Simple, Itemized Bridge tonnage rules

[HG_B]

Here's my down and dirty work up.

1 air lock per 100 Td up to 1,000 Td. Then additional 1 for every 5,000 Td thereafter.
1 ton electronics per 200 Td (round up)
2 tons default sensors per 1,000 Td or fraction thereof
½ ton per Bridge/control room/CIC/gunner workstation
½ ton per Command crew (military ships)
1 ton of landing struts per 200 Td (if designed to land on a world)

The cost of Bridge equipment is MCr. 0.05 per ton.

 

[Timerover51]

I simply include a stateroom for the ship captain, an airlock, and all of the computer tonnage in the bridge tonnage, but compute the cost of each item in addition to the cost of the bridge. Aside from freeing up more space in the rest of the ship, this seems to make the most sense of the very large allotment of space to the bridge.

 

[HG_B]

I simply include a stateroom for the ship captain, an airlock, and all of the computer tonnage in the bridge tonnage, but compute the cost of each item in addition to the cost of the bridge. Aside from freeing up more space in the rest of the ship, this seems to make the most sense of the very large allotment of space to the bridge.

Yeah, this is a system that makes bridge tonnage logical rather than following the current poorly scaled set up.

 

[atpollard]

I like 2% with a 4 dT minimum.
Even simpler, but less itemized.

 

[HG_B]

I like 2% with a 4 dT minimum.
Even simpler, but less itemized.

That'll work for smaller ships alright.

 

[rancke]

What I'd like was a basic ship design system with a few standard bridge designs listing size, cost, and what's in it. Then an advanced ship design system that included a bridge design sequence. And, wonder of wonders, the bridges in the basic SDS were actually designed using the bridge design sequence in the advanced SDS!

Also, but that's a minor thing, I'd like the actual bridge, the contiguous space referred to as 'the bridge' by the crew, to be listed apart and the basic utility stuff (airlocks and whatever else would be included) to be listed apart, simply to know how big I should make that part of the deck plan.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

What I'd like was a basic ship design system with a few standard bridge designs listing size, cost, and what's in it. Then an advanced ship design system that included a bridge design sequence. And, wonder of wonders, the bridges in the basic SDS were actually designed using the bridge design sequence in the advanced SDS!

Also, but that's a minor thing, I'd like the actual bridge, the contiguous space referred to as 'the bridge' by the crew, to be listed apart and the basic utility stuff (airlocks and whatever else would be included) to be listed apart, simply to know how big I should make that part of the deck plan.


Hans

Amen.
I use 1 dTon of actual, honest to gosh bridge per 100 dTons of ship.
With 1 bridge crew position per 100 dTons of ship.

It scales neatly between the tiny 1 person space on a scout and the 10 person bridge on a 1000 dTon ship.

I find that the actual work stations are closer to 1/2 dTon, but it leaves room for a bank of computers around the walls and some walking room between the stations.

YMMV, but that's what I use.

 

[infojunky]

So what is a Bridge?

What does a Bridge need to do?

And finally what needs to be explicit, and what can be subsumed into a percentage base slice?

 

[Carlobrand]

So what is a Bridge?

What does a Bridge need to do?

And finally what needs to be explicit, and what can be subsumed into a percentage base slice?

The bridge is the control room of the ship. In CT (High Guard II), the ship can neither maneuver nor jump if the bridge is destroyed, and weapons fire is treated as if the computer was half its usual rating.

The CT construction rules (High Guard II) set the bridge at 2% of the ship's volume for ships 1000 dT and over, minimum 20 dT for a smaller ship. Boats have a bridge that is 20% of the boat's volume, minimum 4 dT, but boats also have the option of routing controls through the computer instead of having a bridge, though the computer then operates as if it were one rating lower than it is. This is of course decided during manufacture: you can't rewire the controls like that to deal with combat damage.

HG II providee two crew seats with a bridge. That much of it is explicit in canon. Beyond that, what needs to be explicit is whatever you choose to be explicit. HG_B offers an example of what that might be for someone doing up a deck plan.

 

[aramis]

I prefer the TNE workstations model.

 

[infojunky]

The bridge is the control room of the ship. In CT (High Guard II), the ship can neither maneuver nor jump if the bridge is destroyed, and weapons fire is treated as if the computer was half its usual rating.

The CT construction rules (High Guard II) set the bridge at 2% of the ship's volume for ships 1000 dT and over, minimum 20 dT for a smaller ship. Boats have a bridge that is 20% of the boat's volume, minimum 4 dT, but boats also have the option of routing controls through the computer instead of having a bridge, though the computer then operates as if it were one rating lower than it is. This is of course decided during manufacture: you can't rewire the controls like that to deal with combat damage.[/QUOTE]

Yes, you have defined a bridge as per the rule book, but what is a bridge? What do people do there? How many people do their thing there? How many are required?

I give the Bridge of an Aircraft Carrier circa 1985, Stations there in, Conning Officer in chard of maritime operations, most ship handling and Navigation, Helm and Lee-Helm, directional controls and signals to engineering for requested speed, Boatswain's Mate of the Watch, in charge of internal communications (makes ship wide announcements, controls the alarms and runners), Visual Lookouts time 3 in direct communication with ops (Not on Bridge), and the Runner who physically delivers messages from the bridge to other locations in the ship, And finally the OPs board guy who regularly updates the contact board. and finally the Navigator chair and the chartroom.

The bridge on a similarly sized commercial ship, the Officer of the Watch, Helm and maybe a sensor operator/lookout.

See the big difference the carrier has all of it's sensors controlled away from it's navigation bridge, the commercial one everything is on the bridge. Both can be navigationally controlled from multiple locations, but generally Sensors are located in one location, the bridge in the commercial case and Operations in the other (Note AuxConn on the Carrier has some navigational electronics that main bridge doesn't have as a backup to losing OPs)

So which one is your bridge? Or do you chose the two pilot model of large Aircraft?

So maybe the question is How many Workstations? And Where are they?

Then there is some ancillary equipment Fire Control, which brings with it is that volume paying for the volume of the turret, or just the console and weapon direction sensors and equipment? (I for one am in the latter camp, though I could easily be swayed by adding a dTon to the mounts volume to include the turret and its local control option)

Then the question is Where are the Engineering controls located at? And are they a complete Bridge level Workstation? What about Engineering stores?

Then there is the Question of Life Support and Life support stores.

HG II providee two crew seats with a bridge. That much of it is explicit in canon. Beyond that, what needs to be explicit is whatever you choose to be explicit. HG_B offers an example of what that might be for someone doing up a deck plan.

Yes, he does, though I would Lump his basic sensors, electronics, Landing gear into a straight percentage. The Mentioned 2% sounds good by me.

 

[infojunky]

I prefer the TNE workstations model.

In a lot of ways so do I.

 

[mike wightman]

Stuff that is subsumed under the LBB2/5 definition of bridge - or put another way the stuff that should be in the design sequence but isn't

actual workstation controls
avionics
sensors
airlocks
acceleration compensation
artificial gravity
med bay
environmental controls (heat/water/atmosphere)
ship's locker
repair parts store/shop/maker

 

[HG_B]

Then there is the Question of Life Support and Life support stores.

See my Stateroom post

 

[robject]

I agree with Hans, with a bit of MT/TNE/T5:

The Traveller5 workstation-based bridge construction system works and has a rationale. It's built to your crew needs, it grants advantages to having one, but you don't have to have one.

Like Hans, I think the bridge should be separate from airlocks, landing gear, wings, and so on.

And finally also like Hans, I'd like some pre-worked bridges for fast ship design. In fact, I think I'll work on that...

 

[Carlobrand]

Yes, you have defined a bridge as per the rule book, but what is a bridge? What do people do there? How many people do their thing there? How many are required? ...

That would be up to you. You asked what a bridge needs to do, and that is what it needs to do. What we want it to do, that's what the current thread is discussing.

The rules touch on those issues affecting gaming: weapons, armor, drives, and so forth. The ship can't maneuver or jump without a bridge, ergo it's likely the pilot and navigator are up there since they maneuver and jump the ship. Beyond that, whether or not the computer officer sits on the bridge or in a station carved from the allocation for the computers, whether the chief engineer has a station on the bridge, whether the captain is there or is in a command center elsewhere, that is all entirely up to you. It doesn't affect the combat performance of the ship, ergo it is not necessary to the rules. It is entirely the realm of the gamemaster, assuming he wishes to go into such detail.

I don't think I'd want a rules system that demanded such level of detail when it doesn't affect the game. Ship design can be complex enough without details that don't affect role play or combat performance. I like being able to talk about it and get some ideas for my own deck planning, but I would not like having it handed down as yet another canon detail to worry about getting wrong while trying to design a ship. MegaTrav tries to do some of that, and it's a source of considerable frustration, and even they don't dictate where those control panels actually have to be. If I want to put everyone together or have a distinct separate Combat Information Center, I want the freedom to do that. If I prefer to carve a repair shop out of the engine space or airlocks out of the living space rather than the bridge space, I'd like freedom to do that. The rules say what is needed to move the game forward. The rest should be up to your imagination.

 

[robject]

I don't think I'd want a rules system that demanded such level of detail when it doesn't affect the game. Ship design can be complex enough without details that don't affect role play or combat performance. [...] MegaTrav tries to do some of that, and it's a source of considerable frustration [...]

It's hard to keep focused on the purpose of ship design (making ships) and avoid going nuts on detail. Typically design systems focus on detail or usability, but not both. As Hans hinted, some pre-fab drop-ins can help there (QSDS tried).

 

[infojunky]

Ok, one of the facts of Traveller is kinda being glossed over here, and that is that Ship's are Characters as well as the PCs. Else there wouldn't be such a who-ha over them.

Now I am not against a little healthy reductionism, in which we reduce all ships down to percentage based critters for use with a Statistics driven Fleet combat engine (i.e. High Guard). But does it hurt to break out those percentages to their constituent pieces?

While some of the things being mentioned here have little direct effect on the Fleet Combat sim, they do have direct effects for the RPG side of things, including ship combat.

Here y'all have talked around my earlier question of what a "Bridge" was instead of coming up with the range of options that was initially presented to us. So what are the parts of your bridge?

How many seats does navigational control need? Comms? Sensors? the captain's little blonde Yeoman? What equipment is within the bridge? At what point does a ship need dedicated controls in Engineering?

And Finally how do all these things tie back into rules that can be used?

 

[Carlobrand]

Ok, one of the facts of Traveller is kinda being glossed over here, and that is that Ship's are Characters as well as the PCs. Else there wouldn't be such a who-ha over them. ...

Uh, okay, well that is certainly an interesting way to see them.

...Now I am not against a little healthy reductionism, in which we reduce all ships down to percentage based critters for use with a Statistics driven Fleet combat engine (i.e. High Guard). But does it hurt to break out those percentages to their constituent pieces? ...

Not if that's what you like, no. And HG_B has provided some useful ideas in that direction, and others have offered some information that can further help with that.

...While some of the things being mentioned here have little direct effect on the Fleet Combat sim, they do have direct effects for the RPG side of things, including ship combat.

Here y'all have talked around my earlier question of what a "Bridge" was instead of coming up with the range of options that was initially presented to us. So what are the parts of your bridge?

How many seats does navigational control need? Comms? Sensors? the captain's little blonde Yeoman? What equipment is within the bridge? At what point does a ship need dedicated controls in Engineering?

And Finally how do all these things tie back into rules that can be used?

I'm feeling we're operating under different rules systems. I'm most familiar with CT, where we have freedom to make those decisions for ourselves within the percentages you mention, and where those decisions have no effect other than who's likely to be defending the bridge if you decide to game a boarding attempt using deckplans. And, with a few exceptions, the gamemaster would be drafting the deckplans for that adventure, just as he'd draft the layout of a building interior or a street scene or some other setting for the players to play in, and there aren't really rules for how a building or street should be laid out.

I have some MegaTrav material, but it's mostly no help for what you're talking about. I have a wee bit of other stuff, but push comes to shove I know very little about Mongoose or T4 or T5 or GURPS where it comes to deckplans and layouts and who sits where and what direct effects that might have on RPG or how they might tie in to the other rules. In CT, they don't, and that's about the extent of my knowledge of the subject.

So, I am mostly not much help, I'm afraid - sorry. For me, the bridge is whatever suits the character of that particular ship. No rules, no guidelines, just my gut. I haven't had to design anything over a thousand dTons so haven't had to deal with the large command crew complement High Guard suggests for such ships. For the smaller ships, I'm minimalist: two seats, one pilot and one navigator. If there's more than one pilot/navigator, they work in shifts, and if the ship description calls for something extra like a commo officer, I'll make space for that. Otherwise the bulk of the bridge is sensors and avionics squeezed into the deadspaces where people can't fit, to help me use the full volume as effectively as possible and not go over volume.

 

[HG_B]

Sensors? the captain's little blonde Yeoman? What equipment is within the bridge?

I'm still working on rules for little blonde Yeoman. I'll post 'em if I ever get them figured out...

I found out why it's taking me SO long to work it out.