spinwardpirate
SOC-13
BING!and the dining area has flowers painted up one of the bulkheads
Ain't it the truth. Whoever the set designer was who did that deserves an award.
BING!and the dining area has flowers painted up one of the bulkheads
... it got me to thinking about how restricted Traveller floorplan design is - largely because of all the minor systems, accessways and bits and pieces like landing gears that aren't accounted for in the design tonnage. I'm considering in future ignoring tonnage. As long as all the listed features are present and no more, then it makes no difference to the game really.
I agree.
Remember the "+/- 10 percent" from the 'official' deckplan advice. Most people focus on the "+10%" aspect of the plans, but you can also reduce every listed tonnage item by 10% and gain 10% of the entire ship to use for all the unlisted items. That's 20 tons of designer defined 'stuff' on a Free Trader - by the rules!
...it got me to thinking about how restricted Traveller floorplan design is - largely because of all the minor systems, accessways and bits and pieces like landing gears that aren't accounted for in the design tonnage. I'm considering in future ignoring tonnage. As long as all the listed features are present and no more, then it makes no difference to the game really.
So go for if Crow I can't wait!
Heh! Well, don't hold your breath. I talk a good Deckplan, I never actually do any
Crow
This would depend on the specific physics behind the drives, wouldn't it? Does the drive move a specific mass or a specific volumn through the jumpspace? I have always thought it was the volumn that was important. With contragrav technology, mass would be somewhat irrelevant.This sounds good to me, as in it fits my long held belief that the whole "volume" bit was a mistake, or worse. I've long held suspicions that Traveller ship design is in fact Mass not Volume. Or at least that it should be.
Equally, fuel takes up far too much deckplan space. It's just huge areas of a ship that the players have nothing to do with. What's the point?
From a technical side, you are right. Personally, the deckplans help me visualize the ships, make them more 'real' to me. And having attempted to make a few of my own, (even before I knew Traveller existed) it is an interesting challenge.I often think that all you really need deckplans for is boarding actions. As long as it's stats are legal as per the rules (for travel and space combat) then then it doesn't really matter if the deckplans are accurate as they have no bearing on the rules.
Again, you have a point. For me personally, it can break the suspension of disbelief if you say, have four luxury apartments inside a 100 ton hullI think quantity is more important than size or volume. If a ship has four staterooms then the plan should have four staterooms. It doesn't really matter, though if those staterooms are cupboards with foldout beds or large, luxurious cabins.
Compare the desiel engines on a supertanker with the size of the entire ship. I disagree here on engine size, smaller is not too much of a stretch.It's not specifically staterooms that I'm thinking of, though really. I've always felt that powerplants and drives in Traveller were massively undersized. Equally, fuel takes up far too much deckplan space. It's just huge areas of a ship that the players have nothing to do with. What's the point?
It is frustrating from an aesthetic perspective. The fuel tankage is what I find frustrating in my attempts at design.True, the same can be said of Engines and to some degree the powerplant but I often think honking great engines look really good on a ship's silhouette but Traveller's pocket-sized engines won't allow that. It's frustrating from a design perspective for no good reason.
Why can't you put those fluffy pieces in? Just because the books says your hanger bays are so large, is there any rule that says you can't make them bigger if you want? Granted the extra space has to come somewhere, but still, I always assumed those were more minimum specs than anything else.Then there's all the extra fluffy stuff that you can't squeeze in, no matter how many tons you manage to shave off the Staterooms and Bridge.
A really good example of what I'm talking about is the Type-H Hunter from White Dwarf. It contains an observation area on the top deck (taken from the Making of ALIEN Book) and an Air/Raft bay that looks like a proper, spacious hanger with a turntable!! This was all done for Classic Traveller, a ruleset I know wouldn't allow such luxuries on it's deckplans. Essentially the Hunter is broke-tastic but it's also one of the coolest sets of plans I've ever seen for Traveller.
I think we see things differently. The ship construction rules, I see as a game in itself. The challenge is to come up with something that does not violate the rules, and yet provides something resembling a comfortable enviroment for the players. Also before you get to the deckplans, you need to figure out the specifications for the ship, how large a target it is, what are its offensive, defensive and commercial or mission specific capabilities, which then can be used in game, what are its logisitic limitations and such. A lot of those factors are determined by volumn. The range of a ship is determined by its fuel consumption and how much it carries. Space that is used for food storage can't be used for computers and sensor arrays, and yet food storage is a key logisitic limitation for the ship. Who cares if you have enough fuel to your next port, if you all starve to death before you get there.I'm not suggesting ignoring the deckplan volume rules completely. There is a great deal of satisfaction to be gained from making a set of Deckplans work within the rules but it's also nice to design a ship that looks really cool. This is why I've started thinking I'll be slightly more creative with my deckplans.
Crow
Aerodynamics is a bitch. But you don't have to change universes. If you want smaller wings, just use worlds with higher atmospheric pressures than Earth's. Want bigger wings, less air.Why do planes have great big wings sticking out the sides? That's just the way they work, but there's nothing stopping you changing it IYTU.
For me personally, it can break the suspension of disbelief if you say, have four luxury apartments inside a 100 ton hull Compare the desiel engines on a supertanker with the size of the entire ship. I disagree here on engine size, smaller is not too much of a stretch.
The fuel tankage is what I find frustrating in my attempts at design. Why can't you put those fluffy pieces in? Just because the books says your hanger bays are so large, is there any rule that says you can't make them bigger if you want? Granted the extra space has to come somewhere, but still, I always assumed those were more minimum specs than anything else.
...Really cargo is the only "stealable" space you can have to convert to something else.
The ship construction rules, I see as a game in itself. The challenge is to come up with something that does not violate the rules, and yet provides something resembling a comfortable enviroment for the players. Also before you get to the deckplans, you need to figure out the specifications for the ship, how large a target it is, what are its offensive, defensive and commercial or mission specific capabilities, which then can be used in game, what are its logisitic limitations and such. A lot of those factors are determined by volumn. The range of a ship is determined by its fuel consumption and how much it carries. Space that is used for food storage can't be used for computers and sensor arrays, and yet food storage is a key logisitic limitation for the ship. Who cares if you have enough fuel to your next port, if you all starve to death before you get there.
Why not sketch out the plans roughly first, then design the ship to fit it?
For game purposes, more enclosed space means more capabilities, more equipment and such. From an aestitic perspective, I don't it matters. Smaller ships are generally more manuverable, but limited capabilites and resources, less fire power.I've yet to see a better system - it's just that I wonder if we stick to the volumetric rules a little too ridgidly for no real reason.
Can't really aregue there. But like I tried to poiint out before, for some folks, that is part of the game, coming up with a workable deckplan, staying within those restrictions. They take pride in "play the game" and can feel not playing by the rules is kind of cheating.Ah, yes there is a rule that says they have to be that big. It's the 1dTon = 13.5 (or 14) cubic metres rule and this is the whole point of what I'm suggesting. As you say, Why can't I just put those fluffy bits in? That's what I'm asking. You see, if you do, people start shouting, "BROKEN!" and "BURN THE HERETIC!" - Well, okay they don't but there are people out there who consider it extremely important that the squares on a deckplan add up exactly and if they don't then those deckplans are unuseable. What I'm asking is, does it really matter that much? Can't I be more creative with my volumes? Does it matter if you have a deckplan that isn't exactly accurate? Of course, there is the +/- 20% rule but I'm saying why even worry about that? As you mentioned, as long as your plans aren't so ludicrous as to pass beyond credibility, then so what?
Yes, you are correct, and that is allowed in the rules. I am thinking in more terms of design. When I try to design a ship, cargo ends up being the last thing I assign, and it is usually just the bits I have left over.Not really, if the stats say 20 dTons Cargo then you can't really use that fro anything else same as Drives and Fuel. To my mind, and in my experience the only areas you can steal from are Staterooms and the Bridge. As you say, as long as the stateroom is of a minimum size to accomodate an occupant, anything else is spare for life support, corridors and recc areas.
To me, personally no, not at all. Stay reasonable, make it as cool as you like. You might want to note that the design is non-canon, but as long as it is cool, keep it.Agreed, but this is all relative to ship stats, not the deckplans and I'm not suggesting any of the ship construction rules are changed regarding a ship's stats. I'm just saying, does it really matter if the deckplans aren't dead-on accurate or a little creative, aesthetically - within reason?
Crow
Wow, I have played more than I realize, by several orders of magnitude.If you consider this solo-gaming, then I spend more hours playing CT than anything except working and sleeping.