• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

New Traveller Preview

DaddyDragon said:
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".
Click to expand...

a 20-25% increase in expansion, with locked ratio, possible on any copier that can expand, should solve the problem. (x/y change is sqrt(1.5)) .
Besides, I must to point out that mini scale and grid scale seldom match in any game; probably no worse than 1.5 vs 2.0.

I figured if it was intended for narrative play, it would be gridless like the old Space Opera stuff.

YMMV
Click to expand...

Or scale free like T4 ? Oh yes, that worked well as far as customer appreciation. If you think theres argument about deckplans now, try putting one out without a scale -despite the fact that a 2D scale on a 2D projection of an irregular 3d solid basically only provides mainly spurious accuracy...but it looks good, I guess, and makes us feel all gearheady and architectural.
 
captainjack said:
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.
Click to expand...
Or get the image enlarged, without change, for table use. ;)

The truth is, I do not care if it is 100% correct. The very fact that some of the space is such odd shapes it makes counting space hard. But I do expect it is close. And I do not think it is an unreasonable expectation for the plans to use the same grid as other parts of the rule system.

At this point I will just keep using my old plans and ignore their attempt. I am just sad if they really did not care enough to use the same scale grid or to check their work before publishing it. :(

Daniel
 
captainjack said:
a 20-25% increase in expansion, with locked ratio, possible on any copier that can expand, should solve the problem. (x/y change is sqrt(1.5)) .
Besides, I must to point out that mini scale and grid scale seldom match in any game; probably no worse than 1.5 vs 2.0.



Or scale free like T4 ? Oh yes, that worked well as far as customer appreciation. If you think theres argument about deckplans now, try putting one out without a scale -despite the fact that a 2D scale on a 2D projection of an irregular 3d solid basically only provides mainly spurious accuracy...but it looks good, I guess, and makes us feel all gearheady and architectural.
Click to expand...


Yeah. Yup. You're are absolutely right. And here is why maybe a new and improved Traveller is a bad idea after all. We can't even agree on a standard scale.

This is why I lurk. While I may not agree with tbeards sometimes vociferous delivery, I think he's been pretty spot on in his analysis of this issue (and several others re:MGT). I wouldn't classify it as a fan, more like a kindred spirit.

If the stated scale on the deckplan is 1.5 meters, then the ship as currently presented is too small. Plain and simple. If the scale is 2m per square, as later stated, then it works fine, but the grid is out of scale for the combat system. Shouldn't there be a reasonable expectation that a game is internally consistent, in this, the 21st century? That as part of the new and improved product we are about to be gifted, attention to detail should not expected? Sure, let's repeat the mistakes of the past because, you know, what's a meter or two between friends. Try to design the ship for your next campaign and have every other player and their dog debate every last iota of its design and account for each and every micrometer of unallocated space. Maybe your players don't hold you to that standard. There are folks that will gladly handwave this minor discrepency here, but be up inside your recombustion chamber like a bad case of fusion-induced hemorrhoids before the ship design ever leaves the downport in the home game. You may never have experienced this or had to deal with it, but I can attest to the existence of such situations.

All I am asking for is that the plans be internally consistent with the rules and its own legend. It would be nice if included a passing similarity to the canon mapping definition for a displacement ton. Which the current example does not. I don't want to (x/y sqrt(1.5)) every ship design officially released so that it passes more than narrative muster. That's all I'm asking for.

The reality is, we are going to get whatever the folks over at the Goose dish out to us, and we will either like it or we won't. If I don't, they won't be seeing any of my hard earned credits. And considering where our niche of a market stands today, everyone one of them counts.

Anyway, I'm done beating my head against the desktop. I'm going to put my piano away, cause I'm through singing now.
 
DaddyDragon said:
All I am asking for is that the plans be internally consistent with the rules and its own legend. It would be nice if included a passing similarity to the canon mapping definition for a displacement ton. Which the current example does not. I don't want to (x/y sqrt(1.5)) every ship design officially released so that it passes more than narrative muster. That's all I'm asking for.
Click to expand...

Well, even if there is no complaint about the plans; even if they were absolutely so perfect that Aramis Supp4 and Tbeard danced jigs in joy, and group hugged with a certain evil doctor....even if that was the case, if you're going to game on the plan , to actually use it as a combat tile, you need to either use individual 5mm scale figs (don't sneeze), or recopy it.

So...recopy it at the scale you like. Don't fret about x/y sqrt -just mash the copier button you like.

Specifically, the combat scale (in the last version I saw), was 1" = 1.5 meters.....So,unless your gripe is that the rules don't include a 28mm miniature scale full map of each ship, I really don't understand the hangup about the deckplans needing to be the same scale as the combat scale. I mean, do you get upset when an atlas has maps at different scales ?
 
captainjack said:
So...recopy it at the scale you like.
Click to expand...


But, that's a bitch to do, especially during a game. If I have an encounter on a ship during a game, I'll scratch it out on graph paper. Typically, I have this big cork board with some big sheets of graph paper that I purchased at the art supply house. I use push-pins or cardboard counters to represent combatants.

Or, in a pinch, I just pencil on some 8.5x11 graph paper, drawing circles for combatants.

It's easy to look at the plan, count squares, and duplicate that on the graph paper.

It ain't so easy to look at the plan, figure how those 2m squares would translate to 1.5 m squares--especially if you're running a fight too.

The grid on all deckplans really should be set to a standard, and if 1.5m per square is the MGT stated combat standard, then that's what the deckplans should be.
 
captainjack said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it won't mean redrawing. I run 15mm. I just blow them up to 200% using my scanner and printer to go from the typical 1/4" book plan to 1/2" minis plan. Done that since 1985... when I first got access to the a Zoom Capable Photocopier.

Daddydragon: Each edition has had a standard scale. CT: defines the deckplan Td as 2 squares, 1.5mx1.5m, with 3m between decks. MT used the same. T20 has used the same.

TNE defined it as 2x2x3.5m, using one square. But that has as much to do with Twilight 2000 using 2m squares for combat, too.

One other good reason for 1.5m squares: they are closer to the 5' & 10' squares of D&D. Arbitrary, perhaps, but still, a matter of intercompatibility. 1.5m=4' 10.86", or just a smidgeon of an inch off 5'.
 
Last edited:
aramis said:
No, it won't mean redrawing. I run 15mm. I just blow them up to 200% using my scanner and printer to go from the typical 1/4" book plan to 1/2" minis plan. Done that since 1985... when I first got access to the a Zoom Capable Photocopier.
Click to expand...


Okay, perhaps it is easier for me to eyeball a sketch version of a plan, and/or to blow it up accordingly...or perhaps my gaming groups have been more fast and loose about things. This is, I guess, one of those issues that isn't an issue for me. So...yeah, maybe it does matter that the 1.5 grid is constant, and not just for obsessive consistency . I'm surprised it matters, quite honestly so, but I guess I see where it is an issue for you.

That said, I should point out that the scale does say 1.5....the change was only a quick response to the immediate criticism that the ship was too small.
As I've posted elsewhere and before, that isn't written in stone. I'm unconvinced that the ship displayed in 1.5 scale is too small, but then I'm also unconvinced that the plans are intended to be exact blueprints, or that there is an actual empirically comparable standard of too big or too small.
Even in CT and all versions of the ship design systems have lots of slop and handwave - and its not sloppiness, incompetence or a poor work ethic, either (as some seem to feel); the fact is, its a fuzzy enough issue (modeling a starship) that there really isn't a very granular level of accuracy possible...beyond that, its just spurious accuracy. It may make us feel more empirical, but its really just navel-gazing.
 
aramis said:
Daddydragon: Each edition has had a standard scale. CT: defines the deckplan Td as 2 squares, 1.5mx1.5m, with 3m between decks. MT used the same. T20 has used the same.

TNE defined it as 2x2x3.5m, using one square. But that has as much to do with Twilight 2000 using 2m squares for combat, too.
Click to expand...

All of which I didn't reiterate because it had already been stated within the thread, but it does make the point (again) that they were expected to be internally consistent within each of their respective rulesets.

Thank you. :)
 
Supplement Four said:
Wil, I clicked on the link and opened the file. I'm not familiar with that file type. Is it a Mac thing? Where do I get a "viewer", and can I see what you did if I'm on a PC?
Click to expand...

It's a Google SketchUp drawing file. Unfortunately it seems I'll have to upgrade my SU or find that free viewer too. Going a hunting...
 
Yeah, I didn't see any free viewer, but the light version (maybe that was the meaning) is still free and only takes a couple minutes to download and install (on high speed). See link above.
 
aramis said:
Jack: once you get a look inside a traveller style starship, it's not so "open"...

As an experiment, I decided to do a tunnel deck type A2 in sketchup. It isn't terribly open feeling except on the cargo deck. Grab the viewer, and do a walkthrough...
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=256387#post256387
Click to expand...

Well, I can't see it right now, but bravo ! An actual test; if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I look forward to seeing it.

That said, how does it compare to,say, a Gato class wwII fleet sub ?
(keeping in mind US subs were regarded a roomy and crew friendly -the japanese subs in some case didn't even have a head....)

And again, thanks for the effort. Getting out of thought experiments is a good thing occasionally.
 
captainjack said:
That said, how does it compare to,say, a Gato class wwII fleet sub ?
(keeping in mind US subs were regarded a roomy and crew friendly -the japanese subs in some case didn't even have a head....)
Click to expand...

Positively spacious. Luxuriously so. Even expansive by Officer standards on modern surface Navy vessels. Even if Aramis had dropped the ceiling to account for the overheads and decking and such, and put in some wall thickness* ;)

Same is true for the argued over RTT Type S deckplans by Kharum, which my points have already been made earlier.

Compared to modern home architecture though. Seriously cramped and no one would buy it. That I think is the problem some people have with it. They think "home in space" and expect minimum 8 foot ceilings throughout and a 100 square foot room is a closet or small bathroom, not a full stateroom including a closet and small bathroom.

I blame Star Trek :) Well, and a host of other TV/Movie sets. Sets made overly large for the most part to allow cameras to do their stuff.

* not knocking it in the least, it's a work in progress and just a quick perspective exercise, which it does quite nicely
 
far-trader said:
Compared to modern home architecture though. Seriously cramped and no one would buy it. That I think is the problem some people have with it. They think "home in space" and expect minimum 8 foot ceilings throughout and a 100 square foot room is a closet or small bathroom, not a full stateroom including a closet and small bathroom.
Click to expand...

I have to admit I had the same misconceptions until I spent some time crewing on a sailboat It was 40' long, could easily sleep and support 12 people for cruise, 4-6 for a long cruise (ie east coast to west, thru the canal , or direct to Japan and back. And it was relatively luxurious compared to the barebones speed cruiser at 30'.

Actually living in that kind of cramped space was an eye-opener , let me tell you.

I had the opportunity to walk around on the Drum (gato class sub) in Mobile about the time I started traveller -that was an influence, too. But actually living it.....wow.

That said, i was utterly amazed to discover that the american fleet boats were regarded as luxury yachts for the crew- and that a german type VII uboat was smaller (about 2/3 the size) of a Sulieman type S with a crew of what....twenty ? for multi month cruises ?

So, yes, there's plenty of room for the usual crew of 1-6 on a sulieman from that perspective, in either scale. Its not "quality room", but if you wanted an easy life, why'd ya join the scouts ?
 
money money money

aramis said:
They are different projects.

Mongoose's Traveller isn't the fabled "T5".
Click to expand...

...my head hurts...

Aramis, how many new Travellers are we looking at, and do I need to start considering closing out an IRA or refinancing the house ?
Sol Pniering
 
JustinThyme said:
...my head hurts...

Aramis, how many new Travellers are we looking at, and do I need to start considering closing out an IRA or refinancing the house ?
Sol Pniering
Click to expand...

Mongoose Traveller and T5 are the two new ones. Neither is released yet. Both are supposed to be on the near horizon.

THero is in print, and so is T20.

And, CT is in print via the CD-ROM and Long Black Books (the reprints).

I believe MT is in print through a CD-ROM.

Plus, almost everything can be purchased in pdf if you're looking for TNE or T4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
New Campaign Ideas
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Spinward Flow
Spinward Flow
atpollard
CT Only: Traveller Tech Levels
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
2K
mike wightman
mike wightman
Mythic Mountains
CT Only: Looking to publish, for free, a retroclone of Classic Traveller
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
kilemall
K
infojunky
Traveller in the New year.
Replies
1
Views
456
Return of Kafka
R
Prodromoi
General Hello (again)
Replies
7
Views
370
casquilho
casquilho
Back
Top