HG 2022 Deck Plans: What am I looking at when the scale is 1 Square = 50 Tons?

Yenaldlooshi

Cosmic Mongoose
I am really trying to understand the writer's/developers intent with the deck plans that are at scales greater than .5 ton=1.5m Square.

Please no "do you what you like, it's your game" answers. Those are the most useless comments in the forum because they assume we somehow didn't actually realize we can do what we want with our game. Yes, I know I can do what I want in my game. (and when I say "ton", yes I know it is a displacement ton)

House rule recommendations are fine and give different ideas on how to proceed but with this question, I am actually wondering what the author intention was and hope folk from that team might see this and chime in, or players who think they get the intent and want to clarify it for me.

Now, I realize that deck plans are an imperfect creation process for the game. They are more art form than rigid procedure. That is fine. I am just not getting the thought some of these were made with. I am not looking for a rigid, ratio of Tons to Squares and that if I see that it is one square of volume off versus the specs for the ship, I'm gonna have a problem, but I was hoping to understand some sort of ballpark.

Taking the Azhanti Frontier Cruiser. Scale is 1 Square = 50 tons. HG22 p260.
I see 12 deck plans of different configurations.

In the original GDW boxed deck plan set there were about 14 deck plans if I remember, but all were at the .5 ton=1 square. Now, 14 pages of deck plans was just to show the different TYPES of decks. There were actually I think about 70+ decks total on these monsters. You had a listing of how many of each of the 14 decks in the booklet.

Now looking at it, I see the 12 decks but no indication that there are any other decks besides these contained within the map itself. So looking at deck 11 for example, I see an area where staterooms were allocated (#18). I get that the little bed symbol does not indicate one set of bunkbeds but rather this is an entire warren of staterooms? What I don't get is how many decks does this deck 12 actually equal. I mean, it must be more decks, right? Or does the ceiling of this one deck with state rooms go up 100 times higher than a normal .5 ton/square map? Is this 100 decks of the same floor plan? I say 100 because 50/.5=100.

I am not just trying to make sense of just this one cruiser but all the ones that have > .5ton/square scales.

My hope is if I can make sense of the creators intent, I can make intelligent use of the deck plans as is. If I cannot, then this part of the content is waisted on me because the questions asked would be greater than questions answered by these plans.
 
Last edited:
Deckplans tend to be more aspirational.

If only on aesthetic grounds, the squares scale on small diagrams, much like the the distance scale on Google maps varies as to how much you get switch to a closer look at a locality.

Micro black lines on the graph paper are only going to annoy the viewer.
 
Agree they are more aspirational than accurate in the books.

BUT I would love to have them more accurate in the VTT than they are in many of the books. One advantage of the VTT is that it can auto compute the range, DMs etc if the map is accurate/in scale.
No need for lines, grids, etc as that can all be overlaid in the VTT and or scaled as needed.
 
Each square at that scale is a 10x10 tactical grid
I thought the 1.5 grid was already supposed to be a tactical grid since that is how much space a human-sized sophont takes up in combat. Am I wrong on this? 10mx10m would be a tactical grid for vehicle combat, but not personal combat.
 
I thought the 1.5 grid was already supposed to be a tactical grid since that is how much space a human-sized sophont takes up in combat. Am I wrong on this? 10mx10m would be a tactical grid for vehicle combat, but not personal combat.
A 50 Dton square equals a character tactical scale square with each side consisting of ten standard 1.5m squares. Sorry if I created confusion.
 
OK guys but none you so far is addressing the floor to ceiling ramifications, which is really what I am at a loss with.
10x10 becomes 100x100? Sure got that. I can grok that in 2D. But floor to ceiling?
Either we have to say that this goes x10, where each deck has massively high vaulted ceilings not represented by the deck plan or we are saying that all these larger spaceships are squashed like pancakes. Like the crew are all in a giant ant-farm lying on its side.
Or something else I am missing?
Can anyone help me with what is envisioned floor to ceiling on these greater than half-Dton decks?
 
It's a spacecraft, so the normal assumption is approximately three metres height.

Of course, that may go out the porthole, if it's a hangar, engineering compartment, cargo hold, or any place with large machinery.
 
OK guys but none you so far is addressing the floor to ceiling ramifications, which is really what I am at a loss with.
10x10 becomes 100x100? Sure got that. I can grok that in 2D. But floor to ceiling?
Either we have to say that this goes x10, where each deck has massively high vaulted ceilings not represented by the deck plan or we are saying that all these larger spaceships are squashed like pancakes. Like the crew are all in a giant ant-farm lying on its side.
Or something else I am missing?
Can anyone help me with what is envisioned floor to ceiling on these greater than half-Dton decks?
The ceiling is still 3m (10ft) that doesn't change.
One Dton is 3mx3mx1.5m. Two squares.
Fifty dtons is 50x3mx3mx1.5m. 100 Squares.
Note that decks completely filled with fuel and no more than a hatch/access shaft running through to a relevant deck are frequently omitted from print.
 
The ceiling is still 3m (10ft) that doesn't change.
One Dton is 3mx3mx1.5m. Two squares.
Fifty dtons is 50x3mx3mx1.5m. 100 Squares.
Note that decks completely filled with fuel and no more than a hatch/access shaft running through to a relevant deck are frequently omitted from print.
Soo... the pancake ant-farm lying on its side version.

Does anyone here see what I am seeing? The Azhanti cannot look like it looks at all on the outside if what you say is true. I mean not even remotely. It would look like weird almost 2D looking irregular rectangular giant disk almost. We are talking a WHOLE lot more than just a few missing fuel decks and the like.
 
Soo... the pancake ant-farm lying on its side version.

Does anyone here see what I am seeing? The Azhanti cannot look like it looks at all on the outside if what you say is true. I mean not even remotely. It would look like weird almost 2D looking irregular rectangular giant disk almost. We are talking a WHOLE lot more than just a few missing fuel decks and the like.
Traveller has always had a problem with floor plans and artists renderings having absolutely nothing in common. This is one of the few things that does not seem to have gotten better with time, unless you count the iso-plans, but I personally don't like those.
 
What's the issue?

I assume that the Azhanti is still a tailsitter, and what you see is a more abstract representation.
 
Does anything in the high guard floorplan indicate that it is a tailsitter orientation, unlike all the other ships? I don't see anything that would tell you that if you didn't already know.
 
Soo... the pancake ant-farm lying on its side version.

Does anyone here see what I am seeing? The Azhanti cannot look like it looks at all on the outside if what you say is true. I mean not even remotely. It would look like weird almost 2D looking irregular rectangular giant disk almost. We are talking a WHOLE lot more than just a few missing fuel decks and the like.
The Azhanti High Lighting is 84 decks with the "down" being to the aft of the ship, tailsitter style. There are basically 15 different floorplans since many of the decks are functionally the same as the ones above and below it.
 
MgT 1e had the AHL in its classic tailsitter plans.
MgT 2e HG v1 had the AHL as utterly useless and canonically bollocks deckplans. I argued at the time and the excuse came back was that the powers that be said that was what was intended originally. This was also strange since you can actually buy the original hand drawn AHL rough plans on drivethru. I will be tactful and put it down to miscommunication.
MgT 2e HG v2 returns to the tailsitter plans.

I just wish they had done tailsitter decks for the Element class cruiser box set, the deckplans are useless at the gaming table, tailsitter decks like the original AHL would have been a much more useful format for moving 15mm figures about.

Now if Vanguard had come to pass and we got starship geomorphs we could assemble to represent the standard decks of the standard Imperial and Zhodani capital ships...
 
No, it isn't. But tail sitter deckplans at personnel scale for ships that size are much easier to use.
I'm pretty sure that was the reason for making AHL a tail sitter - which, ironically probably can't land at all. But it just makes sense (to me) from an engineering standpoint to make any ship that doesn't need to worry about aerodynamics much a tail sitter - one less thing to compensate for. But I also think Sphere should count as fully 'streamlined' and that jump drives should be in the middle of ships, so what do I know...

And to the original point. Yeah. I think the goal was more 'what fits on a page' than anything else. I like what's being done in War Fleets of the 5FW, like the cross-sectional views, so it is improving.
 
Last edited:
I’ve always concepualized the Azhanti as a tailsitter design without the need to ever actually tailsit.

IMO all of the largest ships in Traveller could benefit from taking a look at things perpendicularly. I mean, they have gravity control right? But that’ll never happen so it is what it is.

It would be an interesting thought experiment to start with spin-hull deckplans and then Dispersed deckplans, and keep moving up in tech until you get a Type S. Where did the shift happen?… There’s got to be some cool ship design possibilities in TLs 8-11 that we’ve never really explored.
 
Back
Top