Putting Humpty Dumpty back together again...

Decks are 3m high with half a meter of ducts and conduits and so on. Leave an additional half-meter off for clearance reasons. That leaves 2m as the max practical limit for vehicles. The G-Carrier certainly seems like it would take “up to the limit” of the vertical height, which means it takes up 16 square meters. I’m not disagreeing that G-Carriers probably should be larger... only that I can’t find a source that says they are... If you’ve got one, do share.

Tenacious Techhunter said: I’m not disagreeing that G-Carriers probably should be larger... only that I can’t find a source that says they are... If you’ve got one, do share. Well this is funny. You'd think they'd mention it on page 103 or 111 of the main rulebook with the other vehicles. ... but no apparently we have to guess. It mentions the vehicle but never the tonnage like it does for the other ones.  I was getting the 8 dtons from classic Traveller. Because it's always been 8 dtons the same way air/rafts have always been 4 dtons I figured Mongoose was being consistent.  This link  goes to a wiki with a classic Traveller write up on it. While it doesn't specifically say that it displaces 8dtons, it does mention the fact that it can carry 5 dtons cargo. So unless it's the TARDIS I figure it's safe to assume at least 8.  I looked up the Type-T Patrol Cruiser in Traders and Gunboats (P118). It's one of my all time favorite ships and I know they carry G-Carriers. That book lists the G-Carrier taking up 10dtons and costing 15Mcr. Either they've giving it a bit of extra room or the designer figured it would take up the same displacement as an ATV. A G-Carrier is pretty much a flying, military version of that vehicle after all. Or maybe they  Got the 10dtons from Megatraveller's Astrin APC? That's a nice looking vehicle by the way. 

The rest of the text: G-Carrier 8 tons. An enclosed military or quasi-military grav vehicle. The G-Carrier is an armored air/raft type vehicle intended originally for troop carrier duties. Performance is similar to that of the air/raft, but the vehicle generally has a gun mount and an armored rear hatch door. It requires a crew of one (with airlraft skill), plus a gunner for the craft's weapon, if any. It can carry 14 persons (including the driver and gunner), plus 2 tons of cargo (or assume 250 kg cargo for each person not carried; thus driver, gunner, and 5 tons cargo).

Looks like we're not the only one's scratching our heads over this issue: LINK TO NERDS TALKING LINK TO NERDS TALKING.   

Pic of the Apollo (sic)

(nostalgia) I did notice that the image in the latest supplement got rid of that dorsal fin.  EDIT: After another look .. maybe not? At least the dorsal fin doesn't look as 70s as the original.

I was just going over the Colonial Cruiser specs again in Traders and Gunboats ( p98 ). They also set aside 10 dtons for a G-Carrier. 

The Type T Patrol Cruiser in that same book shows the G-Carrier berth taking up 3 squares by 6 & 2/3 squares. So the opening on the existing craft is wide enough; we just need enough area for all the crafts. Make sure there’s enough cargo space adjacent to the Shuttle to offload all the “toys”.

Well ... taking a look at it I was thinking that we really want to keep the VIP passengers in a totally separate location to all the other stuff. Same way a passenger jet keeps the passengers out of the cargo section and cockpit.  So maybe the staterooms toward the rear? That way passengers could disembark from the G-Carrier and move straight into the Passenger section. 

Leave some room for the other toys, but sure.

Well we could cull it down to 4 staterooms. That'd give us an extra 4dtons. Would also help to keep it symetrical ... which for some reason is absolutely important to me. Not sure why to be honest. The coolest ship in science fiction ever has a cockpit off to the side. 

I’m a fan of symmetry too, with that being a notable exception, of course. :)

A bit like this? So the is a stateroom/lounge area to the rear, and up front is the business end. 

I was going through the Military Vehicle supplement, and there is a Hanger feature in the Misc. Equipment Upgrades on page 21. Is says that if you want to park one vehicle inside another vehicle that it takes up a volume of  5x the m^3 of the stored vehicle.  This actually works out pretty well. If one of the G-Carriers in the book was stored in this fashion it would take up 5x33m^3. That's about 10dtons.  So maybe if you're going to hold vehicles in cargo in a box just to ship them from place to place then you'd use the 10m^3 =1 dton formula. But if it's in a hanger maybe the book's 5x m^3 is a better way to go? Plus this is probably for vehicles like cars that have swing open doors and such. If we were after a snug fit where an airlock matches up with a hatch then maybe we could get away with x3 or x4? At any rate, there seems to be two different ways to calculate how much space a vehicle takes up, and one of them makes sense. 

For folks interested, these are the deck plans for the Classic Traveller version of this class of ship.  Not suggesting we use these at all, but they help understand that big bulb butt featured in the image Wolfen posted. That'd be the clam shell door for the Pinnace in the old version.  CLICK HERE IF THIS IS TOO SMALL FOR YOU

The older one certainly is more evenly laid out than the Mongoose one, which is all bottom-heavy...

Yeah I did notice that they had put all their fuel in the bottom half of the ship.  Probably worth keeping in mind that back in the old days you didn't have to set aside tonnage for things like hull armour And I'm pretty sure the Kinunir came out before High Guard. So this ship was BIG compared to the ships that Traveller players usually encountered. Became a dwarf once High Guard came out though. There is actually some very cool lore around this class of ship though. One ship called the Allamu put on a heroic show during the Battle of Two Suns during the 4th Frontier War. Lost with all hands due to shield failure, but sticking in there turned the tide of the battle. They reserved the name of that ship to be used only for dreadnought class ships, but it was never taken up again.  There is also a prison floating in orbit above the gas giant at Pixi that is made from the gutted hulk of one of these ships. 

I noticed the "pirate" barbettes installed. Are we currently hauling them onboard the Ares or are we sending them ahead as freight? I'm just thinking that hauling them may lose us a lot of cr worth of speculative trade. I think shipping them as freight would only cost 1000cr per dton. Could save us money.  

We sent them ahead. They'll be waiting for us on Lunion. ;)

Yummy. 

By the time Artemis has finished transmitting the build requisition of the 1200dT new ship to Lunion/Lunion, it should be painfully obvious that it will not be ready to launch from its orbital shipyard in under 60 weeks.  Going after Captain Maarg will be without that vessel unless the Group wants to wait that long.  Doubtful.   Gevaudan is 12 jumps from the Society of Equals in his soon-to-launch Far Scout.  He will complete the Dame Ticket for Artemis.  This will require that the Group find a new Pilot and an Astrogator.   Pakkrat says:  removing 4 characters, PCs and NPCs from the roster is not a bad price to pay to pare down the potential for drama and impending stupidity, (because heroes are more often stupid than wise).  So, Artemis needs to get the Extents Vargr off its shoulders once and for all. Artemis Group as an Entity.  This is doable and a perfect source for Entity missions that will grant bonuses to quarterly income rolls.  Look carefully at the tab that features the Entity details for Artemis Group as an Entity.  It's on the spreadsheet.  Since they are soon to have their first ship over 1000dT, this is a good time to consider Entity startup, both in-character and as players. Pakkrat feels that the launch of the 1200dT vessel should be that anticipated milestone that Artemis is looking for after dealing with the Dame, the Ark, the Psions, the Nobles and Capt. Maarg.  From thereabouts, a new Referee can ease in, phase into the seat and have a tabula rasa to work with.

We never resolved the issue of whether we need to be looking for a new GM or not. If we need to find a new GM, then we need to give them time to get up to speed. So we need to settle whether we have a preexisting commitment for a new GM or not, so that new GM will then have time.

I recall a motion to petition a new Referee from our current roster of players before stepping out to the external forum for a new one, for priority or seniority sake.   I am willing to help whomever is confirmed to gradually phase into the seat and take over.  It is agreed that we should begin looking and petitioning though.  The end of the Fifth Frontier War is announced 120-1110, but unfortunately hostilities simmered for weeks afterward.

We need to set up a deadline, because we don’t have time to let people mull it over anymore.

If a hard deadline is indeed called for, according to&nbsp; <a href="http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/TNS_1110" rel="nofollow">http://wiki.travellerrpg.com/TNS_1110</a> &nbsp; that hard deadline is 360-1110. &nbsp;I don't know how many games are left between 013-1110 and then, but as we've seen from Bowman, it can get.....tense. &nbsp;I'm confident we can begin phasing the new Referee as early as 120-1110 and allow that person to give me the boot anytime afterwards.

Maybe if we missjump again, but instead of flashing forward we can go backward in time? That way we can get a bit more play.&nbsp; Or we can go over to that black hole and move more slowly thorough time due the the high gravity! EDIT: oh wait ... that would have the opposite effect to what we want. Forget that black hole idea.&nbsp;

Some random triangular shaped ships for inspiration.&nbsp;

Cool stuff!

Well ... to be honest it's born out of aesthetic desperation. For some reason I've got a real problem with the dorsal "fin". I figured that there being two very different images being used to represent this craft gave us a little bit of license to visualize our own slightly different version of it.&nbsp;

You dont need fins in space

VIC e. said: You dont need fins in space Back in the 1970's you did.&nbsp;

I like the second one and the third one of the images. &nbsp;I have nothing against alternate outer shapes for the 1200dT Colonial Cruiser. &nbsp;If the deckplan can fit inside the thing with minimal player arguments later when boarded by Navy or pirates, I'm good with such.

Is that the second and third including the blue one as the first? Or are you just counting the three in the second post? Personally I'm a big fan of the first blue one and the second one ( the first one in the three image post )&nbsp;

I think they're all pretty cool. May favorite is the very first/blue one, but I wouldn't gripe about any of them.&nbsp; I do, however, reserve the right to gripe, argue and even shoot and hack if we're boarded by anybody &nbsp;against our will, regardless of our deck plan. ;)

Apparently this ship is from Elite Dangerous? I haven't played that game so I didn't recognize it.&nbsp;

If I absolutely had to pick, I’d go with the “Delta Class Destroyer Legionnaire” one, but I think we’re firmly in “embarrassment of riches” territory here, so I’m quite all right with any of them. XD I’m really more opinionated about Deck Plans...

Is this one in a movie or a game? I was trying to avoid images that were established in the cannon of other genres and go for "concept" images. Looks like I failed.&nbsp; But this ship does look might sleek.&nbsp;

comes in black...&nbsp; And this one ...&nbsp;