New Traveller Preview

[MongooseMatt]

With the new Traveller rulebook released at the end of the month, it is time for the penultimate preview of the game. This time, we take a look at the classic Scout ship, in all its new edition goodness!

You can find the previews, along with more information on the new Traveller game at;

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=51

 

[mike wightman]

Very nice - can we be expecting new deck plans for all the standard designs?

Oh, and will there be pack of deckplans or pdf of same as a future release?

 

[Kharum1]

Why yes there are.

 

[kafka47]

Matt, I am very impressed with the rules that I have read in both the playtest document and from the sample pages provided. I am glad that you decided to incorporate more of CT into the game then you would have wanted to...as Traveller has a certain feeling (and we grognards are all about preserving that feeling ... having said that I still await the final text before I pass full judgement).

Matt, the Starships are beautifully rendered. But, why, why did you not keep the rest of the art up to that standard. The other art is ok to downright poor representation. It really surprises me that Mongoose would cheapen out on the art when you have so many fantastic artists at your disposal. Traveller has to a hard gritty feeling with a space opera overtone...get Marc to lend you copies of JTAS to get the right mood to communicate to your artists.

 

[Kharum1]

You know Kafka47, I know a really good artist who would have like to do the artwork for it.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

Can't say I'm hugely impressed. The design system looks a bit primitive, and the deck plans don't match either the design or the illustration.

 

[Kharum1]

I think the plans do match the discription given, at least at the time of the commission of the work.

 

[Kharum1]

I have to take back what I just posted. What I see there is not what I was given to do the deck plans. The fuel was considerable less and there was only one ton allocated to fuel purifaction. I was not responsible for the images of the ships. Which was too bad because I built 3D models for each. Oh well.

 

[tbeard1999]

With the new Traveller rulebook released at the end of the month, it is time for the penultimate preview of the game. This time, we take a look at the classic Scout ship, in all its new edition goodness!

You can find the previews, along with more information on the new Traveller game at;

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/series.php?qsSeries=51

Hopefully, the preview illustrations and deckplans are intentionally low resolution to keep the preview file size down. If not, you'd better call your printer...

 

[tbeard1999]

Can't say I'm hugely impressed. The design system looks a bit primitive, and the deck plans don't match either the design or the illustration.

The shape on the deckplans is wrong, but the internal layout of the Seeker could work (though its too small). However, the air raft bay is too small and the cargo hold is too big...transposing them (and assuming 1 ton of cargo is stored in the air raft bay) would make them come out. I counted 80 squares used for non-fuel purposes on the Seeker plans, which would work out to an internal volume of 40 dtons. The Seeker design sheet has 76 tons allocated to non-fuel purposes, so the deckplans are overly cramped. <sigh> The Type-S scout is Traveller's X-Wing Fighter or Firefly's, uh, Firefly, for cripes sake. Couldn't they at least get this one right?

You could make the plans come closer by assuming each square is 2m x 2m rather than the standard 1.5m x 1.5m. Lousy choice, since the combat system is geared to 1.5m squares.

Overly cramped ship plans make it a lot harder to run combats if the combat system uses a grid based tactical movement system (as MGT does). Mongoose might want to add this section to their errata list.

The design system is a lineal descendant of the CT Book 2 design system. I happen to like the Book 2 system, so I'm fine with the MGT variant. I only hope that the big ship design system is compatible...

EDIT--All that said, a design system based on formulas rather than charts would be more concise. And since I use spreadsheets, it would be easier to implement (though Excel's lookup tables were a gamer's answered prayer).

 

[Supplement Four]

I'm not impressed either. We should be moving forward with the look of deckplans. Check out DGP's deckplans for the Beowulf in the SOM. Heck, look at some of the fan made deckplans out there--some fan made deck plans blow these usual-general-since-the-1970's deckplans out of the water.

As others have said, the illo of the ship doesn't match the deckplans. The cockpit viewports have been changed from the classic design. If you're going to change the design a bit, at least do it for the better (use the T20 scout ship that Gibson did for T20...different design, but a damn cool looking ship).

Again, I am not so impressed with Mongoose Traveller.

 

[Supplement Four]

I have to take back what I just posted. What I see there is not what I was given to do the deck plans. The fuel was considerable less and there was only one ton allocated to fuel purifaction. I was not responsible for the images of the ships. Which was too bad because I built 3D models for each. Oh well.

And, I've seen your work in the past. Your 3-D models are breath-taking.

What we're getting in the MGT book looks like it could have been copied out of an old GDW or Judges Guild book from the 70's.

 

[Kharum1]

AHHH tbeard1999,
I was waiting for your comments. It always makes for an interesting read. I have to speak up here though. I do agree that the shape of the ship is different, slightly. It was requested the 70-ish standard deck plan style be held. I had something completely different in mind but you do what they are paying you for. I believe that they wanted to correct the deckplans of the past. If you look at the plans in any of the OTU books you will find that the ships are actually 2 to 3 times the size that they are listed. The scout ship you hold so dear was too large for its designation. The far trader, fat trader, and free trader all were twice the tonnage listed, if not more. So, correcting a mistake that has been perpetuated from one version of Traveller to the next is a good thing.

The scale of the deckplan is 1.5m by 1.5m by 3m per grid square. I believe that those dimensions equals 1 dton, correct? If that holds true than that would be 100 squares, correct? Not rocket science here. I hope you didn't think that one square was only 1.5m cubed. That would make for a lot of short people flying around the galaxy. (This is not meant to upset or discrimminate against any vertically challenged people) So 80 squares would not equal 40 tons.

As I said above that the description was changed. The orginal 40 dtons of fuel was too much for what was listed so it was cut back to 30 tons. This gave up 10 tons to be used for other areas, namely cargo. The air/raft is a four ton object so four tons had been allocated to it. The air/raft berth is not a maintenance bay. It is there to hold the vehicle in place and that is about it. Thinking about it, this plan is actually larger than 100 dtons. I think it is around 116 tons. I'm sorry that it strays away from the original deck plan but all things change.

 

[Kharum1]

And, I've seen your work in the past. Your 3-D models are breath-taking.

What we're getting in the MGT book looks like it could have been copied out of an old GDW or Judges Guild book from the 70's.

Thanks for the compliment. It means a lot to know that people like my work.

 

[Supplement Four]

Thanks for the compliment. It means a lot to know that people like my work.

Check out who started the thread that brought your work to Hunter's attention last year. It was your X-Boat stuff.

 

[Kharum1]

Check out who started the thread that brought your work to Hunter's attention last year. It was your X-Boat stuff.

My X-boat stuff? I haven't done any. Sorry to say that you have me confused with another artist. I know the images you are speaking of and those are not mine. They are great peices of work and I'm sure that I can do the same if not better. Matter of fact, that was the approach I wanted to take with Mongoose Traveller but...they wanted to have plans that could be used for the game and not just as artwork. Also, it would have costed them a lot more for those images. Thanks anyway.

 

[Supplement Four]

My X-boat stuff? I haven't done any. Sorry to say that you have me confused with another artist. I know the images you are speaking of and those are not mine. They are great peices of work and I'm sure that I can do the same if not better. Matter of fact, that was the approach I wanted to take with Mongoose Traveller but...they wanted to have plans that could be used for the game and not just as artwork. Also, it would have costed them a lot more for those images. Thanks anyway.

Ooops! I would have sworn those where yours. o: My mistake, then.

 

[Kharum1]

Ooops! I would have sworn those where yours. o: My mistake, then.

So you don't like my work?

 

[Gallowglacht]

The scale of the deckplan is 1.5m by 1.5m by 3m per grid square. I believe that those dimensions equals 1 dton, correct? If that holds true than that would be 100 squares, correct? Not rocket science here. I hope you didn't think that one square was only 1.5m cubed. That would make for a lot of short people flying around the galaxy. (This is not meant to upset or discrimminate against any vertically challenged people) So 80 squares would not equal 40 tons.

I thought 2 squares equal 1dTon. 3x3x1.5= 13.5 m3

 

[tbeard1999]

AHHH tbeard1999,
I was waiting for your comments. It always makes for an interesting read. I have to speak up here though.

Glad to be of service...

I do agree that the shape of the ship is different, slightly. It was requested the 70-ish standard deck plan style be held. I had something completely different in mind but you do what they are paying you for.

I wasn't criticizing the shape itself, but rather the decision to alter an iconic Traveller ship. Seems a needless thing to do, especially since the internal layout was pretty faithful to the original. I'd like to see the 3D rendering of the ship you designed, though.

I believe that they wanted to correct the deckplans of the past. If you look at the plans in any of the OTU books you will find that the ships are actually 2 to 3 times the size that they are listed.

That's been widely acknowledged, but I don't think it applies across the board to every deckplan GDW created.

The scout ship you hold so dear was too large for its designation.

Agreed. It shows about 136% of the volume that one would expect. I always rationalized that by claiming that the ceilings were a bit lower than one would expect (2.5 meter deck clearances would get the deckplans within 10% of the stated internal non-fuel volume).

So, correcting a mistake that has been perpetuated from one version of Traveller to the next is a good thing.

Agreed...but you didn't correct a mistake, you -- or someone -- committed another mistake that was worse (or at least as bad).

The scale of the deckplan is 1.5m by 1.5m by 3m per grid square. I believe that those dimensions equals 1 dton, correct?

No, it doesn't. 1dton is equal to the volume of a ton of liquid hydrogen, which is about 14 cubic meters. The rule of thumb is 1 ton per 2 deck squares, with an additional 5-10% allowed.

If that holds true than that would be 100 squares, correct? Not rocket science here. I hope you didn't think that one square was only 1.5m cubed. That would make for a lot of short people flying around the galaxy. (This is not meant to upset or discrimminate against any vertically challenged people) So 80 squares would not equal 40 tons.

Well it may not be rocket science, but it's more than political science, I guess.

In any case, your mistake is easy to identify -- you assumed 1 square per dton when it's been established in Traveller for about 30 years that 2 squares~1 dton. So your plans are too small for the ship specifications.

I'm sorry that it strays away from the original deck plan but all things change.

I don't mind changes, but I object to needless and poorly implemented ones.