Johannes replied to me: > > This makes the assumption that the engines _can_ be placed > > in front, or alternatively that the bridge should be built > > without forward viewpoints. > > > > I don't really see much place in high tech starship operation for looking > out of a window. And that is the only reason i know to put the bridge to > the front.
Forward viewports may be considered the ultimate failsafe against sensor failure. Not that a dead-stick landing is very practical in most Traveller ships ... > > If the engines are in the rear and the bridge is in front, > > the crew has to pass through the sections in between. The > > two classic Traveller deckplans move the passengers to the > > top deck, where they are out of the way while the crew can > > move down below. > > > > Having crew going through the cargo hold does not seem like a good SOP. > If you need the bridge in the front, i would at least include a walkway, > that is seperated from both passangers and cargo hold. Some deckplans for > traveller at least have that, but i don't remember if they were canonical > ones. The Far Trader works that way. The lower deck had the bridge, engineering, and crew quarters in an U, with the cargo in between. The uppder deck has the passenger cabins, fuel tanks, and more engineering. You can go from the bridge to engineering to the crew quarters, without passage through cargo or passenger spaces. > As to why you want to do that, leaving the extrality zone means extra > hassles and risks for the freighter (at least the freighter has to check, > if there are no relevant laws or customs that he has to be aware of), > which is one reason, why most freight goes starport to starport. > > And you can use such maneuvers also if you get freight types such as CIF. So the GM would be well advised to get the PCs out of the extrality zone, and into the local mess :-) Regards, Onno _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
