P
Pickles
Guest
Yup, we're a very genteel bunch when it comes to ship plans!
It's trade rules you want to stay away from ...
It's trade rules you want to stay away from ...
STAT THAT SHIP!
- Thread starter bryan gibson
- Start date
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I know Bromgrev wasn't here at the time, and it might even have been before Crow was here, but to clarify it was this very community that burned Bryan over his deckplans of the T20 Scout/Courier, myself included to a greater degree than I care to admit.
Just FYI.
Just FYI.
P
Pickles
Guest
Dan! I'm shocked! 
Hopefully we've all mellowed with age (and a little help from the Laughing Policeman). I have to say I take terrible liberties with deckplan tonnages, especially working from a cool exterior. Fuel tanks hide a multitude of sins ...
Hopefully we've all mellowed with age (and a little help from the Laughing Policeman). I have to say I take terrible liberties with deckplan tonnages, especially working from a cool exterior. Fuel tanks hide a multitude of sins ...
Oh, wait! I remember that. I seem to recall it wasn't so much anal nit-picking over squares and volume allocation, more fundamental differences between the shape of the deckplan and the shape of the ship and rooms where there was no room to have rooms - so to speak - and no fuel.
Or am I thinking of something else?
Either way, I don't blame Bryan for opting out of contributing to the community. I've felt the same way several times.
Crow
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I think you may be thinking of the criticisms of Hunter's more recent deckplans for the same ship. Or not. I'm foggy on the details of the BG deckplans thread but that sounds more like the more recent one.
I'd hunt up the old BG deckplan threads if they're still there but I think it may be best to let those ones stay dead and buried.
I'd hunt up the old BG deckplan threads if they're still there but I think it may be best to let those ones stay dead and buried.
bryan gibson
Absent Friend
No, thats it. And the hell of it was, it was the most annoying sort of nitpicking - pure opinion as to presentation of the idiotic obsession to pointless detail grognarnd gearheads are so deservedly reputed for, and generally it was to a degree that really didn't matter in the least, unless you were said obsessive grognard or Mr. Monk.
The sole purpose of any deckplan is to show where things are, and matters of scale are desirable but simply not nesecary.If I'm buying plans to play minis on, sure, thats different, To show where things are in a RP context - who careswhere the fuel tanks and voids and such nonsense is on a ship?
Ok, so you have the deckplans of a 500k DTON ship...why? I mean, how many gaming groups ever actually use those things? ( realistically...I don't doubt someone out there will pipe up "mine do!" but thats the exception) And after all that work , to get slapped around by people that argueably couldn't do it themselves anyway, over something I worked hard at, for free?
And the people critcising at the time were generally rude, condescending, and as far as I could tell with a few exceptions probably never played the game with other people.There were exceptions of course, but frankly by the time it was all said and done I was so fed up with the whole thing I just walked away from that venue entirely with absolutely no regret.
Nope, not a bloody millisecond.
And thats why I don't do deckplans.^.^
P
Pickles
Guest
I was going to say "our loss", but if it means you spend more time on artwork ... every cloud and all that.
Plenty of deck planners out there. Artists, now, especially artists interested in Traveller? That's a whole different kettle of fish.
Plenty of deck planners out there. Artists, now, especially artists interested in Traveller? That's a whole different kettle of fish.
Matters of scale are absolutely needful.
When I use deckplans, it is for two reasons:
1) So players can visualize the ship
2) To regulate combat.
In the first case, the accuracy is a minor issue. In the latter, yes, it is important where things are, and how they fit. I've seen as many non gearheads comment about the Type S plans that "That Cargo Hold should be making a chin under the bridge" as gearheads.
When I use deckplans, it is for two reasons:
1) So players can visualize the ship
2) To regulate combat.
In the first case, the accuracy is a minor issue. In the latter, yes, it is important where things are, and how they fit. I've seen as many non gearheads comment about the Type S plans that "That Cargo Hold should be making a chin under the bridge" as gearheads.
The Type S is the best official deckplan Traveller has got. It's romantic; it's interesting. It may not exactly fit the general rule but so what? (Anyway, you can always fudge the height of decks - it can all fit as long as you don't insist on the full 2.5m for the upper gallery).
Alot the corrected deckplans to me seem rather dull - no interesting nooks and crannies.
Point in case, the 'improved' T20 scout may be more efficiently and 'correctly' arranged, but if I was a scout I'd prefer the old Type S. If I wanted to get away from a crewmate for whatever reason it would be really hard on the curvy one. One the arrowhead one you could avoid each other for days.
Alot the corrected deckplans to me seem rather dull - no interesting nooks and crannies.
Point in case, the 'improved' T20 scout may be more efficiently and 'correctly' arranged, but if I was a scout I'd prefer the old Type S. If I wanted to get away from a crewmate for whatever reason it would be really hard on the curvy one. One the arrowhead one you could avoid each other for days.
Klaus, head over to http://aramis.angeltowns.com/cc/ts.html. I recommend the CC2 viewer and the FCW version of it. (True, it's a T20/Bk5 design, not a Bk2 one, so it has extra cargo space.)
