Vehicle size...

[mike wightman]

TNE answered some of these problems by having different sizes of vehicle/small craft hangers - minimal x2, spacious x4 - as well as external grapples - size varies by streamlining - and a docking ring x1.
The latter is like the cutter wells on the Broadsword. They are cylinders that the small craft fit into.
The airlock and cargo doors mate with those on the mothership.

 

[Tekrat04]

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
TNE answered some of these problems by having different sizes of vehicle/small craft hangers - minimal x2, spacious x4 - as well as external grapples - size varies by streamlining - and a docking ring x1.
The latter is like the cutter wells on the Broadsword. They are cylinders that the small craft fit into.
The airlock and cargo doors mate with those on the mothership.

Yes and no. It is a step in the right direction. Still the numbers need to be multiplied by 2 in order to reflect the real volume needed to house a sub-craft.

 

[BetterThanLife]

Originally posted by far-trader:

I also think you converted badly or something. 150kg is about 330# so unless you were maybe a heavy framed giant that's a bit over the healthy weight. Except for a bodybuilder or heavy weight class lifter. That's about the top of the class there.

Actually Dan, I am 2 meters and 100kg. (Well probably a little over 100 these days.) I am not nor have I ever been heavy, big framed or seriously muscled. Someone at my height is considered to still be at a healthy weight in the 120kg range. (Most Insurance tables don't rate you before that point and few do even at that point.) Now granted I am definitely taller than the considered human norm, though too short to play professional basketball. But even at that the 10vl for the operator is still close. (I have never fit into a Mazada, most new Fords and several other cars with smaller cockpits (Vipers for example) don't fit either.) So I would suggest that 10vl for the occupant is probably what Mazda goes by.

I stick with the assertion that 100L and 100kg (10vl) is about right for most (all was a poor choice above) people. 75kg (165#) is a healthy weight for an average framed male of 180cm (6'). That leaves a little play room for taller and heavier and even bulky clothes.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by veltyen:


Depends on what you are looking for in your Marines I guess. Meaty, over 6 foot tall and under 100kg don't really mix that well.

See above. The "average" Marine is likely to be 75kg at 6' tall. What's more the military likes (or did) to put the smaller recruits in the vehicles where size is less of an issue for the person and more of an issue for the vehicle. The "big boys" get to be grunts stuck with the heavy MG.

Anyway, that's my take

</font>[/QUOTE]Actually, I think you will find that in most military organizations it is the smaller guys that carry the Machinegun, believe it or not. As far as the Ideal Marine, in many interpretations of the Traveller Universe the majority of Marines are in Battledress. (Hint, Hint, mine included.

) And Marines will still recruit for the big impressive guys, so battledress will still need to accomodate them. (Better PR and intimidation if the guy getting out of the Battledress on the news is a big muscled guy, not some scrawny geek.)

 

[far-trader]

I guess I could have looked to my own family tree for a reality check too. On my mothers side the men were/are all very big. About your 2m and 100kg+ and not fat, all frame and muscle.

So, perhaps the 110vl and Cr100 per occupant to fit an average 10vl person is best described as cramped as noted (small vehicle bucket seating). As the rules note, doubling that (220vl and Cr200) would be comfortable (midsize vehicle bench seating with armrests and cup holders

), and tripled (330vl and Cr300) would be luxurious spacious seating (large vehicle bench seating with armrests and cup holders and more; lumbar support, built in heating/cooling, massage )

I defer to your call on the matters military, my own personal experience was brief and peripheral and most of my thoughts are on study and second hand info, both prone to poor recall

I can see the PR angle but would suspect the IM to have some oversized suits and soldiers for just that role

On the number of IM in BD, well, our TUs differ there. BD is a less common item imtu (among other differences no doubt) based on my own interpretion and selection of canon*. More or fewer IM in BD is a matter of choice, the only wrong answers are the extremes of ALL or NONE imo

* Sidebar - And this may be undergoing a revision imtu, unless I go with an option I'm considering to again make it less common. The problem is my take on "proper" design of BD in T20 looks like the price is going to take a major reduction which should make it much more common. I'm considering therefore making it cyberjack driven interface (you are the suit) to make it less attainable and not so common. Ahhh, topic drift, don't ya love it

 

[BetterThanLife]

I did exactly the opposite. Marine Battledress is excessively expensive. So only an organization with as deep pockets as the Imperial Navy can afford to equip any more than a few small elite units. The TL13 "Standard Battledress" is a paramilitary affair for Merc units (with special licenses) and planetary armies. Marine Battledress is a little smaller, 249vls, better armored (AR14-15 depending on the model), dual drivetrained (Legs and grav), battery operated, with TL14 camo, and a nice sensor suite. It is also heavily restricted and, no, your character can't have a set.

I tend to severely restrict all but light armor for civilian use. And since the Marines are the Emperor's (and Referee's) Big Nasty Attack Dog, The Spike on the end of the Emperor's big stick (the Imperial Navy) their toys don't get into circulation. IMTU the High Tech Armies use Combat Armor, the lower tech armies use Cloth and Combat Environment Suits. And one thing we found in the Mercenary campaign that we started is how expensive equipping, even with TL12 Combat Armor, a Military unit can be. (The platoon's biggest single equipment expense was the armor.)

I know, topic drift.

 

[Straybow]

Hmmmm... bump this up for general interest and a comment.

Using vl = 10 liters for the air/raft in Standard_Designs.pdf gives a chassis size of 6000vl = 60 m³, cargo capacity is 4001.2vl = 40 m³.

That makes it the size of the largest trucks a driver without a commercial license is permitted to operate (13 tons).

Here is a 26-footer, the next smaller size, the largest you can rent at U-Haul:


Volume: 1,592 cu. ft.
Max load: 7,395 lbs.
Gross vehicle weight: 20,000 lbs. max
Empty weight: 12,605 lbs

Cargo volume converts to 45 m³ if your calculator isn't handy. So the overall generic air/raft size is somewhat larger than this rental truck, but the cargo space is a little smaller.