The Adventure Class Starship Geomorphs PDF is now available for free download. I took many of the constructive criticisms from the CotI users and incorporated them into the the new book. Enjoy! http://travellerrpgblog.blogspot.com/2024/12/adventure-class-starship-geomorphs.html
Adventure Class Starship Geomorphs
- Thread starter Beerfume
- Start date
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Now, I just need most/all of the component pieces that go into these geomorphs in transparent background .png files so I can copy/paste bits and pieces into my down customized deck plan designs. 
Individual files are on their way, courtesy of Eric B. Smith, but it will take a month or so to complete. I'll post a link here once they are ready for download.Now, I just need most/all of the component pieces that go into these geomorphs in transparent background .png files so I can copy/paste bits and pieces into my down customized deck plan designs.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
No rush.
Took a browse through the PDF and a lot of the arrangements are REALLY CLEVER.
One thing that I do still find to be a bit of a mismatch is the iconography for the low berths.
By design sequence (LBB2, LBB5, et al.) spreadsheet, low berths occupy 0.5 tons, which according to the grid spacing means a single deck square. However, the iconography for the low berths occupies a single square completely and then extends into an adjacent square. This means that all low berths need to "consume" 2 deck squares (1 ton) per low berth ... 1 square for the low berth itself + 1 square for access space to get to the low berth.
I'm wondering if a different choice of low berth icon might be more suitable in a lot of contexts.
Instead, I'm thinking that a low berth pod that occupies 1/2 a deck square, leaving the remaining 1/2 square available for access, would be better. That way you could have "long thin galleries" of low berths along one wall with a narrow walk space along them on one side (think 1x4 deck squares compartment if that helps). If you put the pods on both sides of a 2x2 deck square room, you'd have 4 berths on the side walls and a walk space through the middle (1 square wide).
For me, that's been a long outstanding gray area in the rules: Does the required equipment tonnage mean just the equipment, or does it include space for a person to maneuver around the equipment? I've always preferred deck plans made with Snapshot-style playability in mind, so I've always added extra tonnage for circulation.. Consider the old FASA "black-out" fuel and engineering areas vs. what I show. It can screw up High Guard stats, but that's the way I prefer it. If you look through the book, you'll also see a low berth symbol for three users stacked horizontally, taking up one ton. I always imagined my "egg" low berth icon was just a lower tech version, and I definitely prefer my way to how Mongoose deck plans show low berth areas. Here's an image of how I see a typical low berth room being laid out: http://travellerrpgblog.blogspot.com/2016/01/cryo-unit.html
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
That's a really good looking 3D image showing how the "egg" ought to work, slanted at an angle.
However, I still get a feeling of mismatch between that 3D art and the low berth icon.
I'm thinking the icon should be more like this:
That's just a quick and dirty resize, crop, copy/paste job to get the idea across.
But if I put those two icons into context on a deck plan where walk space becomes an issue ...
As you can see, the original icons require 6 deck squares for 4 low berths, if they're all in a single compartment (3x2). The modified/resized low berths needs only 4 deck squares for 4 low berths, if they're all in a single compartment (2x2).
- 3x2 = 3 tons for 4 low berths = 0.75 tons per low berth
- 2x2 = 2 tons for 4 low berths = 0.5 tons per low berth
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
With some additional time to play with the iconography, I decided to try and play with the resizing a little bit more and came up with this:However, I still get a feeling of mismatch between that 3D art and the low berth icon.
I'm thinking the icon should be more like this:
That's just a quick and dirty resize, crop, copy/paste job to get the idea across.
Ironically, this resize turns the "egg" shape into more of a "rounded crescent moon" shape, since the ellipse is now circularized by the resizing. This changes the sense of the top-down 3D impression from one of a semi-reclining tube shape into more of a vertical/standing cylinder shape.
However, If I repeat the experiment of putting the low berths into context on a deck plan ... once again "ignoring" the walls for simplicity, but adding hatches to make the "walk space" factors (slightly) more obvious ...
As you can see, the whole thing comes down to being a matter of "packing efficiency" (more or less) of the "pack them in like sardines" variety.
For clarity of documentation purposes, I'm using a 60 pixel by 60 pixel grid (middle of grey line to middle of grey line), which then divides nicely into 1.5m x 1.5m squares (40 pixels per meter) whenever I need to make precise measurements to scale of things.
The (resized) low berths are 56x40 pixels in size, which leaves a "narrow, side shuffle" space of 40-50cm to squeeze through by sidestepping in tight spaces (so pretty cramped, depending on orientations). The low berth "circle" is 34 pixels diameter at the outer edge, or 0.85m wide at the outer perimeter of the low berth casing. An occupant could have a diameter of up to 30 pixels (0.75m) wide and still (barely) not touch the inside of the low berth casing (and once you're "frozen" for transport you don't need to move much anyway, so...).
The way I approach this issue, when needing to draw deck plans, is that the "naval architect spreadsheet" calculates the displacement tonnage of the compartment that stuff has to be put into, rather than the sizing of the "stuff" itself.
For clarity, if I had a design requirement for 15 tons of drives, I would use that 15 ton parameter to determine how large the compartment ought to be (15*14/1.5/1.5/3=31.111 deck squares). I would then delineate walls that enclose a space of 30-32 squares (for the +/- 10% variance accounting) ... and then get to work filling it up with machinery and work stations and so on.
What I would NOT do is say that I have 15 tons of drives, implement 30-32 deck squares of machinery and THEN "pad out" the compartment with additional walk space around the machinery. In other words, I wouldn't turn an 8x4 machinery space into a 10x6 compartment space in order to be able to "get around" all of the machinery in the center of the compartment.
If you start thinking of "naval architect spreadsheet" tonnage values as being allocations for interior compartment spaces, which then in turn need to be able to accommodate circulation "walk space" within them (rather than the circulation "walk space" being some sort of "extra freebie"), I'm thinking that method is the more intellectually honest approach to the question. For one thing, it means that locations need to "pay" for circulation access to get to them, rather than getting those hallway spaces "for free" and padding out the interior volume somewhat unreasonably (in my opinion, of course). Thinking of tonnages in terms of compartment sizes for stuff also helps to reinforce the "submarine interior" feeling of being in an enclosed life support environment. You shouldn't have these "vast open spaces" here, there and everywhere when interior volume (displacement tonnage) is at a premium. When "circulation walk space" needs to be "paid for" out of the volume budget for compartments, the actual size of "stuff" to put into those compartments gets smaller (because the circulation walk space is consuming a noticeable fraction of the deck area available).
So far, the "best" packing efficiency that I've been able to achieve in my own deck plan research basically comes down to a single central corridor with rooms on either side. So if you've got a 5x5 deck squares "box" shape, you get a 5x1 corridor down the center (1 axis) and 5x2 compartments on either side to fill up with "stuff" however you like. This basically means that 20% of the deck plan area (5 squares out of 25 total) is dedicated to common circulation access, while 80% of the deck plan area gets devoted to whatever you're putting into the side compartments (and if those are staterooms, you need to put a "walkable space" into the center of each stateroom as well).
This is why my (TL=9, so Composite Laminates for bulkheads, which at scale are thicker) 16 ton Stateroom Box of four staterooms "unpowered small craft" in a modular design format looks like this:
I daresay you ought to be able to recognize all of the iconography at work here.
The 4 staterooms are basically identical, just rotated/mirrored to fit each corner. All four have ladder accessed "loft" bunk beds over the sitting area (seating and retractable into the floor table) space below, a lot like Amtrak passenger train cabins, in order to maximize the efficient use of (limited) compartment volume. That's why there's beds (with ladders) at the top of the image and no beds at the bottom of the image, because the folded down bunk bed makes it difficult to "see" the sitting area underneath in this top down view of the interior (so I omitted the beds in the bottom staterooms for visual clarity). Each stateroom also has closet storage space (beside the entry), an exterior window and a radiation shielding privacy screen (when people are not inclined to look out the window).
The dimensions on the Box are 6.6x5 deck squares (9.9m x 7.5m, from center of bulkhead to center of bulkhead) in a single deck height (3.0m from center of bulkhead to center of bulkhead).
- 9.9*7.5*3/14 = 15.91071429 displacement tons
There is also a holo lounge communal space available for socializing and relaxing in, when people want to be together rather than just separated into their own personal staterooms. Alternatively, the holo lounge can be replaced with a sick bay, containing an autodoc, medical workstation, privacy screen, closet for medical supplies that do not need to be secured and a locker which can store medical supplies that do need to be secured.
Each room is its own pressure compartment, mainly for damage control purposes, but the freshers in the staterooms are using a partition wall and unpressurized sliding door arrangement to separate the hygiene space from the living space inside each stateroom.
The idea with the 16 ton Box form factor is to create a modularized container that can be stacked in arrays and loaded into cargo holds/hangar bays or even externally docked with and towed by other craft as external loads. Additionally, 16 ton Boxes (I've got multiple varieties) can be deployed as housing/habitat/storage spaces for planetary outposts or by Belters who want to have a place to live (other than their small/big working craft). The EVA airlocks serve adequately as "mud rooms" when dealing with external hostile environments (exotic/corrosive/insidious and tainted atmospheres to vacuum baked regolith).
Here's another version of the same 16 ton Box form factor, but with the staterooms done as suites for occupancy by couples (or extravagant social standing persons who need "too much space" for themselves as a luxury).
Double bed with end tables, closet space, separated toilet and sink area ... and the fresher contains both a shower area and a full sized bath for luxurious heated water immersion bathing. The holo lounge is also upgraded with additional greenery vegetation to enhance the feeling of privilege and luxury.
Anyway, these are just examples of what I can get up to when I've got access to good quality transparent background .png images to carve up and "do stuff" with. Not exactly your "standard" Geomorphs practice, but I'm often times working at scales that are smaller/more fine grained than what the "proper" Geomorphs can do, so I'm basically needing to custom fit everything anyway, piece by individual piece.
Last edited:
This is consistent with comments in the rules to the effect that a 'stateroom' includes access, common areas (and in some rules life support machinery) and so on within it's volume.
Similar threads
