Chatl class Ship HG issues...

[Hal]

Originally I posted this as a possible issue for the Apocrypha-1 CD, but have chosen to start up a thread devoted to the issue at hand...

Chatl Class Ship has an issue with the High Guard Stats:

It states it has a Jump-5, Manuever 3 capability, but it only has a Model 3 Fib computer.

When I try using the High Guard Shipyard to build the stats on the ship (which is how I found the error), I find that I can't build the ship per the specs given.

In short, if I try to give it 5 parsecs worth of fuel, with a Jump-5 drive, the ship goes into negative available internal space (ie it is too much stuff for the 150 dtons of hull). Something is odd about this. Perhaps the ship was originally created using the Book 2 guidelines, and can't be built using HIGH GUARD?

Edit:
I can make the stats for a Jump-5, Manuever-3, Powerplant-5 ship work if I use 181 dtons of hull, otherwise, I can at best, fit in a Jump-4 rating for the ship. After looking more closely at the Book 2 Rules, I find that it would be hard to get a Jump-5 ship using those rules, since there are no rules for figuring out what kind of jump you get for a 150 dton hull utilizing the rules as written. If you assume a 150 dton hull counts as a 200 dton hull for purposes of the drive letters and all, then one would need a Drive E jump engine to attain a Jump-5 capability. Also, the moment I add in those two lasers for the turret, the agility of the ship drops well below Agility 2 as listed.

I can however, make a Jump-4, Manuever 3, Powerplant 5 ship that will fit into a 150 dton hull at TL 14. The agility remains at 1 once you factor in the two laser turrets.

And

Hi Hal, that's more in the realm of errata and this is more looking for quality of production/scanning errors (I think).

But it's a question worthy of it's own thread perhaps

EDIT: A quick guess (I wanted to check my original HG 1st ed to be sure) unlike HG 2nd ed and even Book 2 2nd ed, both Book 2 1st ed and HG 1st ed lacked the requirement that computer number equal or exceed the jump number. So that fixes the computer issue. The Chatl was probably originally designed with HG 1st ed (and probably not Book 2 1st ed because of the penalty for odd hull sizes impacting the 150ton design, though it would allow a power plant 3 instead of 5 saving a little fuel and drive space, in Book 2 1st ed you didn't need any powerplant for the jump drive)

EDIT II: Not having the original complete stats, for what it's worth (here until moved to it's own thread) it looks doable in HG (1st ed anyway, and I think 2nd ed as well except for the computer). A quick build of the main components (drives, fuel, bridge, computer*) leaves me with 20.5tons to fill in the staterooms and weapons (and possibly cargo, armor, purifier, etc).

* interesting note, I'd forgotten, fib computers in HG 1st ed didn't require more volume, only more cost

 

[far-trader]

Excellent moved my post here (cleaner than the quoted above) to the new thread...

A quick guess, unlike HG 2nd ed and even Book 2 2nd ed, both Book 2 1st ed and HG 1st ed lacked the requirement that computer number equal or exceed the jump number. So that fixes the computer issue. The Chatl was probably originally designed with HG 1st ed (and probably not Book 2 1st ed because of the penalty for odd hull sizes impacting the 150ton design, though it would allow a power plant 3 instead of 5 saving a little fuel and drive space, in Book 2 1st ed you didn't need any powerplant for the jump drive)

Not having the original complete stats, for what it's worth it looks doable in HG (1st ed anyway, and I think 2nd ed as well except for the computer). A quick build of the main components (drives, fuel, bridge, computer*) leaves me with 20.5tons to fill in the staterooms and weapons (and possibly cargo, armor, purifier, etc).

* interesting note, I'd forgotten, fib computers in HG 1st ed didn't require more volume, only more cost

EDIT: OK, that's a little more data, consistent (more or less) with what I have on hand, double laser turret and agility 2. However, HG 1st ed doesn't use energy points or agility. Curiouser and curiouser. Also of note in differences between HG 1st and 2nd, 1st doesn't differentiate powerplant size by TL, a TL9 powerplant is the same size as a TL15 powerplant of equal factor (costs are different though).

EDIT II: (getting to be a habit ) However, applying HG 2nd ed energy points to the design I get 7.5EP produced, minus 1EP for the computer, minus 2EP for the lasers, leaves 4.5EP for an agility 3 rating, perfect! (perfect since it's a 3G ship).

EDIT III: (a new record ) So, what is the other 19.5tons used for? How many staterooms? (my source lists 2) Armor? (my source says factor 7) Other? ... (should have a purifier at least)

 

[Hal]

Now, here is what I did with a spreadsheet to test out what is going on and why...

Hull size: 150 dtons
Bridge: 20 dtons
Jump: 9 dtons
Manuever: 12 dtons
Powerplant: 15 dtons
Jump Fuel: 75 dtons
Pwr Fuel: 7.5 dtons
Computer: 10 dtons
Staterooms: 8 dtons

Totals thus far: 156.5 dtons

This is clearly 6.5 dtons too much.

Even if I change it so that one uses only a model 5 computer, the tonnage allocated to the ship drops from 156.5 dtons to 151.5 dtons. (Model 5 versus Model-5 fiber optic would drop to 5 dtons instead of 10 dtons)

As for the rules regarding the model number of the computer must equal the jump capability, you may be on to something there. CPU slot size is what determines where or not any given program of a given size may run on a computer. In order to run a Jump-5 program, the minimum cpu size must be 5. A Model 3 computer in High Guard 1st edition coincidentally has a CUP size of 5. The problem with this interpretation however, is that even with a jump program running, you still need "Navigate" to be running concurrently with the Jump drive (Per the rules in Book 2), which is why you need a BIS computer to make a jump-2 jump with a model 1 computer. Its normal CPU value is 2/4 (2 operational, 4 storage). A model 3 BIS on the other hand, would have been able to handle a jump-5 program, but the listing for the ship isn't a Model 3 Bis, but a Model 3 Fib.

But, the stats on the ship are clearly High Guard 2nd edition. Why?

Because "Agility" is strictly a High Guard 2 invention. It didn't exist with High Guard 1st edition. As a consequence, if the listing shows an "Agility" rating, it is either...

A) High Guard Second Edition

or

B) Done at a time when High Guard 1st edition had come out, and Fasa had the insider scoop on agility being invented for use with High Guard 2nd edition, and created the stats using High Guard 1.x edition of the rules instead of 2.0 version of the rules.

I find it highly unlikely that option B is on the table only because the copyright information for the Fasa original material is 1982. High Guard 2nd edition came out in 1980.

 

[Hal]

Seeing Dan's commentary above, I thought I'd mention a few minor issues regarding High Guard 1st edition and High Guard 2nd edition:

High Guard 1st edition, unlike Second edition, does not make the volume of the power plant tech level dependent. In other words, a TL 14 power plant-5 takes up 5% of the hulls volume in High Guard 1st edition, whereas it takes up 10% of the Ship's hull in High Guard 2nd edition.

Also, the Manuever Drive volumes are somewhat different:


Drive value - 1st edition volume/2nd edition volume

1 - 2/2
2 - 4/5
3 - 5/8
4 - 12/11
5 - 16/14
6 - 20/17

Armor on the other hand, is a different beastie in High Guard 1st edition as well. Armor costs 40 dtons per 1,000 dtons of ship hull, for a factor 7 armor rating. Thus, our 150 dton hull would have had to allocate a total of 40 dtons of armor. The alternative interpretation to this rule would have been to pro-rate the armor at 4 dtons per 100 dtons of ship, in which case, our 150 dton hull would require 6 dtons allocated to it. Contrast this with HG 2nd edition rules, where an armor rating of 7 at TL 14 requires 16% of the tonnage of the hull, or in this case, 24 dtons.

All in all, I suspect that based on the fact that Agility is mentioned in the ship's stats, that it is to be entirely HG 2nd edition rules, and not 1st edition rules. If a ship can't be built to meet HG 1 stats, and it can't be built to meet HG 2nd edition stats, something is wrong.

 

[far-trader]

Now, here is what I did with a spreadsheet to test out what is going on and why...

Hull size: 150 dtons
Bridge: 20 dtons
Jump: 9 dtons
Manuever: 12 dtons
Powerplant: 15 dtons
Jump Fuel: 75 dtons
Pwr Fuel: 7.5 dtons
Computer: 10 dtons
Staterooms: 8 dtons

Totals thus far: 156.5 dtons

This is clearly 6.5 dtons too much.

Interesting (should have noticed it). Another difference between 1st and 2nd, the maneuver drive. In 1st it is only 7.5tons (saving you 4.5 tons). And as noted the powerplant difference (saves another 7.5tons, same as TL15 powerplant size)

As for the rules regarding the model number of the computer must equal the jump capability, you may be on to something there.

Ah, I forgot to mention, iirc the required slots for jump programs were 2 across the board (except for J1) in 1st ed Book 2. At least they are in the TAS form 3 (even in 2nd ed). So, no problem for a Model/3 to run J5

But, the stats on the ship are clearly High Guard 2nd edition. Why?

Because "Agility" is strictly a High Guard 2 invention. It didn't exist with High Guard 1st edition. As a consequence, if the listing shows an "Agility" rating, it is either...

A) High Guard Second Edition

or

B) Done at a time when High Guard 1st edition had come out, and Fasa had the insider scoop on agility being invented for use with High Guard 2nd edition, and created the stats using High Guard 1.x edition of the rules instead of 2.0 version of the rules.

I find it highly unlikely that option B is on the table only because the copyright information for the Fasa original material is 1982. High Guard 2nd edition came out in 1980.

I find it easily believable that it was done using HG1 then semi-converted to HG2

Or it could just be a mess

 

[far-trader]

Yep, no way to fit much (if any) armor in with HG (either edition). I think the source I have is MT (though it too has a HG USP string, I can't recall, did MT do a USP string?). Maybe it's some weird HG/MT hybrid

 

[Hal]

Excellent moved my post here (cleaner than the quoted above) to the new thread and deleted it from the other to clean it up there (you can do the same now too, just a suggestion, or link to this thread for replies).

Actually, I'll leave it there as well, for only one reason. The actual PDF indicates that it is not strictly the same material as copyrighted in 1982 switched over into a PDF format. It states...

UPDATED AND RE-EDITED
The text of this book as been re-edited to correct obvious errors and reformatted to include smaller deck plans for reference. The teck plans have been edited for clarity.

That bit above indicates that there were changes made in the original material, edited to correct obvious errors, for which, it would appear, the Chatl class ship contains

Whether or not this gets fixed or not is up to the people who produced this. For all I know, those things that were edited took too much time to handle, and if Marc is a one man production team, plus the author of T5, a work in progress, it may very well be that this issue will take a back burner and probably never be addressed in light of the higher priority items in the que of life (ie family, friends, job, etc).

That is one reason why I try really hard NOT to engage Marc in a lot of discussions about Traveller (I've yet to pester him on anything, but the temptation is STRONG!)

 

[far-trader]

Just for completeness...

[FONT=arial,helvetica]After looking more closely at the Book 2 Rules, I find that it would be hard to get a Jump-5 ship using those rules, since there are no rules for figuring out what kind of jump you get for a 150 dton hull utilizing the rules as written. If you assume a 150 dton hull counts as a 200 dton hull for purposes of the drive letters and all, then one would need a Drive E jump engine to attain a Jump-5 capability.[/FONT]

You do indeed need to use the next higher even hull, 200tons in this case (it's in the rules somewhere). So yes, Jump Drive E (which means you can build it at TL10 ), and in 1st ed Book 2 you only need Power Plant C to go with the Maneuver Drive C

150ton hull

30ton jump drive
5ton maneuver
10ton power plant
75ton jump fuel
30ton power plant fuel
20ton bridge
3ton computer
1ton weapon
8ton staterooms

Drat! 30tons over. Nope can't be done in Book 2. Close though 200ton hull would do it just 5tons over* (I meant to say )

* cut one stateroom and the weapon (or make it fixed mount) and you're there.

 

[far-trader]

Actually, I'll leave it there as well, for only one reason. The actual PDF indicates that it is not strictly the same material as copyrighted in 1982 switched over into a PDF format. It states...

UPDATED AND RE-EDITED
The text of this book as been re-edited to correct obvious errors...

Interesting. One wonders what obvious errors leapt out (perhaps some of the confusion in the Chatl is from "correction" of "obvious" errors? without context and annotation, all such "corrections" should have really been imo well annotated to preserve the intent) In that case I understand and agree with the leaving it in the other thread. DonM will pass it along as needed.

 

[Hal]

After working with my spreadsheet and trying to figure out why I can't make a Chatl with Manuever-2, Jump-5, powerplant-5, with a model-5 computer, I had a Doh moment...

My spreadsheet numbers did NOT include the armor factor 7 in it. *snort of amusement*. As armor at TL 14 costs 2a+2% where "a" = armor level, I should have remembered to include the armor component of (2 x 7)+2 percent, or 16% of 150 dtons. This adds an additional 24 dtons worth of volume use to our already over burderned design attempt.

One CAN build a jump-5, manuever-2, Powerplant-5 ship if one also includes the fact that it is an unarmored ship

Otherwise, as statted out in Adventure class ship, the Chatl class Zhodani Leader Scout class ship is not possible using ANY design I've got access to - HG 1st edition, HG 2nd edition, or Book 2 Starships.

Simplest approach from my perspective? Drop it down to Jump-4, and upgrade the power plant.

This is what I get trying to meet the maximum Jump capabilities, with 2 staterooms, some armor, and some manuevering capabilities:

SL-1143641-630000-20000-0 MCr 151.6 150 Tons
(batteries bearing for both lasers and sandcaster are 1)

Cargo: 0.000 Fuel: 69.000 EP: 9.000 Agility: 3 Pulse Lasers
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops

Architects Fee: MCr 1.516 Cost in Quantity: MCr 121.280

This is the best I can come up with for the Zhodani Chatl class ship based on the original design parameters. It comes close, with a Jump-4 drive, 4 parsecs of fuel, and a Model 4 standard computer versus the original Jump-5, 5 parsecs fuel, and model 3 Fib computer.

 

[Hal]

You know, after seeing this thread, and remembering previous threads in the past about how other ship designs from the past were broken, I wonder...

<evil grin>

See my next thread...

 

[rancke]

A quick guess, unlike HG 2nd ed and even Book 2 2nd ed, both Book 2 1st ed and HG 1st ed lacked the requirement that computer number equal or exceed the jump number. So that fixes the computer issue.

Only at the cost of invalidating the 2nd ed rule. Two mutually contradictory rules cannot both be right in the same universe. Either one or the other (or, of course, both) must be wrong. Since 2nd ed is a revision of 1st ed, I think that any 1st edition rule that was invalidated by 2nd ed must be considered wrong. Unless, that is, the 1st ed rule was internally consistent AND the 2nd ed rule wasn't. Is there anything inherently self-contradictory in a requirement that the computer number equal or exceed the jump number? I don't see it. So in this case, I submit that what 1st ed says is completely moot.



Hans

 

[far-trader]

Well, I was only pointing out a possible reason for the apparent discrepancy.

However, if you want to talk internally consistency then maybe 1st edition is the better source for the computer issue since 2nd edition Book 2 lists two different sets of numbers for the Jump program CPUs (page 25 in the TAS form 3, and page 41 in the computer section, I don't know how 1st ed Book 2 did it, though I suspect it was just TAS form 3, which would make the 1st ed rule internally consistent and the 2nd ed not, so 1st should take precedence, yes?).

To use your own words they can't both be right, right?

And is there anything inherently logical in requiring that the computer number match the jump drive? As long as it could run the programs (per 1st ed) why would it have to?

 

[rancke]

However, if you want to talk internally consistency then maybe 1st edition is the better source for the computer issue since 2nd edition Book 2 lists two different sets of numbers for the Jump program CPUs (page 25 in the TAS form 3, and page 41 in the computer section, I don't know how 1st ed Book 2 did it, though I suspect it was just TAS form 3, which would make the 1st ed rule internally consistent and the 2nd ed not, so 1st should take precedence, yes?).

To use your own words they can't both be right, right?

No, but they can both be wrong. In different ways, of course.

And is there anything inherently logical in requiring that the computer number match the jump drive? As long as it could run the programs (per 1st ed) why would it have to?

There doesn't have to be. There just has to be an absence of inherent contradictions. As long as it isn't obviously broken, how the author described it is how it works. And 2nd ed was a revision of 1st ed, which means it changed the rules. They didn't use to be wrong, but now they are.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

No, but they can both be wrong. In different ways, of course.

True. Is that kind of like they can both be right, in different ways?

What I mean is, and having had the luxury of 1st ed and 2nd ed (both Book 2 and HG at times), I've often thought of the designs of each being valid for certain times and/or polities.

For example, The Imperium usually designs according to certain standards and rules (as exemplified by HG2) but some Imperial ships (mostly civilian) are built to common component standards (as per Book 2 2nd ed). While over in the Darrian Confederation they use different standards and techniques (as per HG1) and the Sworld Worlds have this totally ancient approach (as per Book 2 1st ed) that uses stand alone jump drives!

All at the same time in the same universe, separated by only a few jumps and social/technological differences. Makes for an interesting universe, a little diversity, all nice and fun.

 

[Hal]

I've often wondered why Jump drives for civilian use can be so very very different than jump drives for military use. One would think that Military drives either have a built in redundancy for taking damage in battle, or they'd have some other benefits that the civilian drives just don't have. Yet, when you look at the drives for use with the Civilian market (book 2) and contrast it against those of the High Guard set up, there are some surprising disparities involved.

 

[far-trader]

I've often wondered why Jump drives for civilian use can be so very very different than jump drives for military use...

Agreed, there should be some differences. An obvious one when HG was created might have been to finally quantify that unrefined fuel difference. But they went and made cheap small purifiers instead that really messed things up. Or they could have said they were built tougher or with redundant backup systems like you say, only they went and invented armor and if you want a backup you add it. Or they could have changed the pricing such that HG cost more* than Book 2.

* to be fair it does, a little, in some areas, but not enough, especially considering all the advantages

 

[far-trader]

Anyway, my proposed HG 2nd ed "corrected" build of Chatl follows. My rational is change as little as possible that has a significant game effect. Generally I don't like to change TL but in this case it was the easiest obvious that changed the rest as little as possible. And one TL bump is inconsequential (except perhaps if you want to argue the Zho can't do TL15) and I could live with the two other minor changes (bigger computer and lower agility, as they sort of balance combat wise). I still prefer my HG1 solution above as more elegant though (but I prefer this HG2 version for fitting the stats better, unless it did have armor, cargo, or something I've forgotten in the original).

+150ton hull
-9ton jump 5 drive
-12ton maneuver 3 gees (-1.5EP agility +1)
-7.5tons power plant 5 (+7.5EP)
-75tons fuel x5 parsecs
-7.5tons fuel x4 weeks
-20tons bridge
-10tons model/5fib comp (-3EP)
-1ton hardpoint beam laser x2 (-2EP)*
-8tons staterooms x2

Leaves 0tons remaining.

* could up that to beam laser x3 to use up the remaining 1EP

EDIT:

...hmm, I seem to have imagined posting the HG1 version above, here it is:

+150ton hull
-9ton jump 5 drive
-7.5ton maneuver 3 gees (-4.5EP agility +3)*
-7.5tons power plant 5 (+7.5EP)*
-75tons fuel x5 parsecs
-7.5tons fuel x4 weeks
-20tons bridge
-3tons model/3fib comp (-1EP)*
-1ton hardpoint beam laser x2 (-2EP)*
-8tons staterooms x2

Leaves 11.5tons remaining (perhaps for some armor, cargo, or anything else the original may have had that I'm forgetting).

* all EP notes and agility rating borrowed from HG2 actually, HG1 had no power requirements or agility, also note HG1 didn't make fib computers bigger just pricier

 

[DonM]

Actually, I'll leave it there as well, for only one reason. The actual PDF indicates that it is not strictly the same material as copyrighted in 1982 switched over into a PDF format. It states...

UPDATED AND RE-EDITED
The text of this book as been re-edited to correct obvious errors and reformatted to include smaller deck plans for reference. The teck plans have been edited for clarity.

Hmm... I've got to go check, but I don't remember anything but some spelling errors... and cleaning up the plans.