Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again...

If we have a 200dt ship for cargo, the idea of 90dt escort shuttles is, in my opinion a waist of space when the same job could be done by fights half the size saving space. As for a lot of things hanging off the side if the ship, would that not screw up any ability to re-enter atmosphere? if you want the extra cargo from the shuttles, personally id go 250-300dt and put some small fighters in the now vacant cutter docks. An alternative idea in my mind would rededicate the Ares as a true war ship to fly "high guard" and maybe buy a separate 400dt dedicated cargo ship. Not only would it be used for cargo but also for more clandestine operations. specialist ships are better than trying to make 1 ship do every thing as that just ends up with a ship that is, at best, poor at everything it try's to do. cargo ship for cargo and war ship for fighting. as for passengers the Ares could handle that, as for a brig, we could just convert a state room for that purpose, removable locks and extra plates welded over "soft parts" of cabin, ie ventilation and service ducts. if we did it right no won would be able to tell it wasn't   a bog standard state room. As for dog smells, yer they have more sensitive noses, but they do like to roll in all  sorts of "shit" and the more they smell the happier they are.

Some points Vic: I think your right about not needing the shuttles if the larger craft is hauling cargo. Usually I've just called them "90t craft" because their either shuttles or 90t "fighters" depending on what we use that larger craft for. If the larger craft is going to be more for combat and less for cargo hauling then the 90t craft would need to be shuttles. But if the larger craft is for cargo, then the 90t ships could be "heavy fighters". I think we're still figuring it out.  The current plan is for the cutter wells to be filled with fuel. That's so the ship has enough fuel to jump with the additional ships attached. You can find the math for it all  here I reckon you're spot on when you say "specialist ships are better than trying to make 1 ship do everything". I really think that's what we're going for here. Its just a matter of figuring out which ship does what. Ares is our big gun. That's pretty clear. We want cargo haulage, passenger transport, and a fuel skimmer (so we're not making our passengers nervous by diving into gas giants).  I think you and charoux are right about a stateroom being used as a brig. I'm starting to think that a cold berth is a better option for prisoners though. 1/4 the tonnage of a state room and you don't have to worry about them teleporting out of their cell to murder us all with a nuke while we sleep.  Yeah dogs roll in and eat their own crap. But a friend of mine was telling me about this German film he was watching ... 

I've just been fiddling with the sheet a bit. If we set it up so that only the 7 VIP High Passage staterooms have escape pods we can have room for 4x 10 dton Docking Clamps.  Keeping in mind that we can carry up to 400dtons of extra ship and still make J-3 and 3Gs, having four 10t clamps would mean that we could  carry up to 4 ships, each weighing up to 300dtons.  This is way more than what we would normally need, but it gives the Ares the ability to pick up salvage or to rescue broken down traders or yachts. The heavier clamps also gives us the ability to carry the Heavy Cutters. During the last meta session we were discussing the pros and cons of being modular. Tell me what you think of this idea: 2x Hvy Cutters (each can carry 2x 30t modules, or a single 60t module) 200t armoured module hauler/cargo ship. (holds 4x 30t modules, or 2x 60t modules) I've already knocked together a place holder version of a 200t hauler. It can hold 120dtons worth of cutter modules plus another 45 dtons of cargo.  So the modules (30t) could look like this: Military Military Fuel Fuel Cargo Cargo Cargo VIP (7 staterooms + 2t of luxuries) Or if we went for the 60t modules: Military Fuel Cargo Cargo+7staterooms Either way, we have 90t of cargo in the modules, plus 45 in the module hauler for a total of 135dtons of cargo.  The cutters can be loaded out either for combat/escort roles or for cargo hauling or fuel skimming.  The 200t hauler isn't much of a ship so far. Very minimal, but super cheap. 1G acceleration. You'd only really fly it if you absolutely had to. The main point of it is to be able to detatch with all the modules so that the Ares can land, skim fuel or go into combat "baggage free". It could also be used to ferry modules and cargo to a high port. It has 4 pts of armour, so she can take a bit of a beating. So far the costs comes to 27.55 Mcr.  So it'd take a little under 4 weeks to build.  Garbage Truck I'm thinking one of the Military modules could carry a pair of G-Carriers. One G-Carrier could be for biff, the other more like an armoured grav limo.  .... or we could forget the module idea and go with ships that have a solidly defined role. 

There are different types of detainees... A juvenile stowaway shouldn’t be thrown into a cold berth... the risk to his health is too unjustified for too little offense (“I can too be a Merc! ;_;”); he should go in the brig. Some detainees are simply too important to risk them dying due to cold berth suspension; either their intel is simply too valuable to risk losing, or they’re just too high status ; they should go in the brig. Now, you are certainly right that certain detainees have some combination of high risk and low value... and they should definitely go into cold berth... but that sort of cold berth should be... in our brig. Give us 2 1dT Brig Cells, a half-dT of cold berths, and a half-dT of “Wardening” room.

Alby, anything we can’t land “fully assembled” as a standard configuration hull is probably a no-go. I just can’t see mounting a 200dT ship that way working out.

Leave it in orbit.  Or we could have a 200dton ship that lands separately.  There are ways we can make it work. But landing the Ares is a hassle anyway. Like Wolf pointed out from the rules, landing the Ares is a drama. That should be the main reason why we have landing craft. Land Ares if we have to, but generally she should stay up in orbit. 

We can’t leave it in orbit unmanned, or some wise-guy will claim it as salvage. We’d have to land it too. And that’s just really awkward logistically. If we can land the whole assembled thing, then we can work with that.

Well we do have pilots for all three additional vessels. I'm really not seeing the problem. Multiple smaller craft would probably be easier to find a parking spot for than one humungus one.  And if "some wise guy" does decide to claim a non derelict starship as salvage then we have two weeks to tell him to rack off. It'd be fine.   Every idea is going to have pros and cons. I think it's a better idea to think about maximizing the pros and circumventing the cons rather than over emphasizing the cons.  I think it was Wolf who mentioned it (?) - our general mode of operation should be Humpty in orbit while small craft land. Landing the Ares should probably be a rare event done only because we absolutely have to. This should probably be the way we think no matter which direction we decide to go with the ship. 

Oh, I was the one who suggested that general mode of operation, and it should be... But we shouldn’t give up being able to land all of it in one go, as sometimes, putting those starship turrets on the ground will have benefits.

Fully!  That was the thinking behind having the 200t ship instead of modules. The modules can't fly off and land by themselves, but ships can. Going with the option of 2x 90ts and a 200t frees the Ares to do whatever it needs to do totally unhindered. Considering how seldom we would need to do it, and how minor a task it is for the attached ships to detach and do something else while the Ares lands, I saw it as a very minor "con" easily eclipsed by the big "pros" of cargo and mission versatility. 

I was thinking about our "clamps make you distributed" stance on my way to work. Then it dawned on me ...  And these things don't even have grav drives to help them hover and float around. Maybe we're being a bit harsh insisting that a ship has to be "distributed" if it has large objects clamped onto it? The rules certainly don't say that you're distributed with clamps. It is a rule that we've just pulled out of our hats. Perhaps we could rethink it?

Well, in most of those pictures, you're seeing exactly what distributed looks like: expensive and dangerous liftoff procedures and systems, risky and complicated flying. I don't think anybody is saying that a distributed hull can't fly, just that it's risky, complicated and expensive. Also keep in mind that in most if not all of those photos, everything there is streamlined. That's not the case with the Ares. She's starting off with a non-streamlined (standard hull) and then we're adding more non-streamlined stuff on top of that. Personally, I don't have any problem with Ares staying in orbit while the small craft land, or vice versa, but I'm done debating about it around and around ad infinitum. As I noted earlier, I did send a Pakkrat a PM about this, and here's his reply: Pakkrat said, "I want to rule - with future GM caveat - that had the Ares been Streamlined, adding docking clamps to it and skimming with attached ship's would have been a Standard Hull attempt. As the Ares is a Standard Hull, skimming with clamped vessels is a Distributed ship action and is subject to dangerous penalties, even for a pilot of Gevaudan's skill."

In that same series of PM's, Pakkrat and I discussed the possibilities of selling off the Ares and getting a larger ship. As Dave and others have pointed out, the war is drawing to its conclusion and both polities and companies will be downsizing their fleets. I floated this idea by him: So I'm playing around with the idea of trying to pick up a Colonial Cruiser (Traders & Gunboats, pp. 98-100); either off the assembly lines at one of the big shipyards in Lunion subsector, or even a stripped/retired one (in really good shape). I'm thinking that we sell the Ares and park it on Lunion, then borrow or charter an anonymous ship for the Wypoc mission with the hopes of surprising Capt. Maarg after all. I'm specifically hoping that the nobles might be able to hook us up in that department. Or maybe we go in Gev's ship, if it's ready. Then we come back, and hopefully, the new ship is ready or almost ready, the war is over, and we start the next chapter in the campaign with a snazzy new ship. What do you think? Pakkrat didn't seem to think that there was anything wrong with this plan. I think it's fair to say he liked it, but I don't want to misquote him or put words in his mouth. I knocked together  the Apollo as a possible replacement for the Ares. The name is really just a placeholder, as I'd rather name the ship after a Greek goddess instead of a god. Here are a few that I like: Asteria - Goddess of the stars and the last immortal to live with man Atalanta - A competitive warrior Goddess, adventurer and amazing runner. She was turned into a lion by Aphrodite. Athena - Goddess of war, wisdom and domestic crafts. She was one of the Olympian Goddesses Eos - The beautiful Goddess of the dawn who brings the hope of a brand new day. Maia - Spring Goddess and the eldest and most beautiful of Atlas's seven daughters who made up the Pleiades. Mnemosyne - The personification of memory in Greek mythology. She was also the mother of the Muses. Metis - Titan Goddess of wisdom and prudence. According to Myth Zeus swallowed the pregnant Metis whole and later gave birth to his daughter Athena from his head. Nike - The Greek Goddess of victory. Themis - Greek Goddess of divine justice, order and customs. She also had the gift of prophecy as she was responsible for the Oracle of Delphi before it was passed onto Apollo. Looking forward to discussing it at meta.

Those aircraft had to be heavily modified to make flying under those conditions possible; and they didn’t fly too well , either, with the possible exception of that bird on the bottom with the huge drop-tanks. The Space Shuttle may have been designed to fly like that, but that didn’t make it all that good of an idea; the Shuttle launch configuration really was the definition of a distributed hull. There’s another problem with all these clamp-ons... which ship is ours becomes really obvious ; “Look for the Broadsword with too many ships stuck on it.”. The two shuttles fitting in between the notches of the two landing legs can be blended into the hull well enough, but a ship strapped outright onto the nose is just too obvious .

“Themis” would be an excellent ship name to use in the fight against Maarg... “Nike” is good in general. “Eos” is good PR. “Athena” would work particularly well if we have fancy lab space. “Atalanta” should be saved for an interceptor ship of some kind... maybe a fighter craft?

Assuming for the moment that we would move forward with the Cutter Module plan with the larger ship, we would either need 2 100 dTon Small Craft bays for the two shuttles necessary to deploy 4 Cutter Modules to the surface in one operation, or we would need to clamp those to the outside. I do like the idea of the stealth insertion craft, but how much can it carry? Details, please. Do we really need 25 staterooms? Beyond a few for passengers, won’t any NPC “crew” we take on be double-bunking? Don’t forget the Ortillery Missiles. Armory is missing. How are Workshops distinct from Labs? When should you be doing Electronics in a Lab, instead of a Workshop? 1. Finally, a Briefing Room! 2. Does a Briefing Room have to be a separate room? Can’t the features of a Briefing Room be added to some other room, taking up less space? Why is the Library taking up physical space ? Can a ship of this size really skim on its own? Should it? Don’t forget Charoux’s anti-ship hacking computer. Is there a Deck Plan for this thing?

Wolfen said: Pakkrat said, "I want to rule - with future GM caveat - that had the Ares been Streamlined, adding docking clamps to it and skimming with attached ship's would have been a Standard Hull attempt. As the Ares is a Standard Hull, skimming with clamped vessels is a Distributed ship action and is subject to dangerous penalties, even for a pilot of Gevaudan's skill." Ah ... yeah that. That makes total sense. Please ignore my crass post.  After the meta today we continued to chat for a bit. Some ideas we hope the company is willing to consider.  An escort for the existing Covert Insertion Craft. Maybe a pair of Assault Fighters . ( p24 ) They're tough and the seem built for the job. Sandcasters as their primary weapon seems weird, but if they could be used to protect the Insertion Craft then they're exactly what we need. Defensive rather than offensive.  That idea quickly crumbled in the presence of the Assault Shuttle ( p26 ). The thinking was that this would take the place of the Covert Insertion craft. The shuttle seemed like a better deal because she could be used to ferry a G-Carrier. A little bit of retrofitting and we could have a luxury VIP shuttle that's tough enough to provide an excellent level of security for our passengers.   The G-Carrier would be a bit like an armoured limo used to pick up passengers or take them around town.  The auto cannons and flame throwers on the Assault Shuttle could be swapped out with Point Defense Gatling Lasers for anti missile protection, or Auto Grenade launchers loaded with smoke grenades to provide visual cover against snipers and such. Again, more defensive rather than offensive. 

If the assault shuttle is going to be our “Close Air Support” craft, we should skew it a little more offensively.

I like the Assault Shuttle. While its sandcasters are listed first, it does also include 2 beam lasers. I like the Point Defense Gatling Lasers, and there isn't any reason we can't have both smoke grenades and more offensive ones. It is a bit more expensive than the Insertion Craft, but the fact that it can carry the G/Carrier closes the deal for me. If we really want to beef up an assault shuttle, there are quite a few options. Right off the bat, I'd want to go for stealth coating. We could also exchange the 2 fixed double weapons with triple turrets, significantly increasing firepower and general utility. A 90-ton small craft can mount up to 9 anti-personnel weapons, so we can cover all directions and ranges (anti-personnel weapons do have firing arcs to worry about), and own the LZ.

Oooo. I was thinking about names for an assault shuttle and just thought about another potential name for the cruiser: the Argo. As for the assault carrier, Atlas (tip o' the hat to Alby), Orpheus, Pegasus, Tyche, Soteria. (As well as some of the names listed above, for the cruiser).

For names maybe it would be cool to have the shuttle named after the son/daughter of whatever god we name the Cruiser after? And the cool thing about Support RAM grenade launchers is that they are fed by two separate belts of ammo. The gunner can choose a different kind of ammo each time they fire. So we could have a belt of defensive ammo and a more offensive load in each launcher.  Pulse Gatling Lasers have a pretty offensive punch too. So do ship scale sand casters and beam lasers!

We need to reconfigure the Assault Shuttle to take 2 G-Carriers, the 2 Grav Bikes, and the Air-Raft; that way, clients can have a fully armed escort as they make their way to the shuttle. The Shuttle should have room for 4 “Grunts”, luxurious room for 4 VIPs, and anyone else can stay in the cockpit, or in the vehicles, on standby. Generally in favor of beefing up the shuttle with armor, stealth, and weapons, but the above needs to be met first. Let’s name the “Pimped Out Limo” G-Carrier the Pegasus, and the Gritty and inevitably Grungy one that will be subjected to Wypoc will be called the Bucephalus. Both are “horses”, both fight; the latter was the “demon horse” of Alexander the Great. “Orpheus” would be better for a luxury liner. “Tyche” would be better as a disaster relief aid ship. “Soteria” is so defensive focused that we couldn’t pull it off convincingly enough; we’re just too eager to find asses to kick; it would be better as a “Belt Guard” (Space equivalent of “Coast Guard”?) system defense boat. “Atlas” is... complicated... the bogus “holding up the Earth” interpretation would peg us as Terra-centric. The association with maps would peg us as an exploration outfit. The “holding up the celestial sphere” interpretation would imply that we’re holding ourselves accountable for the safety of the known Galaxy, “Guardians of the Galaxy” style... and while a fun thought, it’s more responsibility than we’re actually up to. Not to mention how readily dismissed the whole archaic “celestial sphere” concept would be among people having first-hand experience on how non -spherical space is.

Whoa! Two G/Carriers?  Where did that come from? And why would we keep the Air/Raft?  That's six small craft! We'd have too many people driving to do anything else. One G/Carrier is fine. We've had the air/raft forever and virtually never used it, and now we'll have the G/Carrier, two bikes, and if needed, the assault shuttle to escort it. 

Well, the Aussies were really keen on having a “pimped-out” G-Carrier for clients, and I certainly agreed. But any G-Carrier we take to Wypoc is automatically disqualified, as both the interior and exterior would, in cosmetic terms, be irreparably ruined, and would fail to make a good impression on our clients (which is the whole point in having a “pimped out” G-Carrier). So, we’d either have to sell off the first one, or have two. Grav Bikes for Recon and Ground Escort, Air-Raft for Errands (and because sometimes you need a craft that doesn’t have a gun on it, for friendliness’s sake).

I see. At the moment, let's assume that we'll only keep one G/Carrier? If the one we take to Wypoc (if any) is damaged badly enough that we can't fix it, I'd rather sell it off and get a new one. I guess I see the point about the Air/raft, but I reiterate the fact that we've always had one and we've virtually never used it. It also occurred to me that Isis may decide to keep the Colonel's Mid-Life Crisis as a memento. Which is not to say we can't buy another one, or another non-combat vehicle.

Yeah sorry about that. The 2x G-Carriers was mostly my idea. I figured it would be cool to have an unarmed, armoured limo escorted by an armed G-Carrier. But a pair of grav bikes could fly escort so the second one isn't really needed.  I think the important thing for the G-Carrier is to have "modular" weapon mounts that could be removed or changed easily depending on where we are and what we're doing. I don't think we ever want a Fusion Gun. Those things fire with an unacceptable level of collateral damage these days. Plasma guns seem like the sane option. Auto Grenade Launchers are great because they are flexable and can fire defensive grenades like smoke and anti laser aerosol grenades. Or we may need to travel with no weapons at all on a high Law Level world. So being able to swap weapons out quickly and easily is important. 

I'm not sure how easily the anti-personnel mounts can be changed out, and I doubt there's a clear ruling in the rules anywhere, so we'll probably need a Ref ruling in that. I'd imagine it should be doable, though. I'm also fine with the non-combat vehicle being armored and/or otherwise a bit tougher. I just think two actual G/Carriers are overkill for our little band of merry misfits. 

Wolfen, it’s less a “can’t fix” issue as much as the “can’t make clean and shiny ever again” issue. Cosmetics matter to clients, but not necessarily to Mercs. The G-Carrier post-Wypoc is going to be ugly as sin, but still perfectly functional. But customers won’t notice the latter in spite of the former. We actually used the Air-Raft a few times on Zamine... not that it made a difference which thing we were using at the time. But yes, where the Colonel’s Hot Rod ends up is Isis’s decision. Weapon mounts tend to be very standardized; most things all use the same pintle for mounting, for instance. It shouldn’t be a problem to swap weapons on an as-needed basis.

Yeah.  I thought there may be two ways to go ahead with that.  Instead of a weapon mounted on the vehicle we simply install a pintle. That way we use our own personal weapons using the pintle as a brace. You get a bit of cover from the vehicle but generally speaking your a bit exposed because you have to be out through the top hatch or by an open side door. But it'd be easily changeable. I'm pretty sure there is an item in the CSC that will let us set something like this up.  Or we could designate a certain part of the hull volume of the vehicle "modular" as per the spaceship design rules. The % of a ships hull that is modular increases the hull cost by the same %. So if 10% of your craft is modular, you increase the hull price by 10%. Seemed like a simple idea and if it works for small craft I figured the same thing may work for vehicles? There may even be a way of making parts of a vehicle modular in the Vehicle supplement. On my way to check that out now.  For folks who need to visualize a pintle: EDIT: Tech kinda beat me to the punch on this one. He made his post while I was making mine. Pintle has it's down side though. The gunner is usually exposed. Also means you need to open a door or hatch which may not always be a great idea. Maybe the top hatch or side door could be made into a second airlock?

Per the rules, you pay for the pintle mount as a function of a specific weapon. :P I was quoting realistic circumstances. It would be easier to just price out the “most expensive” pintle, and put that everywhere every time we buy a weapon. :P

Is that the Vehicle design rules?

Yup; starts with “Weapon Mounts” on page 14 of “Military Vehicles”.

Yeah I just checked it out. It's also listed in the Civilian Vehicle book.  So according to the rules in those books, a mounted weapon needs to be either Internal or External, Fixed or Traversing. There's an additional feature where it can be a "pop up"  mount.  So according to one of the tables in that book, a Pintle mount would be external traversing. Makes sense. I couldn't find anything in either book about the possibility of things being "modular". I guess that is going to take a Reff call to see if we can apply the spaceship design principle to vehicles.  One interesting thing I did spot in the vehicle construction rules was that there are different grades of "sealed". The first one just makes your craft waterproof. A bit like a car or boat. The next is "Sealed" and that protects a vehicle in vacuum or underwater.  The final one is "Advanced Sealed". This is the level that protects "against extreme environments". I'm guessing that it's that last one that we're looking for. As far as I've seen so far it doesn't go into any more detail than that, but it looks as if that level of sealing is the "go anywhere anytime" option.  EDIT: What I'm really thinking about is the fact that passengers on board a vehicle can simply fire their own weapons. If that weapon was braced on a pintle - not really as a part of a vehicle but more as a part of the passengers own gear ... I figured that could work? Monopod/bipod/tripod item is on p55 of the CSC.

I do get the idea that the most exclusive clients might care about appearance, thanks. If we can't make it pretty again, we can replace it, just as I said. I agree that the modular weapons for the assault shuttle will probably end up being a Ref call. Even if we have to pull the weapons completely out and install the new ones, though, we have the skills and tools. It just means we would only be able to switch them out between trips, as opposed to on the fly. And I also agree that we should just as soon go all the way when we're doing modifications like the sealing. Especially for the services that we want to use to entice those high-end clients. Who knows, we could become the interstellar transport service to the rich and famous!

I was more thinking about modular weapons on the G-Carrier rather than on the Shuttle. The shuttle shouldn't be too much trouble because big weapons come and go from Starports all the time. It's when you leave the starport that you start running into problems with local Law Levels and such. So that big gun permanently mounted on our G-Carrier would be limiting our ability to use it as a limo for passengers if we needed to pick them up or take them around town. 

Wolfen said: ....Who knows, we could become the interstellar transport service to the rich and famous! That is the plan right?

My thoughts on Wypoc is we hire an industrial g-carrier that is not only sealed but hardened against Wypoc's atmosphere. No reason to have a extra g-carrier that we need for just 1 mission. in a big galaxy there will be industrial hire places that would cater for this sort of equipment, and it can just sit in the cargo hold till Wypoc

Or maybe Wypoc is the best place to hire one? I was just taking a look at the worlds stats. It's starport is rubbish (E class) but almost a million people live on Wypoc... if you call that living...  I'm sure they have a mode of transportation that would work best on Wypoc that we could hire. If there are no roads I'm guessing ATVs and Grav vehicles would be the only way to get around.  

We don’t want to rent anything anywhere Maarg has ears, or he’ll see us coming.

Starting a new topic "G-Carrier". That way we can keep this one for the Ares/Apollo. 

Alby, I appreciate the thought, but I think it’s misplaced, and here’s why... The G-Carriers and other Grav Vehicles are a minimum requirement for the Shuttle. The Shuttle is a minimum requirement for the new Ship. You can’t really talk about just one of these things on its own, because it has effects on the design criteria of the others. Better to keep the discussion centralized, so we don’t paint ourselves into a corner again, like we’ve been doing.

well I half agree with you.  The only thing the G-Carrier contributes to discussion about the Apollo is "8 dtons". Anything else seems like a red herring. I thought it would be better to stay on target. We know the shuttle is 90t, and the G-Carrier is 8dtons. 

The G-Carrier is 32 Cubic Meters, and likely 2 Meters high; that puts it at 16 Square Meters, or easily within 4.5 dTons... admittedly, an actual plan of the vehicle would eliminate that guesswork. But, sucks to be us.

Ugh ... yeah I really wish Traveller game developers could be consistent.  It may be a good idea to keep in mind that the M^3 represents the "capacity" of a vehicle. The volume the vehicle takes up inside the hold of a starship may be very different. It's less than handy that the guys putting these supplements together made no effort to present the overall dton volume of vehicles. It's a hassle. Generally ATVs are 10dtons, Air/rafts are 4dtons, and G-Carriers are 8dtons. Using a vehicles "capacity" to represent the total volume it takes up feels a little wrong to me. Does our air/raft still take up 4 dtons if a vehicle vastly more awesome takes up less  space? Blegh! EDIT: Oh wait! Here it is: Capacity refers to the internal volume of the vehicle. 1 M3 translates to 2/27 of a displacement ton (dTon) in the spacecraft design system. However, the thickness of a vehicle’s hull and external components, such as wheels, mean that a vehicle will take up more space than its internal capacity. If it is necessary to determine the overall displacement of a vehicle, calculate displacement as 1 dTon for every 10 M3vehicle has Still a bit off it seems. But at least they didn't totally neglect the concept. 

What if we went backwards? If a G-carrier is 8dtons then in the Supplement vehicle design system it would be 80m^3. We could knock up a vehicle based on that volume instead.  On starship deckplans a G-carrier is usually in a space about 3 squares wide by 5 or 6 squares. 3x5 is 7.5dtons. 

My 4.5 dTons is already overkill according to that rule, since, at 32 m^3, it should take 3.2 dTons. 8 dTons, while apparently more likely, according to the rule, would be for a craft of 80 m^3... Can you find a canon deckplan where the G-Carrier takes up that much space?

I don't understand the debate. The quote above tells us exactly how to determine the dTons: 1 dTon per 10 M 3 . The G/Carrier as described in the book (p 55) is 33 M 3 Therefore, the displacement is 3.3 dTons.

The issue is that G-Carriers in the book displace 8dtons. Kinda comes down to Rule book vs Supplement.  If an armoured vehicle that can hold a squad of troops, plus crew only displaces 3.3 dtons, how much can we whittle the air/raft down to? Seems crazy for the 4 passenger, open topped air/raft to take up more space. 

In which book does the G-Carrier displace 8 dTons, Alby? I’m not disagreeing with you, this is clearly the fault of the lousy books. By my personal reckoning, at half the height and half the volume of a G-Carrier, an Air-Raft should take up just as much area, but with lots of wasted vertical space that can be used for cargo.

Or maybe a better way to figure out DTons is to figure out the vehicles dimensions based on its M^3, but then figure out displacement based on a height of 3m seeing that we're not going to be stacking stuff on top of it.  80m^3 isn't too far out for a G-Carrier by the way. The specs in the vehicle design supplement are a little bit conservative. Most modern APCs have a volume of about 60 (2.5x3x8). I figured a Grav vehicle would take up even more room the same way an air/raft takes up more room than a car does.