_Shi]

I will admit being jealous of the skills in design and writing here.

[43Supporter]

[bows]

I'm a Historian by training -- there's an old joke about "the difference between Reality and Fiction is that Fiction has to make sense"; the fact is: History *does* make sense; it just takes a while for all the information to come out so folks *can* make sense of it. (For ex.: The old myth that a rotary-engine airplane can turn 270 degrees right fast than 90 degrees left was debunked a few years ago; the problem was: It took almost 100 years for performance-monitoring tech to become light enough to mount on WW1 airplanes without materially affecting the airplane's performance; meanwhile, the Bunk became "set in stone", to where every single WW1-air-combat game has it....)

So I look at these designs, and try to see the Story behind them; and when I make my own designs, I try to have some sort of Story for it. And, as noted: Every car has some sort of backstory, even if it's just the blurb in the _Vehicle Guide_.

[Daimyo_Shi]

Originally Posted by 43Supporter

[bows]

I'm a Historian by training -- there's an old joke about "the difference between Reality and Fiction is that Fiction has to make sense"; the fact is: History *does* make sense; it just takes a while for all the information to come out so folks *can* make sense of it. (For ex.: The old myth that a rotary-engine airplane can turn 270 degrees right fast than 90 degrees left was debunked a few years ago; the problem was: It took almost 100 years for performance-monitoring tech to become light enough to mount on WW1 airplanes without materially affecting the airplane's performance; meanwhile, the Bunk became "set in stone", to where every single WW1-air-combat game has it....)

So I look at these designs, and try to see the Story behind them; and when I make my own designs, I try to have some sort of Story for it. And, as noted: Every car has some sort of backstory, even if it's just the blurb in the _Vehicle Guide_.

I am also a Historian by training!