AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
Quite, but HG Armour 12-20 ships has quite an unfair advantage...
MT Only: A MegaTraveller Starship Design Example edited by Don McKinney
- Thread starter snrdg082102
- Start date
Which error would be easier to correct, the CT:HG or MT miscalculation of M-1 for M-2?
You have 17 posts correcting a MT design that was already corrected once before!
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Morning from Roy, WA atpollard,
CT High Guard's, in my opinion, popularity is that the system over simplifies the starship design process. Heck, I've tried to recreate the CT designs using both LBB2 Starships and LBB5 HG without matching all the specifications, the most consistent failure is cost.
One of my disagreements with HG that got carried over to MT is how turrets are handled. In CT LBB2 Starships one could buy empty turrets and later on buy the weapons. In HG and MT you can not technically purchase empty turrets, but you can buy empty bays.
Thank you for your comment and help along the way.
This would probably be why TNE FF&S never surpassed CT High Guard in popularity for Starship Design.
On a serious note, there is a lot to love about MT design (not the errors), but in my opinion it is about 1 decimal place too complex for starships. There are too many little calculations that increase the chance for an error and have minimal impact on the final design.
CT High Guard's, in my opinion, popularity is that the system over simplifies the starship design process. Heck, I've tried to recreate the CT designs using both LBB2 Starships and LBB5 HG without matching all the specifications, the most consistent failure is cost.
One of my disagreements with HG that got carried over to MT is how turrets are handled. In CT LBB2 Starships one could buy empty turrets and later on buy the weapons. In HG and MT you can not technically purchase empty turrets, but you can buy empty bays.
Thank you for your comment and help along the way.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello aramis,
Thank you for the reply and continued help over the years.
I'm bouncing between here and the TML with two topics the first is MT COACC and MT Referee's Manual's Craft Design using Donald McKinney's edited version of "A MT Starship Design Example".
During the discussions someone noted that it is simpler to plug-in MT Ship Combat into CT HG2. Unfortunately, I still have not gotten a comfortable feel for the combat rules in any version of Traveller.
Thank you for the reply and continued help over the years.
I'm bouncing between here and the TML with two topics the first is MT COACC and MT Referee's Manual's Craft Design using Donald McKinney's edited version of "A MT Starship Design Example".
During the discussions someone noted that it is simpler to plug-in MT Ship Combat into CT HG2. Unfortunately, I still have not gotten a comfortable feel for the combat rules in any version of Traveller.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello again atpollard,
In my opinion the error is easily corrected in both CT HG2 and MT, especially after the MT Consolidated Errata introduced formulas to calculate the units needed for the MD and JD.
Unfortunately, Donald's efforts to correct the original article still has bugs in it.
For example:
The Laser and Maser Communicators volumes do not match with the table formula of Volume = 2 x Weight on MT Referee's Manual under both tables. A Laser Comm weighs 0.03 tons and in the edited version the volume is 0.03 following the requirements the Laser's volume is 0.03 x 2 = 0.06. The Maser's weight is 0.06 with a volume of 0.09 the correct volume is 0.06 x 2 = 0.12.
EM Masking characteristics are calculated using the hull volume of 1,010,000 kl versus the corrected value of 1,012,500 kl.
The number of hardpoints available still used 1,010,000 kl not the corrected value 0f 1,012,500 kl.
The bay weapons' cost does not include the price of the bays.
The weight and price of the power plant fuel purification plant are shown as being subtracted versus added.
The jump drive fuel tankage was added to the jump drive volume rather than in 10 - Fuel 1 Required Fuel Tankage. The cost and weight of the fuel is not shown as being calculated.
On the last Net Total so far... Table the final fuel total weight is being subtracted.
The Regal's UCP sheet Unloaded and Loaded values are still off.
Prior to Donald's death I tried using TD #13 which resulted in finding the errors which led me to the CotI MT forums. After posting I was directed to Donald's Traveller page and downloaded his edited version.
Using the edited version I found the communicator volume, followed by EM Masking, and the bay weapons costs. I did contact Donald about the probable errata and unfortunately I was distracted resulting in leaving the project incomplete. I irritated at myself for not finishing the project until after we lost him.
In my opinion the error is easily corrected in both CT HG2 and MT, especially after the MT Consolidated Errata introduced formulas to calculate the units needed for the MD and JD.
Unfortunately, Donald's efforts to correct the original article still has bugs in it.
For example:
The Laser and Maser Communicators volumes do not match with the table formula of Volume = 2 x Weight on MT Referee's Manual under both tables. A Laser Comm weighs 0.03 tons and in the edited version the volume is 0.03 following the requirements the Laser's volume is 0.03 x 2 = 0.06. The Maser's weight is 0.06 with a volume of 0.09 the correct volume is 0.06 x 2 = 0.12.
EM Masking characteristics are calculated using the hull volume of 1,010,000 kl versus the corrected value of 1,012,500 kl.
The number of hardpoints available still used 1,010,000 kl not the corrected value 0f 1,012,500 kl.
The bay weapons' cost does not include the price of the bays.
The weight and price of the power plant fuel purification plant are shown as being subtracted versus added.
The jump drive fuel tankage was added to the jump drive volume rather than in 10 - Fuel 1 Required Fuel Tankage. The cost and weight of the fuel is not shown as being calculated.
On the last Net Total so far... Table the final fuel total weight is being subtracted.
The Regal's UCP sheet Unloaded and Loaded values are still off.
Prior to Donald's death I tried using TD #13 which resulted in finding the errors which led me to the CotI MT forums. After posting I was directed to Donald's Traveller page and downloaded his edited version.
Using the edited version I found the communicator volume, followed by EM Masking, and the bay weapons costs. I did contact Donald about the probable errata and unfortunately I was distracted resulting in leaving the project incomplete. I irritated at myself for not finishing the project until after we lost him.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
About the same; change the volume from 2% to 5% of the hull, recalculate cost and power, and in the case of MT, mass.
Because the authors were sloppy, and tried to cut corners.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello AnotherDilbert,
I will disagree with the assessment that the authors were sloppy and tried to cut corners based on what I know.
In 1988 I was using paper, pencils, erasers, and when possible a calculator to work through game system design processes since I did not have access to a personal computer or a spreadsheet application. Even with a computer and a spreadsheet application I have never successfully recreated a published design in any game system I have. The most consistent difference is with the cost.
When the article was written Joe D. Fugate Sr. was also working on Digest Group Publications source books, editing Travellers' Digest, pursuing his model railroading hobby, and taking carry of his real world obligations which I do not consider as cutting corners. I do not know how many drafts Joe wrote before the deadline to publish TD #13.
Donald McKinney was maintaining all Traveller version errata, developing material for Traveller 5, and a number of other Traveller related items, putting in time on his other hobbies, and taking care of his real world life.
When I did my first attempt using the TD #13 article years ago I missed the text indicating the the maneuver drive was dropped from 6 to 1 and still missed the text when I asked for clarification on the Maneuver Drive rating shown on the spreadsheet in Post 2 in the original article.
I don't feel that I was sloppy or tried to cut corners but I still did not catch the Maneuver Drive number until now. Heck, I've tried to ensure I'm not creating more errors in my attempt to work through Donald's version while correcting the numbers and I don't have any of the situations that Joe and Donald were in when they did their writing.
I will disagree with the assessment that the authors were sloppy and tried to cut corners based on what I know.
In 1988 I was using paper, pencils, erasers, and when possible a calculator to work through game system design processes since I did not have access to a personal computer or a spreadsheet application. Even with a computer and a spreadsheet application I have never successfully recreated a published design in any game system I have. The most consistent difference is with the cost.
When the article was written Joe D. Fugate Sr. was also working on Digest Group Publications source books, editing Travellers' Digest, pursuing his model railroading hobby, and taking carry of his real world obligations which I do not consider as cutting corners. I do not know how many drafts Joe wrote before the deadline to publish TD #13.
Donald McKinney was maintaining all Traveller version errata, developing material for Traveller 5, and a number of other Traveller related items, putting in time on his other hobbies, and taking care of his real world life.
When I did my first attempt using the TD #13 article years ago I missed the text indicating the the maneuver drive was dropped from 6 to 1 and still missed the text when I asked for clarification on the Maneuver Drive rating shown on the spreadsheet in Post 2 in the original article.
I don't feel that I was sloppy or tried to cut corners but I still did not catch the Maneuver Drive number until now. Heck, I've tried to ensure I'm not creating more errors in my attempt to work through Donald's version while correcting the numbers and I don't have any of the situations that Joe and Donald were in when they did their writing.
AnotherDilbert
SOC-14 1K
I have no information about, or contact with, the authors. I only see the numerous mistakes in both the article and the proposed errata. One or two mistakes are just mistakes, but many mistakes is sloppiness in my opinion.
The attempt to bake in purifiers in the fuel and doing it badly is what I consider a shortcut.
The differential calculations are perhaps pedagogical in the article, but a lousy was to get precise results.
By 1988 I was using spreadsheets to design ships, it simplifies bookkeeping enormously. I certainly never tried MT design without spreadsheet support.
If you do it on paper you have to very careful when you change components and make sure that affected components are also changed, something both the article and the errata failed with.
Doing MT, or even worse TNE, ship design by hand takes a lot of care, you have to triple check everything to have a hope of a reasonably correct result.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello AnotherDilbert,
This is a point we will differ on being sloppy. If you have downloaded any Traveller Errata or reported errata you have had contact with Donald McKinney or DonM. I'm not sure about Joe D. Fugate Sr. on Traveller forums, but I've read his model railroading work, which is worth the time.
In the 1991 or 1992 I bought a Packard Bell 386 from the guy who had it onboard the USS Simon Lake AS-33. Unfortunately, the Office application did not include a spreadsheet application.
The point of the article, flaws and all, was to walk through the MT Craft Design process. The article succeeded, finally, in walking me through the process.
Oops looks like I've let the thread drift off course again.
Thank you for your comments and help.
This is a point we will differ on being sloppy. If you have downloaded any Traveller Errata or reported errata you have had contact with Donald McKinney or DonM. I'm not sure about Joe D. Fugate Sr. on Traveller forums, but I've read his model railroading work, which is worth the time.
Yep, the explanation of how to introduce the fuel purification plant was hard to follow, however the purpose is to estimate power plant required fuel tankage.
Again the object of the section was to estimate the power plant requirements in a manner that Joe deemed as the way to determine the characteristics of power plant. None of the design systems in my opinion give precise results since there is rounding of the numbers.
In 1988 I was in the USN and the only computers I had access to were at the terminals I had to enter the jobs that got completed. I also was not working on Traveller, but the games I did work on where reaching the level of CT Striker.
In the 1991 or 1992 I bought a Packard Bell 386 from the guy who had it onboard the USS Simon Lake AS-33. Unfortunately, the Office application did not include a spreadsheet application.
Yep, working on paper means you have to be very careful. When building a spreadsheet you have to be very careful that you are getting the formulas and creating the tables accurately.
The point of the article, flaws and all, was to walk through the MT Craft Design process. The article succeeded, finally, in walking me through the process.
Oops looks like I've let the thread drift off course again.
Thank you for your comments and help.
