Home | Wiki | Discord | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

HHD Round #5: 1974-1980


Greetings Comrades!

If you aren’t familiar with the His Highness Demands series, please see the original post here: His Highness Demands Round #1 (1950-56) [COMPLETE]

Now that you are briefed on our great country, it is time to make a difference here in Semyonovia. The government is planning a massive public works project that will invigorate the Semyonovian workforce with an overhaul of infrastructure. Doing so will require a huge fleet of versatile work trucks. Trucks that can be used as regular pickups, gooseneck trailer haulers, fuel tankers, combination buses, crane platforms, logging trucks, you name it, this truck should do it. An while we’re creating jobs and infrastructure for our great nation, it would look silly putting so many patriotic Semyonovians behind the wheel of imported trucks in the process. Why not create even more jobs building a a governmeent-owned, domestically designed and produced fleet of trucks?

Our needs aren’t too complicated. We need a large truck with immense load capacity and towing capacity. It needs to be inexpensive to build and inexpensive to run. It needs to be reliable and should not contain fancy tech that cannot be easily fixed. Fuel economy will obviously be poor, but shouldn’t be agregious.

Due to the limitations of the bodies in Automation, let’s assume that any pickup, Van, SUV, or People Carrier body can be converted to a chassis-cab variant to be upfitted for the various roles the truck will eventually play.

1980 Trim and Variant Years
Minimum 2.8m wheelbase
Ladder or Light Truck Monocoque chassis
RWD or 4x4
NO Fuel Injection
NO Turbochargers
92 RON Leaded Fuel
Maximum Loudness 45
Interior must be 2 seats, basic, no entertainment.
Safety must be Basic 70s
Must have power steering
Minimum comfort 2
70 km/h and 90 km/h fuel economy cruise tests cannot exceed 18.5L.
+/- 6 maximum/minimum quality sliders
Engine PU/ET: max 35/100
Trim PU/ET: max 85/105
Per the King, must have a respectful reference to the Semyonovian communist monarchy somewhere in the car, i.e. calling your car the “Whatever-bit-here Persktokt Special”, after the capital, or something about the design, colors, ads, etc.

Top priorities are low price, high payload and towing capacities, high reliability, low service costs, and Utility. These are of paramount importance to creating and running a fleet of government-supplied commercial trucks.

Medium priorities are Offroad, Environmental Resistance, fuel economy, and styling. By the nature of their tasks, these trucks are likely going to find themselves offroad sometimes. We aren’t expecting it to be a rock-crawler or mud bogger, but having some offroad capabilities will be very beneficial. Environmental resistance is a plus as well; once again, due to the nature of these trucks, they will be used hard and won’t be cleaned frequently, so a propensity to rust quickly will be frowned upon. While a truck of this nature is inherently a gas guzzler, the less money to be spent on fuel, the better. Finally, the styling. As you will see in some of the example trucks, styling doesn’t need to be perfectly contemporary for 1980. Many trucks of the time had dated styling cues. But the truck should look realistic and attractive enough to look appealing in Semyonivia’s propaganda media sources.

Other stats will be taken into account, but will only sway decision-making in otherwise close calls.

Inspirational Vehicles

ZiL 130

Chevy C50

Mitsubishi Fuso

Ford Transit, ZiL 130, Mercedes Benz T2

Submissions open now! Submissions Closing December 6th, 9:00 PM US Eastern (GMT -4). This will be in Open Beta. Please send entries as HHD5 - username for the model and family. If you’ve already submitted before I added this, don’t worry, i’ll change it :slight_smile:


Is there not a minimum load and towing weight? Also if you have a large capacity it’s hard to have low brake fade without unrealistic massive brakes


So to clarify, ONLY 2 seats is acceptable?


@mart1n2005 You’re not the only one to bring up the brake fade rule. I’ll re-evaluate that one. No minimum capacities, but they are one of the top priorities so a truck with low capacity ratings will not be a contender for the win.

@Caligo yes, the idea being that these are chassis-cab trucks, so beyond the front row of seats, the rest of the vehicle behind can be swapped out for flatbeds, tankers, etc. so any additional seats back there would just be adding cost to the vehicle. Still open to suggestions if you have some something else in mind.


Maybe the minimum wheelbase limit could be reduced to 2.6m? I dont think that the trucks need to be that big, because it is a communist country after all.


What version are we running?


Not entirely complete, Aanholt R140 Export Forestry Package. Current reliability score of over 60 (not gonna say how much tho…)


Not sure which of my brands to take. Weller (USA) is familiar with simple heavy duty vehicles, and Umakicho (JPN) is known for light budget cars.


Minimum Brake fade has been removed, but the Utility stat is now high priority judging factor.

@Mad_Cat The ZiL 130, the primary inspiration for this premise, has a wheelbase of a whopping 3.8m, so I feel allowing down to 2.8m is small enough. I had thought about allowing any size but giving a bonus for size, but then some of the more massive bodies would have had too large of an advantage.

@Fletchyboy100 This will be in Open Beta.

Submissions are Open Now!


That is a very low minimum value - but then again, the King wants a rugged workhorse, not a flashy show pony.


Are you using the towing weight from the game in judging? It seems pretty broken.

According to the steam forums it’s linked to maximum load so a large van will have worse towing than a small car because the car has less load volume


@mart1n2005 can you send me a link to look at that? That would be a huge problem, yeah.


Here is where I read it


Thanks, looks like I can skirt that issue by taking payload capacity and towing capacity and add them together as a combined figure rather than using them as separate figures.


1980 Mei Ling KC145

Procrastination kills.



Knibbs LMC72 (Civillian) Persktokt V6 Edition

When a military contract vehicle gets outsourced to the highest (or most prestigious bidder), the LMC72 personnel carrier transformed to an attached-bed pick-up truck, but super-sized. With a 5.5 liter V6 to match it’s stature. It doesn’t rev at all, but it won’t need to- in excess of 250 ft/lb across the entire range and 124 horsepower, with at least half of that available from 1350 RPM.

Like it’s army brother, it comes with a whole lot as standard, like fuel canister-holders and storage trunks bolted to the bed in damn-well any configuration the buyer wants.


The 1980 Knightfreight packer chassis cab



Submissions close in 12 hours.


Submissions are now closed. With just a few entries, expect a write up and results tomorrow.



The Chairman of Automotive Relations has provided the following briefs on each vehicle.

Aanholt R140 @Fletchyboy100
Wheelbase: 3.1m
Overall Length: 4.82m
Engine: 4001cc OHC 12v I6, 4 barrel carb
HP: 146.9 @ 4900 rpm
Torque: 205.5 lb-ft @ 2400 rpm
Drivetrain: 4 speed manual, RWD
Weight: 1267 kg
Price: $19,400

Mei Ling KC145 @yangx2
Wheelbase: 3.79m
Overall Length: 6.19m
Engine: 3996cc OHV 12v I6, 4 barrel carb
HP: 122.3 @ 4800 rpm
Torque: 199.4 lb-ft @ 2100 rpm
Drivetrain: 4 speed automatic, RWD
Weight: 1836 kg
Price: $13,100

Knibbs LMC72 @Niveon
Wheelbase: 3.05m
Overall Length: 4.51m
Engine: 5495cc OHV 12v V6, 4 barrel carb
HP: 124.3 @ 2500 rpm
Torque: 265.3 lb-ft @ 2100 rpm
Drivetrain: 4 speed manual, RWD
Weight: 1290 kg
Price: $14,200

KnightFrieght Packer @mart1n2005
Wheelbase: 3.25m
Overall Length: 4.88m
Engine: 3531cc OHV 16v V8, 2x1 barrel carbs
HP: 114.3 @ 4500 rpm
Torque: 175.9 lb-ft @ 2300 rpm
Drivetrain: 5 speed manual, RWD
Weight: 1329 kg
Price: $12,400

The first truck eliminated from the testing is the Knibbs LMC72. This truck, the smallest entrant, has an extremely soft suspension tune, severely limiting the truck’s usefulness as a workhorse. The truck and its big, insanely low-revving 5.5 liter V6 have the worse reliability of the entrants, the truck is the most rust-prone, and provides the 2nd worse fuel economy, and is the 2nd most expensive. The truck’s best quality is its service costs, 2nd lowest.

In 3rd place comes the Aanholt R140. Like the LMC72, the suspension is far too soft for heavy loads, but it does manage to almost double the capacity of the last entrant. The price is this one’s weakest link, at an eye watering $19,400. Service costs are the second highest in this comparison as well. This truck’s best qualities are it’s best in class environmental resistance, 2nd best reliability, and 2nd best fuel economy.

Picking a winner between the following two was a more difficult decision. The KnightFreight Packer has some unusual engineering choices, but works well. Unlike the other trucks’ large 6 cylinder, single carburetor powerplants, the KnightFreight uses an all-aluminum 3.5 liter V8 fed by a pair of one barrel carburetors. The KnightFreight is also the only truck with independent front suspension. Despite the smaller engine and IFS, the Packer handily trounces the LMC72 and R140 in utility and payload/towing capacity. It is the least expensive entry in price, service costs, and fuel economy. It is not without fault though, that aluminium multi-carb V8 brings this truck the 2nd lowest reliability, and the Packer is the least offroad-capable entry. An impressive truck, and a good looking one at that, but…

1st place and winner of the government contract goes to the Mei Ling KC145. This truck dwarfs the other entrants in size and utility/capacity, and is also the most reliable. Despite the soft suspension tunes of the LMC72 and R140, this is the most offroad capable as well. It’s service costs and fuel costs are highest in test, but with by far the best-in-test towing/payload capacity and a cost of just $700 more than the lowest-cost KnightFreight, this truck will be selected. The model given had more than 2 seats, but its stats were only improved by their removal.

Our delegates will reach out to the Chinese manufacture for license. We will claim the removal of the seats as a Semyonivian “redesign” in our state-run media and tout the vehicle as a beacon of Semyonivian Greatness.