Solomani Stateroom Size?

[Gruffty]

OK. I know I've read it somewhere but I can't find it.

I seem to recall one of the rules books saying that Solomani starship crews don't mind being squeezed in together, and that Soli stateroom sizes can be reduced by 20% when ship-building.

So:

1) Did I just imagine this rule/piece of information or is it an actual rule/piece of information?
2) If I didn't imagine it, can anyone tell me which book it is in, please?

P.S. I've looked and looked but I can't seem to find it - ?is it in one of the MT books?

 

[Pickles]

And wasn't there something about Solomani preference for fixed weapons rather than turrets? I don't know, maybe I'm hallucinating. Must sleep ...

 

[shield]

Hi

Its in the original aliens book 6 - solomani, and may have been repeated in the MT aliens book / Gurps rim of fire.

yes, the solomani can be housed in accommodation only 80% imperial standard, and they do have fixed weapons arrays (-2 to hit, no dtons, only 2 weapons per emplacment, and i think the number of such emplacementswas limited by something - computer size? hull size?)

Cheers
Richard

 

[aramis]

Still took HP, just no tonnage...

 

[far-trader]

So do you recall where the reference(s) of this reduced quatering for Solomani is Richard? I'm not recalling it and am curious. It's not in CT AM6 that I can see.

As for the Solomani fixed weapon mounts, you all are almost there

Per CT AM6 (may have changed in other uses):

Solomani ships are allowed 1 fixed weapon mount (requires a hardpoint but not fire control or a turret) per computer model number. So no tonnage needed.

The weapons are fired by a gunner on the bridge (which I interpreted as meaning they are like spinal mounts in that you aim the ship to shoot) and are subject to a DM-2 to hit.

And finally fixed mounts only allow fitting two weapons per mount.

 

[RandyT0001]

From Classic Traveller:
Module 6: Solomani, p. 42
"Solomani shipyards design and construct ships which are subject to the same physical constraints and personal preferences that Imperial shipyards face."

So according to Module 6 the stateroom standards for the Solomani are the same as Imperial the standards. No smaller.

"Fixed Weapons Mounts: Solomani ships may have fixed weapon mounts (as opposed to turret mounted weapons). Fixed weapon mounts allow up to two weapons to be attached per each hardpoint on the ship and do not require fire control tonnage or a turret. Weapons in fixed weapon mounts are operated by a gunner on the bridge and are subject to an attacker's DM -2 in space combat. A shipis allowed fixed weapon mounts equal to the model number on the computer installed on the ship......"

From Megatraveller:
DGP's MegaTraveller Alien Solomani and Aslan, p. 41:
"Starship Design
Solomani starships tend to be slightly more cramped than Imperial designs and the Solomani mindset doesn't seem to mind the extra "closeness" this creates.
So when designing Solomani staships you can reduce the accommodation requirements by 20% if you wish. Roughly half the Solomani designs seen in the Confederation take this reduced accommodations approach."

So according to the "non-canon" DGP product you can reduce the stateroom tonnage.

Myself I stick to what Module 6 says and keep the same standards. Adding fixed mounts is really of no benefit considering the -2 to hit.

 

[Gruffty]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
"From Megatraveller: DGP's MegaTraveller Alien Solomani and Aslan, p. 41."

Dagnabbit, Musky!!! I looked there but still managed to miss it! Thank you, Randy! Given that CT:AM6 says one thing and the Rats & Cats says another, I'll go with CT:AM6.

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
And wasn't there something about Solomani preference for fixed weapons rather than turrets?

Yup, I found that in CT:AM6, no problem.

I don't know, maybe I'm hallucinating. Must sleep ...

<Hiverhiverhiver...> Go to sleep, Bromgrev, Go to sleep. You are under my influence....go to sle...oh, he's asleep.

 

[Gruffty]

Thank you, everyone, for your help with that.

Now I've got that sorted, Bromgrev, wake up and get back to my deckplans.

 

[Gruffty]

Just another itsy-bitsy-yellow-polka-dot-questionette:

This word "stateroom". How do people say it? Is "state-er-room"? Or "state-room"?

Just wondering.......<Hiverhiverhiver....>

 

[Flynn]

The latter pronunciation...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stateroom

Hope this helps,
Flynn

 

[Gruffty]

Ta!

 

[Pickles]

(springs to his feet like a snow leopard, instantly alert)

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Adding fixed mounts is really of no benefit considering the -2 to hit.

I suppose it might come in handy for very small ship where every ton counts. But, yes, considering you're limited to saving one dton per 100 dtons of ship, that's not really worth the trade-off.

I can feel a house rule coming on. Two fixed weapons, no tonnage, no negative DM. No point in having an option which is not going to get used ...

This could be a viable option for energy weapons, as they're limited to 2 per turret anyway. Or missile ships, which can use the extra magazine space and don't really need to point at their target to launch.

 

[Golan2072]

I had the feeling that Solomani simply used double occupancy more commonly than Imperials, and it fits their utilitarian approach well - results come first, comfort comes second. And having half the number of staterooms mean more space for cargo and/or fighters and/or missile magazines and/or armor.

 

[Maladominus]

I believe the Word Of The Day here is: Spartan

 

[Pickles]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
I believe the Word Of The Day here is: Spartan

Ah, so two-in-a-bunk, then? I can see how that would save space.

 

[aramis]

Randy: DGP Materials ARE canonical, at least during the MT era and in the MT ruleset. Just not "reprintable." Keep in mind also, MT was essentially a DGP product released through GDW.

The question lies in "How much of the DGP material can be reworded before Roger notices and demands royalty payments" which is why Marc Miller said the DGP canonical materials are off limits for any direct citations, and only vague carry-forward for developing new materials.

Now, since MT used almost exclusively a HG-ish combat system for ships (the needed data for personal/vehicle combat use exists, just not implemented), a to-hit mod would be practically meaningless.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Maladominus:
I believe the Word Of The Day here is: Spartan

I believe that the word is 'Utilitarian' rather than 'Spartan' - they do not sacrifice comfort because they are ideologically opposed to comfort per se, but rather because comfort is quite low on their list of priorities.

 

[kafka47]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Maladominus:
I believe the Word Of The Day here is: Spartan

I believe that the word is 'Utilitarian' rather than 'Spartan' - they do not sacrifice comfort because they are ideologically opposed to comfort per se, but rather because comfort is quite low on their list of priorities. </font>[/QUOTE]Or keeping in mind the Solomani fixation with technology, functional. In which no space is wasted and modular design designed forced by just having STL craft for a much longer period because when the ROM crashed in Solomani Space, it crashed hard. Leaving many polities in a 2300AD universe...no grav thrusters or grav plates to save the day...back to ole fashioned Stutterwarp and zero-g.

 

[Plankowner]

Originally posted by the Bromgrev:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Maladominus:
I believe the Word Of The Day here is: Spartan

Ah, so two-in-a-bunk, then? I can see how that would save space. </font>[/QUOTE]The current naval term for this is "Hot Racking". Two people (usually very junior) are assigned to the same bunk. They are assigned different watch times so that one can sleep while the other is on watch.

 

[GypsyComet]

Originally posted by kafka47:
because when the ROM crashed in Solomani Space, it crashed hard. Leaving many polities in a 2300AD universe...no grav thrusters or grav plates to save the day...back to ole fashioned Stutterwarp and zero-g.

WHY does this old bit of confusion still pop up? The 2300AD setting has absolutely NOTHING to do with the universe of the Three Imperiums.

To address the original question, the line about Solomani quartering comes, IIRC, from FASA's Adventure Class Ships, and specifically the Endeavor Solomani Patrol Ship.