AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
The net result is zero. You deduct 20 Dt [-20 Dt] for wings and get back 20 Dt [+20 Dt] for the fuel placed in the wings; net result -20 + 20 = 0 Dt.
It's easier to just say wings/fins take no space and be done with it.
5.10 Errata Thread?
- Thread starter DCS
- Start date
It's easier to just say wings/fins take no space and be done with it.
Works for me. Simpler than trying to use algebra to get a net over/under tonnage of 0, or just subtracting cargo to get the same result. The over tonnage penalties are harsh. /Shrug When I build a 1,000 ton hull I want it to be 1,000 tons and have 10 hardpoints. If it's 900 tons of body and 100 tons of wing/fin then it's still 1,000 tons to me.
In any case this is only my personal opinion and I am not trying to fight the rules as written for anyone else, nor am I trying to publish my designs. I did note IMTU.
In any case this is only my personal opinion and I am not trying to fight the rules as written for anyone else, nor am I trying to publish my designs. I did note IMTU.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Location:
Book 2 p83
Type of error:
Logic error
Description of issue:
Why would anyone ever want a Plasma or Fusion spacecraft weapon? They are always strictly worse than Lasers.
Base barbette installations (note mod +2/+4 and hits H:5/H:6):
Submitted by
AnotherDilbert
Book 2 p83
Type of error:
Logic error
Description of issue:
Why would anyone ever want a Plasma or Fusion spacecraft weapon? They are always strictly worse than Lasers.
Base barbette installations (note mod +2/+4 and hits H:5/H:6):
Code:
System # Dton Cost
Vd B1 Plas-11 +2 H:5 Def+1 1 3 4
Vd B1 Fusi-12 +2 H:5 Def+1 1 3 4,5
Vd B1 Puls-9 +2 H:6 Def+1 1 3 3,3
Vd B1 Beam-10 +4 H:5 Def+1 1 3 3,5Submitted by
AnotherDilbert
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Location:
Book 2 p195-196
Type of error:
Logic error
Description of issue:
Defences:
Can only a single defence react to an attack? In such case why? Why would not a nuke missile attack be stopped by both a Nuclear Damper and a laser turret?
Can many defences react to the same attack? In such case multiple defence rolls will stop nearly all attacks.
Submitted by
AnotherDilbert
Book 2 p195-196
Type of error:
Logic error
Description of issue:
Defences:
Can only a single defence react to an attack? In such case why? Why would not a nuke missile attack be stopped by both a Nuclear Damper and a laser turret?
Can many defences react to the same attack? In such case multiple defence rolls will stop nearly all attacks.
Submitted by
AnotherDilbert
It is somewhat ambiguous, but my reading suggests all appropriate defenses may respond to an attack. For example, I can imagine responding to an incoming missile with distractive defenses (e.g., flares or ECM) and direct point defense fire (e.g., energy or slug-throwing) as appropriate to nature of the missile. I have no problem with multiple defensive measures greatly reducing the chance of a hit by a given attack. That is what multi-layered defenses are intended to do. As with so many (too many?) of these rules, exact implementation seems to have been left to the individual Referee (whether by intent or by assuming a textual clarity that does not exist outside of the author's mind). At this time, I would roll each method of defense individually unless situational circumstances indicate otherwise.
what I'm not sure of is defenses against missiles, are missiles individual or salvo's, and if the latter, is a T1 going to be as effective against a B2 Missile attack as a T1 Missile attack?
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
As far as I understand a defence stops an entire attack, whether that attack is from a single turret or 100 bays.
The only variables are ∆TL and mount defence dm, so yes a T1 laser is just as effective against all attacks, regardless of the size of the attack, and a T1 laser is just as effective as a bay laser.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
That sounds reasonable, but as an example if a ship has six small T3 laser turrets (six firmpoints = 2 hardpoints) any attacking missile must penetrate six 50% rolls with a total chance of 0.56 = 1.6% chance.
I think it gets a bit boring if 99% of all attacks misses and the last percent has no chance to penetrate the armour...
I believe the concept of the lifting body is that it is the shape of the entire hull that is specially designed to produce lift naturally. Adding fins or wings would compromise this, in addition to creating additional drag.
It uses shell armor because it is typically lighter weight (no internal rigid framework) and as a result is to some degree flexible with regard to external fluid pressure due to the lack of internal skeletal-framework.
This is also why the lifting body gets no agility bonus in atmosphere: no fins to aid steering.
Last edited:
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Note that according to B2 p72 "E STARSHIP HULL FITTING OPTIONS" table fins can be added to L configuration ships.
Both p53 and p72 cannot be correct, as least one of them is incorrect, since thay are directly contradictory.
Yes, I believe so, see p72 "E STARSHIP HULL FITTING OPTIONS" table.
"Lifting Bodies have the benefit of Wings but not Fins (although Fins can be added)."
Location: Book 1, p 33, Habitable Zones Table 7
Type of error: Textual
Habitable orbit for F V stars is listed as orbit 4, but is orbit 5 throughout Book 3.
Submitted by Garnfellow.
Type of error: Textual
Habitable orbit for F V stars is listed as orbit 4, but is orbit 5 throughout Book 3.
Submitted by Garnfellow.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
We shall roll against Ergonomics every day, and if fail Check Quality for each and every Console on the ship (which most will fail with default Quality).
So, on a normal ship most consoles will fail about once a week which we then have to fix presumably with even more rolls...
I agree that it is way to much die rolling for routine operations.
Atmosphere Types E and F
Location: Book 3, page 25, Table A: Atmosphere
Type of error: Textual / Consistency error
From MegaTraveller through T4, Atmosphere E was defined as "Ellipsoid", while Atmosphere F was "Thin, Low".
Then in MongT (and its descendants, Trav SRD and Cepheus), transposed these definitions: E was now "Thin, Low", while F became "Unusual" (which includes Ellipsoid as well as some other types).
In T5.10, the table for generating a world's atmosphere (Book 3, page 25, Table A: Atmosphere) says:
"E Thin Low"
"F Unusual"
This suggests that T5.10 would now be consistent in this respect with MongT/Cepheus, and not consistent with previous Traveller versions.
However, in all other instances, T5.10 defines E as "Ellipsoid" and F as "Thin, Low."
These include:
Book 1, page 220,
Book 3, pages 90 (two tables), 143, 144, 251.
It appears that the Atmospheres table on page 25 of Book 3 is the only table to use the MongT/Cepheus atmosphere definitions. The rest of T5.01 does not.
Location: Book 3, page 25, Table A: Atmosphere
Type of error: Textual / Consistency error
From MegaTraveller through T4, Atmosphere E was defined as "Ellipsoid", while Atmosphere F was "Thin, Low".
Then in MongT (and its descendants, Trav SRD and Cepheus), transposed these definitions: E was now "Thin, Low", while F became "Unusual" (which includes Ellipsoid as well as some other types).
In T5.10, the table for generating a world's atmosphere (Book 3, page 25, Table A: Atmosphere) says:
"E Thin Low"
"F Unusual"
This suggests that T5.10 would now be consistent in this respect with MongT/Cepheus, and not consistent with previous Traveller versions.
However, in all other instances, T5.10 defines E as "Ellipsoid" and F as "Thin, Low."
These include:
Book 1, page 220,
Book 3, pages 90 (two tables), 143, 144, 251.
It appears that the Atmospheres table on page 25 of Book 3 is the only table to use the MongT/Cepheus atmosphere definitions. The rest of T5.01 does not.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
B2 p209 is just an overview explaining the terms, no quantities of anything is given.
The procedure for buying cargo is on p221, the available quantity is given by p220 as you note.
The Cargo ID can be determined as per p210.
It looks fairly similar to previous editions, and a well-defined procedure?
