Full sized Deck Plans for Miniatures

[Jak Nazryth]

This is an old photo of a test ship... one of the first I created using MgT1 rules for a PC ship several years ago.
I no longer have the write up, but I think it's a 300 ton armed merchant... or at least that was what the photo was called. I had a 200 ton version and a 300 ton version. I'm 99% sure this is the 300.
Not a lot of detail, but you get the idea of the size when playing with miniatures, cargo boxes, etc..
The printed deck plan on the left is the upper deck, bridge, a couple of state rooms, engineering, and a 20 ton ships boat.
Deck plan on the right is the lower deck, more staterooms, common space, cargo space, engines, etc..

Basic layout, but the players loved it.

http://imgur.com/a/4hWKA

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Beautifully made, but don't you have quite a lot of corridors and common areas per stateroom?

By a quick estimate the communal areas are as large as the staterooms, in which case the staterooms should be about 2 dT each? At least that is what I have generally ended up with, when I have tried to draw deck-plans to exact dimensions.

 

[AndrewW]

By a quick estimate the communal areas are as large as the staterooms, in which case the staterooms should be about 2 dT each? At least that is what I have generally ended up with, when I have tried to draw deck-plans to exact dimensions.

With the earlier edition one could use luxuries for some extra space.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Earlier addition of Mongoose. Plus other earlier version of Traveller allowed a 2%-5% fudge factor when drawing deck plans, simply because there were no rules or game mechanics for many areas of a ship. And the focus for drawing deck plans is more of a role-play aspect of pretend technology in a game. For instance, in one version of Traveller, the main airlock is simply part of the hull and never included as part of the tonnage.
But the most important reason, is that I simply didn't give a shit. lol I got the right number of state rooms right, right size for engineering, bridge, and fuel. I guessed on the size of landing gear wells. The common spaces I used my best judgement while keeping an approximation on size vs state rooms and what was best for the crew and passengers, and most importantly function of the ship... within reason.

Several large open areas are in fact fuel bays. So this is why the deck plans in the photo appear to have more open areas than normal. I used an earlier version of Mark Miller's designs... T4... (I think) that allowed another version of "collapsible" fuel tanks. These are not fuel bladders, nor dis mountable tanks. A fuel bladder is a thin rubber-like bag that when not in use can be stored for 2%. Dis-mountable tanks are large, one piece tank bolted to the side of a ship, or in a large bay. These are closer to a walk-in freezer, with ridged highly insulated panels (around 4" thick). The are adjustable and be arranged in 1 ton increments. When not in use, they take up 25% of their full volume. (you can basically stack them in the corner) The most important part is that like dis-mountable takes, you can use their fuel directly into the power plan or engines. These adjustable fuel tanks always have to be adjacent to normal fuel tanks so they are interconnected when in uses. The design shown in the photo has internal fuel tank storage for a jump 1. But as this is a jump 3 ship, it has 3 cargo bays. 1 primary cargo bay and 2 secondary cargo bays. The secondary cargo bays hold the adjustable tanks. So you can literally rig the ship for a jump one, or a jump 2 configuration. Hence, your cargo capacity is greater for shorter jumps. I am the first to admit, this is NOT cannon at all, and if I submit any official designs for review, they will be per the MgT2 rules.

In my early days (high school/early college) I counted every single square on a deck plan and fretted if I was off by half a ton between deck plan and spread sheet. But that was simply a waste of stress. We are not creating technical construction documents. Now if I'm within 2% and I don't bust any rules (if my common space has 2 more squares on the deck plan than is allowed on the spread sheet.. I'm fine with it.) This is for fun.

 

[Condottiere]

Corridors are empty space, but we measure by volume, not mass.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

By a quick estimate the communal areas are as large as the staterooms, in which case the staterooms should be about 2 dT each? At least that is what I have generally ended up with, when I have tried to draw deck-plans to exact dimensions.

With the earlier edition one could use luxuries for some extra space.

Yes, I believe this version has 2 tons of luxuries. On the deck plan I drew them and defined them as a fully stocked bar. Bottoms up!

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Corridors are empty space, but we measure by volume, not mass.

Everything on a ship is measured by volume. Not sure why you mentioned mass.
But as I stated earlier, corridors were never (or rarely) even addressed in earlier rules, and most people counted them a fluff. But I cannot stress enough how little I cared in previous rules about counting circulation space on a deck plan. Very early in the days of COTI and T20, I suggested adding a 2% rule as a line item for ship tonnage to represent general circulation space for corridors, air locks, lifts, and any other circulation space. But it was roundly and unanimously dismissed as unnecessary and extraneous, because at the time, the vast majority of GM's never bothered with deck plans, it wasn't something they even considered. The form, function, design, and layout of a ship is the fist thing I consider, simply because that is what I do in my professional life. Since the late mid-late 90's I've always treated corridors as fluff. They are usually 2-5% of a ship and fall within the 2%-5% fudge factor for laying out deck plans. Now that MgT2 apparently and SPECIFICALLY defines corridors IN WRITING as 25% of state room space, I'll have to start counting squares again for hallways, lifts, and access tunnels, stuff like that. But I'll never torpedo the design concept of a ship or a deck plan layout if I'm off by a few squares on a deck plan because of the length of corridor. Not going to happen.

 

[AndrewW]

Note:

Page: 81
Not all the tonnage allocated to a stateroom necessarily goes to the stateroom itself; some can be used for corridors and similar spaces

Page 82:
Check the overall tonnage of the ship. Each ton is usually represented by 2 squares on a deck plan (very large ships may use a different scale to produce deck plans that will fit on a page). You can vary this by up to +/- 10% as spacecraft will differ in the amount of space consumed by corridors, lifts, computer systems, life support, machinery and other items not included in the overall design system.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Since the late mid-late 90's I've always treated corridors as fluff. They are usually 2-5% of a ship and fall within the 2%-5% fudge factor for laying out deck plans. Now that MgT2 apparently and SPECIFICALLY defines corridors IN WRITING as 25% of state room space, I'll have to start counting squares again for hallways, lifts, and access tunnels, stuff like that. But I'll never torpedo the design concept of a ship or a deck plan layout if I'm off by a few squares on a deck plan because of the length of corridor. Not going to happen.

The 25% is optional extra for lounges.

Common Areas and Living Space
It is common practice to assign an additional amount of tonnage, perhaps equal to a quarter of that used for staterooms, as common areas or general living space. These will typically be recreation area such as a mess, canteen, or lounge and can provide facilities such as parks, pools, theatres and so on, for the amusement and entertainment of visiting crew and passengers.
This is not strictly necessary and ships can and will vary in this allocation, ...

Corridors are, as always, taken from the "stateroom" space.

LBB2'81: When allocating space within the ship for deck plans, assume that only a portion of stateroom tonnage must actually be in staterooms; the remainder should be used for common areas and other accomodations for the crew.

MgT2 HG: • Not all the tonnage allocated to a stateroom necessarily goes to the stateroom itself; some can be used for corridors and similar spaces.

Basically the 4 (or 5) dT is supposed to cover the entire house, not just the bedroom. This gives us very cramped living spaces. I generally end up with smaller cabins, say 2 dT.

We can of course ignore this and give ourselves as much extra space as we want, but I think it is more interesting to work within the constraints of the design system and still come up with something workable.

 

[Infojunky]

Earlier addition of Mongoose. Plus other earlier version of Traveller allowed a 2%-5% fudge factor when drawing deck plans, simply because there were no rules or game mechanics for many areas of a ship.

Try 20% fudge factor for earlier editions.

Also note there was some discussion about Corridors required for access didn't count either.

Remember a lot of sins are forgiven if the plan looks good.

 

[Condottiere]

Easiest would be just to take cargo holds and add in room dividers and furnish with Ikea.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Then I will issue all my designs with the phrase "forgive me Father fore I have sinned..." lol..

Ok
I have my first reworked 200 Ton Frontier Trader under the new rules.
I have to say it was a bit of a challenge with the common area requirements.
But that's ok... the MgT2 ships all have less cargo space than the previous versions.
I'm having to remove some key items "trimming the fat" just to cram everything into a 200 ton hull.
For my follow up design I'm going the forgo the 200 ton standard hull and submit something closer to 220 tons.

I have invented a company called "Winter Design Corporation" a family run Starship design and construction company about 160 years old, of Darrian descent but now located in Glisten.
They occupy a niche market with most of their designs capable of Jump 3. This is a niche' with a range between the most common far traders and military craft.
So everything I submit with standard Jump 3 range will be a Winters design.
WDC targets the market that plies the more dangerous and more disperse systems of the Trojan Reach, rimward edges of the Spinward Marches, and open up the Spinward expanses of client states and free space.
They are better armored, higher tech but expensive drives to save space, all to create a trader with more range and better survivability than a 200 ton Far Trader.
Not everyone can afford this design, but not everyone can afford a Lexus either. This is a niche design for a niche high risk, high reward market.

Here are the basics

Standard Hull - 200 tons - 10 MCr - (TL 15 Hull from Winters Corp, Glisten ship yards)

3 Points Armor - 4.8 tons - 48 MCr - (Bonded super dense armor)
Jump Drives (J3) - 14 Tons - 45 MCr - (TL 15 Drives, 3 advantages, 30% smaller drives, +50% cost)
Maneuver Drives (3G) - 4.2 Tons - 18 MCr - (TL 15 Drives, 3 advantages, 30% smaller, +50% cost)
Power Plant (120 points) - 6 Tons - 12 MCr - (TL 15 Power Plant, 20 points per ton)
Fuel Scoops - 0 tons - 1 MCr - (Takes no tonnage but adds cost to standard hull
Fuel Processor - 1 ton - .05 MCr - (purifies 20 tons of fuel per day)
Bridge - 10 tons - 1 MCr
Sensors - 1 ton - 3 MCr - Basic Civilian
Computer (Yet to be determined... cause I haven't fully read the new computer rules)
2 Triple Turrets - 2 tons - 2 MCr
Weapons added per direction of buyer
10 State Rooms - 40 tons - 5MCr - All double occupancy but can be modified per owners request
Common Space - 10 tons - 1 MCr
Cargo Bay - 40 tons
Cargo Belt - 1 ton - .001 MCr - (TL 15 cargo belt-gravic tech)
Vehicle Bay - 5 tons - .5 MCr (Also acts as a cargo lock)

Total Cost (before purchasing computer and weapons) 146.551 MCr

I haven't double checked my calculations.. this looks a bit too expensive from previous versions, but the high tech rules seem to have changed, adding a lot more cost...
It will probably be a lot cheaper to simply enlarge the entire design by 20 or so tons rather than spend the extra expense on size reduction of major engine components etc..

I'll have not figured out the computer yet, nor the mortgage and other operating costs.
But my personal definition of a "Frontier" trader is a tramp ship capable of Jump 3.

Excuse my French, but the deck plan redesign is a bit of a bitch. Taking a lot longer than I expected. I will tried to upload it tonight but it's getting late. 2 am my time i"ll try to finish it tomorrow.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Interesting use of the cargo airlock as a vehicle bay, I will remember that.

Armour is much cheaper: It should cost 3[factor] × 10[hull cost] × 8% = MCr 2.4.

Drives cost per dT. Smaller drives cost less money.
I get the Jump drive cost to: 20[base drive size] × 70%[reduced size] × MCr 1.5 × 150%[high technology] = MCr 31.5.

You could manage with a nearly free m/10bis computer. More than m/15 would start to be expensive. Perhaps a m/15 (MCr 2) with a m/10bis (MCr 0.24) backup? The only software you really need to buy is Jump Control/3 (MCr 0.3).

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Interesting use of the cargo airlock as a vehicle bay, I will remember that.

Armour is much cheaper: It should cost 3[factor] × 10[hull cost] × 8% = MCr 2.4.

Drives cost per dT. Smaller drives cost less money.
I get the Jump drive cost to: 20[base drive size] × 70%[reduced size] × MCr 1.5 × 150%[high technology] = MCr 31.5.

You could manage with a nearly free m/10bis computer. More than m/15 would start to be expensive. Perhaps a m/15 (MCr 2) with a m/10bis (MCr 0.24) backup? The only software you really need to buy is Jump Control/3 (MCr 0.3).

Yeah... I realized that first thing this morning. It was so late and I was getting pretty tired, I think I used 8% of the actual tonnage of the hull, then multiplied it by 3, not 8% of the COST of the hull. oops...
Its funny how you realized that you made an error like that as soon as you wake up the next day!

I interpreted reduced size is a factor of the tech level, but you still base the price per ton on the non-modified size. But if you're right, that will also save some cash.

I don't think there's an example of the use of this rule in any of the stock ships and I double checked my work with examples in the book when I could.

Can we get an official statement from mongoose on this?

Also, cargo locks were more 'fluff" space in the past, so I thought I could kill two birds with one stone.

Deck plans should be finished tonight. I'll try to get elevations and sections as well. Once I finalize the plan, the rest doesn't take that long.

 

[AndrewW]

I don't think there's an example of the use of this rule in any of the stock ships and I double checked my work with examples in the book when I could.

Actually there is. The Survey Scout and the Tigress both use a reduced size drive. Based on the actual size, not original size.

 

[Jak Nazryth]

Ah.. Ok. I've honestly only looked at the "adventure class" ships as examples as I make my first.
Thanks for pointing that out.
So you reduce the sizes of the drives first, then calculate cost based on the modified tonnage (+ % increase)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.