RPG immersion & verisimilitude: the appearance of being true

[sideranautae]

One of the things I have realized while rewriting the rules based on the SRD is that creating rules that increase verisimilitude for the players is important too. My players are in the main, science types. The need to create logical realities (within the assumptions of the game) that help them immerse while playing is driving some rules.

For instance. What would military ships look like and why? Well, function dictating form (rather than a hired artist who knows nothing about the subject) is a must. Military ships need to be able to damage other ships while minimizing damage to themselves (in a nut shell). The smallest cross-section shape is going to be a sphere (good for minimizing active sensor return). This shape also gives a very good % of weapons bearing figure. In addition the surface area to volume is much better than for a cube, as an example. This gives more available armor as that is based on total volume of hull. (new armor rule needed). This shape would be more expensive as fitting machinery and the like is more difficult.

So, I end up with military ships having distinctive look (even before weapons are mounted). Cargo ships need to maximize cargo space for regulation type cargo containers, etc., etc.

Can't wait 'till I tackle the Econ "rules". :lol:

 

[DivineWrath]

I think the designs might vary depending on what kind of job the ships do. Cargo ships could be anything that maximizes cargo storage capacity (likely made up of squares and rectangles). Streamlined ships would need to be aero dynamic (spheres & cubes = bad). Spheres might be good for military ships, but needles might work for ships that can control which way they point.

 

[sideranautae]

I think the designs might vary depending on what kind of job the ships do. Cargo ships could be anything that maximizes cargo storage capacity (likely made up of squares and rectangles). Streamlined ships would need to be aero dynamic (spheres & cubes = bad). Spheres might be good for military ships, but needles might work for ships that can control which way they point.

Right. Whatever the requirement is will drive the design. That includes any need to perform extensively in atmosphere or not. For instance, the iconic Type S design is not that good for space or atmosphere. Or, more precisely, can be designed different to perform better in both environments and be EASIER to build. But, it was drawn to look kewl rather than for any logical, in-game reasons...

 

[dragoner]

Shapes would be mostly spheres and cylinders based upon the needs of interior pressurization and structural integrity.

 

[sideranautae]

Shapes would be mostly spheres and cylinders based upon the needs of interior pressurization and structural integrity.

I came to the same conclusion. Spheres and capsules

to be specific.


Here's a handy tool for sizing ships by volume for a capsule shape.

 

[dragoner]

The Discovery from 2001 is a pretty good example of what a realistic spacecraft would look like:

 

[sideranautae]

The Discovery from 2001 is a pretty good example of what a realistic spacecraft would look like:

Minus the windows and screen doors that would be pretty dang close. Freighter type ship. Just wish I had the 3D CAD skills to make a slew of ships

 

[Infojunky]

Ok you have touched on a couple of issues I have beating my head against. Shapes of ships as defined by their parts or the old adage Form follows Function and what are the shapes of their parts.

What shape is a Jump Drive? Where is it ideally located?

The Power Plant? Somehow adjacent to said Jump drive?

What is the standard shape of a 50 dton bay? A 100? In general they way the are described they should all be generic across a nation-states fleet as the bit are implied to be interchangeable. (idea, a 50 dton module to fit is said bay would be a pretty spiffy Standard Cargo chunk).

There there is some weapon side bits, like how many battery rounds should a Missile/torpedo Turret/Barbette/Bay have integral to said mount (I am very tempted to use the example in the Darrian's book and Expolate from there). Also related why do Bays require FC equipment space and Barbets don't?

Then there are things like Docking rings, I like them, I use 3 sizes as standards 2 meter (Floor hatch/valve), 3 meter (2 meter square std airlock door also fits the standard ULD (Unit Load Device, the "standard" air cargo container, which I assume is in its basic conformation a 2 meter cube)) and 4.5 meter (3 meter container end width).

So some of my basic thoughts about ships

 

[Condottiere]

A sphere would be the ideal form, if you translated armour percentage in actual inches of protection, especially if the slope is added in.

As for the jump drive, that depends on how you believe it functions in piercing the hyperwall.

 

[sideranautae]

Ok you have touched on a couple of issues I have beating my head against. Shapes of ships as defined by their parts or the old adage Form follows Function and what are the shapes of their parts.

Doesn't greatly influence. The shape of the fission reactor doesn't really dictate the shape of an SSN.

What shape is a Jump Drive? Where is it ideally located?

The Power Plant? Somehow adjacent to said Jump drive?

Once you realize the the tonnage listed includes lots of empty space for drive crew and maintenance, the shape isn't a big issue. Now, PP's will produce a lot of waste heat. In my game most of the PP fuel is coolant that is expelled after cooling thermocouples and PP itself. So, the PP is situated not TOO far from the hull for that reason. I place the JD in the next compartment (in larger war ships, closer to the center). Grav M-drive is part in engineering and a little bit embedded into hull, all around, to enable maneuver in all directions.

What is the standard shape of a 50 dton bay? A 100? In general they way the are described they should all be generic across a nation-states fleet as the bit are implied to be interchangeable. (idea, a 50 dton module to fit is said bay would be a pretty spiffy Standard Cargo chunk).

I have decided that the visible part of a 50t bay looks like ~5tons worth of Turret. The rest of the 45 tons is cube shaped. 100 T-Bay, 10 tons visible turret with 90 ton cube below.

Missiles (when I used them) I had in a VLS set up. Totally different paradigm than a turret. They're guided so it is silly to put in a moving turret.

 

[Infojunky]

Ok you have touched on a couple of issues I have beating my head against. Shapes of ships as defined by their parts or the old adage Form follows Function and what are the shapes of their parts.

Doesn't greatly influence. The shape of the fission reactor doesn't really dictate the shape of an SSN.

Actually that is a case of the needs of the subs form causes the shape of the reactor. Which isn't such a profound requirement in Starships.

What shape is a Jump Drive? Where is it ideally located?

The Power Plant? Somehow adjacent to said Jump drive?

Once you realize the the tonnage listed includes lots of empty space for drive crew and maintenance, the shape isn't a big issue.

How so? meaning that access space is going to conform to the needs of the equipment inside as such there will be a general shape. What shape is that Space?

Now, PP's will produce a lot of waste heat. In my game most of the PP fuel is coolant that is expelled after cooling thermocouples and PP itself. So, the PP is situated not TOO far from the hull for that reason. I place the JD in the next compartment (in larger war ships, closer to the center). Grav M-drive is part in engineering and a little bit embedded into hull, all around, to enable maneuver in all directions.

See you have gone forward with a location and general set of assumptions, why not take that tiny step forward and define the shape?

What is the standard shape of a 50 dton bay? A 100? In general they way the are described they should all be generic across a nation-states fleet as the bit are implied to be interchangeable. (idea, a 50 dton module to fit is said bay would be a pretty spiffy Standard Cargo chunk).

I have decided that the visible part of a 50t bay looks like ~5tons worth of Turret. The rest of the 45 tons is cube shaped. 100 T-Bay, 10 tons visible turret with 90 ton cube below.

Missiles (when I used them) I had in a VLS set up. Totally different paradigm than a turret. They're guided so it is silly to put in a moving turret.

See you assigned shapes to the bays, so what else has a shape?

 

[Infojunky]

A sphere would be the ideal form, if you translated armour percentage in actual inches of protection, especially if the slope is added in.

As for the jump drive, that depends on how you believe it functions in piercing the hyperwall.

Ok what other shapes exist?

 

[sideranautae]

See you assigned shapes to the bays, so what else has a shape?

Everything has a shape. What are you interested in.

 

[Condottiere]

A sphere would be the ideal form, if you translated armour percentage in actual inches of protection, especially if the slope is added in.

As for the jump drive, that depends on how you believe it functions in piercing the hyperwall.

Ok what other shapes exist?

In Mongoose, it's basically a bubble, which I assume the ship's computer informs the jump drive the ship dimensions from stem to stern, top to bottom and side to side.

With a grid, it would depend on the actual ship configuration.

 

[Infojunky]

A sphere would be the ideal form, if you translated armour percentage in actual inches of protection, especially if the slope is added in.

As for the jump drive, that depends on how you believe it functions in piercing the hyperwall.

Ok what other shapes exist?

In Mongoose, it's basically a bubble, which I assume the ship's computer informs the jump drive the ship dimensions from stem to stern, top to bottom and side to side.

With a grid, it would depend on the actual ship configuration.

That is one set of assumptions. Which is to say my view of Traveller is a lot more inclusive than some peoples around here. I try my best to limit my inclusions to what was printed for CT and MgT, but that still covers a buncha ground when you consider the 3rd party publications, as well as Mongoose prolific amount of material.

Yes I might bitch, moan and complain about specifics in books produced by Mongoose as well as the fractionated rules, but damn it they are producing.

But here I am talking about imagination of the shapes of the common things, what do they look like in your head?

Consider this, Air/Raft, what's it look like? a Truck? How about a floating raft/barge? I am more likely to go with the latter view nowadays just to get away from the automotive bias that seems to infect so many...

 

[sideranautae]

Consider this, Air/Raft, what's it look like? a Truck? How about a floating raft/barge? I am more likely to go with the latter view nowadays just to get away from the automotive bias that seems to infect so many...

Well, an air raft is spec'ed to carry 4 human passengers with an open top. Almost no "cargo". So, controls, seating for 4 people, protection from wind and sliding off seat and off the craft. You end up something looking like what they show since CT days. Could be wider and more disc like I guess. A barge style wouldn't match it's usable spec's.

 

[Infojunky]

Consider this, Air/Raft, what's it look like? a Truck? How about a floating raft/barge? I am more likely to go with the latter view nowadays just to get away from the automotive bias that seems to infect so many...

Well, an air raft is spec'ed to carry 4 human passengers with an open top. Almost no "cargo".

I am not sure 4 metric tons of cargo in No cargo.....

Or the Air/Raft described is the same size as a two half ton truck

Many deck plans show a vastly out of scale automotive inspired Air car that they call a Air/Raft. Hint the one shown in the CT book traders and gunboats Empress Marvra >sp?< is close to a cars size in that that set of Deck plans are actually a 1 meter grid and not a 1.5...

 

[dragoner]

Consider this, Air/Raft, what's it look like? a Truck? How about a floating raft/barge? I am more likely to go with the latter view nowadays just to get away from the automotive bias that seems to infect so many...

Well, an air raft is spec'ed to carry 4 human passengers with an open top. Almost no "cargo".

I am not sure 4 metric tons of cargo in No cargo.....

Or the Air/Raft described is the same size as a two half ton truck.

I always pictured it more like a canvas topped toyota hilux myself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/1983-1988_Toyota_Hilux_%28YN58R%29_4-door_utility_01.jpg

Fairly ubiquitous outside the 1st world.

 

[Infojunky]

I always pictured it more like a canvas topped toyota hilux myself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/1983-1988_Toyota_Hilux_%28YN58R%29_4-door_utility_01.jpg

Fairly ubiquitous outside the 1st world.

For the record I want a Hi-Lux....

In Traveller terms it is about a ton and half.... 1.5 meters wide, 4.5 meters long....

 

[sideranautae]

I always pictured it more like a canvas topped toyota hilux myself.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/1983-1988_Toyota_Hilux_%28YN58R%29_4-door_utility_01.jpg

Fairly ubiquitous outside the 1st world.

The Trav Air Raft has much less cargo space spec'ed than what you posted in the pic.