Differences in Deck Plans
- Thread starter aeontrin
- Start date
As a quick and dirty 'rule of thumb', each square on a deckplan represents 0.5 tons of displacement. By counting the squares on a deckplan, one can quickly determing the approximate size of ship. Most CT deckplans (often duplicated exactly in MT) are very far off in size, some deckplans depicting twice as much tonnage as the ships they are intended to represent.
MgT attempted to 'reimagine' the ships and deckplans, thus made changes from the original for technical reasons (like flawed original deckplans) or artistic license.
Thus the differences (and no flame war).
MgT attempted to 'reimagine' the ships and deckplans, thus made changes from the original for technical reasons (like flawed original deckplans) or artistic license.
Thus the differences (and no flame war).
Still, I probably will use the old ones (particularly the Scout which bothers me because of that wide lower deck and because of the overly large bridge).
I greatly prefer the clean lines of the original scout to it's later incarnations, but that deckplan (if projected into 3D) will not fit within that wedge shape.
In addition, the CT design rules (LBB2 and HG) both require 20 tons of bridge for any ship of 100 tons or more. It is hard to designate 40 squares on that deckplan as "Bridge" without including a big chunk of the commons.
Functionally, it is a nice deckplan. It just doesn't match the rules or illustration of the ship.
I don't think the MGT version of the Scout addresses the wedge problem either, with that wide lower deck.
Also, IIRC, the bridge on the CT Scout did not map out to 20 dTons either.
Later,
Will
You are correct on both accounts - but I am trying hard to look at the positive in MgT.
Why is it that after 30+ years of trying that none of the official deckplans for Scout Ships (arguably the most frequently encountered PC ship) are able to fit within their hulls? There are incredibly talented ametuers and professionals playing this game, but the 'official' deckplan is never even close to fitting.
The whole 20 ton bridge for 100 to 1000 ton ships annoys the heck out of me. After all, a 1 person 'bridge' on a scout is the same size as the 10 person bridge on a superfreighter (both are 20 tons). So where are all of the "comminications", "sensors", "avionics" and "air locks" (that consume so much of the bridge on a scout) on the 1000 ton ship, where all 20 tons are dedicated to crew stations? Why does a 1000 ton ship need so much less equipment than a 100 ton ship? Why does a 100 ton ship need so much more equipment than a 1000 ton ship?
Just stick with bridge = 2% of the ship for all sizes.
Then the physical 'bridge' on the scout deckplan is just about right.
But Marc and Matt didn't ask me.
Last edited:
ThunderChilde
SOC-13
Meh, 4 tons is awfully tight for a 100 ton ship. It seems to me that there is an absolute minimum size for a bridge. The cockpits of all the middle to large airliners are fairly similar in size, and frankly a "Scout Ship" would need a bit more space than a frieghter, just for all the advanced comms and sensors that are thier stock in trade.
Just my .02 CrImp
Just my .02 CrImp
the bridge is about command and control. as ships get larger they require larger and more robust systems to exercise that control, and not all of those systems will be "on the bridge". for example: docking stations, electrical distribution load centers, engineering operating stations, local control panels, landing gear operation stations, flight control station, damage control stations, auxiliary fuel pump stations, captain's day room, ship's external office, ship's internal office, staff officer offices, all the lockers necessary to hold the equipment to maintain that equipment, and all the space necessary to access that equipment. big naval ships will have a quarterdeck, an admiral's battle station, a master-at-arms security station, and maybe a marine assault command station.
if big bridges are seriously annoying then one may implement house rules, such counting the computer as bridge and not counting fuel, cargo, and armor dtonnage towards the bridge size requirement (in my opinion this works well). or one may detail each component of a bridge and then count towards dtonnage only those components that are included in the design (far too detailed for anything I want to do in a game).
Last edited:
Larger than 10 man Bridge Crews.
The part that bothers me is the trading of Equipment for Bridge Crew as the ship get's larger.
I could accept a design assumption that all starships require comparable 20 ton bridges, but then they all need similar spaces for crew and the supporting equipment.
Looking at this in aircraft terms, I could accept that a Boeing 707 and a Boeing 747 both need a three man crew and 10 cubic meters of avionics. I cannot accept that a Piper Cub and a 747 both have the same size cockpit, but the Piper has a single pilot seat and a huge avionics suite while the 747 has a 6 man flight crew and an avionics suite that fits in a lunch box. That is just wierd.
1. If the scout ship followed your example, its bridge would need the same 3 to 5 man crew as any other freighter. Then the one-size-fits-all bridge makes sense, but the crew rules are wrong.
2. The "advanced comms and sensors" are a red herring. ANY 100 ton ship reguardless of its mission would require 20 tons of bridge. If the comms and sensors are indeed exceptional, then the Scout Bridge needs ADDITIONAL tonnage above and beyond the basic 20 ton commercial bridge that even a tanker would need.
It is fairly close in overall tonnage, but the commons is too large (unless one counts it as bridge, which is a stretch) and it comes nowhere near fitting in the hull.
I neglected to respond earlier, but nice plan. Probably a little tight at the edges, but MUCH better than the original. I actually created a 3D model of the hull and sliced it to calculate the shapes and headrooms for the various decks. A blocky plan (like yours and the official plans) end up with sloping floors and roofs that render half of the staterooms unusable. I couldn't create a deckplan that functioned well within the hull - too many thin wedges.
I did mine with minimal wedging. You'll note that the cargo areas off the commons (which said commons are mixed bridge and stateroom) are not full height the whole way, either.
It's a T20 design (with HG conversion notes), so it came out with well more than 3 tons of cargo space....
It's a T20 design (with HG conversion notes), so it came out with well more than 3 tons of cargo space....
Similar threads
