Dual-Stat "Fat Cat" Far Trader

[robject]

Kickstarter has a Mongoose Traveller Far Trader book up:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1376833843/fat-cat-far-trader-print-edition?ref=live

I pledged, because I think the deckplans are very good.

The reason this post is in the T5 area is because they're talking with Marc Miller about getting the T5 stats for this ship included in the supplement. Of course I'm all for that (otherwise I'd have to make up unofficial ones for my gaming group).

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Broken link.

 

[Bloo]

The forum auto concatenates the URL so unless you post it as a URL, it won't work:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1376833843/fat-cat-far-trader-print-edition?ref=live

 

[traq]

There's a short URL, too: http://kck.st/O02LdQ

BTW, I'm Adrian - I'm the illustrator, and I'm the one running the kickstarter, too. (robject, thanks for backing us!)

And we are indeed talking with Marc Miller about licensing. Even if we don't get a license to put the stats in the book itself, T5 stat sheets will be made available for free.

 

[traq]

great news - we have acquired a licence from FFE.

Fat Cat is now officially the first ship supplement licensed for Traveller5!

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

First to published, I will grant you, sir.

great news - we have acquired a licence from FFE.

Fat Cat is now officially the first ship supplement licensed for Traveller5!

Dear Gentlebeings,

While you have beat us to print and congratulations on that right there, Daarnulud Design Bureaux has held its Imperial Charter a mite longer. Not much longer, but longer.

Again, congratulations on your license and a mighty fine product indeed. We look forward to competing with you though you have set the bar mighty high there. Excellent craftsmanship in that one.

Well, off to work on my entries to the ring. Very cool, gentlemen, very, very, too damnably cool. I look forward seeing more. It will keep me on my game I see.

Well, I need to go finish up some stuff, deadlines of all times are thankfully in Flux right now and I am using the time to furiously catch up...

Laterness,
Craig.

PS: Seriously, dudes, I choked when I saw what I was up against. That is some sweet starship. Not Streamlined Sexy, but dang close. Bravo, gentlemen, bravo.

 

[rancke]

BTW, I'm Adrian - I'm the illustrator, and I'm the one running the kickstarter, too. (robject, thanks for backing us!)

Noticed this comment while browsing your website. As I don't want to bother with yet another site where I have to log in to comment, I'll just do it here.

"With a scale of one map square representing a valume of 1.5m(w) x 1.5m(L) x 3m(h) (6.75 m3), two map squares would represent a single displacement ton (13.5 m3). So the bridge would be 40 map squares."​

The thing is, none of the original deck plans had bridges that big (Check out some of them). Eventually people came up with the explanation that the 20T included various odds and ends in addition to the bridge space itself, such as the avionics section and a main airlock. AFAIK, the exact list was never made official, and I don't know if MGT is more specific, but 40 squares of bridge for a 300T ship definitely does not conform to previously published material.


Hans

 

[aramis]

There's an official list of bridge component stuff in T20. (p.262):

The tonnage and cost for the bridge
of a ship may be allocated among the following
areas as per their normal cost and
size requirements:
1) Main command and control bridge. This is the heart and soul of a vessel’s control and operation, typically housing at least the commander’s stations, helm and navigation controls, along with the communications and sensor station. A minimum of 10 tons must be allocated to the main command and control bridge, though larger ships will in almost all cases have correspondingly larger command and control bridges if not secondary bridges installed.
3) Command (non-passenger) Workstations and Terminals
4) Airlocks
5) Ship’s Locker
6) Engineering Shops
7) Vehicle Shops
8) Laboratories
9) Sickbays

 

[traq]

thing is, none of the original deck plans had bridges that big (Check out some of them). Eventually people came up with the explanation that the 20T included various odds and ends in addition to the bridge space itself, such as the avionics section and a main airlock. AFAIK, the exact list was never made official, and I don't know if MGT is more specific, but 40 squares of bridge for a 300T ship definitely does not conform to previously published material.

MGT is more specific, yes, and requires a 20 ton bridge for a 300 ton ship. As speculated, this volume does indeed include things like the ship's locker, electronics/avionics, both computer cores, and even the ship's main stairwell, so the "walking space" is much less than 20t.

I don't know what/if we'll be changing around, now that we're targeting t5 rules more directly. t5 stats are still a work-in-progress, but I don't think any changes will be too drastic. Dave (the author, @D.B.GameDesign) would be able to give a better answer to that.

There was a big discussion about this when we designed the ship, and again when we started showing work on the 2D plans. You can see the basic bridge layout here (post #1) (I think this is actually the forum/thread you were quoting; but I'll share the link for anyone else who may be interested).

Dear Gentlebeings,

While you have beat us to print and congratulations on that right there, Daarnulud Design Bureaux has held its Imperial Charter a mite longer. Not much longer, but longer.

Again, congratulations on your license and a mighty fine product indeed. We look forward to competing with you though you have set the bar mighty high there. Excellent craftsmanship in that one.
... Bravo, gentlemen, bravo.

Thank you, very much. I'm glad to hear you were so impressed!

About the "first licensed ship" claim, I wasn't aware anyone else had obtained one. My apologies. That's actually what Marc told us to write, so I didn't even check into it.

...and, we haven't quite "beat you to print" just yet - we still need to meet our funding goal!
keeping our fingers crossed!

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

That is quite alright.

MGT is more specific, yes, and requires a 20 ton bridge for a 300 ton ship. As speculated, this volume does indeed include things like the ship's locker, electronics/avionics, both computer cores, and even the ship's main stairwell.

I don't know what/if we'll be changing around, now that we're targeting t5 rules more directly. t5 stats are still a work-in-progress, but I don't think any changes will be too drastic. Dave (the author, @D.B.GameDesign) would be able to give a better answer to that.

There was a big discussion about this when we designed the ship, and again when we started showing work on the 2D plans. You can see the basic bridge layout here (post #1) (I think this is actually the forum/thread you were quoting; but I'll share the link for anyone else who may be interested).



Thank you, very much. I'm glad to hear you were so impressed!

About the "first licensed ship" claim, I wasn't aware anyone else had obtained one. My apologies. That's actually what Marc told us to write, so I didn't even check into it.

...and, we haven't quite "beat you to print" just yet - we still need to meet our funding goal!
keeping our fingers crossed!

No. Don't even, go with what His Imperial Majesty said, I got my two cents in already. You go right ahead and test those waters. Tell me how they are and I will go on with my little projects. But yeah, that this is sweet. Very cool layouts. The graphic designer in me loves what you did. Very cool stuff, sir. Very cool, indeed. Hope my comments have helped. Rob sent you to me and morfydd for a reason. We go way back with T5 ACS.

Anyway, I got to go and push on my ex-roomie, current mentor and guy who said he would help out since he is a publisher and other interesting mad scientist stuff.

Again, excellent work and good luck.

And in reverse order of topics in the above, I tend to go with Bridge being the Conn, it is where the steering stuff goes. The Engineering section has the make it go parts and its own stations and is not part of the Bridge. Also, I sometimes have CICs (where the fighting stuff goes, of course), but mostly in warships.

 

[traq]

hey guys,

We passed our "halfway-funded" mark last night. We went from 14% to 56% in just over two days! I wanted to thank those of you who have backed us so far! The future is looking up. Keep your fingers crossed for us!

 

[D.B.GameDesign]

I guess its time I chimed in here. I'm Dave, of D.B. Game Design.
I waist too much time on facebook and not enough time here.

Noticed this comment while browsing your website.

"With a scale of one map square representing a valume of 1.5m(w) x 1.5m(L) x 3m(h) (6.75 m3), two map squares would represent a single displacement ton (13.5 m3). So the bridge would be 40 map squares."​

What traq said.

hey guys,

We passed our "halfway-funded" mark last night. We went from 14% to 56% in just over two days! I wanted to thank those of you who have backed us so far! The future is looking up. Keep your fingers crossed for us!

Today about noon we passed the 70%. We only have 6 days left, but if ya'll keep showing us the same level of love you have in the past three we will be quite healthfully overfunded by the end. In that eventuality I will get to work on the next shop book right away. No sense waisting the momentum.

 

[rancke]

What traq said.

What traq said didn't address what I said, which was that no known ship deckplans of 100-1000T ships have had a bridge that all of its own took up 40 squares (Nor, incidentally, do the bridges of ships like the Kinunir and the Leviathan take up their full share of squares.)

(Other comments did address it).


Hans

 

[D.B.GameDesign]

What traq said didn't address what I said, which was that no known ship deckplans of 100-1000T ships have had a bridge that all of its own took up 40 squares (Nor, incidentally, do the bridges of ships like the Kinunir and the Leviathan take up their full share of squares.)

(Other comments did address it).


Hans

Actually he did, he gave you the right answer. By MGT ship design rules a ship of 300 tons has a 20 bridge.

It doesn't mater that others drew there ships with cramped bridges. Ours is drawn with a spacious bridge where you don't have to worry about banging your knee or stepping on anyone appendages. Enjoy the leg room!

 

[rancke]

Actually he did, he gave you the right answer. By MGT ship design rules a ship of 300 tons has a 20 bridge.

By CT rules a ship of 300 tons likewise deducts 20 T for a bridge. Yet in no example do any CT ship (of low tonnage) spend 40 squares on the bridge itself alone. Which implies that other things are included into the 20T total. Which, in turn, implies that a ship that does use 40 squares for its bridge is going to lack tonnage for those unspecified other things. (Unless you have actually spent extra tonnage in the design and I just missed that, in which case I withdraw my comment. Have you?)

Now, tell me, are there any of the MgT ships for which deckplans exist that use the full bridge tonnage for the bridge alone? None of the ones in the Core Rulebook does. Which suggests that MgT continues the tradition of lumping some unspecified bits and pieces in with the bridge itself in the bridge tonnage.

It doesn't mater that others drew there ships with cramped bridges.

It would matter to me. But then, I like my fictional universes to be self-consistent.

Ours is drawn with a spacious bridge where you don't have to worry about banging your knee or stepping on anyone appendages. Enjoy the leg room!

As long as some extra tonnage (10T or so?) has been "spent" to account for the unspecified bits and pieces that are not included in the 20T bridge tonnage, since every bit of that is spent on the bridge itself, I'd enjoy it[*]. Otherwise I'd be too uncomfortably aware that I was riding in a ship that did not conform to the setting parameters.

[*] I might use it only for spendthrift billionaire owners, since tonnage is the critical resource and having a bridge four times larger than necessary is wasteful, but there are many billionaires in the OTU, so that's not a problem. I'd worry about the sanity and prospects of anyone who used such a ship for commercial purposes, though.​

Hans

 

[robject]

[...]I like my fictional universes to be self-consistent.[...]

If it conforms to the design system, it should be okay. Poetic license is fine, but not required.

 

[rancke]

If it conforms to the design system, it should be okay. Poetic license is fine, but not required.

I think I'm pointing out an entirely pragmatic problem. If, say, the airlocks usually comes ot of the bridge tonnage, and every bit of the bridge tonnage is used for the bridge, then your ship either has no airlocks or it's using several tons that it does not have.

The second (and entirely separate) problem I have with the roomy bridge is that if you do account for the extra tonnage spent on it, the cargo space is reduced, making the ship less suited for commercial traffic. I can see a billionaire wanting to be able to pace his bridge enough to be willing to pay for it, but I can't see a merchant being willing to make that trade-off. (Not even a billionaire merchant. )

That second problem is something that conforms to the design system, in the sense that it's legal, but it offends my sense of self-consistency all the same.


Hans

 

[robject]

I think I'm pointing out an entirely pragmatic problem. [...]

Two pragmatic problems, and one offense to one's sensibilities. I understand all of these. It just didn't seem to come across as advice. It does seem that the design intent of the Fat Cat is indeed more luxurious than I typically find in the OTU. That's okay too.

 

[rancke]

Two pragmatic problems, and one offense to one's sensibilities. I understand all of these. It just didn't seem to come across as advice.

I'm sorry to hear that. It was intended as such.

(That is, the original post was intended as nothing but friendly advice. I admit that when I was told that I was wrong, my disputatious nature may have been roused a teensy-weensy bit).


Hans

 

[robject]

Sorry. Posts are hard to interpret at times.

And... a disputatious nature? You? Here? On COTI?? May it never be!