Starship design Question: 43678-8b

[mike wightman]

Thomas Rux wrote:
I'd say make whatever variations are needed that work for you and your gaming group.

Hello Tom, that's the crux of my question. Is the T20 half bridge space a rules varient or is it usable on standard T20 ship designs.
If I'm doing ships for my games I tend to mix and match anyway, e.g. HG based % components but with MT control systems and sensors, TNE turret sockets/spinal mount rules etc.
The T20 ship design system is simple and elegant in its way, but it could do with some of the finer points being clarified. Such as the bridge issue

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by flykiller:
The historic ship's bridge is about control of the ship itself. Modern CIC's developed because the actions and equipment they control are distant from the ship and ideally do not affect it directly, nor ideally do ship operations affect them. They are in a different world, and only incidentally happen to be on a ship with its own bridge. To make the distinction clearer one may call the classic bridge the ship's bridge and the CIC the combat bridge.

You know, I think you may be onto a new rules varient here. Why not have the different control systems clearly identified. TNE gave us MFD which could be grouped together to make a sort of CIC, especially if you add in some of the commo and sensor work stations.

Since bridges are about control one may easily envision quite a few other spaces being extensions of the ship's bridge. Damage control stations, engineering operating stations, alternate control stations, centralized control panels, look-out stations, communications, the quarter deck, pump control stations, the master-at-arms shack, and so on, can all easily be called part of the bridge, as can the captain's day room and other rooms for command activities. Beyond the ship's bridge an admiral may have his own battle bridge, a flight officer may have his own station, a marine boarding party may have its own CIC, an army general may have his own CIC to keep track of ground action, and so on. All meet the general criteria of command and control.

And yet more good ideas for components to flesh out warship interiors

. Thanks flykiller.

Airlocks, sick bays, cargo, weapons, and other such, simply are not part of any bridge. They meet no command or control criteria. They are extra.

Once again we come to the problem of the bridge description in T20, because many of these components can be allocated to bridge space.

I would still prefer a half bridge rule and then pick the other components myself.

 

[a.hecht]

The main problem is in the definition of bridge. The bridge as portrayed in Star-Treck, SW, B5 and so on is a throw back to the 'good old' heroic days when ships where wood and men where iron... They all had one bridge to rule them all…

In a modern warship - Bridge is where navigation occurs (wheel, some engine control, lookouts) and is in charge of sailing safety. The bridge is usually under the command of a relatively junior officer; CIC is where combat is controlled (and in times of war the Captain is in the CIC not on the bridge) and the engine room has its own - mini engineering bridge where the Chief is king.
In a modern cargo ship all happens in the main bridge (most have automatic engineering).
In Subs (as others on this board will be quick to note) it all tends to happen in close proximity – as there is no real advantage in having a lookout and most decisions about sailing have much more immediate affect on combat.

Now if we say our traveller ships are modern vessels – Destroyers will have several command zones – and you will see the captain on the bridge only when docking or casting off…

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Sigg Oddra,

Sorry that I was not clear in my previous post about a half bridge being a variant rule in T20, let me try again.

First the T20 design sequence for T20 is based on the design sequence in CT: Book 5 High Guard. Some modifications were made to confrom with (1) the d20 game system and (2) a way for the T20 authors to clarify some of the material imported from High Guard. The one item that comes to mind is the Ship's Computer. Hunter's intrepretation is that a Ship's Computer large size is caused by having 4 interlinked computers. The primary or core computer shares memory with 3 optimized computers used for flight avionics, sensors, and communications.

According to THB p. 256 the note at the bottom of the Manufactured Hulls table: "A ship must allocate a minimum of 20 tons in bridge space, while small craft must allocate a minimum of 4 tons for bridge space." The text for the Bridge on p. 256 also states that the minimum bridge size is 20 dtons for a starship or spacecraft and 4 dtons for small craft. The Custom Sized Hull Minimum Requirements table at the bottom of p. 262 also has the minimum bridge displacement as 20 dtons for staships or spaceships and 4 dtons for small craft.

In my opinion and experience any modifications that do not follow the design documentation is going to be a variant.

Of course I would be happier with a requirement that has the bridge being just 2% of hull displacement and dropping the minimum of 20 dtons. A 100 dton hull uses 20% of its volume for a bridge in Traveller. Today's warships and most commercial ships bridges take up a lot less space. Look at the cockpit of the majority of modern aircraft compared to the overall volume. Unfortunately, until someone with the power to change the current rules any bridge for starships or spaceships less than 20 dtons and small craft bridges less than 4 dtons are, again in my opinion, variant rules.

Hopefully, I have been able to help clarify my understanding of the T20 design sequence. Though I do prefer the way MT, TNE, and T4 handle the question of bridge requirements. However, I generally try to follow the guidelines established in the Traveller variant rule set I am designing a ship to be used in.

Tom Rux

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Thomas Rux wrote:
I'd say make whatever variations are needed that work for you and your gaming group.

Hello Tom, that's the crux of my question. Is the T20 half bridge space a rules varient or is it usable on standard T20 ship designs.
If I'm doing ships for my games I tend to mix and match anyway, e.g. HG based % components but with MT control systems and sensors, TNE turret sockets/spinal mount rules etc.
The T20 ship design system is simple and elegant in its way, but it could do with some of the finer points being clarified. Such as the bridge issue </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[flykiller]

You know, I think you may be onto a new rules varient here. Why not have the different control systems clearly identified. TNE gave us MFD which could be grouped together to make a sort of CIC, especially if you add in some of the commo and sensor work stations.

I was thinking the same thing myself today. Instead of having a lump of space labled "bridge", why not build it from components you want it to have. if a ship is not streamlined, why have avionics? interior comms, exterior comms, sensors and detectors, dish sizes, power outputs, processors, remote engineering controls, remote weapons controls, viewscreens, console stations, shielding, telescopes, TV's, cable lines, servos, and so on, could be selected as needed, and would determine the bridge size.

but I believe this has been done already somewhere. in any case it's too much gearheading for me. I just tell the players they have a twenty ton lump of space called a standard bridge that does standard stuff. if they want more it's extra.

Once again we come to the problem of the bridge description in T20, because many of these components can be allocated to bridge space.

then t20 is wrong. it would be better for t20 to just up and say, "bridges are one percent now.".

 

[mike wightman]

Hi there Tom,

In my opinion and experience any modifications that do not follow the design documentation is going to be a variant.

Probably
But in T20 we have the half jump fuel rule varient and the bay weapon fudge (and this one needs explaining too- is it a varient or is it allowed on standard designs?).
I just continue to wonder if Hunter will ever clarify the bridge issue (then I can start about the bay weapon replacing half of your hardpoints-there are some interesting design possibilities if this one stands as well for a standard ship design ).

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by flykiller:
why not build it from components you want it to have. if a ship is not streamlined, why have avionics? interior comms, exterior comms, sensors and detectors, dish sizes, power outputs, processors, remote engineering controls, remote weapons controls, viewscreens, console stations, shielding, telescopes, TV's, cable lines, servos, and so on, could be selected as needed, and would determine the bridge size

I was thinking of lumping things together to make bridge modules (its much easier in MT, TNE, and T4 to build standard modules for your designs, then you don't have to custom build everytime) such as a control module (the standard bridge), CIC module, damage control module etc. Each module could be 5-10 dt, warships could require 1 MFD module per battery etc.

but I believe this has been done already somewhere. In any case it's too much gearheading for me. I just tell the players they have a twenty ton lump of space called a standard bridge that does standard stuff. If they want more it's extra.

TNE and T4 come closest. If you keep it nice and simple as modules then it's not much more difficult than (and could be easily included in) LBB 2 ship design
[quot]then t20 is wrong. it would be better for t20 to just up and say, "bridges are one percent now.".[/quote]
Hence the need for the question to be answered

 

[mike wightman]

Originally posted by Avi:
The main problem is in the definition of bridge.

No argument there.

The bridge as portrayed in Star-Treck, SW, B5 and so on is a throw back to the 'good old' heroic days when ships where wood and men where iron... They all had one bridge to rule them all…

In a modern warship - Bridge is where navigation occurs (wheel, some engine control, lookouts) and is in charge of sailing safety. The bridge is usually under the command of a relatively junior officer; CIC is where combat is controlled (and in times of war the Captain is in the CIC not on the bridge) and the engine room has its own - mini engineering bridge where the Chief is king.

More evidence for multiple bridge modules perhaps?

In a modern cargo ship all happens in the main bridge (most have automatic engineering).
In Subs (as others on this board will be quick to note) it all tends to happen in close proximity – as there is no real advantage in having a lookout and most decisions about sailing have much more immediate affect on combat.

And are the most likely model for below-1kt Traveller ships IMHO.

Now if we say our traveller ships are modern vessels – Destroyers will have several command zones – and you will see the captain on the bridge only when docking or casting off…

More to think about, thanks for posting Avi. And welcome aboard.

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Avi:
In a modern warship - Bridge is where navigation occurs (wheel, some engine control, lookouts) and is in charge of sailing safety. The bridge is usually under the command of a relatively junior officer; CIC is where combat is controlled (and in times of war the Captain is in the CIC not on the bridge) and the engine room has its own - mini engineering bridge where the Chief is king.
In a modern cargo ship all happens in the main bridge (most have automatic engineering).
In Subs (as others on this board will be quick to note) it all tends to happen in close proximity – as there is no real advantage in having a lookout and most decisions about sailing have much more immediate affect on combat.

On submarine: the "mini engineering bridge" is called Manuvering. It is controlled by a Junior officer, except during combat when the Engineer is in charge. It usually has a Throttleman, a Reactor Operator, and an Electrical Operator. This last watchstander is responsible for the electrical switchboards, what gets power from where (because you can switch it around as needed in case parts get damaged). The Throttleman answers bells just like he has since the early days of steam, (literally!) by turning a huge wheel that is rigged to the steam engine throttles. The RO watches the reactor plant, and makes adjustments as needed. This is rather infrequent usually, as the plant will generate whatever power the Throttleman dials up all by itself without much interference or assistence from the RO.

The ships "bridge", what you and I would think of as the bridge, is called "Control" or "Conn". This has the stearing system as well as an engine order telegraph. The little dial thingy to tranmit orders back to Manuvering. There are two sets of control yokes, and these can be switched around or even ganged together in various configuration. Usually one watchstander will control the fairwater planes, the planes on the side of the sail, while the other controls the stern planes and rudder.

The "Helmsman and Planesman" are watched over by a Diving officer. (which is usually a chief or JO) Next to these three guys is where the Chief of the Watch sits, in front of his control panel. His panel controls all the hydraulic systems, the trim and drain pumps, monitors depth (and on boomers monitors not only the rate of change in depth, but also the rate of change of that rate of change of depth) and other such equipment, like indicators for all the external hatches (the christmas tree)

The Helsman and Planesman are usually new guys. And it is sometimes impressive to think that even in combat, a multibillion dollar nuclear submarine, armed with more firepower than has been expended in all of humanity's wars to date, is being piloted by some 18 year old kid 6 months out of high school.

The Diving Officer (which may be either an old chief or a new junior officer) is oversean by whichever office has the Conn. This officer is may, or may not, also have the Deck as well. The officer who has the Deck controls the entire ship, can give orders to fire weapons, change ship's course and speed, etc.

The Bridge of a submarine is at the top of the sail, and only manned when the sub is on the surface. All it has is several lookouts, and telephone talkers. It controls absolutely nothing, it simply sends commands down to Conn and Manuvering. This is actually in two parts. You have the open exposed bridge, the little hole in the top of the sail that everyone stands in, and you also have the "Doghouse" which is just a bit down and forward in the sail and keeps the watchstanders out of the weather somewhat. Not much but somewhat. The Doghouse has windows.

Now how much of this is applicable to your Traveller game, well, that is up to you. The Navy is pretty much against over automation, thinking that humans are more flexible in repairs and unusual situations than computers.

One of my biggest concerns regarding all this is how little attention is paid to life support. Oxygen and ventilation is vital to the survival of the crew, whether it is a starship or a submarine, but Traveller does not seem to allot much space to this, and gets lumped into bridge requirements. This should take up a large chunk of that 10 ton slush. (You need something to filter and scrub the air, as well as replenish the O2. You also need fans to move that air around. These are not small machines. If your ship has a water fueled fusion power plant, I think the O2 generation is not much of a problem but ain't run the numbers yet.)

Formerly ET1 (NUC) SS USN

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Spykiller,

An USL ship still needs flight avionics since the vessel can still land on vacuum worlds or for traveling the designated channels/paths when docking with a high port. MT, TNE, and t4 breaks down the bridge into sub-components and how to determine the number of stations the bridge requires. GT allows the designer to create components which breaks from the rule of 2% or a minimum of 20 dtons for starships/spaceships and 20% or 4 dtons for small craft.

As I continue to mention the T20 Spacecraft & Starship Design (SSDS) rules are based on CT: Book 5: High Guard. Modifications have been made to accomodate the d20 rule set and as a way for the authors to, hopefully, intrepret some of the general rules imported from CT.

Originally posted by flykiller:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />You know, I think you may be onto a new rules varient here. Why not have the different control systems clearly identified. TNE gave us MFD which could be grouped together to make a sort of CIC, especially if you add in some of the commo and sensor work stations.

I was thinking the same thing myself today. Instead of having a lump of space labled "bridge", why not build it from components you want it to have. if a ship is not streamlined, why have avionics? interior comms, exterior comms, sensors and detectors, dish sizes, power outputs, processors, remote engineering controls, remote weapons controls, viewscreens, console stations, shielding, telescopes, TV's, cable lines, servos, and so on, could be selected as needed, and would determine the bridge size.

but I believe this has been done already somewhere. in any case it's too much gearheading for me. I just tell the players they have a twenty ton lump of space called a standard bridge that does standard stuff. if they want more it's extra.

Once again we come to the problem of the bridge description in T20, because many of these components can be allocated to bridge space.

then t20 is wrong. it would be better for t20 to just up and say, "bridges are one percent now.". </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy again Sigg Oddra,

Since reducing the jump fuel is clearly identified as an option then this rule can be used in standard T20 designs. I would, if I used the option, clearly identify that the jump fuel tonnage used the optional rule in the vessel's data block.

The bay weapon option is not as clear as the jump fuel one, and here is my take on what the text means. For a pure T20 design, regardless of size, 1 weapon bay requires 10 hardpoints or 10 turrets per 1,000 ton of hull dispalcement. This is in-accordance-with CT: Book 5, copyright 1980. The optional rule probably comes from reverse engineering of designs from the other Traveller versions which had some designs under 1,000 dtons having a bay installed. Generally, the rule is 1 bay maybe installed for every 10 turrets not installed on the available hardpoints. T20 does follow the basic Traveller rule of 1 hard point for every 100 dtons of hull.

My take is that Hunter is probably waiting for a clarification from Marc Miller on this topic

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hi there Tom,
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In my opinion and experience any modifications that do not follow the design documentation is going to be a variant.

Probably
But in T20 we have the half jump fuel rule varient and the bay weapon fudge (and this one needs explaining too- is it a varient or is it allowed on standard designs?).
I just continue to wonder if Hunter will ever clarify the bridge issue (then I can start about the bay weapon replacing half of your hardpoints-there are some interesting design possibilities if this one stands as well for a standard ship design ). </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[marvo]

On a 500ton T20 ship I am working on I assigned 10 tons to the 'classical' bridge. This does not contain the computer, sensors, communications or avionics. One fresher is located near the bridge, but is not included either. The other 10 tons are allocated about the ship anywhere that I think some kind of control console or equipment would be required. i.e. airlock controls, cargo bay, life support, some in engineering etc.
Basically I do not allow the 10t bridge slush fund to be used for anything that can be bought elsewhere. i.e. no sickbay, staterooms, labs etc. I would allow a small 'captains ready room' next to the bridge and a max of 1 ton ships locker.

 

[mike wightman]

Hi Tom.

My take is that Hunter is probably waiting for a clarification from Marc Miller on this topic

Hope he finds out soon

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Marvo,

Using the Spacecraft and Starship Design Sequence (SSDS) as indicated by the Bridge column, pp. 258 & 262, note ** "Amounts shown are for calculations reference only. A starship must allocate a minimum of 20 tons in bridge space, while small craft must allocate a minimum of 4 tons for bridge space." This note also reflects the Bridge text on p. 258. My understanding is that the T20 Bridge displacement tonnage is located together on the same deck, which follows CT design and deck plan requirements. Personally, I prefer the 2% of hull displacement for figuring the bridge displacement.

The use of a 10 dton bridge would make, in my intrepretation of the text, a variant and not a classic T20 design. To be a "classic" T20 500 dton hull the bridge must 20 dtons. As with CT Starship design the bridge does not include the Ship's Main Computer. In CT the Ship's Main Computer must be located adjacent to the bridge, while T20 does not have this requirement. CT does lump avionics, sensors, and communications together under the heading of bridge. T20 lumps avionics, sensors, and communications with the ship's main computer.

Anyway, the above is how I interpret the design sequence and can be ignored, and probably will be , if they conflict with how you interpret the text.

Originally posted by Marvo:
On a 500ton T20 ship I am working on I assigned 10 tons to the 'classical' bridge. This does not contain the computer, sensors, communications or avionics. One fresher is located near the bridge, but is not included either. The other 10 tons are allocated about the ship anywhere that I think some kind of control console or equipment would be required. i.e. airlock controls, cargo bay, life support, some in engineering etc.
Basically I do not allow the 10t bridge slush fund to be used for anything that can be bought elsewhere. i.e. no sickbay, staterooms, labs etc. I would allow a small 'captains ready room' next to the bridge and a max of 1 ton ships locker.

 

[snrdg082102]

I should have added that Hunter is probably waiting for clarification "or permission to modify" the bridge rules. Other than that small change I agree and hope that Hunter gets some word from Marc.

Originally posted by Sigg Oddra:
Hi Tom.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My take is that Hunter is probably waiting for a clarification from Marc Miller on this topic

Hope he finds out soon </font>[/QUOTE]

 

[marvo]

Thanks Thomas,

I have to agree the 2% rule makes more sense. The 20 Ton rule works for mid range ships, but on a 100 ton scout, what do you do with all that space on the bridge? Even with a crew of 4, it's a lot of room. Using the standard scale and a rough calculation I make that about 830 square feet, or about 1/2 the size of my house.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening again Marvo,

First, a belated welcome to the boards and I hope that you find that the other members are helpful with any information you might like an answer to. Next, you are welcome and I wish to say thanks to you as well for your original post and this reply. I always try to help, but admit my comments may be out to lunch, but at least I try to be helpful.

MT's Vehicle Design Sequence, along with TNE & T4 Fire, Fusion, and Steel manuals have, in my opinion, a better way of determining bridge and other similar component design methods. GURPS: Traveller and GURPS:Traveller: Starships coupled with GURPS: Vehicles provides, again in my opinion, a good method for designing components.

Again welcome to the boards, thanks for your original post and hope that you will enjoy being a member on the CotI boards.

Originally posted by Marvo:
Thanks Thomas,

I have to agree the 2% rule makes more sense. The 20 Ton rule works for mid range ships, but on a 100 ton scout, what do you do with all that space on the bridge? Even with a crew of 4, it's a lot of room. Using the standard scale and a rough calculation I make that about 830 square feet, or about 1/2 the size of my house.

 

[mike wightman]

Hello again Tom

,

This note also reflects the Bridge text on p. 258.

Yep, but it is the text on page 262 which causes the confusion. Are we to pretend it isn't there, assume it is a varient rule that can't be used on Standard Designs, or can we have it clarified and usable?

The use of a 10 dton bridge would make, in my intrepretation of the text, a variant and not a classic T20 design. To be a "classic" T20 500 dton hull the bridge must 20 dtons. As with CT Starship design the bridge does not include the Ship's Main Computer. In CT the Ship's Main Computer must be located adjacent to the bridge, while T20 does not have this requirement. CT does lump avionics, sensors, and communications together under the heading of bridge. T20 lumps avionics, sensors, and communications with the ship's main computer.

I agree that when Hunter does make a clarification of this rule it willl probably be a rule option, but perhaps not? T20 isn't HG. It is based on HG but there are some significant differences.
The EP requirement of the maneuver drive, which leads to more EPs generated by power plants than in HG. The requirement that a small craft has a bridge (this is the rule in T20 so you can no longer build certain ships from CT/HG) is another change.

Anyway, the above is how I interpret the design sequence and can be ignored, and probably will be , if they conflict with how you interpret the text.

What's to interpret, the text says you can half your bridge , no mention of optional rule or varient design

MT's Vehicle Design Sequence, along with TNE & T4 Fire, Fusion, and Steel manuals have, in my opinion, a better way of determining bridge and other similar component design methods. GURPS: Traveller and GURPS:Traveller: Starships coupled with GURPS: Vehicles provides, again in my opinion, a good method for designing components.

Good point, and possibly it was an effort to mimic the control space that MT et al thow up that lead to this half bridge description.
Hmm, GURPS Vehicles you say...,
could it be used to design add on bridge modules like the CIC, MFD/sensor centre etc. for CT/HG/T20 ships I wonder?

 

[Drakon]

Originally posted by Marvo:
Thanks Thomas,

I have to agree the 2% rule makes more sense. The 20 Ton rule works for mid range ships, but on a 100 ton scout, what do you do with all that space on the bridge? Even with a crew of 4, it's a lot of room. Using the standard scale and a rough calculation I make that about 830 square feet, or about 1/2 the size of my house.

I don't have my book handy, but here is what I think.

In "real life" you would need only that equipment that is necessary to monitor and control the ship's functions. Ergonomic would tend to tell you to keep this as small and as simple as possible. A Comfy Chair (TM), a big screen TV, and a yoke, and with the right computer support, you can run just about anything. Have multiple configure screens/menus or whatever via the TV, (a la DGP Beowulf book) and you are set.

As I recall, you also get in that bridge fund, one airlock. This is pretty important if you ever want to leave the ship while in space.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Drakon,

"Real Life" control stations are designed according to scale and the functions they will be required to perform. Look at the cockpit of a modern combat aircraft. The cockpit is crammed with a wide range of dials, gauges, video display screens, and other control systems.
Moving to non-combat military aircraft, ie C-141, Private and commercial aircraft cockpits generally have at least 2 stations for the pilot and co-pilot. Some may have 1 or 2 other seats, one for a flight engineer and/or navigator.

Many of the Traveller spacecraft and starships are a combination of aircraft and water vessel bridge design depending on size. Does a modern commercial or wet Navy surface combatant require a ship's wheel? No, they could use an airplane type control yoke, similiar to what is used on a submarine, but tradition requires a ship's wheel.

There are many factors that dictate what a control station requires. Ergonomics is usually not a top priority for the military, though the term one size fits all does come to mind . Commericial or private vehicles have different requirements, with ergonomics being more important for a private vessel and somewhere in between for a commercial one.

The above comments are based on my real life experience and should be taken with a grain or two of salt thrown over your shoulder.

Originally posted by Drakon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marvo:
Thanks Thomas,

I have to agree the 2% rule makes more sense. The 20 Ton rule works for mid range ships, but on a 100 ton scout, what do you do with all that space on the bridge? Even with a crew of 4, it's a lot of room. Using the standard scale and a rough calculation I make that about 830 square feet, or about 1/2 the size of my house.

I don't have my book handy, but here is what I think.

In "real life" you would need only that equipment that is necessary to monitor and control the ship's functions. Ergonomic would tend to tell you to keep this as small and as simple as possible. A Comfy Chair (TM), a big screen TV, and a yoke, and with the right computer support, you can run just about anything. Have multiple configure screens/menus or whatever via the TV, (a la DGP Beowulf book) and you are set.

As I recall, you also get in that bridge fund, one airlock. This is pretty important if you ever want to leave the ship while in space. </font>[/QUOTE]