CT Errata Compendium

[aramis]

DonM thought they were the Medical Section and my math appeared to agree with that idea.

Wouldn't the 50% support personnel cover the Bk 2 admin ratings?



The Imperial Navy has trimmed admin ratings then since most of the commands I served on in the USN had way more than 3, of course I'm not sure if they for 5kTd either.

Have a good whatever time and thanks for the reply

Possibly, but note that the command staff in book 2 specifically require admin ratings. Mega has the support crew morph into maintenace crew, and an abstract command crew of (BridgeCrew+EngrCrew+MaintCrew+GunneryCrew+FlightCrew+Troops)/6... went too far the other way, IMO...

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning aramis,

Possibly, but note that the command staff in book 2 specifically require admin ratings. Mega has the support crew morph into maintenance crew, and an abstract command crew of (BridgeCrew+EngrCrew+MaintCrew+GunneryCrew+FlightCrew+Troops)/6... went too far the other way, IMO...

Book 2, page 16, does state that hulls > 1,000 tons, both starships and spaceships, should have at least 3 admin personnel on page 16.

Admin personnel are, in my little old pea-picking brain, equal to the support personnel who are ratings equal to 50% of the total officers in the section detailed in Book 5 Command Section on page 32. By my count Book 2 hulls require a minimum crew of 1 pilot, 1 navigator, and 1 medic. These three bodies, in my opinion, equate to the command section in Book 5 and the CO and XO make the total command section of 5 personnel, 5 x 0.5, 50% ratings to officers from Book 5, = 2.5 = 3 admin/support personnel.

Light bulb flashes on for the minimum of 11 Command Section per the table on Consolidated CT Errata v07 page 15. HG lists a minimum of 7 officers in the command section. 7 x 0.5 = 3.5 = 4 ratings acting as support personnel.

Thanks aramis for solving my other question.

The minimum number of Book 5 command section personnel is 7 officers + 4 rating for a total of 11 which is what the Crew table on page 15 of the Consolidated CT errata shows. Yipee:rofl:

Back to the Adventure 5 TCS Regal's command section of 42 per the ship's data card in the CT errata. The Regal at 75,000 tons is greater than 20,000 tons and requires 5 command section personnel per 10,000 tons of hull.

Command Section = (75,000 / 10,000) x 5 = 7.5 x 5 = 37.5 = 38

Adventure 5 page 10 brought back the pilot requirement from Book 2, which was missed in Book 5 in my opinion. Hull's of > 20,000 tons require a pilot allowance of 3. The TCS/HG command section officer requirement appears to be 7 (HG) + 3 pilots (TCS) = 10 command section officers. This leaves 28 of the 38 command section slots to be filled by ratings exceeding the Book 5 50% rating to officers requirement.

Book 2, if I'm on the right track, requires at least 3 admin personnel per 5 officers. HG appears to have doubled the officer requirements of Book 2, which would, I hope, require at least 6 admin personnel + 10 officers for a minimum of 16 command section personnel. The Regal's command section requirement exceeds, I think, the minimum Book 2 requirement.

Of course I could be lost in space in my thinking.

 

[aramis]

@Tom: There is good reason it's important to know who is what - some people want to run Mercantile games with HG rules... and without knowing what category, one can't work out the salaries.

@DonM - More CT Errata
CT Core rules (TTB 58/59/86/87, CT B2 22/23 B3 14/15 , ST B2 10/11/16/17):

• Can't find a TL listed for the small craft.
• None of the ships list their TL (which is based upon drives and weapons installed as per the Bk3/TTB/ST TL tables)
  • Type S: 9
  • Type A: 9
  • Type R: 9
  • Type M: 11
  • Type Y: 9
  • Type C: 12
  • Type T: 10
  • Type L: 10
  • Type K: 11
• Missing pay rate for Admin and Other crew for ships > 1000Td
  (Extras should probably be split into Admin and Maintenance; Admin probably should be paid as stewards, Maintenance as Gunners; if not separating, all should probably be paid as gunners.)
• Missing TL for Low Berths and Emer Low Berths. (Not listed in MT, either.)

 

[snrdg082102]

My aramis you have been busy,

HG is, in my opinion, designed for designing primarily medium to heavy warships. Civilian ships greater than 1,000 tons can be designed and are limited to weapon systems found in Book 2. Of course if they buy a surplus warship they can re-arm the former warship with bays and might be allowed to operate along the Imperial borders. The spinal mount, as noted in AHL, is something the Imperial government frowns upon.

Starships Book 2 are for small combatants and civilian vessels.

To be honest, I have never worked out the costs for crew or supplies for any of the designs. Part of the reason is that I haven't found enough examples that I can understand. If there were one or two good examples I could follow I'd go into more detail.

Thank you for the location of the information you provided.

@Tom: There is good reason it's important to know who is what - some people want to run Mercantile games with HG rules... and without knowing what category, one can't work out the salaries.

@DonM - More CT Errata

CT Core rules (TTB 58/59/86/87, CT B2 22/23 B3 14/15 , ST B2 10/11/16/17):

• Can't find a TL listed for the small craft.
• None of the ships list their TL (which is based upon drives and weapons installed as per the Bk3/TTB/ST TL tables)
  • Type S: 9
  • Type A: 9
  • Type R: 9
  • Type M: 11
  • Type Y: 9
  • Type C: 12
  • Type T: 10
  • Type L: 10
  • Type K: 11
• Missing pay rate for Admin and Other crew for ships > 1000Td
  (Extras should probably be split into Admin and Maintenance; Admin probably should be paid as stewards, Maintenance as Gunners; if not separating, all should probably be paid as gunners.)
• Missing TL for Low Berths and Emer Low Berths. (Not listed in MT, either.)

 

[snrdg082102]

Adventure 5 Pilot Allowance

Does the Pilot Allowance Rule on page 10 of Adventure 10 TCS alter the HG Command Section?

 

[aramis]

Attn: DonM

I downloaded the CT errata last month, and looking through it, notice that Bk2-77 doesn't mention the two changes made to the design system for CT-81, and probably should:


1) requiring PP to match the higher of Jump Drive or Maneuver Drive, instead of just Maneuver Drive
2) requiring computer model to meet or exceed Jump number, rather than just to be able to run the Jump-N program

 

[Carlobrand]

Does the Pilot Allowance Rule on page 10 of Adventure 10 TCS alter the HG Command Section?

I think it's more a case of supplementing or clarifying it. Those TCS rules are squadron rules for tournament purposes. The pilot allowance represent how many pilots your navy has trained and available for that squadron, a way of deciding what kind of game you want to play - few big ships or many small ships. The designation of pilots per tonnage just sets something measurable that helps you apply that rule; within the High Guard rules, those pilots would be part of the command staff if piloting the ship itself, part of the flight section if piloting launched craft.

If you don't care about the composition of opposing fleets, you can ignore it - the pilots are assumed. If you're playing a High Guard battle where you want players playing similar fleets - or at least forewarned that the other guy might be throwing dozens of tender-carried SDBs and riders at them - you can implement that rule as a way of ensuring that everyone's on the same page squadron-wise.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Carlobrand,

I think it's more a case of supplementing or clarifying it. Those TCS rules are squadron rules for tournament purposes. The pilot allowance represent how many pilots your navy has trained and available for that squadron, a way of deciding what kind of game you want to play - few big ships or many small ships. The designation of pilots per tonnage just sets something measurable that helps you apply that rule; within the High Guard rules, those pilots would be part of the command staff if piloting the ship itself, part of the flight section if piloting launched craft.

If you don't care about the composition of opposing fleets, you can ignore it - the pilots are assumed. If you're playing a High Guard battle where you want players playing similar fleets - or at least forewarned that the other guy might be throwing dozens of tender-carried SDBs and riders at them - you can implement that rule as a way of ensuring that everyone's on the same page squadron-wise.

Thanks for the clarification, which makes sense. I guess my issue is that High Guard added three positions and dumped the explicit requirement for pilots on craft > 1,000 tons. Doesn't make much sense to me, but I can follow your suggestions.

Thanks for the help.

 

[Carlobrand]

Evening Carlobrand,



Thanks for the clarification, which makes sense. I guess my issue is that High Guard added three positions and dumped the explicit requirement for pilots on craft > 1,000 tons. Doesn't make much sense to me, but I can follow your suggestions.

Thanks for the help.

Not dumped so much as hid. TCS rules aren't supposed to supplant, so those pilots are somewhere in the crew structure. My thought was one of the two navigators sat pilot when someone was needed at the helm, and ratings sat the position for the two off-shifts - gotta teach some how. Piloting a ship that flies as part of a squadron is a bit different than piloting a merchantman on its own.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

Not dumped so much as hid. TCS rules aren't supposed to supplant, so those pilots are somewhere in the crew structure. My thought was one of the two navigators sat pilot when someone was needed at the helm, and ratings sat the position for the two off-shifts - gotta teach some how. Piloting a ship that flies as part of a squadron is a bit different than piloting a merchantman on its own.

Dumping would have been better, then my grumbling would be valid, I'm still am at odds with the omission.

Book 2, in my opinion, hints that pilots on 100-ton starships probably have training as navigators. Which means that some navigators have training as pilots.

Thank you again Carlobrand

 

[snrdg082102]

Striker Book 3 page 15

Hello Donald McKinney,

I'm going through Design Sequence 2: CPR Guns and I think there might be an overlooked bit of errata.

L. Ammunition 3. KEAPER page 15.

"These are the same as KEAP rounds with minus 2 subtracted from penetration at all ranges.

Example: The gun's KEAPER round has a penetration of 30, 28, and 25 at effective, long, and extreme ranges."

L. Ammunition 2. KEAP page 15.

"Example: The gun has a KEAP round with an effective range penetration of (26+4+3=) 33; long and extreme range penetrations are 30 and 27, respectively."

The KEAP effective range penetration is 33 which means that the KEAPER effective range penetration should be 33 - 2 = 31 not 30.

The other two KEAPER penetration values are correct.

Recommend a change as follows

Pages 15-16, Design Sequence 2: CPR Guns, L – Ammunition, 3 – KEAPER (correction): [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]The KEAPERs effective range penetration value is 31 mot 30.
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Carlobrand]

CT Errata 7 appears to have errata:

"Keanou (2411) should have ―De‖, and Raydrad (2933) should not have ―Ag‖."

Unless there's been some change to the UPCs, Keanou's got water and Raydrad qualifies as an agricultural world. Did I miss something?

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

CT Errata 7 appears to have errata:

"Keanou (2411) should have ―De‖, and Raydrad (2933) should not have ―Ag‖."

Unless there's been some change to the UPCs, Keanou's got water and Raydrad qualifies as an agricultural world. Did I miss something?

What type of round is a Keanou?:rofl:

I think one of us is on a different page.

 

[DonM]

CT Errata 7 appears to have errata:

"Keanou (2411) should have ―De, and Raydrad (2933) should not have ―Ag."

Unless there's been some change to the UPCs, Keanou's got water and Raydrad qualifies as an agricultural world. Did I miss something?

I'm not sure about the odd comment, but this errata predates the current Supplement 3 errata. I've got to go back and re-sync that info. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Carlobrand]

I'm not sure about the odd comment, but this errata predates the current Supplement 3 errata. I've got to go back and re-sync that info. Thanks for the reminder.

Odd comment? "Did I miss something" is by way of asking whether I might have gotten it wrong - whether I missed or overlooked some rule or errata that affected the results. I'm presuming the current Supplement 3 errata is from CT Errata 7. Is there a more recent release?

Other question: I'm looking at 876-574, UPP code E687200-0, an idyllic little earthlike world with a grand total of 700-some souls living like pre-Columbian Native Americans, with TL 0 Neolithic technology - likely bows with flint-tipped arrows, maybe the occasional copper tool or jewelry, that kind of thing. Then it occurred to me: basic TL roll when generating the UPP is 1d6 plus modifiers, and the only negative modifier is for religious dictatorship (which can't happen unless the pop is pretty large). Further, the low pop adds a +1, as does the 0 government.

So ... either these folk can't be less than TL 3 (roughly Napoleonic/Age of Sail equivalent, i.e. iron-shared ploughs and muzzle-loading black-powder arms) or the starport should to be an X (except that it's not red-zoned, as every other X in the Marches is). Or, perhaps it was intentionally designed that way for some reason - some adventure that called for locals of TL 0? It's the only example of its kind in the Marches.

 

[dean]

Morning Carlobrand,



What type of round is a Keanou?:rofl:

I think one of us is on a different page.

I believe snrdg is referring to your post as some sort of reply to his post that immediately preceded your post on a different topic.

Not sure if snrdg understands that this thread is an open general purpose thread to suggest all kinds of errata, with or without direct comment.

 

[Carlobrand]

I believe snrdg is referring to your post as some sort of reply to his post that immediately preceded your post on a different topic.

Not sure if snrdg understands that this thread is an open general purpose thread to suggest all kinds of errata, with or without direct comment.

I suspect he's pulling my leg; he's fond of dry humor. I'm sure he's aware of the forum's purpose.

 

[DonM]

Odd comment? "Did I miss something" is by way of asking whether I might have gotten it wrong - whether I missed or overlooked some rule or errata that affected the results. I'm presuming the current Supplement 3 errata is from CT Errata 7. Is there a more recent release?

No, 0.7 is the latest. I was referring to snrdg082102's "round" comment.

Other question: I'm looking at 876-574, UPP code E687200-0, an idyllic little earthlike world with a grand total of 700-some souls living like pre-Columbian Native Americans, with TL 0 Neolithic technology - likely bows with flint-tipped arrows, maybe the occasional copper tool or jewelry, that kind of thing. Then it occurred to me: basic TL roll when generating the UPP is 1d6 plus modifiers, and the only negative modifier is for religious dictatorship (which can't happen unless the pop is pretty large). Further, the low pop adds a +1, as does the 0 government.

So ... either these folk can't be less than TL 3 (roughly Napoleonic/Age of Sail equivalent, i.e. iron-shared ploughs and muzzle-loading black-powder arms) or the starport should to be an X (except that it's not red-zoned, as every other X in the Marches is). Or, perhaps it was intentionally designed that way for some reason - some adventure that called for locals of TL 0? It's the only example of its kind in the Marches.

A complete revision of the Spinward Marches data is available in the T5 forum, but it's still under review. You are correct that the TL of that world cannot legally be less than TL 3.

 

[DonM]

Odd comment? "Did I miss something" is by way of asking whether I might have gotten it wrong - whether I missed or overlooked some rule or errata that affected the results. I'm presuming the current Supplement 3 errata is from CT Errata 7. Is there a more recent release?

No, 0.7 is the latest. I was referring to snrdg082102's "round" comment.

Other question: I'm looking at 876-574, UPP code E687200-0, an idyllic little earthlike world with a grand total of 700-some souls living like pre-Columbian Native Americans, with TL 0 Neolithic technology - likely bows with flint-tipped arrows, maybe the occasional copper tool or jewelry, that kind of thing. Then it occurred to me: basic TL roll when generating the UPP is 1d6 plus modifiers, and the only negative modifier is for religious dictatorship (which can't happen unless the pop is pretty large). Further, the low pop adds a +1, as does the 0 government.

So ... either these folk can't be less than TL 3 (roughly Napoleonic/Age of Sail equivalent, i.e. iron-shared ploughs and muzzle-loading black-powder arms) or the starport should to be an X (except that it's not red-zoned, as every other X in the Marches is). Or, perhaps it was intentionally designed that way for some reason - some adventure that called for locals of TL 0? It's the only example of its kind in the Marches.

A complete revision of the Spinward Marches data is available in the T5 forum, but it's still under review. You are correct that the TL of that world cannot legally be less than TL 3.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening Dean,

I believe snrdg is referring to your post as some sort of reply to his post that immediately preceded your post on a different topic.

Not sure if snrdg understands that this thread is an open general purpose thread to suggest all kinds of errata, with or without direct comment.

Yep, different topic and not enough sleep over the past couple of weeks. I'm the one who is usually on a different page. Yes, I'm aware that this forum is open to questions and possible submissions on errata for CT.