CT Only: Some thoughts on Deckplans...

[infojunky]

Ok to start I design deckplans for use with miniatures mostly. As such exact representations aren't necessarily my primary concern.

With that I recently acquired some 3 inch square tiles which in 1/100th scale are around 5 by 5 squares in area, i.e. strictly each tile would be 12.5 tons. Which I am going to count as 10 tons of volume.

Consider this, in your average ship design have you ever actually figured out the accessible floor space vs the total volume? Then proceed from there?

 

[Spinward Flow]

in your average ship design have you ever actually figured out the accessible floor space vs the total volume? Then proceed from there?

I start with the tonnage.
Multiply by 14m³ per ton to get the volume in m³.
I then divide by 1.5, and by 1.5 again (for the 1.5m² deck squares) and then by 3 for the deck height (which includes the engineering services in the floor and ceiling.
That then tells me how many total deck squares I've got to work with to make my deck plans.

55 tons * 14 / 1.5 / 1.5 / 3 = 114.074074074074074 = 114 deck squares

My starship design has 55 tons of drives.
I split that into port/starboard drive bay rooms, so each is 1/2 of the total 114 deck squares (because there's 2 of them).
That means that each drive bay is 57 deck squares in size.
17*3 = 51
2*3 = 6
So if I make a 17 squares long, 3 squares wide drive bay room with a 2 squares long, 3 squares wide L-shaped "spur" at one end ... I've made a 57 deck squares drive bay that I can mirror image in my deck plan so my drive space allocation adds up to 114 deck squares = 55 tons of drives.

Can do the same thing for fuel tanks (although there I usually have to count the squares by hand due to the non-rectangular shaping of the outer hull silhouette) and a bunch of other systems so as to get a lot closer to a "correct sizing" in terms of deck squares than a +/- 10-20% fudge factor.

Use the deck squares calculation to determine "where the bulkheads go" rather than using it do specify "this is how big the machinery is" and then having no walk space access around the engineering (because you filled up the space chockablock solid all the way to where the walls need to be!). I find that figuring out the "boundary area requirements of the walls" makes the most sense when trying to work out how to fill up the space within those bulkheads with ... stuff.

 

[atpollard]

Consider this, in your average ship design have you ever actually figured out the accessible floor space vs the total volume? Then proceed from there?

I remember seeing a plan of the actual SET for the Millenium Falcon. It contained a few rooms connected by corridors that fit within the vast “hull” of the ship. Most of the ship was irrelevant because the crew never went there.

The same concept applies to most of a Traveller Starship.

• Who cares about the drives and PP in Engineering … the crew does not crawl through the MD or JD or PP. All you really need for Engineering is the small space where the crew has access to the controls.
• Who cares where the fuel tanks are? You cannot walk in a tank full of LH2.

So in practical terms, very little of the floor area in a ship really matters for the “deck plan”. Only the part where PEOPLE go needs to be mapped. Everything else is just the shaded “rest of the ship” which has access panels and ducts and wires and machinery as PLOT requires.

 

[Vargr Breath]

I remember seeing a plan of the actual SET for the Millenium Falcon. It contained a few rooms connected by corridors that fit within the vast “hull” of the ship. Most of the ship was irrelevant because the crew never went there.

The same concept applies to most of a Traveller Starship.

• Who cares about the drives and PP in Engineering … the crew does not crawl through the MD or JD or PP. All you really need for Engineering is the small space where the crew has access to the controls.
• Who cares where the fuel tanks are? You cannot walk in a tank full of LH2.

So in practical terms, very little of the floor area in a ship really matters for the “deck plan”. Only the part where PEOPLE go needs to be mapped. Everything else is just the shaded “rest of the ship” which has access panels and ducts and wires and machinery as PLOT requires.

So, something like the floor tiles used in Space Hulk.

 

[Grav_Moped]

I remember seeing a plan of the actual SET for the Millenium Falcon. It contained a few rooms connected by corridors that fit within the vast “hull” of the ship. Most of the ship was irrelevant because the crew never went there.

The same concept applies to most of a Traveller Starship.

• Who cares about the drives and PP in Engineering … the crew does not crawl through the MD or JD or PP. All you really need for Engineering is the small space where the crew has access to the controls.
• Who cares where the fuel tanks are? You cannot walk in a tank full of LH2.

So in practical terms, very little of the floor area in a ship really matters for the “deck plan”. Only the part where PEOPLE go needs to be mapped. Everything else is just the shaded “rest of the ship” which has access panels and ducts and wires and machinery as PLOT requires.

Fair enough, as far as it goes. Depending on the campaign, it can make a difference.

Which of the engineers is your Jump Drive specialist? Take a hit there and they might be more likely to be the one injured -- and where are they in the drive room, and how hard is it for the medic to get to them?

Next time it happens (might be months later) it should be similar.

Design/Detail Only As Really Necessary (DORAN) is a perfectly valid approach. It's just that "really necessary" varies by gaming group and campaign, so if you're addressing a broad audience, it's a good idea to go into more detail than you yourself might need. Or at least give it some thought....

 

[Grav_Moped]

Fair enough, as far as it goes. Depending on the campaign, it can make a difference.

Which of the engineers is your Jump Drive specialist? Take a hit there and they might be more likely to be the one injured -- and where are they in the drive room, and how hard is it for the medic to get to them?

Next time it happens (might be months later) it should be similar.

Design/Detail Only As Really Necessary (DORAN) is a perfectly valid approach. It's just that "really necessary" varies by gaming group and campaign, so if you're addressing a broad audience, it's a good idea to go into more detail than you yourself might need. Or at least give it some thought....

On the other hand, leaving things vague allows for plans drawn for one rule set to be used in another ("No, that's the maneuver drive if this is High Guard").

 

[infojunky]

I remember seeing a plan of the actual SET for the Millenium Falcon. It contained a few rooms connected by corridors that fit within the vast “hull” of the ship. Most of the ship was irrelevant because the crew never went there.

The same concept applies to most of a Traveller Starship.

• Who cares about the drives and PP in Engineering … the crew does not crawl through the MD or JD or PP. All you really need for Engineering is the small space where the crew has access to the controls.
• Who cares where the fuel tanks are? You cannot walk in a tank full of LH2.

So in practical terms, very little of the floor area in a ship really matters for the “deck plan”. Only the part where PEOPLE go needs to be mapped. Everything else is just the shaded “rest of the ship” which has access panels and ducts and wires and machinery as PLOT requires.

This is what I was getting at.

Now from the experience of building models, ships are weirdly bigger and smaller than most people expect. Case in point I give you the Wandering Monk a 200 ton-ish trader. (The Figure in Bob, my traditional 15mm Scale figure). If I were to do a "Deckplan" it would be a 3 inch tile for the bridge, another for the Quarters/Common area, one more Engineering. With a 6 inch tile for the cargo hold. Which gives you the basic locations of the ship.

 

[mike wightman]

There is a much faster way to get number of 1.5x1.5x3 squares - multiply the tonnage by 2 - 2 deck squares are 1 displacement ton.

If you want to work in cubic feet then 5x5x10 is 500 cubic feet which is pretty close to 1 displacement ton.

 

[coliver988]

There is a much faster way to get number of 1.5x1.5x3 squares - multiply the tonnage by 2 - 2 deck squares are 1 displacement ton.

If you want to work in cubic feet then 5x5x10 is 500 cubic feet which is pretty close to 1 displacement ton.

that's what I always did. plus I sometimes use 13.5m^3. cannot recall which ruleset used that for 1 dton.

 

[infojunky]

There is a much faster way to get number of 1.5x1.5x3 squares - multiply the tonnage by 2 - 2 deck squares are 1 displacement ton.

If you want to work in cubic feet then 5x5x10 is 500 cubic feet which is pretty close to 1 displacement ton.

Well, Yes. That is where you start.

The Volume I am talking about is the areas left over after you place all the the things you can't walk through.

 

[Spinward Flow]

The Volume I am talking about is the areas left over after you place all the the things you can't walk through.

Volume is volume ... regardless of whether you can walk through it or not.
If there's stuff in the volume, you can't walk through it.
If the volume is empty, you can walk through it.
Volume is volume.

Use the volume calculations to define where the bulkheads go to enclose that volume.
Everything after that is the naval architect getting drunk and pulling an all nighter to finish the project at the last minute (doan'cha know).

 

[infojunky]

Volume is volume ...

I suggest you read the 1st line of my original post.

In that I am looking at the usable floor space for play with Miniatures.

 

[Vargr Breath]

I suggest you read the 1st line of my original post.

In that I am looking at the usable floor space for play with Miniatures.

I think this is why Traveller deck plans were oversized. GDW was a wargaming company and they were looking at the deck plans as a battlefield to play on. The more squares a ship had the more places to hide, and for longer range shots things like that. The Traders 100 to 400 tons have room enough for group battles but something larger would be even better. Add a couple of decks and it would get really interesting.

 

[Spinward Flow]

I suggest you read the 1st line of my original post.

As such exact representations aren't necessarily my primary concern.

Hey, if you're not interested in approximating the correct volume for stuff ... that's on you.

 

[Vargr Breath]

Hey, if you're not interested in approximating the correct volume for stuff ... that's on you.

I'm somewhat guilty of the same thing. When moving minis around the more space the better. You make your deck plans be vague about the tonnage call it whatever class of ship fits the scenario and go at it.

 

[infojunky]

Hey, if you're not interested in approximating the correct volume for stuff ... that's on you.

"Correct" Volumes? Hum...

That's not what I said.

Walk into your Bedroom.... How many 1.5m (re 5ft) squares are there to walk around in... i.e. the area without furniture.

Engineering/Mechanical spaces, half of that volume is filled will with machinery.

Fuel tanks / Void Spaces no useable volume mostly...

Control rooms and the like generally 30 to 50 percent full of equipment and other stuff. Sidenote most "Turrets" are general 100% full, the Fire Control for that mount will generally be around 50% full.

Now Cargo/Stowage variable. Cargo Holds on ships are generally packed as tight as possible, underway they are FULL. Other Stowage areas it depends, mostly on how fast you use what's it them.

Note I have spent a chunk of my life Living and working aboard ships. It's from this I comment. With that there is less usable for miniatures space than you would think.

Oh, also remember I am making 3d representations of the spaces described above, Thus a tile that approximates the volume and use of said space is good enough.

 

[Spinward Flow]

This is why it is helpful to "furnish" interior spaces with stuff that ought to be in them (beds, desks, workstations, machinery, etc.) after you've decided where the walls go.

Does that linear drive machinery have accessibility on both sides? Or is it crammed up against a wall and there is only one linear access shaft along one side?

Walk into your Bedroom.... How many 1.5m (re 5ft) squares are there to walk around in... i.e. the area without furniture.

Depends on the arrangement of the interior decorating and the layout of the building plan. Apartment kitchens however can be as little as 30% walkable space between counters, cabinets and pantry on either side of the central aisle.

Engineering/Mechanical spaces, half of that volume is filled will with machinery.

Sounds about right if you want to have bilateral access to that machinery for maintenance purposes.

Control rooms and the like generally 30 to 50 percent full of equipment and other stuff.

Depends on the control room, I guess. If you arrange the workstations around the walls of a central area (ala NCC-1701) you can have a pretty good ratio of walkable area within the room. Do more of a linear control area (submarine style) and all of that changes due to the difference in configuration.

Cargo/Stowage variable.

I take the C-130 pallet approach for cargo accessibility. There's only room to move around when the cargo hold isn't packed to the walls, like you said.

I have spent a chunk of my life Living and working aboard ships. It's from this I comment. With that there is less usable for miniatures space than you would think.

Surface ships are probably "too generous" in terms of volume and access to all kinds of stuff. You really want to be thinking in terms of a closed environment such as a submarine (conventional or nuclear) to get an idea of how "cramped" the interior spaces ought to be inside most starships.

This is why when I look at the Geomorphs Tiles and note that they're 20x20 deck squares for quite a lot of them ... and then I realize that those "wonderful deck plan spaces" that are being detailed are ~200 TONS worth of displacement for a single Geomorph Tile, at which point using them "as is" for ACS starts becoming rather ridiculous.

This is also why I say that the best course of action when it comes to actually MAKING your own deck plans is to start with determining what the volume of certain things ought to be (drive bays, internal hangar, staterooms allocation, etc.), work out how many deck squares ought to be allocated to those things and then start making shapes for the bulkheads those things need to fit inside of. Then, once you've decided where the bulkheads go, start "furnishing" those volumes with STUFF that goes inside of those spaces. It's when you've "furnished" those spaces with stuff inside of them that things like walk space and accessibility (and sight lines for wargaming) just naturally emerge as you fill spaces up with stuff.

 

[Vargr Breath]

I look at nuclear subs, SSN and SSBN, for ideas on military ship deck plans. And Tramp Steamers and Cargo Passengers ships for Traders.