The Space Issue in Traveller
- Thread starter Publius
- Start date
Well I guess there is no point in discussion is there?
On whether to take the tonnage out of SR? Not really... it's explicitly part of the SR tonnage.
On how much, what proportion? absolutely.
On whether to expropriate it from bridge tonnage? sure
On how to make it all work out? sure.
For example, on several designs I've done, I have used 2x2 squares for the room, then 2x1.5 squares for a common central lounge, then the remaining square elsewhere for accessways.
Code:
+--+--+ + + +--+--+
| | : |
+ + + + + + + +
| : | |
+--+--+ + + +--+--+Note also, the 20Td bridge minimum really makes for a lot of excess space on small ships (≤700Td) which can be pulled as well.
Further, I often design with only one or two halls; everything else is either off one of those spinal halls, or accessed by going through another compartment that is.
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
LBB5 (2nd ed?) p33 states:
"Staterooms actually average about two tons, but the additional tonnage is used to provide corridors and access ways, as well as galley and recreation areas."
My bridges tend to include a substantive strongroom (Ships Locker), a fresher, cockpit area, a large amount of control gear and a captain's ready room / office. That adds up to a fairly large proportion of that 20 dT.
"Staterooms actually average about two tons, but the additional tonnage is used to provide corridors and access ways, as well as galley and recreation areas."
My bridges tend to include a substantive strongroom (Ships Locker), a fresher, cockpit area, a large amount of control gear and a captain's ready room / office. That adds up to a fairly large proportion of that 20 dT.
Great quotes. Here's some more...
In addition, plans from that era, and all succeeding eras (including Mongoose, which is what I use, take a look at the Type S) follow this guideline. Some of course are closer and some are further away. This is largely a function of shape and size and that is cool. I don't want all exterior shapes or interior hallways to be the same, I like variety. Sometimes that means bending a bit. You don't have to use the 10%, it is simply there to accommodate when needed.
Then there is the following...
Identical language in 1983 Starter Edition, pg 33. Note that in both cases, accessways/hallways were left off of that description, just "Common areas and other accommodations". To me this is probably an indication that once the designers started actually drawing these plans out, someone noticed the same thing that I did: hallways are a bear. This is not to say that you cannot allocate them with the Stateroom tonnage, but in some designs this becomes problematic and forces either an overage or a strange situation where you have to buy extra staterooms to get to the Engineering deck.
I'm simply arguing that 10% for Hallways and other things not accounted for in the tonnage allocation (airlocks and such) alone is a reasonable and legitimate figure, and something to consider early in the design stage for those interested in going that route. I was just wondering what people thought about the idea. I apologize if it gives offense to discuss that idea here as the rules are so very clear (with the exception of the above quotations of course; and well, the actual plans in LBB and later products). If those are the rules you must follow, then please do. I'm interested in discussing it with others that don't feel that pressing need.
Traveller is a wonderful game and there are a lot of ways to run it and still be considered to be within the rules structure. My maps use this 10% overage guideline, and in the current 1000 dton Luxury Liner I'm planning out, I kept this hallway overage figure at under 5%. Now if others want to stay away from that and solely use Stateroom tonnage, so be it, it's their game. If someone wants to discuss this further (as opposed to shutting down discussion), I'm interested, which is why I am here on a board that discusses the game of Traveller.
And Isocahedron, I pretty much use all my Bridge tonnage for the Bridge too.
In addition, plans from that era, and all succeeding eras (including Mongoose, which is what I use, take a look at the Type S) follow this guideline. Some of course are closer and some are further away. This is largely a function of shape and size and that is cool. I don't want all exterior shapes or interior hallways to be the same, I like variety. Sometimes that means bending a bit. You don't have to use the 10%, it is simply there to accommodate when needed.
Then there is the following...
Identical language in 1983 Starter Edition, pg 33. Note that in both cases, accessways/hallways were left off of that description, just "Common areas and other accommodations". To me this is probably an indication that once the designers started actually drawing these plans out, someone noticed the same thing that I did: hallways are a bear. This is not to say that you cannot allocate them with the Stateroom tonnage, but in some designs this becomes problematic and forces either an overage or a strange situation where you have to buy extra staterooms to get to the Engineering deck.
I'm simply arguing that 10% for Hallways and other things not accounted for in the tonnage allocation (airlocks and such) alone is a reasonable and legitimate figure, and something to consider early in the design stage for those interested in going that route. I was just wondering what people thought about the idea. I apologize if it gives offense to discuss that idea here as the rules are so very clear (with the exception of the above quotations of course; and well, the actual plans in LBB and later products). If those are the rules you must follow, then please do. I'm interested in discussing it with others that don't feel that pressing need.
Traveller is a wonderful game and there are a lot of ways to run it and still be considered to be within the rules structure. My maps use this 10% overage guideline, and in the current 1000 dton Luxury Liner I'm planning out, I kept this hallway overage figure at under 5%. Now if others want to stay away from that and solely use Stateroom tonnage, so be it, it's their game. If someone wants to discuss this further (as opposed to shutting down discussion), I'm interested, which is why I am here on a board that discusses the game of Traveller.
And Isocahedron, I pretty much use all my Bridge tonnage for the Bridge too.
Last edited:
Icosahedron
SOC-14 1K
Well, I hope my comments didn't come across as shutting down discussion, they weren't intended to. Comments were requested and I made some, s'all. 
I try to stick to the 4dT for all my accommodations (except bridge and engineering) simply as a matter of pride. Sure, if I got really stuck, I might invoke that 10-20% safety net, but I wouldn't be happy about it because I'd feel I'd failed to make a successful deckplan. Such a plan would be a perpetual source of irritation and I'd always want to come back to it and 'fix' it. But that's just me being anally retentive.
OTOH, I'm quite happy to add a couple of 'virtual staterooms' whose 4dT are entirely given over to common and access space - if the design specs will permit it. The design has to be right though, for me. If there is 40dT available for accommodations, the ship has a maximum of 10 staterooms, real or virtual, never 11.
I might get creative with the pictures but never* with the numbers.
*Of course, circumstances might make me disregard any of the rules - I'm an avid houseruler. eg, I've never drawn deckplans for a 100kdT ship and I can't immediately picture what to do with 2000dT of 'bridge' space. I might need to get very creative at that stage.
It's a game. The rules are guidelines to stimulate enjoyable play. You do what you feel is right. If you and your players are happy, nobody else matters.
I try to stick to the 4dT for all my accommodations (except bridge and engineering) simply as a matter of pride. Sure, if I got really stuck, I might invoke that 10-20% safety net, but I wouldn't be happy about it because I'd feel I'd failed to make a successful deckplan. Such a plan would be a perpetual source of irritation and I'd always want to come back to it and 'fix' it. But that's just me being anally retentive.
OTOH, I'm quite happy to add a couple of 'virtual staterooms' whose 4dT are entirely given over to common and access space - if the design specs will permit it. The design has to be right though, for me. If there is 40dT available for accommodations, the ship has a maximum of 10 staterooms, real or virtual, never 11.
I might get creative with the pictures but never* with the numbers.
*Of course, circumstances might make me disregard any of the rules - I'm an avid houseruler. eg, I've never drawn deckplans for a 100kdT ship and I can't immediately picture what to do with 2000dT of 'bridge' space. I might need to get very creative at that stage.
It's a game. The rules are guidelines to stimulate enjoyable play. You do what you feel is right. If you and your players are happy, nobody else matters.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Captain Picard of the Enterprise wraps up a tour for visiting dignitaries...
"And our next to last stop gentlemen and women, this is Bridge Section 24-Forward. There are several others just like it equally spaced around the saucer on this deck."
...the door whooshes open, the way only Star-Trek doors can whoosh, to a cacophony as two children rush out the door and race down the hallway. Uncounted numbers of other children can be seen inside.
"Ah, it appears to be recess for the juvenile crew. This is the "Not On My Bridge" cell... ective training area for the little mon... sieurs et madames. It is critical to the proper operation and safety of the ship that these civilians be kept as far away from the helm as possible at all times. Now, on to the final stop on our tour, a critical area to keeping the ship operating, Bridge Section 10-Forward... "
BlackBat242
SOC-14 1K
bridge 1 (brj)
n.
1. A structure spanning and providing passage over a gap or barrier, such as a river or roadway.
2. Something resembling or analogous to this structure in form or function: a land bridge between the continents; a bridge of understanding between two countries.
6. Nautical A crosswise platform or enclosed area above the main deck of a ship from which the ship is controlled.
bridge 2 (brj)
n.
Any of several card games derived from whist, usually played by four people in two partnerships, in which trump is determined by bidding and the hand opposite the declarer is played as a dummy.
tr.v. bridged, bridg·ing, bridg·es
1. To build a bridge over.
2. To cross by or as if by a bridge.
Looks like a "bridge" is:
a control room,
a means of getting from one place to another (passageway),
and a game (which requires a place to be played... a lounge/game room/rec room).
Sounds like a very flexible definition to me!
:smirk:
n.
1. A structure spanning and providing passage over a gap or barrier, such as a river or roadway.
2. Something resembling or analogous to this structure in form or function: a land bridge between the continents; a bridge of understanding between two countries.
6. Nautical A crosswise platform or enclosed area above the main deck of a ship from which the ship is controlled.
bridge 2 (brj)
n.
Any of several card games derived from whist, usually played by four people in two partnerships, in which trump is determined by bidding and the hand opposite the declarer is played as a dummy.
tr.v. bridged, bridg·ing, bridg·es
1. To build a bridge over.
2. To cross by or as if by a bridge.
Looks like a "bridge" is:
a control room,
a means of getting from one place to another (passageway),
and a game (which requires a place to be played... a lounge/game room/rec room).
Sounds like a very flexible definition to me!
:smirk:
Hi
I think I may have posted this a couple times before so some of you may have seen it before, but here is a write up of a small ship that was designed using a draft set of new rules (that have probably been overcome by events by now). The actual design calcs were done by someone else and I just drew up my ideas for a set of deck plans for it, just because I wanted to try out some ideas.
In this design I tried hard to not only make the deck plans come close to the design calcs, but I also tried to make the actual shape of the hullform come close to 100dtons.
On the upper deck you can see that by making the staterooms 2 squares by 2 squares and adding space for a lounge, meal area, galley, laundry and Air Lock I was able to come fairly close to making the accommodations spaces equal the 24dtons called out in the calcs.
I laid out the spaces using some symbols that I had for standard furniture pieces, and using those it looks like you could fit a reasonable size bed, closet, and sanitary facilities in a 2dton space.
Later on I tried laying out a typical stateroom in one of those home design software packages that you can get at a computer store and I found by rearranging a few things I was actually able to fit a small dresser/entertainment center in as well. I never finished the model but I'll see if I can find it later and post it as well.
Anyway, just some additional info that I thought might be of interest.
Regards
PF
http://www.mnvdet.com/Pocket%20Trader.pdf
I think I may have posted this a couple times before so some of you may have seen it before, but here is a write up of a small ship that was designed using a draft set of new rules (that have probably been overcome by events by now). The actual design calcs were done by someone else and I just drew up my ideas for a set of deck plans for it, just because I wanted to try out some ideas.
In this design I tried hard to not only make the deck plans come close to the design calcs, but I also tried to make the actual shape of the hullform come close to 100dtons.
On the upper deck you can see that by making the staterooms 2 squares by 2 squares and adding space for a lounge, meal area, galley, laundry and Air Lock I was able to come fairly close to making the accommodations spaces equal the 24dtons called out in the calcs.
I laid out the spaces using some symbols that I had for standard furniture pieces, and using those it looks like you could fit a reasonable size bed, closet, and sanitary facilities in a 2dton space.
Later on I tried laying out a typical stateroom in one of those home design software packages that you can get at a computer store and I found by rearranging a few things I was actually able to fit a small dresser/entertainment center in as well. I never finished the model but I'll see if I can find it later and post it as well.
Anyway, just some additional info that I thought might be of interest.
Regards
PF
http://www.mnvdet.com/Pocket%20Trader.pdf
Scarecrow
SOC-14 1K
It's been a long time since I designed a Traveller ship but I think my philosophy towards it has changed greatly over the years. I used to snort derisively at deckplans that weren't exactly the right amount of squares. I'd equally roll my eyes at 'flying bricks' and ships with impossibly low headroom etc.
I think now I would use the tonnages in the design rules simply to generate the ship's stats and give myself a list of the ship's contents. Then I'd just draw a cool looking ship and not be overly concerned about how many squares I was using. Or at most, use the tonnages to get a roughly correct size area for such things as cargo. If a ship has four staterooms, then obviously the deckplans should only have four staterooms. I trust myself to only make those staterooms a credible size regardless of their actual size and who cares where the access corridors come from? 100 ton ships will still be roughly the same size and so will 200 tonners etc.
The way I feel these days is, as long as the ship's stats are legal, the deckplans are just for providing cover in a boarding action.
This gives me a great deal more creative freedom and so, for me the end results are much more satisfying. This is also why I still prefer the Classic ship design rules over all others because they're really simple.
Crow
I think now I would use the tonnages in the design rules simply to generate the ship's stats and give myself a list of the ship's contents. Then I'd just draw a cool looking ship and not be overly concerned about how many squares I was using. Or at most, use the tonnages to get a roughly correct size area for such things as cargo. If a ship has four staterooms, then obviously the deckplans should only have four staterooms. I trust myself to only make those staterooms a credible size regardless of their actual size and who cares where the access corridors come from? 100 ton ships will still be roughly the same size and so will 200 tonners etc.
The way I feel these days is, as long as the ship's stats are legal, the deckplans are just for providing cover in a boarding action.
This gives me a great deal more creative freedom and so, for me the end results are much more satisfying. This is also why I still prefer the Classic ship design rules over all others because they're really simple.
Crow
shadowdragon
SOC-12
One other thing I just noticed- on your link there it shows 4" walls and 6" end walls as having the entire wall thickness taken from one stateroom. actually, only half that will come from any single stateroom connected in that manner except for the end wall of 6" (but why exactly is that wall so much thicker?) so thats an additional 2 inches in each direction. You should be able to add quite a bit there now, maybe a swimming pool or something :rofl:
