What is the size in cubic meters of an air/raft

[Badenov]

Now get out of that airline seat in a hurry, with your gear. Oh, right - there's no room for a decent-sized person in combat gear. The G-carrier is supposed to be at least combat-adjacent, but the only way the passengers could use it as such is if it only carries 8-10 passengers. APCs are cramped, but not that cramped (well, until their users cram extra kit into every available space). But this is a minor quibble, really. MgT1 Supp5&6 are, like most other Traveller vehicle design rules, a thing unto themselves (TNE did use FF&S for its stuff, so errata aside it was internally consistent).

Well, airline seats are substantially less than 1m^3 in my experience. I think a person in gear with 1m^3 of space would be as cramped as I am in an airline seat. Not happy, but putting up with it.

 

[mike wightman]

I asked Copilot:
"You - passenger space allocation on airline in cubic metres
Copilot
The average passenger space allocation on airlines can vary depending on the class of service and the specific airline. Generally, for economy class, the space allocation is around 0.5 to 1 cubic meter per passenger. This includes the seat, legroom, and overhead space.
For business and first class, the space allocation is significantly higher, often ranging from 1.5 to 3 cubic meters per passenger, due to larger seats, more legroom, and additional amenities."

 

[Condottiere]

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Are they compatible or consistent?

What do you mean?

Do LBB3/Striker or LBB2/LBB5 give the same results? No.
Can I use a Gazelle with LBB2, or a Striker GCarrier with LBB1/3? Yes, of course.
Can I build a 4 tonne air/raft carrying 4 people and 4 tonnes of cargo at ~100 km/h at TL-8 in Striker? Yes, of course.

 

[mike wightman]

What do you mean?

I don't know how else to put it. Are their parameters for what is mean to be the same vehicle close enough? Do they generate inconsistencies in the setting as a result.

Do LBB3/Striker or LBB2/LBB5 give the same results? No.

So not compatible.

Can I use a Gazelle with LBB2, or a Striker GCarrier with LBB1/3? Yes, of course.

You can do anything you want it your universe. Please tell me how a LBB:2 Gazelle explains drop tanks, particle accelerator turrets, and what a heavy laser is. Inconsistency.

Can I build a 4 tonne air/raft carrying 4 people and 4 tonnes of cargo at ~100 km/h at TL-8 in Striker? Yes, of course.

I can't. I have tried but can't.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Can I build a 4 tonne air/raft carrying 4 people and 4 tonnes of cargo at ~100 km/h at TL-8 in Striker? Yes, of course.

I can't. I have tried but can't.

The legacy Air/Raft stats from LBB3 definitely fall into THIS CATEGORY of world building.

 

[Badenov]

Can I build a 4 tonne air/raft carrying 4 people and 4 tonnes of cargo at ~100 km/h at TL-8 in Striker? Yes, of course.

I can't. I have tried but can't.

I had the same result with Book 6. The problem is anything as large as 4T with a grav truster requires a million credits, so it's already 4x the cost of an air/raft. But using the

Oh, and Supplement 5's Air/Raft is only 8 m^3

smaller air/raft and the 4T cargo thing, I now have a 10m^3 air/raft design that costs 276KCr, has 400kph top speed, carries pilot+3 psg and 4000kg cargo (in 3.3m^3, so somewhat dense cargo). I think I have something close to what might be right, apart from getting 3 of them in a 4dT hangar and 1127kph top speed with no cargo. Maybe it has a governor?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

So not compatible.

OK, so by your standard LBB5 is not CT enough?
AHL personal combat is not CT enough?

You can do anything you want it your universe. Please tell me how a LBB:2 Gazelle explains drop tanks, particle accelerator turrets, and what a heavy laser is. Inconsistency.

There is an entire JTAS article explaining how the Gazelle works with LBB2.
Non-default tankage works the same with LBB5 and LBB2 ships, as described in TCS and used by TTA.

I can't. I have tried but can't.

Four tonnes, 120 km/h, four people, four tonnes of cargo, open topped:

Sure, price and endurance is (very) different, so I didn't mention them...

Note that the payload, price, and endurance is different for an air/raft between LBB3'77 and LBB3'81. Does that mean that LBB3'81 isn't pure enough to be CT?


CT contains a truck-load of different systems, sometimes overlapping or contradictory. That has never stopped me from using or enjoying them. I'm not expecting perfection or worshipping LBB1-3 over all else. When a better system (LBB5) or a system at all (vehicle design) comes along, I gladly use them.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I had the same result with Book 6. The problem is anything as large as 4T with a grav truster requires a million credits, so it's already 4x the cost of an air/raft.

The LBB3 air/raft is four tonnes (mass in metric tons), not displacement tons (volume in units of 14 m³).
LBB2 says a four tonne vehicle needs a four Dton garage, something that made perfect sense in LBB2'77 that was (presumably) mass based.

The actual volume of an air/raft is not specified in LBB1-3.

 

[mike wightman]

OK, so by your standard LBB5 is not CT enough?

It is one of the main routes by which inconsistency and incompatibility entered.
If LBB:5 added military options to LBB:2 fair enough, but it didn't.
Different TL paradigm, different outcomes when designing the same ship, LBB:2 ships that don't meet LBB:5 requirements
(TL9 jump 2 scout, TL10 jump 4 xboat)

AHL personal combat is not CT enough?

It is inconsistent with the LBB:1 and LBB:4 combat systems. It is only compatible in describing the same weapons and them killing characters, the devil is in the detail.

There is an entire JTAS article explaining how the Gazelle works with LBB2.
Non-default tankage works the same with LBB5 and LBB2 ships, as described in TCS and used by TTA.

There is, which is why I ask how does the article explain drop tanks and the particle accelerators? It doesn't. What is a heavy laser that you treat the particle accelerator the same as?

Four tonnes, 120 km/h, four people, four tonnes of cargo, open topped:
View attachment 5535
Sure, price and endurance is (very) different, so I didn't mention them...

So not the same...

Note that the payload, price, and endurance is different for an air/raft between LBB3'77 and LBB3'81. Does that mean that LBB3'81 isn't pure enough to be CT?

Lol, don't get me started on the differences between 77 and 81 Suffice to say there are bits of 81 that are inconsistent and incompatible with 77.

CT contains a truck-load of different systems, sometimes overlapping or contradictory. That has never stopped me from using or enjoying them. I'm not expecting perfection or worshipping LBB1-3 over all else. When a better system (LBB5) or a system at all (vehicle design) comes along, I gladly use them.

I wouldn't still be playing the game, and talking about it, and recommending it, if I didn't feel the same way.

But Traveller has always played fast and loose with consistency and compatibility, It is one of its endearing qualities to me.

 

[kilemall]

It is one of the main routes by which inconsistency and incompatibility entered.
If LBB:5 added military options to LBB:2 fair enough, but it didn't.
Different TL paradigm, different outcomes when designing the same ship, LBB:2 ships that don't meet LBB:5 requirements
(TL9 jump 2 scout, TL10 jump 4 xboat)

It is inconsistent with the LBB:1 and LBB:4 combat systems. It is only compatible in describing the same weapons and them killing characters, the devil is in the detail.

There is, which is why I ask how does the article explain drop tanks and the particle accelerators? It doesn't. What is a heavy laser that you treat the particle accelerator the same as?

So not the same...

Lol, don't get me started on the differences between 77 and 81 Suffice to say there are bits of 81 that are inconsistent and incompatible with 77.

I wouldn't still be playing the game, and talking about it, and recommending it, if I didn't feel the same way.

But Traveller has always played fast and loose with consistency and compatibility, It is one of its endearing qualities to me.

If we think about it, the very different task roll examples themselves highlights a philosophy of ‘do what seems to make sense’ ethos.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There is, which is why I ask how does the article explain drop tanks and the particle accelerators? It doesn't. What is a heavy laser that you treat the particle accelerator the same as?

We've had this discussion before. It's in the JTAS#4 article:

JTAS#4, p19:
THE BARBETTES
The barbettes, and their particle accelerator weapons are not specifically covered in Traveller Book 2. They are a variant drawn from the material in High Guard, and grafted onto Book 2. Specifically, the barbettes are 5 tons each. The particle accelerators should be treated as heavy lasers as in Traveller Book 2, subject to an advantageous DM of +2 to hit. Damage from such hits should be skewed toward crew casualties, and electronic and computer damage if there is no fibre optic back-up present.

Treated as Laser, DM+2 to hit, and some special damage.

JTAS#4, p19:
L-HYD TANKS
The two longitudinal fuel tanks of the Gazelle class ship are engineered to be droppable in extreme circumstances. The ship has high capacity accumulators in its jump drive, and can completely burn its fuel prior to jump, storing the energy while the tanks are then jettisoned. The decrease in tonnage for the ship results in greater efficiency, and the ship can jump farther (J-6). Additional fuel tankage within the ship allows maneuver, but the tanks must be replaced before the ship can again jump.

No biggie.

So not the same...

I didn't said exactly the same, I said:

Can I build a 4 tonne air/raft carrying 4 people and 4 tonnes of cargo at ~100 km/h at TL-8 in Striker? Yes, of course.

As I showed.

Lol, don't get me started on the differences between 77 and 81 Suffice to say there are bits of 81 that are inconsistent and incompatible with 77.


I wouldn't still be playing the game, and talking about it, and recommending it, if I didn't feel the same way.

But Traveller has always played fast and loose with consistency and compatibility, It is one of its endearing qualities to me.

So, no problem then? Both LBB3'77, LBB3'81, and Striker grav vehicles are canonical and usable in any CT context, like the other incompatible systems in CT?

It's all CT from 1977 to what, AM8 Darrians in 1987?

 

[kilemall]

I would tend to use double damage from the PA barbettes using the radiation nuclear warhead table from the missile supplement for the easiest implementation.

 

[mike wightman]

We've had this discussion before. It's in the JTAS#4 article:
The particle accelerators should be treated as heavy lasers as in Traveller Book 2, subject to an advantageous DM of +2 to hit.
Treated as Laser, DM+2 to hit, and some special damage.

Classic Traveller does not have a heavy laser.

No biggie.

is there enough information for drop tanks to be installed on a LBB2 ship? Do the drop tanks take up more space than regular tanks? How much space do the high capacity accumulators take up and how much do they cost?

I didn't said exactly the same, I said:

As I showed.

So you can build something with only the characteristics you mentioned but omit stuff in the CT description. As I said, I can not reproduce the CT air/raft, I can come close but there are differences.

So, no problem then? Both LBB3'77, LBB3'81, and Striker grav vehicles are canonical and usable in any CT context, like the other incompatible systems in CT?

No, no problem in practice providing you account for the inconsistencies and incompatibilities
It all works, it can all be made to work together, but it doesn't work together "out the box".
But it does give us something to chat about.

It's all CT from 1977 to what, AM8 Darrians in 1987?

Yes, and the ten years of incompatibility and inconsistency would give us the revision and unification that would be known as MegaTraveller...

 

[Spinward Flow]

Classic Traveller does not have a heavy laser.

LBB DA1 Annic Nova features a starship with TWO Heavy Lasers.

 

[mike wightman]

So where in the LBB:2 rules does it say what a heavy laser is and what a heavy laser does? Consistency and incompatibility...

By the way where in the JTAS or DA version does it call them heavy lasers, all I can find is laser canon +1 to hit - consistency yet again. Apparently the referee can handwave advanced fire control and grant a to hit bonus.

"On the next higher level is a single gunner couch placed next to a long laser cannon tube.
Weapons: The two laser cannon turrets are used as laser +1, the guns being quite effective in fire control.
Two single turrets each mount a single laser cannon."


In another nod towards consistency and compatibility the Annic Nova carries four 12D12 "missiles" in an external rack.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Classic Traveller does not have a heavy laser.

It tells you right there how to handle it: To hit +2, and special damage.

is there enough information for drop tanks to be installed on a LBB2 ship? Do the drop tanks take up more space than regular tanks? How much space do the high capacity accumulators take up and how much do they cost?

Why would the entire design system be detailed in a ship description? The article tells you how to use the Gazelle with LBB2.

If you want to know more buy LBB5 or TCS, that is the real point of the article, right?

So you can build something with only the characteristics you mentioned but omit stuff in the CT description. As I said, I can not reproduce the CT air/raft, I can come close but there are differences.

Yes, as I said. Both CT, different systems, so not identical results.

You apparently use CT as a shorthand for LBB1-3, but all of the first edition(s) from 1977 to 1987 is CT. From LBB1-3'77 to Starter Traveller. From LBB1 to LBB8 and Striker, it's all CT.

If anything, the problem is that the air/raft in LBB3'81 is incompatible with the vehicle design system published the same year. LBB3 should have been better...

No, no problem in practice providing you account for the inconsistencies and incompatibilities
It all works, it can all be made to work together, but it doesn't work together "out the box".

So, no problem!


My main point is that there are of course many different types of air/rafts of different sizes, so the question "how big is an air/raft" is akin to "How long is a string?". All grav vehicles, of all civilisations, makes, and models, were represented with a single entry in LBB3'77, just as all cars, AFVs, and all helicopters were represented by one entry each. There are, of course, many different models in each category...

So, calling an air/raft incompatible with another air/raft is like saying that a Toyota Camry is not a car because it is not identical to a Chevrolet '57.

 

[Condottiere]

We want the Toyota Camry of the Travellerverse.

 

[mike wightman]

It tells you right there how to handle it: To hit +2, and special damage.

Is it in LBB:2? So is it something a player can put on their ships? How much are they? Can you have a triple heavy laser turret?

Why would the entire design system be detailed in a ship description? The article tells you how to use the Gazelle with LBB2.

No it doesn't. LBB: tells you how to build ships, this description lacks information on tonnage and cost.

If you want to know more buy LBB5 or TCS, that is the real point of the article, right?

So where in TCS are the LBB:2 rules for special accumulators and heavy lasers?

Yes, as I said. Both CT, different systems, so not identical results.

And as a result inconsistent and often contradictory.

You apparently use CT as a shorthand for LBB1-3, but all of the first edition(s) from 1977 to 1987 is CT. From LBB1-3'77 to Starter Traveller. From LBB1 to LBB8 and Striker, it's all CT.

I will seek to use on LBB:1-3 when I mean the core rules, and CT for the whole corpus. It is the corpus that is contradictory and inconsistent.

If anything, the problem is that the air/raft in LBB3'81 is incompatible with the vehicle design system published the same year. LBB3 should have been better...

I agree, thay should have used Striker to build the vehicles presented in LBB:3 81.

So, no problem!

No, not a problem, it is, and always has been, just an observation.

My main point is that there are of course many different types of air/rafts of different sizes, so the question "how big is an air/raft" is akin to "How long is a string?". All grav vehicles, of all civilisations, makes, and models, were represented with a single entry in LBB3'77, just as all cars, AFVs, and all helicopters were represented by one entry each. There are, of course, many different models in each category...

I agree.

So, calling an air/raft incompatible with another air/raft is like saying that a Toyota Camry is not a car because it is not identical to a Chevrolet '57.

If that was my complaint I would agree.

 

[mike wightman]

We want the Toyota Camry of the Travellerverse.

The universal tactical platform - the Toyota truck