Book 6 Scouts p 33 errata?

[fusor]

I wouldn't say its broken, it was ground breaking in its day. It just has some issues.

"some issues"? It's riddled with inconsistencies that you're pointing out here.! And it's been superseded by other material. And a lot of it is actually broken, in that it doesn't make sense or the equations and tables are completely wrong.

The Model T Ford was ground-breaking in its day too - that doesn't mean that it's good by modern standards, or even that it should be used on modern roads .

The main reason for posting these is because Don likes to collect this stuff for his errata.

I suspect that most of this is well known and has been for several decades. But if you want to repeat what others have done then I guess that's up to you...

 

[Matt123]

I suspect that most of this is well known and has been for several decades. But if you want to repeat what others have done then I guess that's up to you...

Sigh... I'm not arguing with you. And yes many others far brighter than I will have found many more inconsistencies.

Regardless, Don likes collecting these things and as I'm finding them and finding he hasn't got these listed, I'm noting them here. I'm sure you will agree if these "faults" are such public knowledge, they should be in the official Traveller errata project.

Personally I'd love to own a Model T Ford. And yes I'd take that for drives & tinker with it on weekends. I'd even add my little insights on forums if I thought someone might be interested.

So yes, I really do like tinkering with old stuff.

 

[Matt123]

Another one.

Scouts pg 29. Table of Zones.

"Star Type (Sub Dwarf)" should read "Star Type (VI or Sub Dwarf)" as the category "Sub Dwarf" is not defined anywhere. I'm taking an educated guess it refers to Type VI on the System Features table, as that is the only Type without a dedicated Zones table.

"Star Type (White Dwarf)" should read "Star Type (D or White Dwarf)" for similar reasons.

 

[captainjack]

Personally I'd love to own a Model T Ford. And yes I'd take that for drives & tinker with it on weekends. I'd even add my little insights on forums if I thought someone might be interested.

So yes, I really do like tinkering with old stuff.

Heh, well said. those who love vintage cars will never be understood by those who love modern sports cars even though both spend lots of time tinkering.

 

[Matt123]

Another one;

Two errata's in one hit, one version is correct...

Book 6 Scouts, pg 29, Subordinate Government table
"If main world government 6, DM + population. If main world government 7+, DM+1"

or

pg 24, Continuation Star System Checklist, Step 15. A.
"DM+2 if main world government 7+. Equals 6 if main world government 6."
pg 33, Expanded Star System Checklist, Step 8. A.
"DM+2 if main world government 7+. Equals 6 if main world government 6."
pg 38, Subordinate Government
"If main world government 7+, then DM+2. If main world
government 6, then 6"

Looking at MT for its interpretation we get;
"If mainworld Government 6, DM +subordinate Population. If main world Government 7+ DM-1."

Not an easy one to suggest an errata for. I will suggest though;
"If mainworld Government 6, DM +subordinate Population. If main world Government 7+ DM+1."

This might constitute MT errata as well...

 

[Matt123]

Another one;

Book 6 Scouts, pg 29 Spaceport table
"If population 1, DM-2. If population 0, DM-3"

Supporting text, pg 39 Spaceports
"If population 1-, DM-2."

I suggest the supporting text pg 39, should be changed to;
"If population 1, DM-2. If population 0, DM-3"

 

[DonM]

Just found this thread...

Is this valid errata for Book 6 or not? I'm asking because I occasionally get a request to put all the MT worldgen errata into the CT worldgen errata, and I'm reluctant to do that...

 

[Matt123]

Just found this thread...

Is this valid errata for Book 6 or not? I'm asking because I occasionally get a request to put all the MT worldgen errata into the CT worldgen errata, and I'm reluctant to do that...

All the stuff I found was as a result of mocking up software requirements. Its all internal errata/errors, not related to other editions. Not withstanding some problems may have used other editions for solution guidance.

 

[BytePro]

This one is probably just me, but a clarification may be in order.

Scouts pg 26; Size table
The size indicated in miles (km) is the planets diameter.

Scouts pg 28; Satellite Orbits
Possibly should read...
"Distance in central planet radii (planet size in miles or km divided by 2)."

Yeah I know, my maths ain't great. I had to google the earths diameter to figure out what the Size table showed.

...errr hold up...

A ring at orbit distance 1, is within the planet...

Is it more plausible that the Satellite Orbits errata should read;
"Distance in central planet diameters." ???

I took this to mean distance from the 'surface' of the planet - i.e. Topocentric. Back in the day, this would have been the way such distances were stated in textbooks. So a Ring distance of 1 would mean a geocentric (from planet's center) orbit of 1 diameter (2 radii).

As to the actual distances on the table in relation to our own system - Luna is ~60 earth radii - which would be extremely rare from this table and most moons known today are probably in the upper far portion of the table. That said, looked up http://www.windows2universe.org/our_solar_system/moons_table.html - and for the moons known in the late seventies, the table is probably decent.

 

[BytePro]

Another one;

Page 24, step 14 D.

Should read "Hydrographics: 2D−7+satellite atmosphere".

Size actually makes more sense - common theory for surface water on solar bodies is from impacts. Thus Luna has surface water - even though lack of radiation protection from atmo causes loss, craters and dark side notably retain water. Surface area, and thus impact odds, increase non-linearly with diameter, so size modifier makes a lot of sense - atmo as primary modifier only makes sense when restricting hydrographics to liquid water...

The DM for exotic Atmo's is there in both system gen rules.

 

[BytePro]

...
Can I suggest an errata change to Step 4c and 6c. Change the last sentence to (planet & satellite neutral to enable it to be used in both corrections);
"If the orbit is at least two beyond the habitable zone, throw 12 for atmosphere A."

Edit.... Also applies to pg 24, step 12 C. ....end Edit

It doesn't mean that at all - it's explained on page 36:

Size is not a factor here - if you're rolling for atmosphere (i.e. any world that is size 1 or more), then there on a roll of 12 it will have atm A if it is two or more orbits beyond the... wait. The text is wrong - it should be referring to the OUTER ZONE orbit, not the Habitable zone.

So in our solar system , the first outer zone orbit is orbit 4 (which is wrong, but that's another matter...). Therefore, if you have a size 1+ moon or planet in orbit 6 or higher, it has this chance to have atm A.

The original text was clear to me - CT was generally terse and there is a better description on page 36. Of course, as Fusor pointed out - errata for OUTER zone on pg 36, as some stars lack a habital zone. Making this really clear would require a lot of verbiage. Such as: 'If 2 orbits beyond first outer zone orbit and base 2D throw results in 12, then atmosphere A.' Noting that with normal max planet size, there is no way for 2D-7+size-4 to generate a 12, hence the word 'throw' - but I doubt that is explained anywhere.

This rule obviously exists to give small sizes in the outer zone a chance at an exotic atmo - probably Titan as Fusor said.

...
I'm not sure why planets and satellites would get different modifiers for being in the inner zone. (DM -2 for planets, DM -4 for satellites). They are treated the same in the habitable zone and outer zone. Any thoughts here?

Not sure, though the formatting (spaces before DM values - notably 2 spaces for inner) probably indicates an edit at some point. If anything, I might tend to use DM-6 for outer... other editions might be used to clarify this?

 

[BytePro]

Here's another oddity;

Step 4E, planet population
Edit... also pg 24, step 12 E. ...end Edit.

I'm picking the negative population modifier should apply to all worlds that do not have an "ideal" atmosphere. Which counts out 0 (vacuum worlds).

Can I suggest it be errated to;
"If not atmosphere 5, 6 or 8, DM-2."

Unless I'm missing something

Seems reasonable.

Of course, TL-0 high pop vacuum worlds, etc. have always been a point of contention with the RAW.

My own house population DMs (from when I made a World Gen program decades ago):
If less than TL-A then DM-1 (billions max), less than TL-4 then DM-2 (hundred millions max), if TL-0 then DM-4 (millions max).
If atmo less than 4 or greater than 9 then DM-4.

These make unbreathable atmospheres none or very low population, especially without supporting TL (Max DM-8 to 2D-2). Though its still possible to have some (hundreds in worse case), justified with extraordinary circumstances - like caves with natural purifying and or oxygen releasing rocks and/or fauna, etc.

 

[rancke]

I'm picking the negative population modifier should apply to all worlds that do not have an "ideal" atmosphere. Which counts out 0 (vacuum worlds).

Can I suggest it be errated to;
"If not atmosphere 5, 6 or 8, DM-2."

This makes industrial worlds impossible.

Worlds that used to have atmosphere 5, 6, or 8, but don't any more, due to industrial pollution, are not at all implausible, IMO.

One of the problems with these DMs is that a lot of the more singular UWP combinations are less likely than others without being out-and-out impossible. Yes, you need a more powerful motive to settle a world with corrosive atmosphere and since surviving on one is more expensive than on a Human-norm world, it's less likely that one will have a high population. But a world with a corrosive atmosphere where really valuable compounds can be harvested is concievable. Yes, Human-norm worlds ought to average higher populations than desert worlds, but high-population desert worlds are not impossible any more than empty Human-norm worlds are impossible. Just less likely.

(For a future system, I would suggest my own solution: Saving throws against implausibility. If you have an implausible world, you assign an implausibility factor on a scale from 1 to 5 and throw a D6. If you throw above the factor, you keep the UWP and figure out an explanation; otherwise you adjust the UWP to make sense). But that's by the way.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

This makes industrial worlds impossible.
...

Yes it does.

Well, for non-mainworlds and for expanded system gen - normal world gen doesn't have this DM. So, for OTU and other cannon sources, this does not make industrial worlds impossible. Just fixes the intent of the expanded/continuation system gen rules.

Leaving the 0 in would allow for industrial worlds - but then only if they were atmo 0. In which case the definition of In is still flawed. I say still flawed because TL is neglected in its definition. TL is defined as 'capabilities of local industry'. Seems rather silly that it is not accounted for in defining a world as 'industrial'

Defining a world as industrial based on population is about as equally absurd. However, given that the OTU is defined with these rules (and book 3 system gen), I would not call the definition of In as something that needs errata.

Removal of atmo 0 from the conditional for expanded/continued system gen, as suggested, does seem an potential errata (based on assumed intent of the authors). Just glad I don't have to make the call! o:

 

[rancke]

Defining a world as industrial based on population is about as equally absurd.

I believe it's a sort of reverse logic. You need billions of people to pollute an entire atmosphere (BtC to the contrary notwithstanding). So if you have billions of people and a tainted atmosphere, the most likely reason for the taint is industrial pollution, which implies lots and lots of industry. It's a wonky logic, I admit, because a) it ignores high-population worlds with other kinds of taints, b) fails to account for the fact that a smaller population should be able to have proportionally the same industrialisation and thus the same economic benefits (x1.4 GWP), even if the total number of factories are too small to mess up the atmosphere badly enough to be noticeable, and c) doesn't take into account that low-tech worlds don't have polluting industries and ultra-tech worlds (presumably) have ways to limit or avoid pollution (fusion power etc.).

You really need a separate roll to determine if a world is industrialized (in the sense that it gets the x1.4 modifier to GWP), with various combinations of population size and tech level having bonuses and minuses to the roll (And some of them being 'no chance'). Come to that, the modifier itself should be variable, giving you worlds with x1.1 GWP, x1.2 GWP, etc.

None of this can be fixed by a simple errata, I know.


Hans

 

[BytePro]

One might say 'anti logic' vs. 'reverse logic'.

IMTU, TL factored into world classification and trade (and pop). Cost-wise, high TL goods on a lower TL world could be very expensive - and lower TL goods on a higher TL one virtually free, except as collectables. Fortunately, I didn't have Merchants till after the CT Reprints.

BTW, is GWP defined somewhere for Classic Traveller?