Looking for Jump 6

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by far-trader:

Never meant for it to read that way Dave. Just the first part applies to both, the second was directed more at Aramis' post. Sorry for the confusion. [/QB]

Oh. Nevermind.

 

[parmasson]

Interesting, I always took the lockers out of the bridge tonnage and left the computer as seperate Kind of amounts to the same thing on smaller ships But it's a problem if your multi-kiloton ships only have a puny little 1-9tons of lockers. Or are the computers on your multi-kiloton ships likewise hugenormous? My lockers as a percentage of the bridge tonnage mean the bigger the ship the more lockers (for tools, repair parts, emergency gear, vacc-suits, whatever) which makes sense, well, to me at least

Never really considered the implications on big ships. Don’t really use em except as an abstract threat. Really your way could work just as well. I would however like to point out that on big ships (read non-player) space is not as much of an issue. A 50kt High Guard butt kicker is not really worried about space in the same way as the capt. of 200 ton far trader .

 

[aramis]

just for reference... that 100Td to 1000 Td ship's bridge is roughly the same floorspace as a singlewide trailer home. ~962sf; 90m²

Even the standard "cockpit" shown on the plans of the Type S is 11.25m², or 120sf... and has but two seats.

Given the lack of avionics, sure, there should be some avionics space, but nothing elsewhere really even is close to relevant on the scale of starships except exceptionally large 'scopes. Mind you, Hubble is only a dozen Td or so... and is deep field with optical & IR capabilities. I doubt the Type S carries a deep field telescope, when a simple 20cm could perform the needed alignment tasks for navigation, and a 1m could do most in-system surveys.

Hunter's solution (suboptimal, IMO) was to include an airlock, ship's lockers, etc.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Hunter's solution (suboptimal, IMO) was to include an airlock, ship's lockers, etc.

Well all of that etc. does take up space and since it's not accounted for elsewhere I think it's not unreasonable to assume that it's a part of what appears to be an over large allotment for the bridge. YMMV.

 

[aramis]

All of it belongs in the "stateroom allotment"... at least by the text in CT.

 

[far-trader]

Originally posted by Aramis:
All of it belongs in the "stateroom allotment"... at least by the text in CT.

Actually for CT (Book 2) the Ship's Locker at least is an Optional* Component and there is no mention made of where the tonnage comes from.

* But: "Every ship has a ship's locker."

And (again for Book 2) stateroom space is specifically for accomodations only.

Bridge space in both Book 2 and HG I think is 'and all the stuff required to navigate and operate the ship' which can cover a lot of stuff. In my opinion, the ship's lockers fit here best, being parts, tools and such. I'd also add (as suggested in the book) communications, sensors and avionics, as part of the bridge. But then I'm one of those who have no problem with the size of CT computers

I also include things like landing gear, lifters, attitude control and such in the "bridge" space (usually half the bridge space and simply not included in deckplans). It's all part of ship operation.

I would not include (as T20 suggests) sickbays, laboratories, or work shops and the like.

There is more detail iirc in 1st ed. HG that may contradict this but my copy is playing hide and seek again. I think it mentions something about such things as recreation facilities, sickbays, and so on associated with stateroom tonnage, oh and airlocks too, again iirc.

Anyway, enough drift from me

 

[parmasson]

Shipbuilding in Traveller is more akin to an intense philosophical debate by students who accept a basic premise but adhere to different schools.
IMHO:
Guardists (High)
Heretics of Book Two (Small ship Traveller fundamentalists?)
CT+ and Proto-Travellers
T20 Polyhedronists (Reformed)
The Cult of the New Era (Followers of Fire, Fusion and Steel, Orthodox Gearheads?)
MegaTravellers (minority sect I think)
Fifth Editionists (waiting for coming of The Fifth Edition)
Followers of the Fourth Edition (?)
Gurpinarians (GURPS)

 

[far-trader]

Well put KG

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
All of it belongs in the "stateroom allotment"... at least by the text in CT.

Do you have a citation you'd like to share for that? The closest I'm finding to a description of what's included in stateroom tonnage comes from Supplememnt 7, "...communal facilities such as galley, mess, and recreation lounges." No mention of airlocks, sensor arrays, landing gear, avionics, or the like.

Edit: Book 5 also adds corridors and accesways to the list of things subsumed under stateroom tonnage.

 

[far-trader]

Tracked down my copy of 1st ed. HG, which is probably what Aramis was referencing.* It reads:

The following items are suggested uses for interior space aboard a starship. The actual masses and costs for such areas are left to the referee when actually designing such a ship. Many of these items are subsumed in the costs and tonnages of 4 ton staterooms. In most cases, such areas are required only when drawing up deck plans. Food Service Areas, including mess hall, galley, ward room. Scientific Areas, including laboratories and storerooms. Electronics Areas, including commo suites, avionics areas, electronics counter-measures installations, gunnery simulation trainers, computer operations areas and parts storage. Vehicle Decks, including garaging, maintenance bays, launching areas and parts storage. Recycling Stations. Medical Areas, including isolation wards, surgeries, pharmacies, and examination rooms. Recreational Facilities, including theatres, crafts shops, libraries, and pool rooms. Agricultural Areas, including fresh food gardens, hydroponics areas, and algae tanks. Troop Barracks, including squad areas, training rooms, amories, brigs, ammunition magazines, vacc suit storage, capsule launch areas and briefing rooms.

And yes, that is exactly as it is presented and complete for that information.

Naturally I never agreed with it entirely, as evidenced by my margin notes putting some of the above in the "bridge" tonnage and NOT all of it in the stateroom tonnage. I think there are a few good reasons this paragraph didn't make the cut into the 2nd ed. of HG.

* Unless perhaps there was a similar paragraph in 1st ed. Book 2 as well?

 

[sid6.7]

its all HG 5 FT....no real list in 1st ed LBB 2..
like you said...

there is only 1 vague term in LBB 2 that would cover the "list"...

the only real "identifiers" are bridge, stateroom
cargo, eng, fuel, turrets...

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by far-trader:
* Unless perhaps there was a similar paragraph in 1st ed. Book 2 as well?

Nope.

 

[aramis]

Traveller Book, p67.
"When allocating space within the ship for deck plans, assume that only a portion of stateroom tonnage must actually be in staterooms; the remainder should be used for common areas and other accommodations for the crew."

Airlocks are IMO, "accommodations for the crew."
As are galleys, freshers, and such. Avionics, by FF&S & MT, are relatively tiny.

Far Orbit sensor kits seldom reach even 0.1 Td. They can reasonably be included in Computer tonnage, as HG and TTB imply in the sensor rules.

Which leaves us with vastly oversized bridges for small end craft.

A 100 to 1000 Td ship gets 20 T of bridge; all larger get only 2%, and avionics can be presumed in the computers. Airlocks can be presumed from SR tonnage.

Apply Occam's Razor: Either the bridge tonnage is bad, or all later editions are bad, or both. Simplest is, to me, the bridge.

Edit: Added "simplest...." since I forgot it prior.

 

[sid6.7]

thats 2nd ed. right? my 1st ed. only goes to like 40 pages...

 

[far-trader]

The compiled version of LBB1-3 plus in fact, hence the page number difference.

It is also in LBB2 (2nd ed. at least) under the Deck Plans section, page 21.

 

[aramis]

TTB is CT, but it is 1982 era CT, and mine is a 2nd printing OF TTB.

It includes CT Bk 1-3 materials, some of Bk 0, Shadows, Exit Visa, limited library data, the Regina Subsector,a page of pre-gen characters, and a few other odd bits.

an abbreviated TTB ToC for comparison purposes:
Introduction: 9
Characters: 17
Personal Combat: 33
Travel: 49
Starship Economics: 52
Starship Design and Construction:56
Computers: 70
Space Combat: 72
Worlds: 80
Animal Encounters: 90
Encounters: 98
Experience: 103
Trade and Commerce: 104
Drugs: 106
Equipment: 107
Vehicles: 110
Psionics 116
Basic Traveller Activities: 122
Referee's Guide to Adventuring: 123
Into The Subsector: 126
Shadows: 130 (adventure)
Exit Visa: 141 (adventure)
Traveller's Guide to the Universe: 147
Regina Subsector: 150
Library Data: 152
Pre-Generated Characters: 157
Animal Encounter Tables: 158
The Traveller Series: 159

(all this list is is the major headings from the main ToC for TTB. Repost as needed)

It's basically CT Bks 1-3... but also a bit more.

It also is the ruleset I started with. Mine is beaten all to heck... but it holds together.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
Airlocks are IMO, "accommodations for the crew."

I disagree but a basic airlock shouldn't take up much more than 1 Dton so we'll let that slide.

As are galleys, freshers, and such. Avionics, by FF&S & MT, are relatively tiny.

Granted. Now how about landing gear, attitude thrusters, control surfaces, maintenance accessways, power distribution, and a number of other things I'm probably forgetting since I don't design space ships for a living. I say it comes closer to adding up to 20 Tons than not. You obviously disagree.

Far Orbit sensor kits seldom reach even 0.1 Td. They can reasonably be included in Computer tonnage, as HG and TTB imply in the sensor rules.

Perhaps, though to my mind a Traveller spaceship needs better sensors than "Far Orbit." Certainly a scout does but even a free trader is going to want to see where it's going to be in a couple of hours time and even at 1 g you'll be making much farther distances than just orbit.

Which leaves us with vastly oversized bridges for small end craft.

According to you. I disagree. Guess what? The rules agree with me. Now as I said at the start of this discusion you can get away with a lot if you change the rules. Just bear in mind that you are breaking the rules when you do that.

Apply Occam's Razor: Either the bridge tonnage is bad, or all later editions are bad, or both. Simplest is, to me, the bridge.

Or neither. Consider that while MT and FFS(1/2) have some similarities to the CT method they also have differences that are large enough to make a design in one system invalid for any other system. I sugest sticking to a single system as being the most correct (and least open to munchkin abuse) design method.

Now I am a firm believer in the Zeroeth Rule of Gaming, "You bought the game you can change any damn rule you want," but as I said a few paragraphs up remember you are changing the rules and not all people will agree with your changes; particularly when they have valid counter arguments to support their position.

 

[aramis]

The rules also say 2% in CT (Bk2 and HG), so whatever it is, that 20 Td doesn't scale up until 1001 Td... that's broken, in that below that threshold it fails to scale.

Landing gear needs to scale; taking it from bridge tonnage is counter intuitive. Especially since landing capability is not universal and bridge tonnage is.

Bridge tonnage alone makes the difference between valid J4 and non... The "rate" given in CT applies only to the rarest ships: the big ones.

Sticking solely to CT sources, the Striker controls seldom run more than 3%; 20% in a scoutship defies credulity, especially since the bridge of a Shuttle is a mere 5Td...

Under CT, if we ignore the 20 TD floor; J4 ships become possible: 80Td of fuel (P4, J4)18 Td of Drives.. 2 Td of Bridge. Sure, there's no LS there, but hey!

20 Td is the volume of a singlewide trailer home... that much stuff as a fixed floor volume, especially when your claim of landing gear is unsupported, as landing gear has a cost, but not a volume.(streamlined vessel. See Bk 2.)

Giving them multiple tons of avionics, well that's not viable FOR MERCHANTMEN, who also operate under the same paradigm of 20Td Bridge minimum. (CT rules imply sensors are part of computers, which is why they are in T20 explicitly part of computers.

CT is inherently broken by two parts: Bridge tonnage and PP fuel. Comparison to other editions renders the 20Td minimum bridge to be ludicrously large; CT was/is SWAG's, FF&S was at least somewhat researched; MT was likewise built from CT sources, and somewhat researched.

 

[DaveShayne]

Originally posted by Aramis:
The rules also say 2% in CT (Bk2 and HG), so whatever it is, that 20 Td doesn't scale up until 1001 Td... that's broken, in that below that threshold it fails to scale.

Things don't always scale linearly. Many items (like airlocks, command areas and avionics) do have minimum usefull volumes.

Bridge tonnage alone makes the difference between valid J4 and non...

Since I showed that it is quite possible to build a usefull 200 ton J6 vessle using High Guard I'm not sure how this is a problem. A 100 ton J4 vesel is also quite doable using High Guard even including space for the stateroom and 3 tons of cargo.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">Ship: Tiny Jayfor
Class: Tiny Jayfor
Type: Small Trader
Architect: David Shayne
Tech Level: 13

USP
AS-1644441-030000-20002-0 MCr 90.500 100 Tons
Bat Bear 1 1 1 Crew: 2
Bat 1 1 1 TL: 13

Cargo: 3.000 Fuel: 44.000 EP: 4.000 Agility: 1 Pulse Lasers

Architects Fee: MCr 0.905 Cost in Quantity: MCr 72.400


Detailed Description

HULL
100.000 tons standard, 1,400.000 cubic meters, Flattened Sphere Configuration

CREW
Pilot, Gunner

ENGINEERING
Jump-4, 4G Manuever, Power plant-4, 4.000 EP, Agility 1

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/4 Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 Hardpoint

ARMAMENT
1 Triple Mixed Turret with: 1 Pulse Laser (Factor-2), 1 Missile Rack (Factor-2).

DEFENCES
1 Single Sandcaster Turret organised into 1 Battery (Factor-3)

CRAFT
None

FUEL
44.000 Tons Fuel (4 parsecs jump and 28 days endurance)
No Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
1.0 Stateroom, 3.000 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr 91.405 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr 0.905), MCr 72.400 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
38 Weeks Singly, 30 Weeks in Quantity

COMMENTS
</pre>[/QUOTE]

Sticking solely to CT sources, the Striker controls seldom run more than 3%; 20% in a scoutship defies credulity, especially since the bridge of a Shuttle is a mere 5Td...

Striker vehicles are not intended to operate in space and are therefor not automatically aplicable to this case. Also in case you still haven't figured it out my position is that the Bridge tonnage includes more components than just "controls." Considering the 95 ton shuttle: by the rules in High Guard it should have a small craft bridge of 19 tons a 25 ton small craft could make do with a 5 ton bridge but as these are small craft not intended for extended use the smaller bridge tonnage is warranted IMHO.

Under CT, if we ignore the 20 TD floor; J4 ships become possible: 80Td of fuel (P4, J4)18 Td of Drives.. 2 Td of Bridge. Sure, there's no LS there, but hey!

And I have already shown how with High Guard even with the 20 DTon bridge you can build a jump 4 ship into a 100 ton hull. So this isn't the problem you seem to think it is.

20 Td is the volume of a singlewide trailer home... that much stuff as a fixed floor volume, especially when your claim of landing gear is unsupported, as landing gear has a cost, but not a volume.(streamlined vessel. See Bk 2.)

You keep talking about that singlewide like it's some huge amount of space. It aint.

Unstreamlined ships can land on worlds without atmospheres so yes they do need landing gear. Streamlining allows use of your spacecraft in an atmosphere.

Giving them multiple tons of avionics, well that's not viable FOR MERCHANTMEN, who also operate under the same paradigm of 20Td Bridge minimum.

I think a merchantman is just as likely to need to know where it's going as a scout ship but granting that they will not often need to do full system sweeps they will also likely have needs a scout doesn't have. I figure it evens out in the mix.

(CT rules imply sensors are part of computers, which is why they are in T20 explicitly part of computers.

Sensors are more than a bit fuzzy in CT. with Book 2 having two sensor ranges depending on whether the ship in question is a military/scout ship or civilian. Book 5 gives a bonus to hit and to penetrate based upon relative computer size which some suggest may have too do with sensors. In my conception I see the signal collection equipment (dish antennas and the like) as part of the bridge tonnage while the signal processing is part of the computer.

YMMV.

CT is inherently broken by two parts: Bridge tonnage and PP fuel. Comparison to other editions renders the 20Td minimum bridge to be ludicrously large; CT was/is SWAG's, FF&S was at least somewhat researched; MT was likewise built from CT sources, and somewhat researched.

I grant that the Book 2 power plant formula is broken. The High Guard formula works fairly well however so there is no reason to call all of CT inherently broken in this regard. Comparison to later editions also shows those later editions to have other issues that need to be taken into account that are glossed over in CT. Should you feel those other systems to be superior in the realism department then you should by all means use one of those systems. Me I'll stick to my tried, true, and reasonable Classic Traveller High Guard.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by Aramis:

CT is inherently broken by two parts: Bridge tonnage and PP fuel. Comparison to other editions renders the 20Td minimum bridge to be ludicrously large; CT was/is SWAG's, FF&S was at least somewhat researched; MT was likewise built from CT sources, and somewhat researched.

MT's source, Striker, had a lot of work and research go into it, pretty obviously. Also obviously, the folks who wrote the MT ship design chapter pulled it straight from Striker, not really realizing that Striker's approximations of HG were deeply flawed when mapped against the setting.

That said, it is worth noting the differences between HG and MT. The minimum Bridge allocation vanished, but control stations, life support, sensors, and airlocks replaced it. Staterooms, on the other hand, didn't change. It is not difficult to make these differences connect to the increasingly acrimonious discussion here. Things that weren't part of B2 or HG designs were effectively taken out of "Bridge" tonnage for MT, TNE, and T4 because they were all things that are considered part of the "overhead" that makes a hull a "ship" (a long-term residence capable of interstellar travel).

Is CT broken in this regard? NO. Vastly but workably simplified in the interest of simple design, YES.

No argument on the powerplant thing, though.