Alternative Scout/Courier 100Dtons

[BrianSmaller]

Hi Chaps

Was browsing the other day and saw this neat ship on the Star Wars deck plan alliance site and thought that it could be Traveller-ised. So.... a Traveller version of the CU-37 Light Courier. has slightly longer legs than the standard Type S. Stats by HGS.

Pop over and take a look

http://woolshedwargamer.com/2015/05/07/alternative-100dton-scoutcourier/

Cheers
Brian

 

[Reynard]

Cool! I take it we assume the Jump drive and Power plant are split between the two pods somehow.

 

[Old timer]

Cool, except the stats are not in mongoose form, they appear to be mega traveller or classic. Do you have a mongoose version?

 

[Jeraa]

Cool, except the stats are not in mongoose form, they appear to be mega traveller or classic. Do you have a mongoose version?

It is basically just your standard 100 ton scout with a different deck plan.

 

[phavoc]

The design is nice, but the stats/floorplan won't fit within canon rules.

 

[BrianSmaller]

Cool, except the stats are not in mongoose form, they appear to be mega traveller or classic. Do you have a mongoose version?

Nope - I am sure you can sort that out. Don't have Mongoose traveller.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The design is nice, but the stats/floorplan won't fit within canon rules.

Which canon rules exactly?

 

[BrianSmaller]

The design is nice, but the stats/floorplan won't fit within canon rules.

Canon? Oh well. Too bad Most of my deckplans are dodgy. I tend to use starships as plot devices in my campaign. I don't fuss too much on 'canon'. For instance I assume fuel tanks are between decks and so forth at times.

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

The design is nice, but the stats/floorplan won't fit within canon rules.

Canon? Oh well. Too bad Most of my deckplans are dodgy. I tend to use starships as plot devices in my campaign. I don't fuss too much on 'canon'. For instance I assume fuel tanks are between decks and so forth at times.

Fuel can go anywhere there are "squares" for it. I've never seen players play "canon" in anyway. They do play out-of-character a lot though, which is not canon at all.

 

[Condottiere]

Bunkerage; theoretically, could be another layer of protection.

Not sure if it works as insulation.

 

[phavoc]

The design is nice, but the stats/floorplan won't fit within canon rules.

Which canon rules exactly?

To start the cabins are sized at 1Dton. And then looking at the design and the scaled people I'm not sure if the ship itself is at 100Dtons. If you look closely at the plans you'll see the squares in the engine pods are smaller than the ones used for the cabins, and the squares in the main corridor are larger than the ones in engineering and cabins.

Not showing exactly where all the fuel is has never been an issue, since you would cram it all over the place. I've got no real issue with shrinking staterooms either and putting just a bunk in. But somewhere you'd have to have life support space allocated. Traveller just puts the tonnage into the stateroom (as well as not charging for corridors). Simplification is good, but sometimes too simple goes the wrong way too.

 

[simonh]

I think those squares are supposed to be images of the actual
Deck plating.

All looks cool to me. Going back to IISS Ship Files deck plans have shown split drives, and although there are conventions around the split between actual stateroom space and associated corridors and shared spaces, they're just conventions. I've no problem with a larger share of the space per 'stateroom' going to communal space on some designs.

It looks like the sleeping pods might also be designed to function as escape pods. Thats an interesting variation that's not covered by the standard rules but IMHO that's fine, just make up new rules to cover it. Maybe allocate 1 extra dton per statetoom (half a dton per person to the pod hull and mini drive system) and up the cost a bit for the gravitic thrusters in the pods. They'd just be short range.

Simon Hibbs

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

To start the cabins are sized at 1Dton.

You got to be kidding. You think the only car in the Imperium is an old 5656 Chevy?

And then looking at the design and the scaled people I'm not sure if the ship itself is at 100Dtons. If you look closely at the plans you'll see the squares in the engine pods are smaller than the ones used for the cabins, and the squares in the main corridor are larger than the ones in engineering and cabins.

That's artwork. Not grid mapping.

Not showing exactly where all the fuel is has never been an issue, since you would cram it all over the place. I've got no real issue with shrinking staterooms either and putting just a bunk in. But somewhere you'd have to have life support space allocated. Traveller just puts the tonnage into the stateroom (as well as not charging for corridors). Simplification is good, but sometimes too simple goes the wrong way too.

Again with the staterooms.

 

[GypsyComet]

If the living and working spaces add up to about 26 tons (Mongoose Small Bridge and four staterooms) then it is close enough.

The Skeleton Key ship tile sets can produce ships in this same configuration, with the forward outboard engineering pods. They tend to go for group crew bays instead of staterooms, though. This configuration is certainly a departure from the typical Traveller aesthetic, but they tend to feel unstreamlined to me. In a setting where this is common, everyone probably has subcraft.

 

[dragoner]

Nice deck plan.

 

[phavoc]

You got to be kidding. You think the only car in the Imperium is an old 5656 Chevy?

Nope. But I believe all the published work states that staterooms for starships are 4Dtons, and take up either 4 or 6 grid squares. Since this is stated to be an equivalent of the Scout\courier, it needs to follow the same rules laid out in the books.

Again with the staterooms.

Again, it's a rule.

For the SW universe it works. For the Traveller universe it has some issues.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, you have to reserve two tonnes per person, which inherently includes whatever form of life support exists.

I think it was in Beltsrike that it's mentioned man can survive on ten tonne bridge alone (though I'd add in half a tonne for that refreshing feeling).

 

[Reynard]

That's the Seeker Singleship which is an extreme refit of a standard vessel rather than normal ship building procedures. The descriptor also states this is an individual choice to sacrifice Jump and living quarters to maximize cargo space for a single person operation and company or corporate ships won't do this. They even hint that hygienic facilities are close to a high tech chamber pot and any sane person really doesn't want to near these people.

The norm is 4 tons per person and double bunking in those 4 tons at 50% higher life support cost. That goes for scouts and Seekers.

 

[Condottiere]

I'd trade fuel for increased personnel space in the design mechanics.

As it stands, I'm more inclined to create more communal areas.

 

[phavoc]

The 4 tons per stateroom is supposed to be enough for galleys, corridors and the like so you don't have to specifically pay for them. And yeah, double bunking is allowed in the staterooms. Merchant prince has a self-contained module you can cram 20 people into that only displaces 10 tons.

If this were a one-person ship (or even two), it would be ok. But there are at least six individuals onboard (maybe a 7th, can't really tell). And while it's ok to relax the rules regarding tonnage set aside for people, it's not canon. Which is what I keep saying. Not that it's not a nice little ship, not that it couldn't work. Just that it doesn't fit within the existing design rules.