New Traveller Preview

[Echo]

Do liquids change volume much with pressure and temperature, if they remain liquids?

Well, the volume of a quantity of liquid, of any sort, is fixed by it's pressure and temperature. The extent of which for hydrogen I'm not sure, so I'm asking the question. Either way, if we are talking about a ton of the stuff, well, couldn't the volume be quite substantially variable?

 

[Kharum1]

It is easier and faster to count to 100 than 200. It just seem odd to me to have a two squares represent what one could. Besides, it leaves more room for creepy crawlies to move around under and above the player's heads. Hints of the alien movies.

 

[deniable]

Liquids are not compressible by definition. This is why hydraulic systems work. At the temperatures used for cryogenic storage of LHyd there probably isn't much difference from expansion / contraction anyway, so it's all probably moot.

The dTon is just another bit of cruft hanging around from CT, and frankly it's one of the better ones. It's a convenient chunk of volume that maps nicely to deck-plans.

Now, as to the issue of 'standards' in deckplans and ship design:

• In CT, a dTon is 14m³ for 2 1.5 m squares with a 3.1111 m ceiling.
• In MT, a dTon is 13.5 m³ for 2 1.5 m squares with a 3m ceiling.
• In TNE, a dTon is 14m³, for 1 2m square with a 3.5 m ceiling.

So, for those of you arguing for a standard, which one is it?

 

[tbeard1999]

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.

Ignoring the fact that you initially claimed (rather stridently) that the deckplan squares were 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m, MGT preview #2 flatly states "Traveller uses a scale of 1.5 metres per square for personal combat." (p.1 of the preview, 6th paragraph).

So I am struggling with your explanation. Seems to me there are two possibilities.

The first is that you deviated significantly from Mongoose's established scale for your deckplans, then forgot this fact when you initially responded to the observation that your plans were too cramped.

The second is that you made a simple error and assumed one 1.5m x 1.5m square = 1 dton.

<shrug>

The second possibility seems far more likely to me.

Are you sure you didn't just make a simple mistake and assume that a 1.5m x 1.5m x 3m square = 1dton?

 

[tbeard1999]

Liquids are not compressible by definition. This is why hydraulic systems work. At the temperatures used for cryogenic storage of LHyd there probably isn't much difference from expansion / contraction anyway, so it's all probably moot.

The dTon is just another bit of cruft hanging around from CT, and frankly it's one of the better ones. It's a convenient chunk of volume that maps nicely to deck-plans.

Now, as to the issue of 'standards' in deckplans and ship design:

• In CT, a dTon is 14m³ for 2 1.5 m squares with a 3.1111 m ceiling.
• In MT, a dTon is 13.5 m³ for 2 1.5 m squares with a 3m ceiling.
• In TNE, a dTon is 14m³, for 1 2m square with a 3.5 m ceiling.

So, for those of you arguing for a standard, which one is it?

There's not a terribly significant difference between the CT and MT scales. Most Traveller deckplans I've seen (other than GURPS Traveller deckplans) use 1.5m x 1.5m squares. Absent a compelling reason to change, I'd argue for the 1.5 x 1.5m scale with ~2 of them equalling 1 dton. This is consistent with the vast majority of deckplans out there and comports with MGT's stated scale. It also roughly comports with the 5 foot squares found in d20 products (1.5m = 4.9 feet).

In any case, the issue is moot in this discussion, since Mongoose Traveller states that "Traveller uses a scale of 1.5 metres per square for personal combat." I can't think of a good reason for a Mongoose product to unnecessarily deviate from the scale mandated by MGT.

I also think it would be a terrible idea for MGT to change its scale to 2m x 2m just to avoid admitting that its deckplans are too small. Tactical combat systems work best when there's plenty of room for maneuver, Changing the scale so that a 2m x 2m square is one dton would seriously reduce the options for maneuvering. It would also be a pretty obvious ploy that would fool no one.

 

[tbeard1999]

It is easier and faster to count to 100 than 200. It just seem odd to me to have a two squares represent what one could. Besides, it leaves more room for creepy crawlies to move around under and above the player's heads. Hints of the alien movies.

It's hard for me to see how making the deckplans FAR more cramped and therefore seriously limiting the opportunities for tactical maneuver is somehow offset by a 0.3m increase in vertical distance between decks.

 

[JustinThyme]

Curious Addendum

Despite all the descant over contrary data, I was under the impression that the T5 CDROM release was for the sole purpose of errata collection and correction. What is all this talk of Mongoose releasing a hardcopy before the bugs have been worked out ? Doesn't that defeat the intention of MWMs disk ?

 

[aramis]

Despite all the descant over contrary data, I was under the impression that the T5 CDROM release was for the sole purpose of errata collection and correction. What is all this talk of Mongoose releasing a hardcopy before the bugs have been worked out ? Doesn't that defeat the intention of MWMs disk ?

They are different projects.

Mongoose's Traveller isn't the fabled "T5".

 

[Andrew Boulton]

I believe both are missing on purpose.

So it's intentionally broken?

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

That would only be true at TL15, which is the minimum required for J6.

J2 makes the ship at least TL11, but that would give it pretty feeble sensors etc.

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.

I was asking about the power plant, which varies hugely by TL.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

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.

It's very fuzzy, but the key seems to say 1.5m...

 

[casquilho]

I do not care what the truth is regarding the ship plan error, I just want to know that if I pick up a plan it is "right" based on the rules I claim to follow.

If this plan has been made using a wrong standard, or if the artist choked or if there was bad editing, it really does not matter to me why. Fix the ship plan/stats in the book if you can, or if not, then make a free PDF with the corrected pages. Either would be fine by me.

But please do not just make excuses and do nothing. That would be a greater mistake. :nonono:

Daniel

 

[Supplement Four]

It is easier and faster to count to 100 than 200. It just seem odd to me to have a two squares represent what one could.

The standard combat square in MGT is 1.5 m, so it just seems strange to me that you'd choose to differ towards easy counting of dtons rather than easy use as a combat grid inside the ship.

If the MGT players are used to a 1.5 m grid, then it's going to throw them off when they see its a 2 m grid. Plus, if there is no key along with the deckplan (sometimes the size of one square is not listed), then it will be assumed to be 1.5 m, and there will be more problems.

If it were me, I'd quickly re-work the deckplans so that they're on a 1.5 m grid.

 

[aramis]

I was asking about the power plant, which varies hugely by TL.

Not in Bk2 style designs.

The standard combat square in MGT is 1.5 m, so it just seems strange to me that you'd choose to differ towards easy counting of dtons rather than easy use as a combat grid inside the ship.

If the MGT players are used to a 1.5 m grid, then it's going to throw them off when they see its a 2 m grid. Plus, if there is no key along with the deckplan (sometimes the size of one square is not listed), then it will be assumed to be 1.5 m, and there will be more problems.

If it were me, I'd quickly re-work the deckplans so that they're on a 1.5 m grid.

The deckplans do have a scale bar, and are supposedly 1.5m squares. (I checked closely) ANd the staterooms and sensors are done at 2 squares per Td.

 

[far-trader]

If I may offer my take on the thread. I think Kharum was put on the spot and got a little defensive. In an attempt to save the plans, he hoped maybe the 2m square idea offered would work. I don't think it does, nor is it needed.

I'm confident looking at the plans that they are 1.5m squares, that Kharum did them that way, and that it mostly comes out pretty darn close and accurate.

The good thing that leaped out at me first was how close the quarters come to my own plan for them, and right about 16tons (15tons of rooms and common, and 1ton corridor elsewhere).

The first troubling thing that hit me, pretty much right after that was the lower deck. I hoped it wasn't supposed to be aligned where it was shown. And checking the hatches it should be further back. It's bad deckplan presentation to make folk guess where it should line up. It should be shown back further so it lines up across from where it sits below.

I was otherwise fine with the plans, workable enough and close enough, very close in fact. Until I read the key.

What I thought was the cargo bay is listed as the air/raft bay, and what I thought was the air/raft bay is listed as the cargo hold. That has to be an error. No matter what the scale of the squares. Change that, flip those key numbers and even I could live with the plans, quite easily.

 

[tbeard1999]

If I may offer my take on the thread. I think Kharum was put on the spot and got a little defensive. In an attempt to save the plans, he hoped maybe the 2m square idea offered would work. I don't think it does, nor is it needed.

Agreed, although he sorta put himself on the spot IMHO. But mistakes happen in game design; there's nothing shocking or shameful about that. It's no big deal, so long as the error is fixed. And of course, it's possible that at some point in the process, the scale was 2m x 2m. But it isn't now.

A greater problem is that his rationalization will adversely impact the combat system by making starships far more cramped and thereby reducing the utility of the grid based tactical combat system. It will also make MGT deckplans incompatible with the majority of deckplans out there. So I hope Mongoose does not retcon the deckplan scale to cover up a simple mistake. Doing so will have the unintended consequence of making the combat system less useful, which would be a shame.

Ironically, it would probably take less time to simply redo the deckplans than to argue about the scale...

 

[Supplement Four]

If I may offer my take on the thread. I think Kharum was put on the spot and got a little defensive.

Yeah, I think so to. So, this goes out to Kharum.

Hey, Kharum, we mean (or, at least, I mean) no offense. We're just discussing this. I know you're probably a little embarrassed by making the mistake. Whatever. It's not that big a deal--just get it fixed before your stuff is printed!

Make sure the deckplans are fixed before the game goes to print, and it will be no harm, no foul.

No reason to be defensive. Nobody is yelling at you here. We just want the stuff that needs to be corrected to be corrected.

I'll admit, I'm a little worried that this isn't the only deckplan that is like this. And, MGT has said that all ships will have deckplans...so there may be a lot of deckplans that need to be fixed.

Otherwise, the deckplans are pretty much useless.

Here's to hoping that Mongoose fixes this issue. I think the idea that every ship has a deckplan is a very good idea. OTOH, if the deckplans are broken this bad, then they might as well not be there.

 

[Zowy]

I would like to point out, that it is traditonal to have one or more deck plans to be of the wrong scale. Just take a look at Supplement 7: Trades and Gunboats.........
:devil:

 

[far-trader]

A greater problem is that his rationalization will adversely impact the combat system by making starships far more cramped and thereby reducing the utility of the grid based tactical combat system.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right so in advance allow that I may be operating under a false presumption here...

Starships should be more cramped than they have been previously presented. The Mongoose Scout example looks very good on that point. A better representation of the actual size than any official plan I can recall. If the grid based tactical combat system can't deal with cramped enclosed scenarios then that is a fault of the combat system, not the reality of small spaces.

 

[far-trader]

Otherwise, the deckplans are pretty much useless.

...if the deckplans are broken this bad, then they might as well not be there.

Again (maybe I've got a comprehension issue today ) I'm not sure I'm reading right so if I'm wrong I apologize...

I don't see that the plan is wrong. It looks more right than any official one I've seen. The only issue is the (presumably panic driven) assertion that the scale should be 2m. I'm sure the scale should be and is 1.5m and that it is quite accurate and in need of only one fix the way I see it, and that is flipping the key for the air/raft and cargo bays around. And I suspect that may have been a simple transcribing error.

That there may be problems with the numbers in the design (quite separate from the deckplans) is another matter. But what I see on the deckplans matches the design numbers, again except for the cargo and air/raft spaces being flipped. Fuel is a non-issue, it's the stuff around the deckplans that fills in the hull shape. Engineering could be a little bigger but maybe it includes the long corridor and/or is higher than standard deck height.

 

[far-trader]

I would like to point out, that it is traditional to have one or more deck plans to be of the wrong scale. Just take a look at Supplement 7: Trades and Gunboats.........
:devil:

Bah! Some traditions would be better forgotten :smirk: