Traveller Store CotI Features New Posts Mark Forums Read Register


Go Back TravellerRPG.com > Citizens of the Imperium > Other Versions of Traveller > Mongoose Traveller

Mongoose Traveller Discussion forums for the Traveller rules from Mongoose Publishing.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 1st, 2009, 03:44 PM
aeontrin aeontrin is offline
Citizen: SOC-4
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Gallery : 0
aeontrin Citizen
Default Differences in Deck Plans

Just out of curiosity and definitely not out to start a flame war, but why are there so many differences between deck plans in MGT and the various CT/MT deck plans?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old July 1st, 2009, 03:58 PM
atpollard's Avatar
atpollard atpollard is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Port Richey
Posts: 9,357
Gallery : 43
Visit atpollard's Blog
atpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesome
Default

As a quick and dirty 'rule of thumb', each square on a deckplan represents 0.5 tons of displacement. By counting the squares on a deckplan, one can quickly determing the approximate size of ship. Most CT deckplans (often duplicated exactly in MT) are very far off in size, some deckplans depicting twice as much tonnage as the ships they are intended to represent.

MgT attempted to 'reimagine' the ships and deckplans, thus made changes from the original for technical reasons (like flawed original deckplans) or artistic license.

Thus the differences (and no flame war).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old July 1st, 2009, 04:11 PM
aeontrin aeontrin is offline
Citizen: SOC-4
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Gallery : 0
aeontrin Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
As a quick and dirty 'rule of thumb', each square on a deckplan represents 0.5 tons of displacement. By counting the squares on a deckplan, one can quickly determing the approximate size of ship. Most CT deckplans (often duplicated exactly in MT) are very far off in size, some deckplans depicting twice as much tonnage as the ships they are intended to represent.

MgT attempted to 'reimagine' the ships and deckplans, thus made changes from the original for technical reasons (like flawed original deckplans) or artistic license.

Thus the differences (and no flame war).
Still, I probably will use the old ones (particularly the Scout which bothers me because of that wide lower deck and because of the overly large bridge).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old July 1st, 2009, 04:35 PM
atpollard's Avatar
atpollard atpollard is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Port Richey
Posts: 9,357
Gallery : 43
Visit atpollard's Blog
atpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesome
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aeontrin View Post
Still, I probably will use the old ones (particularly the Scout which bothers me because of that wide lower deck and because of the overly large bridge).
I greatly prefer the clean lines of the original scout to it's later incarnations, but that deckplan (if projected into 3D) will not fit within that wedge shape.

In addition, the CT design rules (LBB2 and HG) both require 20 tons of bridge for any ship of 100 tons or more. It is hard to designate 40 squares on that deckplan as "Bridge" without including a big chunk of the commons.

Functionally, it is a nice deckplan. It just doesn't match the rules or illustration of the ship.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old July 1st, 2009, 04:38 PM
aramis's Avatar
aramis aramis is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK, USofA
Posts: 29,121
Gallery : 53
Visit aramis's Blog
aramis has disabled reputation
Send a message via ICQ to aramis Send a message via AIM to aramis Send a message via Yahoo to aramis
Default

The Type S deckplan is actually pretty reasonable IF you presume the upper and lower decks are half-height. I went and counted out 1.5m cubes and dreafted them up in CC2... the result is
__________________
~ Aramis
aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
Knight of Deneb (Spin 2532)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326)
IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+-
Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old July 2nd, 2009, 03:54 PM
aeontrin aeontrin is offline
Citizen: SOC-4
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7
Gallery : 0
aeontrin Citizen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by atpollard View Post
I greatly prefer the clean lines of the original scout to it's later incarnations, but that deckplan (if projected into 3D) will not fit within that wedge shape.

In addition, the CT design rules (LBB2 and HG) both require 20 tons of bridge for any ship of 100 tons or more. It is hard to designate 40 squares on that deckplan as "Bridge" without including a big chunk of the commons.

Functionally, it is a nice deckplan. It just doesn't match the rules or illustration of the ship.
I don't think the MGT version of the Scout addresses the wedge problem either, with that wide lower deck.

Also, IIRC, the bridge on the CT Scout did not map out to 20 dTons either.

Later,

Will
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old July 2nd, 2009, 04:21 PM
atpollard's Avatar
atpollard atpollard is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Port Richey
Posts: 9,357
Gallery : 43
Visit atpollard's Blog
atpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesomeatpollard Awesome
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aeontrin View Post
I don't think the MGT version of the Scout addresses the wedge problem either, with that wide lower deck.

Also, IIRC, the bridge on the CT Scout did not map out to 20 dTons either.
You are correct on both accounts - but I am trying hard to look at the positive in MgT.

Why is it that after 30+ years of trying that none of the official deckplans for Scout Ships (arguably the most frequently encountered PC ship) are able to fit within their hulls? There are incredibly talented ametuers and professionals playing this game, but the 'official' deckplan is never even close to fitting.

The whole 20 ton bridge for 100 to 1000 ton ships annoys the heck out of me. After all, a 1 person 'bridge' on a scout is the same size as the 10 person bridge on a superfreighter (both are 20 tons). So where are all of the "comminications", "sensors", "avionics" and "air locks" (that consume so much of the bridge on a scout) on the 1000 ton ship, where all 20 tons are dedicated to crew stations? Why does a 1000 ton ship need so much less equipment than a 100 ton ship? Why does a 100 ton ship need so much more equipment than a 1000 ton ship?

Just stick with bridge = 2% of the ship for all sizes.
Then the physical 'bridge' on the scout deckplan is just about right.
But Marc and Matt didn't ask me.

Last edited by atpollard; July 3rd, 2009 at 01:05 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old July 2nd, 2009, 05:34 PM
aramis's Avatar
aramis aramis is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Anchorage, AK, USofA
Posts: 29,121
Gallery : 53
Visit aramis's Blog
aramis has disabled reputation
Send a message via ICQ to aramis Send a message via AIM to aramis Send a message via Yahoo to aramis
Default

Actually, AT, the question is why do ships over 1000tons need more than the 20Td minimum?

What exactly does that 20Td represent?
__________________
~ Aramis
aramis.hostman.us /trav
Smith & Wesson: The Original Point and Click interface!

Archduke of Sylea (CORE 2118)
Duke of the Third Imperium (SPIN 0534)
Count Terra (SOLO 1827)
Count Gorod (REFT 1302)
Count of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2232)
Viscount of Adabicci (SPIN 1824)
Marquis of the Solomani Rim (SOLO 0606)
Marquis of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2410)
Baron of the Third Imperium (SPIN 2231)
Knight of the Iridium Throne (CORE 1434)
Sir William Hostman (OLDE 0512)
Sir William Hostman (DAGU 0622)
Knight of Deneb (REFT 2239)
Knight of Deneb (Spin 2532)
SEH w/Diamonds for Extreme Heroism - Battle of Boughene
MCG - Battle of Boughene
TAS: William Hostman (CORR 2506)
TAS: Bearer (DAIB 1326)
IMTU ct+ tm++ tne tg-- tt+ tmo+ t4- t20+ to ru+ ge+ 3i+ c+ jt au ls pi+ ta he+ st+
Wil Hostman 0602 C539857-9 S A724
OTU: 95% 3i an+ au+ br- cpu± dt± f+ fs++ ge± ih- inf± j± jf+ jm+ jt+ ls- n= nc+ pi+ pp-- tp+ tr+ tv- vi-- xb+-
Unless there is bold red text, presume my posts to be my personal material only.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old July 2nd, 2009, 05:41 PM
ThunderChilde ThunderChilde is offline
Citizen: SOC-13
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: New Castle
Posts: 662
Gallery : 0
ThunderChilde Citizen
Send a message via AIM to ThunderChilde Send a message via Yahoo to ThunderChilde
Default

Meh, 4 tons is awfully tight for a 100 ton ship. It seems to me that there is an absolute minimum size for a bridge. The cockpits of all the middle to large airliners are fairly similar in size, and frankly a "Scout Ship" would need a bit more space than a frieghter, just for all the advanced comms and sensors that are thier stock in trade.

Just my .02 CrImp
__________________
Thread Necromancer.

There I was surrounded by friends, alone with my dice, when suddenly.....

If you're going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill

Unapologetic supporter of MGT, warts and all.

A computer once beat me at Chess, but it was no match for me at Kick Boxing
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old July 2nd, 2009, 07:07 PM
flykiller's Avatar
flykiller flykiller is offline
Citizen: SOC-14
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: desert
Posts: 6,624
Gallery : 111
flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++flykiller Citizen++
Default

Quote:
... the question is why do ships over 1000tons need more than the 20Td minimum?
the bridge is about command and control. as ships get larger they require larger and more robust systems to exercise that control, and not all of those systems will be "on the bridge". for example: docking stations, electrical distribution load centers, engineering operating stations, local control panels, landing gear operation stations, flight control station, damage control stations, auxiliary fuel pump stations, captain's day room, ship's external office, ship's internal office, staff officer offices, all the lockers necessary to hold the equipment to maintain that equipment, and all the space necessary to access that equipment. big naval ships will have a quarterdeck, an admiral's battle station, a master-at-arms security station, and maybe a marine assault command station.

if big bridges are seriously annoying then one may implement house rules, such counting the computer as bridge and not counting fuel, cargo, and armor dtonnage towards the bridge size requirement (in my opinion this works well). or one may detail each component of a bridge and then count towards dtonnage only those components that are included in the design (far too detailed for anything I want to do in a game).

Last edited by flykiller; July 2nd, 2009 at 07:11 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Beyond Traveller - non-TU Deck Plans Patron Zero The Fleet 6 November 29th, 2008 12:35 PM
Deck plans Kpeterson MegaTraveller 14 June 28th, 2004 12:51 PM
T20 Deck Plans Homer Woody The Fleet 4 November 29th, 2003 01:13 AM
Deck Plans and T20 MegaCredit T20 - Traveller for the D20 System 6 July 23rd, 2002 11:48 PM

This website and its contents are copyright ©2010- Far Future Enterprises. All rights reserved. Traveller is a registered trademark of Far Future Enterprises .
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.