Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
Well, yeah, but that's been obsolete for 28 years and is so crippled it's unusable. TL matters in HG, MT, TNE, T4, GT and T20, therefore *TL matters.*.
New Traveller Preview
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Well, yeah, but that's been obsolete for 28 years and is so crippled it's unusable. TL matters in HG, MT, TNE, T4, GT and T20, therefore *TL matters.*.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I haven't studied the deckplan closely myself--just going by what my learned comrads here have said. But, I thought the deckplan represented a 50 ton vessels rather than a 100 ton vessel.
What's the case? Have I mis-understood?
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I only looked at it casually, but took a quick count of select areas and found it good. I took it to be a standard 100ton Scout hull. Some of the talk of square counting seemed off and based on 2m squares or forgetting some of the lost volume (fuel, bridge,etc.) stuff.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
White previous deckplans may have erred on making ships too roomy, the MGT scout has about 60% of the interior space that it should have. I don't really see why past errors should somehow justify current errors in the opposite direction.
It's been established in Traveller for about 30 years that a "ton" was the volume of a ton of liquid hydrogen, or about 14 cubic meters. The most common Traveller deckplan scale has used 1.5m squares. MGT flatly states that this is the scale, both in the text and on the Scout plans themselves.
Yet the Scout deckplans have about *half* the interior space that they should have. So I cannot agree that they are reasonably accurate.
Worse, as I've said before, undersized deckplans make the tactical combat system far less useful because they provide far less scope for maneuver.
Nor can I agree with your statement that these plans are "
[a] better representation of the actual size than any official plan I can recall. ..."
The GDW plans in Supplement 7 overstated the Scout's internal non-fuel space size by about 36%; these plans understate it by more. I see no reason to extoll the latter; in fact, I'd prefer the older plans just because they'd allow for more maneuvering in combat.
But the deckplans are *too small*, unless you're buying the post hoc rationalization that the scale was "really" 2m x 2m (which I don't, for numerous reasons already covered). And if you do buy that explanation, the deckplans are too large.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I don't think that it's that complicated.
If the deckplans use the indicated standard scale of 1.5m squares with ~3.1m between decks, then the plans show only about 60% of the interior (i.e., non-fuel, non-armor) space that the design specifications called for.
There are about 65 tons of "interior space". This should be represented by about 130 squares on the plans. But there are only about 88 squares of internal space on the blueprints. The Seeker Mining Ship has about 61 tons of interior space, which should be represented by about 120 squares. It's plans are closer, with 94 squares.
Space allocated to fuel and armor are not shown on the deckplans and are therefore excluded from my critique.
In other words, the deckplans are too cramped.
I don't think I can say it any clearer than that.
And there are really only two fixes--
1. Redraw the plans (or add new spaces); or
2. Redefine the scale so that each square represents a dton (which is what the deckplan artist claimed).
I object to #2 because it (a) is inconsistent with most Traveller deckplans; and (b) limits the grid based tactical combat system.
And #2 ironically makes the deckplans *oversized* by a considerable margin (the Seeker would be 35% too large and the mining ship would be 27% too large).
Last edited:
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
JD should be 20sq, it's actually 6
MD should be 4sq, it's actually 4 - wow!
PP should be 8sq, it's actually 2
Fuel P should be 4sq, it's actually 1
BTW, the JD and MD sizes break canon - they should be 5dt and 3dt...
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Well, taking the type S numbers I only see 42tons that can be easily called interior:
Jump Drive 10tons - shows 3tons (one is B2 one is B5 looks like)
Maneuver Drive 2tons - shows 2tons
Powerplant 4tons - shows 1/2ton
Total Drives space 16tons - shows 13tons+ if including surrounding access
(personally I prefer that the actual is only half the space with the rest for access and such)
Computer/Electronics 2tons - shows 2tons
Cargo 3tons - shows 2tons (though it could go 4.5m high and be 3tons)
Staterooms 16tons - shows 15tons (and 1 ton somewhere else for access, like in the Air/Raft hanger)
Probes 1ton - shows 1ton
Air/Raft 4tons - shows 6.5tons (some could be access from above)
So, overall I make that very close.
Design 42 tons - shown 41.5tons (or thereabout)
Total 82 squares by my count for 41tons.
Counting the bridge is tricky so I leave it out. Some of the space is not shown obviously.
Sure I'd pick a few nits with the actual drives breakdown, and as noted the Air/Raft and cargo should be flipped.
That's the way I see it.
Jump Drive 10tons - shows 3tons (one is B2 one is B5 looks like)
Maneuver Drive 2tons - shows 2tons
Powerplant 4tons - shows 1/2ton
Total Drives space 16tons - shows 13tons+ if including surrounding access
(personally I prefer that the actual is only half the space with the rest for access and such)
Computer/Electronics 2tons - shows 2tons
Cargo 3tons - shows 2tons (though it could go 4.5m high and be 3tons)
Staterooms 16tons - shows 15tons (and 1 ton somewhere else for access, like in the Air/Raft hanger)
Probes 1ton - shows 1ton
Air/Raft 4tons - shows 6.5tons (some could be access from above)
So, overall I make that very close.
Design 42 tons - shown 41.5tons (or thereabout)
Total 82 squares by my count for 41tons.
Counting the bridge is tricky so I leave it out. Some of the space is not shown obviously.
Sure I'd pick a few nits with the actual drives breakdown, and as noted the Air/Raft and cargo should be flipped.
That's the way I see it.
MoTrav essentially is Bk2, and so, no, it doesn't.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
If I had only one nit to pick on this whole deckplan/design/image issue it is (apparently) splitting it into three separate assignments.
Mongoose seems to have got this wrong, no worse than some others in the past, and made the mistake of splitting the work up.
If one person were tasked with doing all three as a whole it would be much better and allow fewer errors of difference to creep in. Which seems to me the biggest flaw in the package and source of the problems.
Of course I also wonder why the differences and such weren't caught sooner. Deadline pressure, flawed editorial review, who knows.
Mongoose seems to have got this wrong, no worse than some others in the past, and made the mistake of splitting the work up.
If one person were tasked with doing all three as a whole it would be much better and allow fewer errors of difference to creep in. Which seems to me the biggest flaw in the package and source of the problems.
Of course I also wonder why the differences and such weren't caught sooner. Deadline pressure, flawed editorial review, who knows.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I get what you're saying here, I think, but your problem isn't that the space is too small it's that the combat rules are bad if they can't deal with small spaces.
There will be combat in tight spaces, that's a given. If the rules don't do well in such circumstances then it's the rules that are bad, not the space for being small.
If you want bigger space to fight in, find a bigger ship, or an empty cargo hold. The Scout is cramped, that's the reality. Heck, I think even as shown it's far from cramped compared to some real ships. And offers much in the way of open lines of sight and places for cover, making it great for a good fight. Again, if the combat rules mean it would suck, then that's where the problem lies.
Andrew Boulton
The Adminator
In which case it will be incompatible with pretty much every design published in the last 28 years, and therefore not worth the paper it's printed on.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
No, I think I've been quite clear -- my problem is that the plans are too cramped, given the stated scale of the plans and the starship design.
I object to rationalizing this away by changing the scale because the deckplans become (a) incompatible with most Traveller deck plans; (b) incompatible with the combat system. Further, a 2m grid will reduce the opportunities for maneuver in *any* grid-based combat system.
As an aside, I also said that I would prefer oversize deckplans to undersized ones for the simple reason that more squares = more manuevering opportunity in *any* grid based combat system.
And in any case, changing the scale to 2m squares is the worst of both worlds. The deckplans are still incompatible, they reduce the usefulness of a grid based combat system and they are still wrong -- they depict the ship as being larger, not smaller.
At the end of the day, the deckplans are just messed up.
And while, with sufficient effort, we can probably rationalize almost *anything*, I don't see any reason to bother. Mongoose does have some obligation to produce a quality product, right? And if they make an obvious mistake, shouldn't they just acknowledge it and fix it as soon as practicable? As I have said before it's no big deal, as long as it gets fixed.
This "pleading in the alternative" (a lawyer term) has become an epidemic with MGT and frankly, I've lost patience with it. It would be a FAR better use of time to simply correct the error than to keep trying to hide it with sophistry, strained arguments and wild speculation. IMHO of course.
BTW, "Pleading in the alternative" is a lawyer phrase that describes a series of mutually incompatible defenses offered in court. A classic example goes something like this -- "Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don't have a dog."
In the present case, the alternative pleadings have gone like this:
The deckplans are not too small, because:
1. Each 1.5m square represents one dton;
after this is disproven,
2. The plans use 2m squares;
when no one buys this,
3. Even if it's too small, the deckplan is excused because previous deckplans were too large;
when no one buys this,
4. Even if it's too small, the deckplan is excused because the grid based combat systems suck.
sigh
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
The MGT "Book 2-like" design system may be a subset of systems designed with a High Guard-style (or whatever your favorite system is) system. So they *could* be interoperable with a more suitable design system that accounts for TL differences. If the designer of MGT does it right...
Last edited:
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I hope you don't think that's my point, or that I'm participating in the argument that way. I thought the reason you disliked the plans was because they make the Scout ship cramped, more so than previous oversized plans, and that cramped doesn't work with the combat rules.
I have no idea how the combat rules work or what they're like, I quit following RTT a while back for various reasons. I get the idea though that the combat rules are one of (or the only) bit you do actually like from RTT and that because they won't work on the smaller Scout that it makes the smaller Scout bad and the problem. I was trying to be clear in arguing that point.
My only point, and I think it's made clearly, is that the plans are not too small or badly done. Certainly not the 40% missing/undersized you see it as. Naturally if my point by point above didn't convince you that's fine. But I'd like to know where it missed out of curiosity.
There is also the possibility that, due to the fanbase's calls for a return to Bk2 simplicity, that Bk2 style ships will be the new norm.
I've grown out of much of my gearheadedness. Bk2 style ship design works fine, and I just treat TL9-16 as 9.0-9.7...
Just like Gunpowder and equivalents stop advancing at TL10 in canon (see FF&S1).
Now, the design is poor, the deckplans do not match it nor what we have seen of the design system. But what we have seen of MoTrav ship design matches closely with T5ACS. (There are incompatibilities, but they are minor.) And, so long as the "detailed" deisgn system produces drives no larger, it doesn't invalidate the design.
I've grown out of much of my gearheadedness. Bk2 style ship design works fine, and I just treat TL9-16 as 9.0-9.7...
Just like Gunpowder and equivalents stop advancing at TL10 in canon (see FF&S1).
Now, the design is poor, the deckplans do not match it nor what we have seen of the design system. But what we have seen of MoTrav ship design matches closely with T5ACS. (There are incompatibilities, but they are minor.) And, so long as the "detailed" deisgn system produces drives no larger, it doesn't invalidate the design.
DaddyDragon
SOC-12
Actually F-T, I've been pretty sure for the entire length of the thread that he (and myself, for all the reasons that tbeard has already listed) disliked the plans because they are simply wrong. If they are supposed to be 1dtn squares, then they are not easily compatible with the combat system they're intended to be used with. If they are supposed to be 1.5m as indicated in the legend, then the entire scout as shown has several tons of empty space unaccounted for (again, tbeard's math, which is better than my own but checks out, is pretty conclusive).
All he is really asking for, and I think it isn't unreasonable, is that it be corrected. Preferably before it sees the light of day off of the printing press, though I hold no such illusions with regards to Mongoose and their history of proofing their products (hate their editing, but love their stuff).
Of course, you and I have shared a number of discussions at length about naval architecture within Traveller. And we have both approached ship design with different sets of base assumptions, so I can understand and appreciate your point of view in relation to these new designs. I have no objection with the layout, just the scale. As I recall, one of your base assumptions is "waste" space, space too small to be considered crawlspace through which cabling, piping and such are run, whereas I consider all of that accounted for in the "slush fund" of each dtn space allotted. That could easily account for some small portion of the approximately 40% space discrepency. But not enough of it to satisfy me.
With all of that said, the one thing we ALL agree on is that Traveller is important enough to all of us to chime in when we see things that might not pass muster. Traveller must succeed in order for it to have a future. Even if we can't always agree on what problems are or are not important enough to violate the Imperial Rules of War to prove our point. In the end, we may well have to agree to disagree.
captainjack
SOC-13
Not trying to be provocative here - but why is it imperative that the ship plans be on the same scale as the combat system ? Do people actually plan to game on the ship plans with 5mm figures ? If not, it'll require redrawing or relaying out for the combat game anyway, in which case the conversion is no harder than achieving an accurate layout by hand (on a megamat, say).
The ship maps seem mostly for orientation during narrative play.
DaddyDragon
SOC-12
I used to use megamats and such, but with the power of home copy center technology provided courtesy of my purchase of a fine Lexmark product some time ago, I can now scan it, blow it up (er, expand it), and print it out for use right on the table so that the players can "blow it up". I figured if it was intended for narrative play, it would be gridless like the old Space Opera stuff.
YMMV
captainjack
SOC-13
A shortage of people with O.C.D. who would have counted every square.
My OCD count is 87 white internal squares, if 1 ton = 1 space, where's the prob ?
If it's 44 dtons (at 2 squares/space): how short is it ? add in:
The J engines which seem under represented (6 of 20tons iirc)are in the aft, which is the tallest portion of the ship taking the stated rather than represented value is way far from unreasonable: perhaps they are taller than a single slice thru the hull suggests ? So: to add in the stated size of J drives we get 28 standard squares; fuel needs another 40 squares , P fuel another 10; 78 thus far for a total of 165 .
35 ish tons = extra bridge space and avionics, armor, hull bracing, conduits (non-human enterable) + waste ? Not tooo bad.
For me, it looks like there's enough grey are/overlap between either scale to justify either scale - so one can have a cramped submarine-type interior -or a somewhat roomy original enterprise style interior (which, just to geek on, was considered cramped by the TNG crew).
The issue seems to be that the number human enterable spaces(and thus gameable) are too low for some tastes...but that's what it is , a matter of taste.
If the author of the plans misstated under pressure, it may just be that he's not all that used to the sharklike discussion style of some of the people here ; when he gives a legal dispostion, I'd hope for more consistancy, but honestly, this is email......
Similar threads
