Then we understand diferently. See that where I said "TL restrictions for jump" I could have said "TL requirements for jump" and I guess it would be correct too...
You're right here, my fault. It's celar I missread it...
General I don't understand the Patrol Cruiser...
- Thread starter Spinward Scout
- Start date
Then we understand diferently. See that where I said "TL restrictions for jump" I could have said "TL requirements for jump" and I guess it would be correct too...
You're right here, my fault. It's celar I missread it...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
I think we can both agree that LBB2 played "as fast and loose" as possible with the rules so as to leave LOTS of wiggle room for Referees. I would argue that local tech levels ought to be "respected" when it comes to starship construction ... especially if the intention is to construct craft using local supply chains ONLY.
However, if an interested party makes arrangement for the appropriate IMPORT of higher tech components (and the expertise needed to incorporate them in a design) to be included in starship construction from elsewhere ... then that tech level limitation might "shift" a little bit, wouldn't it?
Note that such a scenario can make for a decent adventure hook, if the Referee plays it right.
A high tech starship that has broken down has been abandoned by the former owners who couldn't fix it after a breakdown that prevented the starship from being spaceworthy due to the local tech level not being high enough to source the replacement parts needed. The PCs organize an expedition to import the necessary parts and expertise to get the high tech starship operational again so they can fly away with it and start adventuring.
I've already addressed this point about the mismatch between LBB2 and LBB5 with respect to tech levels in another thread.
Links relevant parts of other thread HERE and HERE.
By taking the "hardware PLUS software" approach that I detail in the other thread, you can "solve the mismatch" problem between LBB2 drive output capabilities and LBB5 drive threshold limits rather nicely and neatly.
The interpretation you need is that LBB2.81 standard drives have ALWAYS been capable of J1-6 regardless of tech level (just look at the drive performance chart in different hull sizes if you don't believe me!) ... so the limitation was never one of engineering HARDWARE.
Instead, the limitation on LBB2.81 standard drive performance for jump has always been one of SOFTWARE and having sufficient compute power (model numbers have their own tech level restrictions) to run the necessary software to control the jumps.
That way, you can still interpret things as working like so:
- Jump-1 software program is perfected by TL=9
- Jump-2 software program is perfected by TL=11
- Jump-3 software program is perfected by TL=12
- Jump-4 software program is perfected by TL=13
- Jump-5 software program is perfected by TL=14
- Jump-6 software program is perfected by TL=15
Software is "portable" like that, you know.
CORRECT.
LBB5.80 would not.
LBB5.80 would require a TL=12 minimum for J3 performance in ANY starship, regardless of hull size.
LBB2.81 is different.
Shocking, isn't it?
LBB2.81 DOES permit a TL=10 starship to have J3 performance, at specific hull sizes relative to standard drive letters, but also requires sufficient computer model AND the software program to achieve that performance.
Simply add a TL=12 requirement to the Jump-3 software program and you're not breaking anything relevant to LBB5.80.
Software is not that expensive to import into a shipyard ... so once the Jump-3 software program for LBB2.81 drives can be perfected somewhere @ TL=12 (doesn't matter where that much) ... that Jump-3 software program can be exported and proliferated to every shipyard, regardless of tech level.
And THAT is how a TL=10 starship using LBB2.81 standard drives at a TL=10 shipyard can achieve J3 ... provided that someplace somewhere else developed the necessary software programming to control Jump-3 performance, presumably at a different location @ TL=12 first.
So rather than being a "single hurdle" problem, where all you have to do is look at the local tech level and you're done with respect to custom drives performance (LBB5.80) ... with standard drives performance (LBB2.81) you've got a "double hurdle" in which the local tech level can be a limit on the drive letter(s) available for construction from local suppliers (hurdle 1), but the software needed to control those drives can be imported from elsewhere "no problem" (hurdle 2) allowing lower tech starships to produce "anachronistic" performance profiles relative to LBB5.80 requirements.
That way, the higher capability was "always there" inside the hardware (at specific hull displacement ratios) ... but it takes the additional development of increasingly complex software to "unlock" that full potential in the jump drives.
So in practice, you can design a starship with LBB2.81 standard drives that are capable of J3 in a particular form factor hull displacement ... but if the maximum technology available in the setting is TL=11, then the maximum jump software program obtainable is going to be Jump-2 (because, TL=11 is maximum). However, if there is a breakthrough somewhere and the Jump-3 software program becomes available (a TL=12 development), then the legacy hardware LBB2.81 standard drives that have ALWAYS BEEN CAPABLE of J3 but were limited to J2 by software would have that limitation removed by a software "patch" upgrade and become capable of delivering J3 performance without modifying the hardware.
It's a ... more nuanced ... view of the question, which then leads to a more texture rich and interesting set of opportunities for world building in Traveller settings.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
I know this makes me sound like a heretic, but I've never heard any players question how a ship was built or worry too much about TL levels it was built on. The ship was just a prop to move from one adventure to another. I think most players I've known are fine using S-7 and FASA deck plans. When making up a new ship I always try to go by the rules but it's mostly for me.
The implication built into LBB1-3 alone is small ships getting into larger ships without the range cruft, only getting into larger ships as tech progresses. Perfectly legit to go with that long as the OTU is not involved.
Computers have jump limits independent of the above interpretation by CPU vs Jump programs themselves. MgT chose to ride that train a little more firmly.
Computers have jump limits independent of the above interpretation by CPU vs Jump programs themselves. MgT chose to ride that train a little more firmly.
I've already addressed this point about the mismatch between LBB2 and LBB5 with respect to tech levels in another thread.
Links relevant parts of other thread HERE and HERE.
By taking the "hardware PLUS software" approach that I detail in the other thread, you can "solve the mismatch" problem between LBB2 drive output capabilities and LBB5 drive threshold limits rather nicely and neatly.
The interpretation you need is that LBB2.81 standard drives have ALWAYS been capable of J1-6 regardless of tech level (just look at the drive performance chart in different hull sizes if you don't believe me!) ... so the limitation was never one of engineering HARDWARE.
I would not say you adressed it, though you gave a plausible reason, but, as I answered you there, your explanation is not supported by canon, and, while acceptable and quite usable IYTU, is not what is guiven in OTU canon history.
That's why I agreed with AnotherDilbert that, if greater jumps than what are given in LBB5 are accepted, the OTU setting is broken.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
It makes you sound like perfectly normal well-adjusted human. It's just that some of us have peculiar interests...
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
It walks like a duck.
It quacks like a duck.
It even flies like a duck.
But because the canon sources don't stick a big label on it that explicitly reads, "DUCK" ... it can't possibly be a duck, except IYTU.
Hey ... you do you, boo.
The OTU setting is only "broken" as you put it if you are so stubborn as to refuse to accept alternatives to the One True Narrative™ interpretation that you have rather determinedly welded yourself to.
I've given you an answer that meets the challenge in a way that solves the problem ... and you've refused to accept it as even being possible as an explanation for the OTU ... despite the fact that the OTU itself is completely and utterly SILENT with regards to the definitively "correct" answer to the question.
I've tried to help you reconcile the two paradigms of starship design.
You've refused to accept the conclusions that would resolve the contradiction.
There you are.
And presumably, that is where you will stay.
To be fair, you have the same thing in the real world with respect to vehicles and computers.
Some people are "gear heads" who love to dig into the technical and technological details of cars, trucks, planes, trains, boats ... you name it ... while other people care about little more than using such vehicles for transit from Point A to Point B. Most people don't NEED to know how everything works (under the hood!) in order to use such modern marvels ... all they care about are the questions of "does it work?" followed by "can I use it?" and that's the end of it.
Same thing happens with computing technology, although in computing you're starting to see specialized disciplines appear for hardware, software, networking and cloud computing use cases. Some people know the details about every single integrated circuit and power supply involved in modern computers ... but most people only care about "does it work?" followed by the question of "can I use it?" and that's kind of the end of it in terms of in depth knowledge (or desire to know more).
Power comes out of the wall when I stick a (correct kind of) plug into it. I don't need to know where the power comes from or how it got made ... I just need to know that it's there when I want to use it.
Turn on a water faucet and water flows out of it. I don't need to be a plumber in order to know why that happens, but I do need to be a plumber if I want to fix it when something goes wrong.
The same thing happens with starships. Most Players will only focus on what can be DONE with a starship ... and pay little to no mind as to how starships get MADE (or even what it takes to keep them operational after construction).
But then there are the "gear heads" among us who get rather interested in the sausage making process, rather than just merely caring about how the sausages taste when eaten.
To start with, @AnotherDilbert pretty much has it right -- a lot of the time, the details dont matter at all. The PCs are in a ship, the ship can do this and it looks like that, and that's as far as you need to go into it.
As an example, the FASA plans for the Patrol Cruiser are probably fine for most interactions that a player party will have with one. It's the cops that pulled you over, come aboard to chat then go on your way. Or, you're being taken prisoner (pirates, law enforcement) and have to sneak (or fight) your way out.
It works well enough for that. In those scenarios, the "missing" three staterooms worth of living space (and four actual rooms-designated-as-staterooms that aren't there!) simply won't matter. If your party is playing as the crew of the ship though, accompanied by the full ensemble cast of NPCs to fill out the crew roster -- this becomes a problem.
Likewise, the Supp 7 Type S is fine until you run into its issues. Pick up 10 tons of high-demand video game consoles? Stuff 'em in the main cargo bay, the one up front by the nose landing gear, up in the attic, and a few boxes end up in the main lounge. No problem!
.... except that the basement storage up front, and the attic space, isn't really there! (Using the TL-9 standard drives by the rules, allows only 3 tons of cargo). At a higher TL (bringing in LBB5, basically) you might get that much space, mostly due to the different fuel use rules and power plant size. This is, of course, ignoring that the upper and lower spaces don't actually fit into the hull as drawn, but that's a separate problem.
But most of the time, the logistics of sustaining high tech out on the frontier won't intrude on the narrative, and that's fine. Sometimes it does -- or it can even drive the story. It's usually down to how you play the game.
For some Traveller is building spacecraft, others it's building worlds, and then others it's all about character generation. For me the last two are the ones I like best, because that's where most of the action takes place and the ones who are doing all the cool stuff. Don't get me wrong I like doing spacecraft and a dungeon crawl in a large ship can be a lot of fun. I guess worrying about getting all the numbers to work all the time, to me, get in the way of a good story sometimes.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
Granted, not everyone enjoys playing "Paper Pushers and Paychecks" as part of their gaming experience. It feels too much like ... work ...
And most of this stuff can happen in the background -- only the people who want to be sticklers for detail need to go that far into the weeds.
The techincal phrase for this is Design/Detail Only As Really Necessary (DORAN).
The techincal phrase for this is Design/Detail Only As Really Necessary (DORAN).
Even if you kept just the ships boat, that’s lot of cargo space that could be used for additional life support and manoeuvring fuel, giving it even greater endurance as a non-naval patrol vessel.
Or just common space for the ship's troops to exercise and train in at the very least, because there's very little of it in the FASA plans otherwise. (This is not uncommon on the early designs...)
That’s where folding bunks, clean-decks policy and strict inspections can provide more space for the collective
Yes, though it's been a trend over the years. Early deck plans usually had 3-ton rooms (or more!) with 1 ton per room (or less) allocated for common space (as in the Type S, here -- note that the crew lounge is space that's more than is supposed to be there*). More recent ones have about 2 tons per room, and 2 tons of shared space per room.
The FASA Type T (see here) had essentially no shared living space. The ship's troops had a break room as part of their barracks, but there was nothing on the main crew quarters deck.
-------
* basically, the "stateroom" space allocation should just be where the rooms are, plus one deck plan square. The lounge is extra space they just draw in there...
Last edited:
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 5K
4 tons displacement = 4*14 = 56m3
With a 3m deck height allocation (including 0.5m in floor and/or ceiling for "services") you get: 56/3 = 18.6672 of deck area
At 1.5x1.5m per deck square on deck plans, you wind up with 56/3/1.5/1.5=8.296296296296296 so let's just call it 8.3 deck squares of space allocation per stateroom.
Note that you're going to want that 8.3 deck squares of space allocation per stateroom to include access corridor "walkable space" so you don't have to use teleport pads to get into/out of staterooms.
So if you have 2 staterooms facing each other across a central hallway running down the middle between the 2 staterooms ... if the 2 staterooms enclose a 2x3 deck squares space each (think LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier staterooms) and have a 1x3 squares corridor running between them, you have a 5x3 deck squares space allocation for 2 staterooms on the deck plan. That leaves a combined 1.6 deck squares of space "left over" for common areas per 2 staterooms allocated.
So to get pedantic about it, if you've got 4 staterooms in a 2x2 arrangement along a central corridor down the middle (again, think LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier deck plan), those 4 staterooms are going to occupy a rectangular block on the deck plan of 5x6=30 deck squares ... but 8.3*4=33.2 deck squares, which we'll simplify down to just 33 deck squares for convenience.
In other words, the LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier deck plans ought to have ... a mere 3 deck squares of Common Area (probably just a single 1x2 fresher if you include the extension of the access corridor requiring 1 deck square for walkable space!) between them outside the partition walls of the four 2x3 deck square staterooms.
Which means that the (so called) Common Area forward of the drive bay and the "lounge" area on the portside of the drive bay in the LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier deck plan must come from some displacement allocation other than staterooms ... with the most likely culprit/source of that volume allocation being the 20 tons that must be dedicated to the starship bridge.
To me, this means that legacy deck plans such as the LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier are more "fanciful and soft sci-fi/romanticized" notions for deck plans than they are serious attempts to reconcile the starship construction system with a 3D model of geometry and volumes. So more of a "made for 2D TV" notion than a being a more realistic "made for Trideo" attempt at workable 3D.
Of course, the tools available for proofing deck plan designs back in the late-70s/early-80s were positively PRIMITIVE(!) compared to the 3D CAD tools we have available to us today, so the discrepancies seen in LBB S7 are at least understandable, given the production and publishing constraints of the era when LBB S7 was printed.
With a 3m deck height allocation (including 0.5m in floor and/or ceiling for "services") you get: 56/3 = 18.6672 of deck area
At 1.5x1.5m per deck square on deck plans, you wind up with 56/3/1.5/1.5=8.296296296296296 so let's just call it 8.3 deck squares of space allocation per stateroom.
Note that you're going to want that 8.3 deck squares of space allocation per stateroom to include access corridor "walkable space" so you don't have to use teleport pads to get into/out of staterooms.
So if you have 2 staterooms facing each other across a central hallway running down the middle between the 2 staterooms ... if the 2 staterooms enclose a 2x3 deck squares space each (think LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier staterooms) and have a 1x3 squares corridor running between them, you have a 5x3 deck squares space allocation for 2 staterooms on the deck plan. That leaves a combined 1.6 deck squares of space "left over" for common areas per 2 staterooms allocated.
So to get pedantic about it, if you've got 4 staterooms in a 2x2 arrangement along a central corridor down the middle (again, think LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier deck plan), those 4 staterooms are going to occupy a rectangular block on the deck plan of 5x6=30 deck squares ... but 8.3*4=33.2 deck squares, which we'll simplify down to just 33 deck squares for convenience.
In other words, the LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier deck plans ought to have ... a mere 3 deck squares of Common Area (probably just a single 1x2 fresher if you include the extension of the access corridor requiring 1 deck square for walkable space!) between them outside the partition walls of the four 2x3 deck square staterooms.
Which means that the (so called) Common Area forward of the drive bay and the "lounge" area on the portside of the drive bay in the LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier deck plan must come from some displacement allocation other than staterooms ... with the most likely culprit/source of that volume allocation being the 20 tons that must be dedicated to the starship bridge.
To me, this means that legacy deck plans such as the LBB S7 Type-S Scout/Courier are more "fanciful and soft sci-fi/romanticized" notions for deck plans than they are serious attempts to reconcile the starship construction system with a 3D model of geometry and volumes. So more of a "made for 2D TV" notion than a being a more realistic "made for Trideo" attempt at workable 3D.
Of course, the tools available for proofing deck plan designs back in the late-70s/early-80s were positively PRIMITIVE(!) compared to the 3D CAD tools we have available to us today, so the discrepancies seen in LBB S7 are at least understandable, given the production and publishing constraints of the era when LBB S7 was printed.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
The real important factor is the range of the artificial gravity field.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The 1 Dt ≈ 14 m3 was introduced in LBB5'79.
Using just LBB2'77 deck plan sizes were undefined. So they were completely correct by LBB2'77 standards...
Other than the geometrically impossible layout (stuff didn't fit), sure.
Geeze, I knew that......
Went and looked, all of the vehicles in the '77 edition are masses, not volumes....
Similar threads
- Article
