Supplement 7?

[ThunderChilde]

Once again, I have a CT question. In one of the threads here about deckplans someone made a casual reference to how Supplement 7 relaxed the general +/- 10% rule. How so, and why? Would that explain the generally overweight CT deckplans?

 

[far-trader]

Not relaxed. Rather it expanded on or detailed the breakdown a very little bit.

Basically instead of a simple +/-10% to 20% guideline for deckplan squares (NOT design tons*) as per LBB2, Supplement 7 says +/-10% is allowed for proper access and item representation, and in addition +10% (NOT minus) of total tonnage is allowed for corridors throughout the ship (but said 10% can serve no other function).

And no, it doesn't really explain the deckplans very well at all. It seems more like the explanation came after the deckplans as an attempt to make the rules fit the plans. But I'm feeling a bit cynical at the moment...

* I mention only because I have gotten the impression now and then that some have missed the distinction.

 

[JAFARR]

I played with an air force guy who bought some stuff published in Scotland when he was stationed there. Those deck and ship plans were always way over on deck space and ship's equipment. Can't remember if they were licensed by GDW or not. The ships were nice until you double checked the math.

 

[BlackBat242]

Like the Empress Merava in Supp 7? Two decks, 15 squares ave width (actually about 15.25) x 32 squares long for a total of 240dt per deck, for a total of ~480dt... but listed at 200dt total for the ship?

 

[far-trader]

On the plus side, iirc, the Scout/Courier actually comes out pretty close overall. If you allow that the attic spaces are crawlspaces, and the hull slope cuts into much of the rest of the deckplan, and you fudge the drive space a little, and...

 

[ThunderChilde]

Thank you for the heads up and illumination of the reference.

 

[vegascat]

Supp 7 ships are not real close even using book 2 rules.
When I design deck plans, I find that using HG rules to get percentages, work out the cubes for each system and go from there. Very little percentage fudging is needed

 

[GypsyComet]

The Type S hull makes a bit more sense when you look at the notes for what the various compartments were supposed to be originally. The galleries, the big "lounge" in the back, and everything forward of the aft wall of the Bridge are a close fit for the CT standard 20 tons of "Bridge". The lower gallery does not extend back very far, and so there is invisible engine space in the lower deck, and of course the fuel spaces take care of the rest of the odd geometry.

One of the smaller annoyance of CT was that we never saw an "as built" Type S, only surplussed and partially stripped examples.

 

[Ran Targas]

Well, all those ships can be built to LBB2 design restrictions (and I have) but it drastically affects the cargo capacity, which I don't find that much a disappointment. Actually I find it more of a challenge. So applying a 10, 20, or 30% increase in volume really strikes me as cheating yourself of a worthwhile conundrum.

Of course, you could always say a 10% increase in volume results in a 10% reduction in overall acceleration. That would make stripping a ship down 10% would be rewarding.

 

[Easterner9504]

Ships

Type S Serpent is grossly overweight.

ANNIC NOVA grossly underweight. Even figuring 150t for baroque docking ring and the kilometer wide, 1mm thick sails.

I recently re-did plans widening most decks by 2 squares. Added missing Ob Cabin on Deck 4 but clearly visible on Sean Kennedy's artwork.

 

[Ran Targas]

Type S Serpent is grossly overweight.

Yeah, I had to shorten it's overall length a bit to get it down to 100dT. It's looks sort of like a goldfish now instead of a jet airliner.

 

[Easterner9504]

Goldfish

Hahahahahaha