Errata - that difficult subject

[Carlobrand]

I read through the discussion. Interesting, but nothing definitive. Still comes down to interpreting a poorly worded set of rules.

Key elements:
"Select and install enough control panel units and control panel add-ons so that the total CPs from the control units multiplied by the computer’s CP multiplier (if a computer is installed) equals or exceeds the number of CPs required to control the craft."

Issue under debate is whether "control units" means just control panel units or units and add-ons. Add-ons are not units, but they are most certainly additions to units. What the writers did not say is interesting as well: not "the total CPs from the control units and add-ons multiplied by the computer’s CP multiplier," NOR "the total CPs from the control units multiplied by the computer’s CP multiplier, plus add-ons." In a strictly literal interpretation of the phrase as written, if "control units" refers only to control panel units, then ONLY the control panel units count for anything - the add-ons don't count at all. Which is absurd.

And,
"A computer multiplies the effects of the ship's installed control panels if the ship's panels are of the 'linked' type."

Mentions panels. Doesn't mention add-ons at all. Question becomes, if it multiplies the effects of the control panels, does it also multiply the effects of devices added on to the control panels, or no?

But, here's my BIG hang-up:

A TL9 heads-up display costs Cr20,000 and offers either 50 Cp or 50xCP-multiplier, Cr400 per CP by the first interpretation.

A TL12 heads up holpdisplay costs Cr100,000 and offers either 200 CP or 200xCP-multiplier, Cr500 per CP by the first interpretation.

A TL13 Large holodisplay costs Cr500,000 and offers either 1500 CP or 1500xCP-multiplier, Cr333 per CP by the first interpretation.

All three require a computer.

A TL9 computer-linked control panel costs Cr500 and offers 0.8xCP-multiplier, so anything from 4 (Model/0) to 96 (Model/9): Cr125 to 5.2 per CP.

So, given that they need computers anyway, the basic TL9 control panel is the better value by 2 1/2 to a hundred times. The add-ons just aren't worth the money.

Sizewise, a computer-linked control panel is 0.01 m^3 per panel. Depending on the computer it's hooked up to, anything from 400 to 9600 CP per cubic meter of control panel. A heads-up display offers 100 CP per cubic meter. A heads-up holodisplay offers 200 per cubic meter. A large holodisplay offers 750 per cubic meters. The large holodisplay's the only one worth buying, and then only if you're using a model/0 computer.

Admittedly, MegaTrav is a poorly edited set of rules. The ship examples don't seem to follow their own rules, so they're useless as examples 'cause you never know when they're right or when they're wrong. So, perhaps the designers did indeed create three pieces of equipment that were utterly useless pieces of crap; their treatment of the disintegrator does not breed confidence in their judgment. Or, perhaps they created three useful items and then worded the rules so poorly that we can't tell whether the rule applies to them or not.

The point is this: either view of things has equal "weight", as near as I can tell. There are instances of designed items that aren't much use as designed. There are also ample incidents of poorly worded and confusing rules. The question then comes down to this: do we embrace an interpretation that writes them off as completely useless, or do we embrace an interpretation that makes them useful?

Interpreting them as useless is an open invitation to giving them the errata treatment, as we're doing with the disintegrator and other puzzling aspects of MegaTrav tech. If we subject them to errata treatment, then our choice is to either officially endorse the rules interpretation that Mr Fugate and others use or to come up with an entirely novel way of dealing with them. I don't see us as coming up with an entirely novel treatment when there's an existing interpretation that works and that is already accepted by some of the community. Ergo, if either interpretation has equal weight, I say yield to the inevitable and embrace the interpretation that makes the things useful instead of useless.

 

[Carlobrand]

On another issue, there is this little gem from MT Referee Manual, P.58:

"The added value of armor for a ship may not exceed the ship’s technological level times five. In the case of planetoid hulls, an automatic hull armor factor is already present-the Tech Level armor restriction only applies to armor added to the hull of a planetoid."

A ship must have a starting armor value of 40. However, this is technically "added value"; you can construct something with 0 armor - it just shouldn't go into space. Ergo, the maximum armor value for a TL 15 ship is 75 - just 35 levels above the base 40 and therefore worth only a -11 to the damage table. Means no warship is invulnerable. Big departure from High Guard II.

Except planetoids. Planetoids start with an innate armor value: 50 for planetoids, 56 for buffered planetoids. Translates to a -3 and a -6 on the damage table, so just like the High Guard II examples they're drawn from. And you can add more on - up to 75 factors.

Now, a noninvulnerable ship is an interesting idea - until you realize the power of the fighter. Fighters are small, relatively cheap, agile, and now they can be made with Model/9 computers. Cost is about MCr 116 if you omit electronic circuit protection, which given their fate when they get hit is a very good idea.

You can field ten thousand fighters for the cost of a small dreadnought. Ten thousand fighters field 20 thousand pulse lasers and 10 thousand missiles. If only 1 in 36 shots hit (he needs a 2 for some reason), that's 800 hits - and dreadnoughts are lumberers: even for the most agile dreadnought, it's an 11 to hit them with a missile or pulse laser, so three times that many hits. Your typical dreadnought does not have the defenses to intercept more than a couple hundred hits; maybe one specifically designed to defend against fighters can pull a thousand, fifteen hundred or so intercepts, of which roughly half will fail to stop the inbound attack. Long story short: dreadnought meets fighter division, dreadnought takes 1500-2000 or more hits, and unless dreadnought has so much armor as to be invulnerable, dreadnought's spinal mount will be rendered inert and a whole lotta other batteries killed to boot within a very few turns, even if the dreadnought's armor allows only 1 hit in 36 to result in damage. At a max of 75, it's allowing 5 in 36. Meanwhile, the dreadnought's needing an 11 to hit the fighters with missiles and a 12 with beams; the dreadnought only hits about a dozen to a score of fighters per turn.

In a nutshell, we need to be very clear that 5 times the tech level means 5 times the tech level above the minimum required armor for space travel, or else dreadnoughts and even cruisers aren't worth bothering with. (Not that they're especially useful anyway: armoring them up to resist fighters leaves them slow enough to be easy prey for mesons, and because the spinal mount extra hit rules remain in play, big warships are still just meat for smaller warcraft with spinals - but that's an issue for another day.)

 

[McPerth]

The point is this: either view of things has equal "weight", as near as I can tell. There are instances of designed items that aren't much use as designed. There are also ample incidents of poorly worded and confusing rules. The question then comes down to this: do we embrace an interpretation that writes them off as completely useless, or do we embrace an interpretation that makes them useful?

Interpreting them as useless is an open invitation to giving them the errata treatment, as we're doing with the disintegrator and other puzzling aspects of MegaTrav tech. If we subject them to errata treatment, then our choice is to either officially endorse the rules interpretation that Mr Fugate and others use or to come up with an entirely novel way of dealing with them. I don't see us as coming up with an entirely novel treatment when there's an existing interpretation that works and that is already accepted by some of the community. Ergo, if either interpretation has equal weight, I say yield to the inevitable and embrace the interpretation that makes the things useful instead of useless.

Or simply allow add-ons to exceed the maximum computer imput CPs. This will give them a marginal advantage and make them somewhat useful.

And for the same token, holgraphic linked panels are also useless, as they are less efficient tan dynamic linked ones (same volume, 33% more power, weigth and cost per CP, as in all such cases cost is double for PC gain of 50%).

 

[McPerth]

In a nutshell, we need to be very clear that 5 times the tech level means 5 times the tech level above the minimum required armor for space travel, or else dreadnoughts and even cruisers aren't worth bothering with. (Not that they're especially useful anyway: armoring them up to resist fighters leaves them slow enough to be easy prey for mesons, and because the spinal mount extra hit rules remain in play, big warships are still just meat for smaller warcraft with spinals - but that's an issue for another day.)

WHile I understand your point here, I see some drawbacks to it:

1. It breaks the unified system, as you must count the armor differently for ground/atmospheric crafts, disposable crafts (minimum armor 8 IIRC, though there's little point to make more durable disposable items with armor) and space crafts⁽¹⁾.
2. If you count armor as added to the basic 40, how do you apply the armor table⁽²⁾? As armor over 40 too (so lowering weight and cost for a nice factor)?
3. Armoring a ship to TL 15 armor (if it is over 40) gives you 75 armor points over 40, so a damage modiffier of 25, making a ship truly invulnerable (except for MG, that, as we talk about armor, is out of equation)

Side (but related) questions:

(1) Are crafts designed to be used in vaccum (but not in space, as would be vehicles for a vaccum world) counted as space crafts or as ground crafts (so, do they need a mínimum armor 40 to protect from radiation, micrometeorite and so, or not)?

(2) How is armor for planetoids counted in this table? Does it just lower the line for the added 10/16 points (so lowering armor by this number for calculations), looking at the face line (so assuming they are quite massive too) or, as rules say it is its base armor, counting only added armor (and so giving them the weight/Price modifier of armor 0 if not overarmored)?

 

[Carlobrand]

...And for the same token, holgraphic linked panels are also useless, as they are less efficient tan dynamic linked ones (same volume, 33% more power, weigth and cost per CP, as in all such cases cost is double for PC gain of 50%).

Yeah, except that Errata 2.2 added a modifier to your ship tactic pool based on the type of panels you're using, so someone using the more expensive holo-linked panels gets a +1 to his tactics pool.

WHile I understand your point here, I see some drawbacks to it:

1. It breaks the unified system, as you must count the armor differently for ground/atmospheric crafts, disposable crafts (minimum armor 8 IIRC, though there's little point to make more durable disposable items with armor) and space crafts⁽¹⁾.

.

Yes, but the rules speak only to, "The added value of armor for a ship". There are technically no rules speaking to armor limits on vehicles. In practice, grav vehicles with armor past a certain level end up being boats: by the time you've added enough gravs to move the monstrosity, you find you've made it so big that you could fit a maneuver drive on instead, and the maneuver drive costs less, so it ends up being a boat with ground weapons, and you apply the ship rule. So there's no need to speak of armor limits for grav vehicles; practically speaking, the issue doesn't come up.

(You can make some impressive crawlers, though. They tend to be meat once meson guns show up in the artillery list, and at the price they are prime targets for nukes if those are available, but outside of that they are wickedly impressive. Easy to bypass, vulnerable to pinpoint hits and zero-penetration superstructure failure, but impressive. I don't see a logic to setting armor limits on what amounts to a metal brick on tracks: other more practical limits - like whether any bridge could support you, or whether you really want to sink a couple hundred million into something that fails once it's collected enough superstructure hits when you could throw a hundred more traditionally sized vehicles at the enemy for the same price - appear to set more rational boundaries.)

1. If you count armor as added to the basic 40, how do you apply the armor table⁽²⁾? As armor over 40 too (so lowering weight and cost for a nice factor)?
2. Armoring a ship to TL 15 armor (if it is over 40) gives you 75 armor points over 40, so a damage modiffier of 25, making a ship truly invulnerable (except for MG, that, as we talk about armor, is out of equation)

True, but as I pointed out, you either allow the things to be invulnerable or you allow them to be easy prey for fighters, which means a TU with no front-line warships larger than a destroyer.

(Practically speaking, there's not much need for armor above an added value of 60, if my math is right. 60 will stop a spinal particle beam dead in its tracks no matter what the weapon's rating. One really ought to give spinal particle beams a bonus on the damage roll based on their power. Hint, hint.)

Side (but related) questions:

(1) Are crafts designed to be used in vaccum (but not in space, as would be vehicles for a vaccum world) counted as space crafts or as ground crafts (so, do they need a mínimum armor 40 to protect from radiation, micrometeorite and so, or not)?

Imperial Encyclopedia offers a number of vehicles able to travel through vacuum. Enclosed air/raft and speeder have a hull rating of 4. Gcarrier has a hull rating of 10. One could conceivably go across the surface in a sealed ATV - hull rating of 6. My thought would be: you're taking your chances - you're vulnerable if there's a sudden flare or some such, unless this airless rock has a magnetic field to protect you. On the other hand, there are many interesting sci-fi stories around dashing for cover when the flare hits. Micrometeor impacts, I'd have to do some research - certainly you're less vulnerable than a starship high-G'ing its way to the local gas giant, but you've still got some vulnerability. A rating of 4 will stop most bullets; will it stop a pebble falling from space?

(2) How is armor for planetoids counted in this table? Does it just lower the line for the added 10/16 points (so lowering armor by this number for calculations), looking at the face line (so assuming they are quite massive too) or, as rules say it is its base armor, counting only added armor (and so giving them the weight/Price modifier of armor 0 if not overarmored)?

"Armor Values: Planetoid is armor value 50. Buffered planetoid is armor value 56. Additional armor may be added to a planetoid: subtract the planetoid's current armor value modifier (from the Armor Table) from the desired new armor value mass factor."

So if you want an armor of 75, you figure what mass you need for a 75, you figure what mass a 50 (or 56) would normally be, subtract that from the 75 mass, and that's your added armor mass. Otherwise, your planetoid offers you the base armor protection for only the loss of volume.

 

[aramis]

Given that CT HG AV 0 is Striker AV 60, not 40, and the difference from striker on the armor thickness table is only seen at AV 90+...

High Guard	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	+1
Striker	60	64	67	70	72	74	76	77	+1

[tc=9]Striker Rule 75, §B; Bk 2, p. 41[/tc]

The Maximum AV probably should be 40+(TLx5) for standard hulls, 50+(TLx5) for planetoids, and 56+(TLx5) for buffered planetoids.

It's an area where they got wacky with the integration of striker.

 

[mike wightman]

You have a pre-errata copy of Striker - it was changed to 0=40 on the errata sheet, which is included in both boxes I have.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that 60 + TLx5 is the reason for the AVs in Shattered Ships.

 

[McPerth]

"Armor Values: Planetoid is armor value 50. Buffered planetoid is armor value 56. Additional armor may be added to a planetoid: subtract the planetoid's current armor value modifier (from the Armor Table) from the desired new armor value mass factor."

So if you want an armor of 75, you figure what mass you need for a 75, you figure what mass a 50 (or 56) would normally be, subtract that from the 75 mass, and that's your added armor mass. Otherwise, your planetoid offers you the base armor protection for only the loss of volume.

So, if I build a buffered planetoid boat with its armor 58 (so it has a damage modifier of +6), the modifier for weight and price is 0.5?

That means a 10000 dton (135000 kl) buffered planetoid hull would cost MCr 5.7375 (13500 x 0.000085 X 0.5) and weight 118125 (135000 x 1.75 x 0.5) tons, while armoring it to 61, to have the +7 modifier would multiply all those factors by 2.5 (as multiplier goes from 0.5 to 1.25)

As a comparison, the same hull standard (at superdense armor 40) would cost MCr 442.2 (77 times as much) and weight 25740 tons (less than 22% of the buffered planetoid). So, while quite more expensive, very less massive (so more likely to have agility, as rare as it is in MT).

Or the buffered planetoid has also the mass multiplier for the armor class (most of it not being from this material)?

 

[aramis]

You have a pre-errata copy of Striker - it was changed to 0=40 on the errata sheet, which is included in both boxes I have.

It wouldn't surprise me to find that 60 + TLx5 is the reason for the AVs in Shattered Ships.

I used the revised CT CD stiker.

 

[aramis]

So, if I build a buffered planetoid boat with its armor 58 (so it has a damage modifier of +6), the modifier for weight and price is 0.5?

That means a 10000 dton (135000 kl) buffered planetoid hull would cost MCr 5.7375 (13500 x 0.000085 X 0.5) and weight 118125 (135000 x 1.75 x 0.5) tons, while armoring it to 61, to have the +7 modifier would multiply all those factors by 2.5 (as multiplier goes from 0.5 to 1.25)

As a comparison, the same hull standard (at superdense armor 40) would cost MCr 442.2 (77 times as much) and weight 25740 tons (less than 22% of the buffered planetoid). So, while quite more expensive, very less massive (so more likely to have agility, as rare as it is in MT).

Or the buffered planetoid has also the mass multiplier for the armor class (most of it not being from this material)?

You should have the (AV 58 Thickness) – (Av 56 Thickness) = 160-135=25 as your multiplier, because MT AV isn't linear.

 

[mike wightman]

I used the revised CT CD stiker.

Then it is missing the errata that came with the box.

The cd is not necessarily the definitive text.

 

[Carlobrand]

So, if I build a buffered planetoid boat with its armor 58 (so it has a damage modifier of +6), the modifier for weight and price is 0.5?

That means a 10000 dton (135000 kl) buffered planetoid hull would cost MCr 5.7375 (13500 x 0.000085 X 0.5) and weight 118125 (135000 x 1.75 x 0.5) tons, while armoring it to 61, to have the +7 modifier would multiply all those factors by 2.5 (as multiplier goes from 0.5 to 1.25)

As a comparison, the same hull standard (at superdense armor 40) would cost MCr 442.2 (77 times as much) and weight 25740 tons (less than 22% of the buffered planetoid). So, while quite more expensive, very less massive (so more likely to have agility, as rare as it is in MT).

Or the buffered planetoid has also the mass multiplier for the armor class (most of it not being from this material)?

Lessee:

10,000dT/135,000 Kl buffered planetoid.
Cr1,350,000 for transport
6500dT/87750 Kl available space, Cr6,581,250 to mine it out.
Total cost Cr7,931,250

Weight is 1.75 times the remaining volume of rock: 35% of 135,000 Kl, or 47,250 Kl, so 82,687.5 metric tons.

Now I want to armor it up to 58. It's already at 56. Modifier for 58 is 160. I'm using bonded superdense: weight modifier 0.14, price modifer 1. 10,000 dT hull usually weighs 3000 metric tons and costs Cr13,400; that's your frame. Ordinarily, the hull then is 160x0.14x3000=67200 metric tons at a cost of 160x1xMCr13.4=MCr2144.

However, we're not going from 0 to 58; we're going from 56 to 58. In essence, we're replacing the first 56 factors of metal armor with rock, whose numbers we have from the buffered planetoid, so all we need to know is how much it takes to get from 56 to 58. So, instead of using 160, we subtract the modifier for 56 armor from the modifier for 58 armor to get our modifier. The value of 56 armor is 135. Subtract 135 from 160, you get 25 - that's your armor modifier, that's what it's taking to get you from 56 to 58. So, added weight is 25x0.14x3000=10,500 metric tons at a cost of 25x1xMCr13.4=MCr335. That's the weight and cost of added armor that we add to the weight and cost of the planetoid.

Finally, we take the buffered planetoid - 82,687.5 metric tons at Cr7,931,250
- and add the weight and cost of armor added. 82,687.5+10,500=
93,187.5 metric tons. 7,931,250, or MCr7.93125, +MCr335=342.93125.

Assuming I've interpreted all that right.

 

[Carlobrand]

I used the revised CT CD stiker.

Mike's right. CT Errata 07 documents it as:

High Guard	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	+1
Striker	40	44	47	50	52	54	56	57	+1

[tc=9]Armor Rating [/tc]

I gotta remember that table bit. It's handy.

 

[McPerth]

Assuming I've interpreted all that right.

I hope so, because is the more convincing and logical interpretation I've ever seen about this subject (that in fact I see I had not understood, never having really entered to design a planetoid hull). TY for it.

 

[DonM]

It's an area where they got wacky with the integration of striker.

I keep coming back to this subject over the years, but I know there are people who know far more than I do on this topic.

Should we start a new thread somewhere specifically looking at correcting the Striker integration?

 

[aramis]

I keep coming back to this subject over the years, but I know there are people who know far more than I do on this topic.

Should we start a new thread somewhere specifically looking at correcting the Striker integration?

Possibly; there are three big issues, and one of them is so core that correcting it would be a new edition...

... As in striker, AV ≥ Pen+6 is immune to hits and AV+14 ≤ Pen is a guaranteed kill vs a person.
While in MegaTraveller, it's a multiplier. Which makes the higher pen weapons FAR less dangerous.
AV ≥ 10x Pen = Either Damage x0.1 (non-rigid or not totally enclosed) or x0 (Rigid and totally enclosed).
AV ≤ 0.5x Pen = x1 damage

It's a fundamental difference that is easily "errata'd" but so substantially alters the way the game plays that it unbalances encounters in the adventures.

The second is the ratio of Damage for ship weapons. It's WAY too high by comparison to the hits provided in the back of the RM.

The third is the design system issues of Fuel and drive sizes. (Easy fix, but invalidates all extant designs: 7m³ of drive per Td plus 7m³ of open space for maintenance. But that's an inherited issue from Striker Rule 75 §B itself, where the 1 HG EP Laser is defined as a 250 MW input 3-lens laser... but the Plasma 2EP mounts are 250MW and the Fusion 2 EP are 500MW. (Note also: Striker specifies 15cm warheads while SS3 says 10cm...). The problem being that the conversions in Rule 75 do NOT match HG81. (Note that 1EP=125MW would be 7m³ of plant with scale efficiencies...) This also means half the fuel rates...

Striker fuel rates are too high anyway, but that results in an error that propagates throughout, and isn't actually MT's error. (PP Fuel rates are a persistant bugaboo in all editions - TNE gets it more right by changing to per year instead of per month, but that's still under 1% net energy out after removal of operating expense.)

 

[jec10]

I have a number of questions relating to MT combat and also the mass combat system in Ref's Companion I hope to work through.

Here is one: how do sensors work in personal/vehicle combat?

For example, where are the rules/tasks for locating a vehicle at x range from my sensor?

 

[aramis]

I have a number of questions relating to MT combat and also the mass combat system in Ref's Companion I hope to work through.

Here is one: how do sensors work in personal/vehicle combat?

For example, where are the rules/tasks for locating a vehicle at x range from my sensor?

World Builders Handbook has them.

 

[jec10]

World Builders Handbook has them.

Thanks for the tip. I'm still struggling, however. WBH only deals with Scouts equipment and vehicles. How do I determine the senor task difficulties at various rangebands for (as an example) a Trepida?

I can see that in WBH they seem to take the Continental Rangeband as the base difficulty from the vehicle rating (i.e. Kankurur ActiveObjScan is rated Diff, and on p46 the sensor difficulty tables show CN rangeband as Diff). But I don't see how they determine the other rangeband difficulties. Do you know what the criteria are for determining the pattern?

Moreover, what impact might EMM have on difficulty?

 

[aramis]

Thanks for the tip. I'm still struggling, however. WBH only deals with Scouts equipment and vehicles. How do I determine the senor task difficulties at various rangebands for (as an example) a Trepida?

I can see that in WBH they seem to take the Continental Rangeband as the base difficulty from the vehicle rating (i.e. Kankurur ActiveObjScan is rated Diff, and on p46 the sensor difficulty tables show CN rangeband as Diff). But I don't see how they determine the other rangeband difficulties. Do you know what the criteria are for determining the pattern?

Moreover, what impact might EMM have on difficulty?

It's been so long since I've used them that I am not remembering clearly, but I think the sensor handout in WBH will help. ISTR it being one step for every X range bands; look on the handout.