They have meters on them; I didn't mention it because you didn't ask.

We use pattern fill for other things. You can always color in a turbolift shaft if you need to.

Re 1: Nick, note.

Re 2: actually, the plasma runs are not shown. You'll see that there is are two ladders on deck 5 labeled "Warp Engine Inspection Hatch" -- those ladders are in are Jefferies tubes that run back to Main Engineering (and the APR). The plasma runs are in those tubes but not shown on the deckplan.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 03:24 pm: Edit

The main fuel tanks are in the nacelles, which is why Fed engines are so honkin big compared to say, Klingon engines which have the tanks in the "wings" of the ship itself. On the Fed FF, the engine support pylons themselves do have some fuel storage in them for the impulse engines when the nacelles are jettisoned.

I have been doing meter and yard scales on all the plans, and the deckplan pack of the klingon PF had 1 meter hexes, and 1.5 meter squares I believe.

By Richard Wells (Rwwells) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 04:20 pm: Edit

Gary: I didn't ask since I have not posted on this topic for a couple years prior to yesterday. But having been through several extended disagreements over proper units of measure, mentioning all the units used can forestall those with strong preferences from ignoring the product.

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 07:23 pm: Edit

Well metric measures tend to seem more Star Trek like.


Although there are a few things to avoid.
One I hate, because I tell people and they still ignore me.

There are no metric tons. People hear the term Gross Metric Tons ( which is a measure of the ecconomic value of shipping used to apply fees for birthing in US ports and passage through the panama cannel ). Quite simply if a passenger vessel has deck seating and a framwork to hold a tarpolin but no tarpolin over the seating to provide shade, then the volume of the passenger space does not count toward the G.M.T. of the vessel but if the tarpolin is placed over the framework then it does...hence the measure has very little to do with the mass of the vessel ( A 30 metre long hydrofoil ferry running the Hong Kong Harbour routes will have a much higher G.M.T. than a 270 metre long bulk-ore frieghter ).

When using metric, one referes to 1000 kg as a tonne ( pronounced T-OH-N ) with the plural being tonnes (T-OH-N-S).

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Tuesday, March 15, 2005 - 07:43 pm: Edit

Err, I think I should have said a 15 metre long Hydrofoil ferry.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 12:24 pm: Edit

Thoughts on deck plans....

1. The G1 plans don't sell well. We've never reprinted them after the original print run plus 50 copies for restocks. That says much.

2. Steve Jackson says that deck plans don't sell well for him.

3. Given 1 and 2, the odds of us doing deck plans in a commercial "for the stores"package ever again are fairly small. We might or might not do them for mail order only sales. This becomes more practical after we have more RPG customers than we have now.

4. In theory we could offer any of the plans Nick did (SkyHawk, Fed Frigate, Free Trader) in various formats. One problem is that even the smaller ships require a table about 6x10 feet in a scale suitable for miniatures.

5. One semi-plan we had considered was to take an existing set of plans and do two grid overlays (1 meter hexes, 1.5 meter squares) on different layers. We could then print the ships with or without the layers, which would mean you could buy a fed frigate with either grid or no grid. Even cooler, we could easily offer to print the plans out in a vareity of sizes. You could, then, for example, order "Fed Frigae in Scale A" (let's say that means each deck is six feet across and there are seven decks) and order it with any of the grid options.

You could also go with the concept of "buy the Fed Frigate in scale C (each deck being 17 inches long) with your choice of several key areas in a scale suitable for minis.

You could also offer to sell a PDF with a "print it yourself at any darn scale you want" option, but we'd sell two copies and then see 700 of them floating around internet. Sales of two copies wouldn't pay for the work and we'd never do another one.

The problem with that plan is that it would take me (I am the only one here who could do it) an entire day (or two, or three) to get a set of plans to that point. It's not just a matter of laying a grid out. You have to trim to the hull outline, and all of the 'furniture" has to be changed to solid white or gray shapes (much of it is hollow) so as to "sit over the grid". I know what it took to do the G1 and guys, it's not a zero-work project. I spent more days making the G1 prettier (something I would not do for this project).

As I said, in theory, we could do it. Whether anyone would buy it, whether enough people would buy it, isn't known. If I stopped everything to do one of these now, we might not sell enough to ever try it again. If we wait until D20 and D6 are on line, we might have enough customers to do it.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 01:20 pm: Edit

I'd be just as happy to see deck plans as "filler" in a GPD product and/or in Captain's Logs. If they could sell as a stand-alone product: great! If not, so be it.


Garth L. Getgen

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 01:22 pm: Edit

I would be happy to just have non-split plans on 11x17 to start.

BTW: Glad you made it back safe and sound!

By Phil Shanton (Mxslade) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Just my 2 cents here.

Most people outside of SFB have no idea what a G1 is, but if you were to do say a Federation or Klingon ship that was closer to the series vehicles (I'm assuming you can do the CA & the D7), they would garner better attention and would probably sell better, then you could go from there.

Just something to keep in mind for the future.

As for SJ's deck plans not selling well, well a few of those ships have been printed by other companies before him, I have one of the ships when Seeker did them in the late 80's.

Just another thought before I become too annoying, if you ever rerelease any of the old TFG like Intruder or Boarding Party, you could have articles in CL on use the deck plans for those games, just like some people did for Frag & Zombies using the Traveller ones.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 04:21 pm: Edit

The problem is that ships "closer to the series" are way too big for any practical RPG play.

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 04:32 pm: Edit

That doesn't make sense to me, Steve.

Surely a product can be made that gives you the bridge, engineering, the transporter room, the shuttle bay, the bowling alley, some random crew quarters, and so on.

That was all they needed to do the TV show, it should be plenty for an RPG.

(Or maybe you can make one of these as bonus maps & cardboard heroes for your GM screen the way SJ included a Brubek's map and counters in the GT screen.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, March 17, 2005 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Jeff; I'm not sure what doesn't make sense. For example, I already said (a few messages up) that in theory we could do the "key areas" thing.

The problem is, would it sell?

Right now, the answer is 'not enough to bother with".

By michael john campbell (Michaelcampbell) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 03:35 am: Edit

Any chance of gatefolded deck plans in the publications?

Any chance of printing ( in a module GURPS ORBITIAL FACILITIES for example ) at half scale and then advising people to photocopy and scale up to A3?

By Jeff Johnson (Jeffro) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 08:43 am: Edit

Oops. Missed that Steve.

I guess I don't fully understand the RPG crowd to begin with... and I understand marketing to them even less.

Of course, if not doing deck plans means there's room on the schedule for more new SFB, F&E, and Fed Commander products, then _I_ for one will be content.

:-)

(I understand that much, anyway....)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 02:11 pm: Edit

MJC: I guess theoretically but it would be a lot of trouble to do requiring more hand labor to include that one sheet than the rest of the book.

The bulk of the "work" to release say SkyHawk deck plans is done. But what's left is not zero and you have to ask if taking one day to sell seven copies of the SkyHawk is worth delaying Fed Commander by one day.

By Phil Shanton (Mxslade) on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 09:51 pm: Edit

As I mentioned in my post above, this whole deckplan thing could wait till the future.

Getting things like Fed Commander and SFB supplements should be first, then after some more fan base is installed with those products and the PD conversions, then you decide if you want to do a couple of deck plans.

Either that or clone yourself and hire more staff to give everyboby what they want now.

just a thought.

By William F. Hostman (Aramis) on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:20 pm: Edit

Mr. Cole:

plans for a CA, or D7, ane NOT too big for RPG play. Running FASA-Trek, I've often used them, and not just the familiar areas.

TO be more correct: I made enlarged copies (150% then 133%) to bring the 1/4" 1.5m grids to around 1/2" grids, and used counters upon them, for a variety of things.

To be brutally honest, it's always been kind of cool for the players to be able to say "Deck 7, Starbord", and know that it's a right turn and third door on the left. We could care less what the furniture is in EVERY room; but we do need to know where the rooms are and what they are for, how long the halls are, how curved the hals are, where the shafts are, etc.

Big ships don't need "Put the figure on the map" kind of maps, tho those are nice. Instead, they need what most (non-GURPS) Traveller starship deck plans provide: basic tactical data for the referee, and a way for players to grasp the environment somewhat. The GURPS combat system, however, is strongly tactical, and very much shows its roots from MTM and it's predecessor, Melee. GURPS therefore needs a hex-grid, and visual appeal for sales requires the detailed rooms.

I have had combats on the FASA plans' Deck 7 where the players ran through most of this deck; being able to SHOW them the halls allowed a more intelligent offense. (Recapturing a captured vessel in a LUG-Trek game.)

Then again, the plans for the Freighter in one of the PD1 books were just about perfect for my needs. I don't need tabletop-gaming scale. I just need scale drawings, labeled for what kind of space it is.

I wouldn't however, mind having something I could open in CC2 viewer, and select what I need, print it at scale, and use my own toner...

As for the G1: I didn't see it in my FLGS, and would rather not have it with hexes. In general, the G1 is NOT a terribly desireable set of plans because
1) you'd put them in GK in miniature
2) it's not a vessel intended for player use in most campaigns, as it's either too small, too heavily gunned, or too short ranged. (IE, for the Big Ship campaigns, it's too small. For the Small Ship campaigns, they usually are mechantile, and thus it's too heavily gunned OR it's too short ranged, sometimes both.)
3) it's not a major Classic Trek ship (THe CA would sell like hotcakes, even at 1:200, as in 5mm=1m, if you got them to the general trek community. The various FJD designs likewise have high fan value, as do the Rom WE, Kl D6/d7)
4) It's not a Federation vessel, so that also reduces gamer desire. If it's budget time, and when is it not these days, I will always pick a federation vessel over a foreign power one; I don't run games with Klingon PC's, nor Romulan ones. I would, If I had a group both willing to do the homework, and also to play NORMAL klingons. But every request for a klingon PC I've EVER had involved being not a cultural klingon. So I only need a D6/D7 as target for rare use. I can dig out the FASA plans if I have to... or fake it. I'd rather have a proper plan.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:16 am: Edit

William F. Hostmen:

Around here we all address Steve Cole with SVC. This is the best way to get his attention and what he prefers. Just so you know.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 10:16 am: Edit

I used to say "Mr Cole is my father, and he prefers to be addressed as Colonel Cole" but since his death that has gotten a little painful.

SVC is fine. This BBS is huge and I only read about 10% of it with any regularity. If you want me to note a message, you put SVC in the first of it so it shows on the summary and I drop in.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:01 pm: Edit

The other problem with the D7/Enterprise/Rom Warbird plans is that they already exist. Out of print, granted, but they do exist. The original blueprints for those ships were what SFB is in part based on. So those old out of print original plans are in one sense the correct official ones. Ideally I would like to see the old ones reprinted with a few minor changes (i.e Star Fleet Universe terms and such for the labels).

I imagine they cannot be reprinted as such due to whatever copyright stuff is in the way, so what do you do? If ADB could get permission it would be relatively straightforward to copy them into our programs for reprinting, but I don't want to guess at the likelyhood of that happening.

Do we create yet another "new" version (the FASA versions were different from the originals) of the plans to be our official ones? Could be done but seems odd to me since the game was somewhat based on the originals. And how different from the originals does it have to be before you aren't infringing on copyrights, and are those difference small enough to still keep them recognizable (or would people say "come on, everyone knows that's not how it goes")?

I would love to see the D7 and Constitution class deckplans be done, but I don't know what the best method would be to do it.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Monday, March 21, 2005 - 12:05 pm: Edit

On the other hand I am working (sporadically) on a Rom warbird set of plans, (since those originals I don't own and have never seen I don't have to worry about subconsciously copying something someone else did). The original D7 and Enterprise plans I have, and I would have a harder time of coming up with something original there for a "new" version.

By William F. Hostman (Aramis) on Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - 02:32 pm: Edit

The original plans are FJD.

The FASA plans aren't but are fairly close.

FJ's daughter might be willing to see them reprinted, if the publication deal isn't blocking that.

Big ship's plans are useful, in that they provide a basis for a lot of verisimilitude.

An SFU CA plan should also include the changes for the CA+ and Y175 refits; would the CC plans be just a couple of changes? If the CC, CS, and one or two close variants can be done with only a small changes section, Huzzah!

Likewise, the deckplans previously released for the DN, DD, and CA by a third party showed what were, for the most part, identical decks 6,7,8; the differences were mostly decks 3-5 and 9-11, and the secondary hulls.

I imagine the CA/CC plans would have some differences in the secondary hull, but the Plus, R, and 175 refits would alter those, too, euqually badly

Which raises the question... Where is the Flag bridge? I've always assumed the CC's flag bridge to be Fwd Hull, Deck 13 (Exactly opposite the main bridge), and that the FJD TM was correct in placing Aux in the center of deck 7, surrounded by computer core and then the sickbay....

The use of a good set of D7 and CC deckplans also provides a model for Fiction authors, too.

By Spencer Rathbun (Spencerr) on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 09:02 am: Edit

SVC I agree with Mr. Hostman. In the case of deck plans I would only buy ships I'm going to use. Which would be Federation, Orion, or ISC. And I suspect that is what most other people do too. However, this could be used to your advantage. If you put a couple dozen different ships into one product then there will be enough ships that each person wants so that they will buy it. That way, less popular ships will still be cost effective, because everybody who buys the product for the ships they like will also be buying the less popular ships that are needed occasionally.

However, getting enough ships for a product like this would be time consuming. I would suggest that, instead of having detail with furniture and such, you would have a description with each ship. It would list stuff like: chair in front of desk at top wall, bunk against left wall in each crew room. Then you could have at the back of the book a single "room" with a hex overlay which could be modified by the GM to fit any one room or set of rooms. He could photocopy it and then quickly sketch the furniture into the rooms from the descriptions. Then you don't need to repeatedly draw in the desk, chair, and bunk for each crew room or draw it so large.

That's just my opinion and is probably incorrect for some reason. I recently got into GURPS because of the fire sale on G:PD third Edition. I've loved it so far.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 09:26 am: Edit

We pretty much tend to ignore non-built-in furniture as it is now, although we do often show tables in dining halls. Adding or Omitting furniture isn't a major change in the amount of time a drawing takes since you can just clone and step the stuff.

Including several ships in one package works (maybe) if you are talking about small scale non-playable versions "for reference".

The concept of a pack of small scale plans with key pieces being in playable scale is workable, maybe, but that means that your GM cannot set major scenes in places where we haven't printed a playable scale map. There are many possible considerations here and we are thinking about some of them.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 02, 2005 - 09:27 am: Edit

Here's a thought for you. Using the Fed frigate plans that were published in GMPA, you GMs and players tell me what compartments deserve playable-scale treatment. Then I'll see if I can gin up a "product" out of this.