More concept to “visual style”
After researching various existing armed and armored vehicles of today, I REALLY do not comprehend the inability to mount weapon platforms or any other system into “cargo spaces” in Steve Jackson’s Car Wars. I can see a pair of VMGs or an AC mounted in the bed of a pickup in a near-180 degree rearward (or forward, but not both like a turret) and operated by a gunner with extra ammo, targeting computer, etc. Even if the weapon platform itself takes up a few spaces and like 300-500lbs. (whatever).
Ever since my brother and I started designing vehicles for Car Wars back in the 80s, we had issues with the ambiguity of “body type” and their rigid set of stats as being the starting point for building a rig. It makes far more sense to me to start with a frame/chassis (i.e.: size and strength, how many axles, etc.) and build from there. In that sense, the “body type” can be relegated to body STYLE which would be decided AFTER everything else is built and be more an aesthetic description rather than a rigid number restricting the functional design of each rig. The old rules seemed to present a design framework opposite “form follows function” to more like “try and fit the function in one of the few forms we give you”.
Want a cargo hold? Make sure you got enough spaces left in your frame. Any vehicle that is meant for vehicular combat should be built with a strong sub-frame (think: full roll cage integrated with the chassis) that would indicate the overall SIZE and what power and wheels that would be needed to get mobile.
Just mi2cents. Claw.