And another reason I like T5 -
If you use a more modern version of an earlier drive or power plant,
then you can get reduced fuel consumption

On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 12:05 PM <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I will check that out. Thanks! I like the idea. Mind you, I think having a 'Sanity' attribute would be a good idea too if you wanted to do 'creepy space horror elder tentacle alien Traveller'.
>
> Of course, this would pooch most deckplans we already have...
>
> It might be interesting to try to keep the outlines of existing space inside ships and to rejig the construction such that less jump fuel was needed. That would give you more space within the original interior footprint on the floorplans. Hmmm.... I am good with GIMP.... but am I that good?
>
> TomB
>
> On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:29 AM Jeffrey Schwartz <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> T5 has some really nice thinking on cramping.
>> There's a "Sanity" stat added, and how cramped or spacious/comfortable
>> a ship is determines if or how often you drop points on it.
>> If it drops below zero, there's drop offs in crew efficiency and
>> chances of freezing up in stress situations - just the cumulative
>> stress of living in such a tiny space has faced the final straw on the
>> camels back when you start getting shot at.
>>
>> That right there is a strong motivation to include common spaces,
>> relaxation rooms, etc in the ship's design. Especially on long
>> duration scout missions.
>>
>> There's also some places where Navigator skill impacts Jump duration,
>> if I remember correctly.
>>
>> On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 12:08 PM <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I know that there was maybe some thought to why a parsec between hexes and I'm assuming hexes were chosen because they were better than squares, familiar to wargamers, and 3D maps were not feasible in 1977. I'm guessing the logic for the parsec is our closest star is 4 ly away and a parsec is close to that or some such.
>> >
>> > Here's my question:
>> > How close could to systems be and still have pretty decent planets (Menshara class... ;) ) with water, and decent air, etc. and without ridiculous radiation or other things you might get with some star types? Is a parsec about right, could you achieve more packing, or should things be further apart?
>> >
>> > What led me to thinking about this is an alternative concept of jump engines and starship construction where there might be less fuel required and where jump time was based on two factors: distance between systems and speed of your jump drive (where jump number is more of an indication of speed in jumpspace than of jump distance). A J-1 could 'jump' 6 parsecs, but it might take 6 weeks (you'd need more life support). A J-6 might make the same jump in a week. There's want to be some cap on distance, but it might just be enforced by how much supplies and fuel for the plant or low berths you want to use.
>> >
>> > I also contemplated halving fuel used for existing designs and 1 week jumps as is
>> >
>> > OR
>> >
>> > Map scale 1 hex = 0.5 parsecs and thus all Jump 1 ships are able to reach what used to be Jump 2 for the same amount of fuel and with smaller engines
>> >
>> > OR
>> >
>> > Step 1 (call it that vs Jump 1) drives can jump 2 parsecs, Step 2 can jump 4 parsecs, etc. Step 6 could thus jump 12 parsecs. That gets twice the distance for the same amount of fuel, but it also really changes routes, etc.
>> >
>> > So, if I had some idea of what the most reasonable spacing for potentially habitable systems could be, that might help.
>> >
>> > Basically, I have a couple of concepts that I think I might like in a TU of my invention:
>> >
>> > 1. The 'spaceship as submarine' level of cramping is very rough to sustain for lengths of time. Sub crews are picked with that in mind (or you don't last). Liners and anything that carries passengers would have to expect that non-spacers wouldn't do well in the smaller cabins and even standard staterooms. (Ancillary side jaunt: Do most spacers end up having fear of open spaces? The tight confines of a ship in the OTU would tend to be comfortable but would getting out on a planet be a bit terrifying?). On liners too, you'd need plenty of ways to get to pods if things went wrong - more than one per stateroom much like most modern housing codes require two options of escaping a fire. And long distance explorers (or planetary explorers even) would need a bunch of space to work on and prep gear and to keep spares and to fix broken stuff (plus sensors take up some space as do vehicles).
>> >
>> > 2. Most ships in TV and movies have various places on the ship that are interesting. With my experience trying to do ship deck plans, your usual traveller ship, once you account for beds, basic storage, and bathroom facilities, leaves not much space even for common areas or a lounge or weight room or pool or armoury or workshop, etc. It's probably starkly realistic to a point, but it's not the best for feel. Serenity had a big common room. Andromeda and the Enterprises, despite being military-ish vehicles, had some significant spaces for other things. Maya in Farscape seemed to have lots of space. Eve the falcon had a common room with room to practice lightsabering and getting beaten at holochess by a fuzzy tree-dweller (although where they cooked or slept was a curiosity). I'd like a bit more 'other space' in my designs and cutting necessary jump fuel mass would let me salvage some of the original designs without too much rehashing. Also, for a gaming perspective, fuel space is 'non action' space, whereas living areas are 'action space'.
>> >
>> > 3. Having a sense of a distance/speed model would influence trade to be more local.
>> >
>> > 4. Drive Engineers and Navigators might well shave time (better course through jumpspace leading to earlier arrival - Navigator, increased speed in jump space - Engineer) and that's good for some roleplaying choices.
>> >
>> > That's some of where my head is going.
>> >
>> > TomB
>> >
>> > -----
>> > The Traveller Mailing List
>> > Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
>> > Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
>> > To unsubscribe from this list please go to
>> > http://archives.simplelists.com
>> -----
>> The Traveller Mailing List
>> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
>> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
>> To unsubscribe from this list please go to
>> http://archives.simplelists.com
>
> -----
> The Traveller Mailing List
> Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
> Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
> To unsubscribe from this list please go to
> http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=vSy3NFQJMSbZKrzPfC3XucFBsUCMtKrI