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.