Starship Deck Plans

[dreamingbadger]

Hi All,
I seem to remember a little while ago, that Mongoose said they would release the Deck plans from High Guard(?) as high resolution files?

Just wondering what happened to that?

 

[Hemdian]

Did I miss the answer? If so then sorry, but I'd love to get hold of these ... ideally if they could be printed at 15mm scale. Can someone point me in the right direction?

 

[Valarian]

I just hope, in future books, they remember that large ship deck plans don't need to have low levels of detail. A general ship plan is good enough and far clearer. Mongoose did this well with the Babylon 5 Station Guide, but failed in High Guard.

e.g. Simple plan drawings or a simple cutaway with a few key areas mapped (i.e. bridge, engineering, medical, sample officer quarters, sample crew quarters).

 

[Hemdian]

I’m sure it varies from person to person but for me I disagree. I don’t want a high degree of graphic detailing (which seems to be a trend these days) but I would like to have a full set of basic 15mm deck plans with at least regular walls, bulkheads, and doors shown. Some furniture shown is bonus ... the King Richard (from FASA) or the SGS deck plans work best for me.

I find that when only key areas are presented then you tend to restrict action to just those points (it creates a psychological wall around them) even if mini-maps of the whole ship are available. But when you have the full maps laid out then (a) action can spill out beyond those key areas, and (b) you can have those long chase scenes and running battles through the ship.

Anyway it occurred to me that if the deck plans had been made (displayed in shrunken form in High Guard and other Mongoose works) then it should be a relatively simple matter to host them to the web for download. (Individual referees can elect to just print off key areas or the whole thing depending on personal taste.) Or even, if they are electronic, use them in virtual game table programs (eg. Maptool) if you have to play online over Skype or something. I’m quite happy to pay a reasonable price for them too.

 

[phavoc]

For large ships, its better to make deckplans like Jane's does for naval vessels - large blocks and sections that have their primary purpose detailed. Then all you would need to do is make specific plans for areas that you want to detail out. A GM can always combine different thought processes and create the specific deck plans on the fly for characters.

Actually, its a good way to throw off a group of PC's thinking that they know what X class of starship looks like inside.. only to find out that the external hull is the same, but the owner had the interior fitted out differently.

Think of how airplanes are made. Boeing/Airbus create the basic external frame, then the specific airline builds out the interior to their own specifications. While the cockpit/bridge is always in the front of an airplane, a starship bridge can be located anywhere.

 

[DFW]

Think of how airplanes are made. Boeing/Airbus create the basic external frame, then the specific airline builds out the interior to their own specifications. While the cockpit/bridge is always in the front of an airplane, a starship bridge can be located anywhere.

True. The PCs won't know until they go.

 

[BFalcon]

Mongoose could probably do a print-on-demand or PDF with 15mm scale deckplans for the larger ships and we'd still buy them... they'd be more useful than the micro-scale deckplans we have now.

The way I see it, unless a GM intends for a PC group to actually board one of the larger ships, all we need in a book is just an outline of the ship - possibly a side and front elevation and external plan - the stats are the main thing. That way we could only buy in those deckplans we intended to use in-game and PCs wouldn't know the internal layout of a ship just because they happened to pick up the book... of course, you may want to let an ex-navy character's player pick up the blueprints, at least for a while...

Then again, I'm also the kind of GM that doesn't like to catch players reading the wrong books at the gaming table... or even away from it if they can't separate in-game and out-of-game knowledge. I've been known to use my favourite punishment, which I call "Doubling Up" for reading the wrong book at one of my games... Basically I don't allow my players to read any book they couldn't know about in-character and also discourage idle browsing mid-game, since it distracts players. It also depends on who it is too - our pet rules lawyer usually got quaranteened from as many books as physically possible - he can't argue about what he doesn't know exists.

Basically, when I had to pick a random member of the party, I used to roll the next-highest dice for that group - so 5 members, I'd use a d6... doubling up meant that the extra pip got used for whoever had earned one of those punishments. This isn't actually as severe as it sounds since I never use instant-death traps, but it got the players to behave. Incidently, I also used the reverse - doubling up was also used in good encounters for those players/characters who'd really tried to help the group and the scenario and for good roleplaying.

I strongly recommend it as a way to control disruptive players. Incidently, our rules lawyer and our resident power-gamer were the two most doubled-up players in our various games.

I'd also like to lay my hands on 15mm deckplans for some of the player-likely ships out there - I've done the Beowulf class and the S-class on Coreldraw and scaled those up to both 15mm and 28mm just to see how big they are (both pretty basic deckplans, but perfectly functional) but it'd be nice to have more available. They'd be useful for those scenarios that take place on the PCs ship and involve a little combat or needing to know where everyone is standing at any given time.

 

[DFW]

The way I see it, unless a GM intends for a PC group to actually board one of the larger ships, all we need in a book is just an outline of the ship - possibly a side and front elevation and external plan - the stats are the main thing.

Yes, but as stats are SO easy to put together, I would never pay for just that.
>75% of the ships I see in the main pubs are poorly designed stat wise.

 

[BFalcon]

Actually, its a good way to throw off a group of PC's thinking that they know what X class of starship looks like inside.. only to find out that the external hull is the same, but the owner had the interior fitted out differently.

Actually that's the kind of nasty thinking I like in a GM.

Kinda makes me think about aircraft carriers too - I heard somewhere that each one is layed out differently (anyone in the US Navy able to confirm?)... it'd certainly screw up the PCs if they thought that they "knew" that they were headed to the hanger deck and instead were just about to stroll into Security... or into the on-board Marine barracks...

Think of how airplanes are made. Boeing/Airbus create the basic external frame, then the specific airline builds out the interior to their own specifications. While the cockpit/bridge is always in the front of an airplane, a starship bridge can be located anywhere.

Yep - to use an extreme case, the outside of Airforce One is pretty standard, but each of the aircraft that is lined up for the role (they don't become Airforce One until the President is on-board) is different and has different facilities available.

Another example used to be the warships (not sure these days) but they used to be updated with the latest technology once the hulls were done and the decking down and the plans might even be changed before then, leading to extra funnels and/or superstructures, if I recall correctly - which is why they can be identified by their sillouettes. I'm sure that, given the long construction times of the naval and larger civilian ships, that they'd suffer the same problems - even if it's "use this module here because that one's going to be a week late getting here".

So yeah, fully in agreement there.
(evil glint in eyes...) :twisted:

 

[BFalcon]

The way I see it, unless a GM intends for a PC group to actually board one of the larger ships, all we need in a book is just an outline of the ship - possibly a side and front elevation and external plan - the stats are the main thing.

Yes, but as stats are SO easy to put together, I would never pay for just that.
>75% of the ships I see in the main pubs are poorly designed stat wise.

Yeah, fair point - I'd not recommend doing just the stats and external views for all the ships - just those too big to print meaningful deckplans for, because they're too big... I'd want the rest of the book filled with the medium and smaller ships fully planned out like they are now... not suggesting otherwise...

 

[TC]

Meh, this is the Imperium, standard designs and all that. I'd expect all Golf class Light Cruisers to be just about identical when built, and generally the same through thier service life. The changes would develop when a ship is refit.

Now a Golf, 110 years out of the yards, refit several times after cycling through the Imperial Fleet, Sector Fleet, Colonial Fleet and now a hand me down to Arglebargle IIV as a show of favour, all bets are off on the fine details. Major systems and spaces will still be where they were, but spaces might be used for something else now.

Likewise, a Golf, converted to an assault troop ship, all bets are off on convertions.

US CVN's are not a good reference for Traveller. Each of the Nimitz class ships are one of a kind very similar ships. The march of technology, design theory and improvements learned from operations are incorporated into each.

Go back to the Liberty ships and Vctory ships for a model, they were built to a set spec and design with small variations caused by the ship building technology of the time, and even they were built in design blocks, with improvement added as flaws were identified. Look at the Fletcher Destroyers etc. all mass produced wartime classes varied very little from one to another.

That's the scale of the Imperial Fleet, and with the futures version of CAD/CAM, you'll get cookie cutter ships built all the way across the Imperium. The caviot from Canon being some yards using substandard components from one manufactorer or superior ones from another, but the ships are the same in layout.

Commercial vessels are a whole diffent kettle of fish.

That's my .02 CrImp on that topic.

 

[phavoc]

For the most part, all vessels are going to be built using the form-follows-function adage.

Cargo vessels are going to be built to carry cargo most effeciently. Passenger vessls will be built to carry people effeciently and profitably. Warships are going to be built to carry out their specific type of task (line of battle, support, etc).

The Imperium may very well place an order for 1,000 Golf class light cruisers. But eventually as they refit (probably every 15 years, more or less, and more if they received combat) they'll slowly start to change. A few dozen may be transferred to a sector group who decide that they need additional tonnage for fuel because of long patrols. Others may have fuel tankage removed.

For the most part the design of the interior as nothing to do with standardization. So long as the class of ship can perform within a range expected of it,the interior design is meaningless.

Civilian ships are going to see the widest range of differentiation, as they are all going to be built for different corporations, players, etc, not to mention being built at different yards. So the 'standard' free trader may be anything but. Though from the outside it looks the same as any. For the most part small ships won't make much of a difference in their internal layout as far as PC's or boarding goes - they are just too small to make a difference. You'll need to get into a larger tonnage range before it will make sense to bother about it.

 

[BFalcon]

Phavoc: I can actually agree with the retrofitting to suit the fleet idea, but I could see different shipyards making those changes prior to completion also, thanks to the CAD/CAM systems they use, so that they fit the specifications of the fleet they're destined for...

I'm sure that there are shipyards capable of building even the largest ships in every sector - it could take years to move them up to the more remote systems otherwise and likewise to get the resources to those shipyards to build them in the first place (and yes, I know it'd be done in parallel, but it's still fuel and crew wages... and there's more that can go wrong with longer routes).

I'm assuming here that we're mainly talking jump-1 bulk ships - obviously Jump-2 and faster would take less time to move up and a specialist Jump-3 or faster ship would be pretty easy to move up to the front lines... but then would probably be small enough to build at relatively small shipyards, so be more likely to be relatively local anyhow - although the jump drives might need to be shipped in, of course.

 

[Valarian]

I’m sure it varies from person to person but for me I disagree. I don’t want a high degree of graphic detailing (which seems to be a trend these days) but I would like to have a full set of basic 15mm deck plans with at least regular walls, bulkheads, and doors shown.

Personally, I'd see these as a separate product. One which, I too, would pay for. Where there's a page or half a page per ship, I want an image that shows me what the ship looks like rather than a deck plan I need a magnifying glass to look at.

 

[Valarian]

Yeah, fair point - I'd not recommend doing just the stats and external views for all the ships - just those too big to print meaningful deckplans for, because they're too big... I'd want the rest of the book filled with the medium and smaller ships fully planned out like they are now... not suggesting otherwise...

I'd agree with this

 

[Hemdian]

Personally, I'd see these as a separate product. One which, I too, would pay for. Where there's a page or half a page per ship, I want an image that shows me what the ship looks like rather than a deck plan I need a magnifying glass to look at.

I’d also like to see that too. But that is something else.

What I’m thinking here is that for a number of existing published ships there are deckplans already in existence. But until now these have been only available in shrunken size. If the artwork files exist they could be published individually. Referees could then download those they need. Little additional work would be needed by Mongoose other than to set up the appropriate web page ... off the top of my head they could be something like £1 per ship up to 1000 dtons, £2 per ship 1000-10000 dtons, £4 per ship 10000-100000 dtons (or whatever). No stats or flavour text is needed as that exists in standard products (these plans would be supplemental to those products) but would need to be stamped “Permission granted to print for personal use only” or something similar. Easy money for Mongoose and us fans get what we want.

 

[zero]

I would prefer to see a small supplement book that goes into detail on how to deckplan a ship.
Alot of new players get confused on how many squares represent a dton, what common space is and how much should be assigned, the % of dton taken or added to be allowed on a deckplan etc. A book like that could solve alot of issues.

A step-by-step guide to the deckplan could be included and why certain decisions were made with deckplans that dont quite add up from other books.

Ive had Traveller for around 10 months now and it was only a few months ago I got my head around it all, while some things still make me go; "huh?"

A book to help people deckplan their own ships (with a photocopiable piece of squared paper in the back) would be awesome and I'm sure alot of you guys here would love to write something for it.

 

[BFalcon]

agreed, Zero... it would help a lot when coming to the system... it took me weeks before I eventually found a post on here detailing the mapping "norms".

 

[FreeTrav]

I think zero has the right of it - that unquestionably would be an excellent supplement to have.

I might also suggest considering including a small section with pointers on using one of those 3D-build-a-home programs, or a game like The Sims/The Sims 2/The Sims 3, for rendering scenes of what the results might look like from the inside.

 

[Rick]

I think zero has the right of it - that unquestionably would be an excellent supplement to have.

I might also suggest considering including a small section with pointers on using one of those 3D-build-a-home programs, or a game like The Sims/The Sims 2/The Sims 3, for rendering scenes of what the results might look like from the inside.

Now that sounds more like a 2-3 part article that could be included in the new-look S&P. Why don't you look at putting it together?