Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!

[Terry Mixon]

Summary of questions asked and @MongooseMatt's (or someone else officially with Mongoose)'s response to them:

1. Is the MCr1 price of an emergency low berth in High Guard 2022 Update a typo? Previous editions call for KCr100.

[Status May 10, 2025: Research Ongoing]

[From @MongooseMatt: Mongoose is looking into this and will get back to us with an answer.]

2. Will Mongoose consider using KCr, BCr, TCr, and commas ( or anything, really) separation to make large numbers readable?

[Status May 6, 2025: Answered]

[From @MongooseMatt: They are considering KCr and BCr may have already been used.]

3. Why persist with a hydrogen filled jump bubble when: 1. it is based on very dodgy fanon and 2. it is contradicted by collectors and batteries in both the setting and the High Guard rules themselves.

[Status May 10, 2025: Answered]

[From @MongooseMatt: Mongoose wishes to leave these details up to referees without further clarification.]

4. Are single occupancy staterooms the default in Mongoose Traveller or double occupancy? Do the leaders (officers) go single or are they also double occupancy?

[Status May 11, 2025: Answered]

[From @MongooseMatt: There is no default assumption for staterooms. Some high ranking officers will be in singles (captain, executive officer, chief engineer?) and the rest will double up.]

—-

Okay, not really anything, but when we post questions about the rules or potential typos in the feedback area, we often don't receive a response, so I'm creating this thread in the hopes of getting some response to questions we have, even if it is "we're looking at that" or some such.

I'll kick this off with a question I posted a few days ago. The emergency low berths in High Guard 2022 Update are listed at MC1 a pop. Seems real pricy since Mongoose 1e and all the previous versions of Traveller we checked had it being KCr100. In Mongoose 1e, it was listed as MCr.1 and we suspect a typo. Can we get some clartity on that so we can update the starship build sheet to reflect what we suspect if we're right? Thanks.

Also, allow me to suggest that adding KCr, BCr (or GCr to please @Geir), and TCr to your repertoire would be really helpful and would minimize the complaints about not having comma separation in your big numbers, too.

And sorry for all the wild AMA questions you're about to get @MongooseMatt.

 

[Terry Mixon]

I have put a summary of the current questions at the top of the first post along with the answers we have received as well as what has not been responded to to perhaps make @MongooseMatt’s life a little easier. And to make nagging a little easier for us.

Unlike the feedback threads, I suspect we are going to continue pushing for some kind of response so that seemed prudent. If I missed anything, let me know and I’ll correct that.

 

[MongooseMatt]

1. Give me a mo.

2. Already answered, will likely appear in a new Core Rulebook Update sometime in the future (and I think BCr has already crept into a book somewhere...

3. I honestly don't want to get into defining the nature of jumpspace and technology to get there at all. Kinda like whether m-drives have plumes coming out the back - sort of up to the people playing.

 

[Terry Mixon]

1. Give me a mo.

2. Already answered, will likely appear in a new Core Rulebook Update sometime in the future (and I think BCr has already crept into a book somewhere...

3. I honestly don't want to get into defining the nature of jumpspace and technology to get there at all. Kinda like whether m-drives have plumes coming out the back - sort of up to the people playing.

Thank you for the update. I’ll change the statuses and wait for you to figure #1 out.

 

[Geir]

#2... I think I've already made my preference for 'GCr' over 'BCr' known. Not only from too much exposure to computer systems but over the admittedly rather old language confusion between long scale and short scale numbers, specifically around milliard and billion and the other billion. See:

Long and short scales - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plus, I'm generally pro-metric, even if I live in one of the only about three nations on Earth that hasn't managed the transition... So using metric abbreviations makes more universal sense (even if 'K' is capitilised, that doesn't bother me, since there is no other capital K to confuse it with).

However, if push comes to shove and I'm standing near the cliff, I'd rather see BCr1 than MCr1000.

 

[Condottiere]

Meganaires are a dime a dozen.

Gigantaires stand head and shoulders over the proletariat.

And there is only one Terrantaire in Chartered Space.

 

[Terry Mixon]

#2... I think I've already made my preference for 'GCr' over 'BCr' known. Not only from too much exposure to computer systems but over the admittedly rather old language confusion between long scale and short scale numbers, specifically around milliard and billion and the other billion. See:

Long and short scales - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Plus, I'm generally pro-metric, even if I live in one of the only about three nations on Earth that hasn't managed the transition... So using metric abbreviations makes more universal sense (even if 'K' is capitilised, that doesn't bother me, since there is no other capital K to confuse it with).

However, if push comes to shove and I'm standing near the cliff, I'd rather see BCr1 than MCr1000.

After thinking on it after you said something similar a while back, I decided I could live with it either way. Anything is better than numbers without separators. Or MCr.1

Charted space is metric so I say run with GCr. We Yanks will just convert it to Platypuses or something anyway.

 

[Arkathan]

Do not knock the 2 chunky platypuses to 1 stone conversion!

 

[Terry Mixon]

A follow up question to an answer @MongooseMatt gave in a feedback thread on default staterooms (single occupancy vs double occupancy) in official designs. You said that double occupancy staterooms were to be considered the default when I kept making the critique redesigns of published ships with single occupancy, and I will abide by that going forward.

My follow up question (so far unanswered) was whether leaders (ship's officers) got single occupancy or were double stacked like the crew. As the bosses, it would make sense to me but need guidance before doing more critique redos of the published ships.

To wit: do leaders (officers) aboard ship double bunk or go solo as the Mongoose default?

 

[WHULorigan]

After thinking on it after you said something similar a while back, I decided I could live with it either way. Anything is better than numbers without separators. Or MCr.1

Charted space is metric so I say run with GCr.

Agreed. Charted Space is Metric. The only place I would consider odd terminology is "in-setting" when it is using a term that was common during the era of Golden Age Sci-fi for flavor (e.g. "millimicron" instead of nanometer in a regional or backwater area or as a historical term, but in-setting, not in rules text).

Geir's point above about Long and Short Scale number systems which are still in use in different countries today should be a primary consideration for end users: Metric prefixes are independent of numerical terminology.

We Yanks will just convert it to Platypuses or something anyway.

Kilofeet, decistones, and furlongs per fortnight (or maybe heptameters per dog-watch . . . ).

Then there is always metric time: metric-time.com

 

[Condottiere]

Staterooms could be considered a distraction.

You can subdivide the hull in any manner you like, and furnish them with eighteen carat gold toilets.

What really matters, is life support.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Staterooms could be considered a distraction.

You can subdivide the hull in any manner you like, and furnish them with eighteen carat gold toilets.

What really matters, is life support.

Correct, but with spreadsheets we need to know the default assumptions going into things. Referees can tweak their life support costs on the fly for every jump. When designing a ship, we need to know the foundational assumptions to allocate the right kind of staterooms for designs.

 

[Condottiere]

Then, it's more of a cultural issue.

Classically, full staterooms would be assigned division heads, half staterooms could be assigned officers.

Star Trek original would be two per stateroom, Lower Decks seems to indicate open dorms, with keen competition to gain stateroom occupancy.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Then, it's more of a cultural issue.

Classically, full staterooms would be assigned division heads, half staterooms could be assigned officers.

Star Trek original would be two per stateroom, Lower Decks seems to indicate open dorms, with keen competition to gain stateroom occupancy.

Perhaps so, but as long as there are two same sized staterooms to pick from with different default life support costs because of occupancy, I need to know for sure what they are using so that my critiques of designs are using the same assumptions.

 

[boggo2300]

A follow up question to an answer @MongooseMatt gave in a feedback thread on default staterooms (single occupancy vs double occupancy) in official designs. You said that double occupancy staterooms were to be considered the default when I kept making the critique redesigns of published ships with single occupancy, and I will abide by that going forward.

My follow up question (so far unanswered) was whether leaders (ship's officers) got single occupancy or were double stacked like the crew. As the bosses, it would make sense to me but need guidance before doing more critique redos of the published ships.

To wit: do leaders (officers) aboard ship double bunk or go solo as the Mongoose default?

the book is quite clear I thought. ALL Staterooms are double occupancy, the number of peope put into those staterooms is up to the person in charge of crew accomodations for the ship. ie on a trader if the captain says officers get their own rooms they do, if him in charge says they don't then they don't. For published ships it's kinda easy to figure out, compare the number of crew to the number of staterooms.... if C>S but C<2S then some staterooms are single occupancy

 

[Terry Mixon]

the book is quite clear I thought. ALL Staterooms are double occupancy, the number of peope put into those staterooms is up to the person in charge of crew accomodations for the ship. ie on a trader if the captain says officers get their own rooms they do, if him in charge says they don't then they don't. For published ships it's kinda easy to figure out, compare the number of crew to the number of staterooms.... if C>S but C<2S then some staterooms are single occupancy

Mongoose tends to go with custom crews and the numbers often don't line up. All staterooms can be double occupancy, but I would like to know for sure what the build assumptions are so I'm on the same page.

Staterooms represent the living space for both crew and passengers on ships. A single stateroom contains living and sleeping facilities, including a bed, fresher and a very basic kitchen.

Each stateroom consumes four tons and costs MCr0.5. Most ships allocate one person to each stateroom.

DOUBLE OCCUPANCY
Some ships have bunks in their staterooms rather than single beds, allowing two people to share the same stateroom. This is called double occupancy and is often done on exploratory ships, privately-owned vessels and, especially, military ships.

Employing double occupancy on a ship does not cost anything (which is why many commercial captains insist on it) but lack of privacy for extended periods of time can quickly wear on crew not used to it.

See by this quote from High Guard 2022 Update, it is only some ships that have double occupancy by default. The bolded parts are why I thought doubly occupancy was not the default assumption, but @MongooseMatt said that it is when looking at published designs to critique

I still believe it would be helpful in the published designs to make it explicitly clear which is single, and which is, apparently, double. At the very least, I need to know the assumptions being used so that I am on the same page.

 

[boggo2300]

Mongoose tends to go with custom crews and the numbers often don't line up. All staterooms can be double occupancy, but I would like to know for sure what the build assumptions are so I'm on the same page.



The bolded parts is why I personally think it shouldn't be the default assumption, but that is not my call to make when looking at published designs.

See by this quote from High Guard 2022 Update, it is only some ships that have double occupancy by default. Doing double occupancy for all is what @MongooseMatt said, so I will comply in my design critiques, but I still believe it would be helpful in the published designs to make it explicitly clear which is single, and which is double. At the very least, I need to know the assumptions being used.

but why? it's an operational decision NOT a design decision, if there are sufficient staterooms, them in charge can assign single or double however they like and can change it from day to day if they like.the only important number for staterooms is that there are sufficient berths for souls on board

 

[Terry Mixon]

but why? it's an operational decision NOT a design decision, if there are sufficient staterooms, them in charge can assign single or double however they like and can change it from day to day if they like.the only important number for staterooms is that there are sufficient berths for souls on board

If the default is single occupancy, I can rightly complain (and often do) that there is insufficient housing for the crew. Also, when building ships via spreadsheet, they care for maintenance fee purposes. A referee can work that out on the fly. A designer needs to know what the max occupancy is going to be.

Boiled down, this area of ship design needs to spell it out for housing purposes. Even if it seems like it should be easy to figure out, it's not my job to make a guess. I want to know what Mongoose is using so my critiques are the same.

I've gotten a partial answer from @MongooseMatt that in spite of what High Guard says, the default assumption is double occupancy. That will be fun when the rules eventually change to include comfort ratings and the crew starts suffering by being packed in like sardines, but that's not my job to worry about how the future rule changes may affect current designs.

All I need to know at this moment is how to treat leaders. Once the eventual High Guard 202X Update rolls around, I'll have a field day invalidating a whole host of published ships because the crews will mutiny. Then they can look back and reconsider how mandating double occupancy be the default in spite of what the current rules say at their leisure.

@MongooseMatt, if you do want to reconsider what the default occupancy is based on the rules quoted above, it's not too late! Tell me the default on exploratory ships, privately-owned vessels and, especially, military ships like quoted above is double occupancy and the rest is single occupancy, and I can work with that. I'd still need to know if military officers are single or double, but I could figure it out from there.

 

[CordwainerFish]

Again: accommodations and life support are completely different things and should be treated as different. Life support should be how many human-sized organisms can be aboard the ship and not die; whether crew members have solo occupancy, bunk beds, or hot bunks really shouldn't be on the spreadsheet at all.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Again: accommodations and life support are completely different things and should be treated as different. Life support should be how many human-sized organisms can be aboard the ship and not die; whether crew members have solo occupancy, bunk beds, or hot bunks really shouldn't be on the spreadsheet at all.

Even though it has no in-game impact at this point, they are not the same.

Employing double occupancy on a ship does not cost anything (which is why many commercial captains insist on it) but lack of privacy for extended periods of time can quickly wear on crew not used to it.

And that comfort rule will likely be implemented in the next High Guard update. Then it will explicitly matter rather than implicitly.

In any case, this isn't the place to argue about it. I asked a question, and I'll get whatever answer suits the Mongeese.

 

[boggo2300]

Again: accommodations and life support are completely different things and should be treated as different. Life support should be how many human-sized organisms can be aboard the ship and not die; whether crew members have solo occupancy, bunk beds, or hot bunks really shouldn't be on the spreadsheet at all.

the rules say ALL Staterooms take Cr.1000 per maint period life support irregardless of the fact 0, 1, or 2 people are living in them, then you pay Cr.1000 per maint period for every person aboard, I don't get how this is confusing or a problem, I agree, I think the spreadsheet really needs to drop the single/double occupancy differentiation, it's not part of ship design.