A question of style

All Art critics,
I have a new deck plan but a few questions.
* Should a deck plan have large machinery in the engineer spaces or is a note that this room is engineering good enough?
* How about the Low Berth room? a note or filed with symbols?
* Is a deck plan better with a numbered key or with labels?

I have been doing deck plans for 40 years and I must say I have for most of that time done plans with equipment other furnishings, but I am not sure.

 

[whartung]

On the first one there is a transparency of more than half.

I liked the transparency, as it addresses some of the complaints of a cluttered deck plan, but still shows what the free space is actually like.

 

[Rupert]

OK, back to the original question:
Is this more like what most people want?

That looks nice.

 

[Nightwind1]

A photo from my trip to Chile last year -- Project Cybersyn (wikipedia):
View attachment 6391

Photo credit: own work. Taken inside the Centro Cultural Palacio de La Moneda ("Palacio de La Moneda Cultural Center"). Turns out the exhibit technically wasn't open at that time, but the door was ajar...

Looks like the space Hilton from 2001.

 

[coliver988]

I also like the 50% transparency.
Another option is the same 50% transparency for things that can be moved (furniture) and no transparency for stuff that cannot be moved and is a fixture.

Regardless, I pretty much like all deck plans

 

[DentArthurDent]

This is a really nice plan. Lots of nice details, like the iris valve providing a little extra privacy to some of the rooms. And I really like the low berth models.
Personally, I like to see furniture on deck plans. I like the reminder that people work and live here.
But my players’ main concern is being able to put their miniatures on the map, and they don’t want to be ‘standing’ half on a sofa.
So, the transparency is a great solution.

 

[Dragoner]

I struggle with a lot of my spacecraft are vertical axis, and that a plan view might not work for ladders, and webbing in between sections; I think bunks, chairs, lockers, could be switched from walls to floors, esp easy enough light plastic stuff.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I think bunks, chairs, lockers, could be switched from walls to floors, esp easy enough light plastic stuff.

When gravity "is optional" and can be switched off ...

 

[Grav_Moped]

When gravity "is optional" and can be switched off ...

Or is intermittent, because it's from inertia vs. acceleration instead of some effect that can be turned on and off.

 

[Dragoner]

Yep, no deck plates in my setting. A tail sitter, if it lands at all with be vertically oriented, decks perpendicular to thrust. The question is one of drawing that.

 

[DentArthurDent]

Yep, no deck plates in my setting. A tail sitter, if it lands at all with be vertically oriented, decks perpendicular to thrust. The question is one of drawing that.

I’d love to do a “no grav plates” setting, but in my play testing, missiles become much more deadly. How is it working IYTU?

 

[kilemall]

I’d love to do a “no grav plates” setting, but in my play testing, missiles become much more deadly. How is it working IYTU?

What version/home rules are you play testing with?

 

[Spinward Flow]

but in my play testing, missiles become much more deadly.

Point defense lasers is one answer.
Another countermeasure is electronic warfare to "spoof" or jam the seekers on the missiles.

 

[Dragoner]

I’d love to do a “no grav plates” setting, but in my play testing, missiles become much more deadly. How is it working IYTU?

Everything works as it should, missiles are deadly; here is the combat chapter: https://www.travellerrpg.com/threads/kosmic-chapter-7-space-combat.44727/

Missiles are 1d6/2d6 depending, regular or casaba-howitzer nuclear shaped charge.

 

[kilemall]

Everything works as it should, missiles are deadly; here is the combat chapter: https://www.travellerrpg.com/threads/kosmic-chapter-7-space-combat.44727/

Missiles are 1d6/2d6 depending, regular or casaba-howitzer nuclear shaped charge.

The CT missile supplement can run up quite a bit, kinetic damage if the whole missile hits plus outrageous damage for nukes.

Not familiar with the TNE version which I gather is very gearhead, or T5.

 

[Dragoner]

The CT missile supplement can run up quite a bit, kinetic damage if the whole missile hits plus outrageous damage for nukes.

Not familiar with the TNE version which I gather is very gearhead.

I hew to a more simpler setup, with as much plausibility as I can without becoming too complex, for combat, and ship building. Plus realizing that this is an RPG so one shotting a PC ship is an undesirable outcome.

CT's missile supplement is cool, noting that the standard missile is pretty expensive, esp when it can be shot down by point defense, or taken out en masse by EW. TNE's FF&S I am only vaguely familiar with, as I have only read it, and not used it. Both are good though.

 

[DentArthurDent]

Everything works as it should, missiles are deadly; here is the combat chapter: https://www.travellerrpg.com/threads/kosmic-chapter-7-space-combat.44727/

Wow! What a great set of rules. I got a copy at DriveThru and I think I understand it well enough to use the ship combat movement in our next off world session.

Also, I am beginning to believe more and more that an experienced Sensors operator is the key to ship combat.

 

[Dragoner]

Wow! What a great set of rules. I got a copy at DriveThru and I think I understand it well enough to use the ship combat movement in our next off world session.

Also, I am beginning to believe more and more that an experienced Sensors operator is the key to ship combat.

Thanks! An experienced sensors operator, usually crossed with a navigator, dual position, is a strong character; the crew working all together, can make a big difference.