New Traveller Preview
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I like the stuff that is less fantasy-looking and more realistic-looking, like the Cops piece, the Bodyguard piece, and the Desert March piece.
All of your stuff seems to have this space-opera bent to it (wild tatoos, leather outfits, over-sized weapons, etc). I'd like to see you do some more "realistic" looking stuff sans the high-fantasy atmosphere.
One of the reasons I like the X-Boat stuff so much is that it is realistic looking.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I don't mind the spartan-but-functional look of CT deckplans. That said, I've bought some gorgeous deckplans on RPGNow that look good to the players (though they are sometimes less functional and more ambiguous).
Gallowglacht
SOC-12
2mX2mX3.5m will give you 1 square a dton. You could look at the maps that way....
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
So... If what I am reading here is true, does that mean the deck plans in the MGT will all be too small/wrong?
Daniel
Too small, at least in the case of the Scout/Courier. I hope that this mistake was limited to one set of deckplans.
Can't precisely say how much it's too small because the two Scout ship design sequences are contradictory on power plant fuel required. Also, I did overlook the fact that the Seeker carries ten weeks power fuel rather than the normal four weeks. So the Seeker's non-fuel tonnage would be either 60 tons (~120 squares) or 70 tons (~140 square).
The deckplans have about 80 squares.
Ironically, this makes the MGT deckplans *oversized* by as much as 33% given Kharum's claim that he was using 1 square=1 dton.
Of course, I'd prefer oversized deckplans if using a grid based tactical combat system.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Or Mongoose could just admit the mistake and correct it as soon as practicable. If the book's already been printed (or past the point that the plates can be economically corrected), then a downloadable PDF would be a reasonable accomodation. (That would also be a good time to make the outlines more consistent with the iconic Type-S Scout/Courier.)
Changing the grid scale will make the deckplans inconsistent with the combat system and most other Traveller deckplans.
If it's a problem with all the deckplans, them the worst thing Mongoose could do, IMHO, is to pretend that there was no mistake by playing games with the baseline assumptions. It would be blatant lie that could be easily shown as such. (Admissions from the drafters of the deckplans that the squares are 1.5m x 1.5m x 3, for instance). I don't think that customers much like being lied to. But I do think that most folks would be satisfied with a mistake being admitted to, then corrected as soon as practicable.
In my experience, efforts to avoid admitting mistakes create *far* more problems than simply correcting the mistake.
Last edited:
Gallowglacht
SOC-12
That was meant for casquilho. A quick easy fix for him/her maybe, like the old one you use for the scout. Might be enough for casquilho.
Looking at the new deckplan, it seems that the fuel purifier and Air/Raft hold is to small, the cargo bay to big. Allso Engineering would need oversized headroom or be a bit small.
Most of the 5 tons of armor and a good part of the fuel, would be above and below the deckplan shown as buffers to the crew areas. That is where most of the missing dTon is.
Most of the 5 tons of armor and a good part of the fuel, would be above and below the deckplan shown as buffers to the crew areas. That is where most of the missing dTon is.
casquilho
SOC-13
Yep, I understood you ment the idea as a quick solution for me.
But I agree with tbeard that a new PDF download would be a smart fix and not hard for Mongoose to do.
Daniel
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Folks, this is the way to present a deckplan: http://www.sff.net/people/kitsune/traveller/images/t20scoutlg.png
This is Bryan Gibson's version of the 100 ton Scout.
He changed the look of the ship, too. But, compare what he did with the pic shown in the MGT preview. Which ship would you like to use in your game?
Plus, look at the deckplans. Which are more use-able for your game? Which give you a good idea of what the ship looks like inside? See how the deckplans in the link aren't just hallways and hatches?
Suggest MGT up the quality of what they're putting out.
This is Bryan Gibson's version of the 100 ton Scout.
He changed the look of the ship, too. But, compare what he did with the pic shown in the MGT preview. Which ship would you like to use in your game?
Plus, look at the deckplans. Which are more use-able for your game? Which give you a good idea of what the ship looks like inside? See how the deckplans in the link aren't just hallways and hatches?
Suggest MGT up the quality of what they're putting out.
Two weeks of fuel for the Scout's power plant is 2 tons, just like T20 and T5; ten weeks is therefore ten tons and therefore the numbers are right, even if the deck is wrong. So, 70 tons of non-fuel volume. 140 squares.
Very nice graphics. Very, um, accessible or something. And a ten-ton "bridge" too.
Looks like Ted Lindsey's Scout shape, doesn't it?
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
If so, then the preview numbers are right for the Seeker Mining Ship (24 tons), but wrong for the Seeker (which says 40 tons, instead of 30 tons).
So...if you're correct, then the Seeker deckplans should show about 140 squares of non-fuel deck space, instead of the 80 squares it does show.
And a 100 ton ship with Warp-6 drive would burn 6 tons per week, making a Warp drive equipped ship about 7 times more fuel efficient than a Jump drive equipped ship.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Two weeks of what output? At what TL? Both of these are missing from the designs.
Yes. I think the Scout and Seeker were copied from CT, then edited. Fuel is easy to pass over.
Warp, on the other hand, would be relegated to Star Trek games
I believe both are missing on purpose. The drives are 'standard' and 'modules', which probably assumes standardization and tech appropriate for mass production of a known drive product. The funness of modular jump drives is that one ship's J1 is another ship's J6, so everything except perhaps the little jump governor can be produced at TL9... maybe. I don't know what handwave is proper.
I presume moreover that MHG, which is concerned more with customization, may be forced to specify power and TL, and if careless, will end up with Book 2 versus High Guard all over again. Or worse, since MGT uses T5's drives, and therefore implicitly uses T5's power and tech assumptions. If MHG goes a separate route then things get convoluted.
To address what I think is your real point: TL only has bearing if components take advantage of TL benefits. There's no real bearing on ship drives here, because these are mass-produced components, done the same way everywhere in the Imperium.
Maybe.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Good point about the armor, but it isn't enough to save the deckplans. Armor volume should be deleted from internal, non-fuel spaces as well as fuel. So if the fuel tankage is 30 tons, and the armor is 5 tons, then the ship has about 65 tons of internal volume remaining. The deckplans only show 40 tons, so they're still way too small.
I think the reason for this is exactly what it appears to be -- a simple error in translating dtons to deck plan squares. The solution is equally simple--admit the mistake and revise the deckplans. No big deal; mistakes happen.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Kharum1
SOC-12
Hello everyone. I have to make a correction to my statement above. After getting home and checking my notes the deckplans are at 2m by 2m by 3.5m scale to put it at 1 dton per square. This was done to make the mapping process easier. I apologies for any confusion this may have caused.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Why not go with the standard 1.5m per square grid scale? That would be 1 dton for every two squares, given that they are 3m high.
Why did you change from the standard? I'm curious.
Similar threads
