CT Errata Compendium

[aramis]

The solution, such as it is, is no large staterooms, a week's worth of fuel, and a small craft SR.

100Td
_20 Bridge
__4 Mod/4
_15 JD B=4
__7 PP B=4
_40 JFuel
_12 PP Fuel (8.4 days)
__2 Small Craft SR

8.4 days fuel ensures time for the jump and recovery.

 

[rancke]

The solution, such as it is, is no large staterooms, a week's worth of fuel, and a small craft SR.

100Td
_20 Bridge
__4 Mod/4
_15 JD B=4
__7 PP B=4
_40 JFuel
_12 PP Fuel (8.4 days)
__2 Small Craft SR

8.4 days fuel ensures time for the jump and recovery.

A better solution would be to realize that an X-boat is a outlier that doesn't fit a ship design system that is meant to approximate average vessels. Unlike a normal jump vessel that may conceivably, in some rare circumstances, need to spend an entire month in real space running its maneuver drive 24/7, an X-boat only need to run its factor 4 power plant at full capacity for the 20-40 minutes it takes to initiate the jump and can throttle it down to a factor 1 (actually, factor 0 and a little bit to run the life support) for the time in jumpspace, which means it will always spend a lot less fuel each jump.

So cut the power plant fuel tankage and make a note that this won't work for most ships.


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

The X-boat in Supplement 7 on page 9 indicates that the hull does have a power plant which does not conform to the LBB 2 design rule that starships require a separate jump drive and power plant.

XBOAT - 51216

Power Plant: None. Jump drives carry power plant capacities and functions.

Unfortunately, I have not found the documentation explaining how to combine a jump drive and power plant into a single system that fits within the assigned Engineering space for a standard hull.

 

[rancke]

Now that I think about it, I think it is arguable that the rule for power plant fuel consumption ("All fuel is used up in a month regardless of what the ship does" or words to that effect) is overly coarse. Especially if the rules actually say that the entire tankage is paid for every jump (i.e. every fortnight). Is it? I can't remember.

Anyway, if a full load of power plant fuel is expended by a ship that runs its maneuver drive 24/7 for a full month while firing its laser cannons all the time, it seems obvious to me that nothing like a full load should be expended if a ship maneuvers for a day out and a day in, and spends another 7 days in jumpspace and 5 in port every 14 days. And at Cr500/dT, a lot of players would be quite willing to assume the extra burden of keeping track of slightly more precise fuel expenditures -- if the rules for such existed. It could still be a very general figure. Say, a standard jump uses 20 or 25% of the fuel tankage. Anyway, a figure that is calculated once and used with no further ado from then on.

Possibly this goes beyond errata and into changing the rules. If so, I apologize for bring it up here. It just seems to me that such rules could be useful. AND help justify a smaller fuel tank on X-boats.


Hans

 

[far-trader]

Hello all,

The X-boat in Supplement 7 on page 9 indicates that the hull does have a power plant which does not conform to the LBB 2 design rule that starships require a separate jump drive and power plant.



Unfortunately, I have not found the documentation explaining how to combine a jump drive and power plant into a single system that fits within the assigned Engineering space for a standard hull.

It's an artifact of the first printing of Book 2. In that version the design tables are the same (or mostly?) as second printing BUT the rules state a power plant is only needed for a maneuver drive to function and that the PP must match or exceed the MD, but that no power plant was needed for the jump drive. Second printing changed that to having the PP match or exceed the greater of the MD or JD. And therein lies the issue with the X-Boat. Well, the biggest issue anyway.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Dan,

It's an artifact of the first printing of Book 2. In that version the design tables are the same (or mostly?) as second printing BUT the rules state a power plant is only needed for a maneuver drive to function and that the PP must match or exceed the MD, but that no power plant was needed for the jump drive. Second printing changed that to having the PP match or exceed the greater of the MD or JD. And therein lies the issue with the X-Boat. Well, the biggest issue anyway.

I kind of figured that the text was based on an earlier set of design rules that got cut later. I'll be honest once I got HG my interest in the design sequence from LBB 2 pretty much ended, not to mention I never did get a design to work.

 

[DonM]

From the opening post in the thread for the X-Boat, which you linked, per Don's instructions iirc, and I think copied in each other "fix" thread I started, as well as repeated just above though perhaps less clearly...

I realized a while back that the Book 2 Xboat could be the windmill of Classic Traveller errata. So I've deliberately tried to avoid it.

And I don't think anyone's come up with a fix that the community would really except, except for various High Guard redesigns...

 

[Carlobrand]

The solution, such as it is, is no large staterooms, a week's worth of fuel, and a small craft SR.

100Td
_20 Bridge
__4 Mod/4
_15 JD B=4
__7 PP B=4
_40 JFuel
_12 PP Fuel (8.4 days)
__2 Small Craft SR

8.4 days fuel ensures time for the jump and recovery.

This I like. I'll miss the cargo bay, but it's primarily a communications vehicle. Tukera does a nice job with jump-4 passenger and cargo service, and if there's a crying need to deliver emergency cargo or a high-profile passenger on an odd route, we can always assign a Kinunir.

 

[Hyphen]

This I like. I'll miss the cargo bay, but it's primarily a communications vehicle. Tukera does a nice job with jump-4 passenger and cargo service, and if there's a crying need to deliver emergency cargo or a high-profile passenger on an odd route, we can always assign a Kinunir.

Or a bunch of rag-tag adventurers who just happen to have a fast ship... hmm, that sounds familiar...

 

[Aleem Vren]

This is under review. I'd not pushed on the Imperium errata because the 3rd edition was supposed to be definitive...

Heh, yes quite. There might be some interesting answers from many who bought that version on what exactly it was definitive of.

Anyway, thanks for taking it into consideration. Now I'll let you get back to your X-Boat discussions.

 

[Amber Chancer]

Hi Don.

I posted this query elsewhere, and got told the answer was on this thread. I just read through all 27 pages of it, and it's not (for which i don't blame you at all ...)

OK ... so I add armour to a planetoid or a buffered planetoid. Let's say I add 1,000 tons, which lifts the armour factor from the basic armour-3 I get for any planetoid to armour-7.

HG page 23 tells me that "Cost is MCr .3 + .1a per ton" and a is defined as "desired armour factor".

When we're dealing with planetoids and buffered planetoids, does "desired armour factor" mean "the amount of armour it is desired to add to the inherent armour value of the planetoid hull" (so that in the example I would pay MCr0.7 per ton for the 1,000 of added armour), or does it mean "the armour factor it is desired to achieve by adding this armour to the planetoid" (so that in the example I would pay MCr1 per ton for the 1,000 tons of added armour)?

 

[far-trader]

Hi Don.

I posted this query elsewhere, and got told the answer was on this thread.

Actually, I think the suggestion was it was in Don's signature under his posts Though I could be mistaken about that being the way it was worded. In any case that's what you want, this link:

http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Amber Chancer,

A planetoid, as mentioned has an armor factor of 3. If you want to increase the factor to 7 - 3 requires adding 4 armor factors.

.3 + (.1 x 4) = .3 + .4 = .7 x 1000 = 700

Of course I'm not Don but I'm 99.9% sure I'm in the ball park.

Hi Don.

I posted this query elsewhere, and got told the answer was on this thread. I just read through all 27 pages of it, and it's not (for which i don't blame you at all ...)

OK ... so I add armour to a planetoid or a buffered planetoid. Let's say I add 1,000 tons, which lifts the armour factor from the basic armour-3 I get for any planetoid to armour-7.

HG page 23 tells me that "Cost is MCr .3 + .1a per ton" and a is defined as "desired armour factor".

When we're dealing with planetoids and buffered planetoids, does "desired armour factor" mean "the amount of armour it is desired to add to the inherent armour value of the planetoid hull" (so that in the example I would pay MCr0.7 per ton for the 1,000 of added armour), or does it mean "the armour factor it is desired to achieve by adding this armour to the planetoid" (so that in the example I would pay MCr1 per ton for the 1,000 tons of added armour)?

 

[Amber Chancer]

Actually, I think the suggestion was it was in Don's signature under his posts Though I could be mistaken about that being the way it was worded. In any case that's what you want, this link:

http://dmckinne.winterwar.org/trav.html

Yeah ... I followed that link too and read everythign that I found there.

I'm nothing if not thorough :rofl:

 

[DonM]

(looks at signature)

Perhaps they were trying to refer you to the ct-starships yahoo group, and I have no idea if I just violated the site ToS by mentioning it.

Now, do we need additional clarification on the armor rule? I do think that snrdg082102 nailed the details, but will confess I'm not near my rules at the moment (and not my PDFs either, gasp!).

 

[aramis]

(looks at signature)

Perhaps they were trying to refer you to the ct-starships yahoo group, and I have no idea if I just violated the site ToS by mentioning it.

Now, do we need additional clarification on the armor rule? I do think that snrdg082102 nailed the details, but will confess I'm not near my rules at the moment (and not my PDFs either, gasp!).

No. The various mailing lists for Traveller are OK to reference to.

 

[Carlobrand]

This is maybe the correct forum for this, maybe not.

Let's look at High Guard damage tables. Specifically, lets look at interior hits. Meson weapons do interior hits: the spinals hit the 2-to-12-range damage results, the bay weapons hit the 8-18 results, and nothing modifies them. Then we have the interiors that happen from surface damage results - they don't get modified, they hit the 2-12 results.

So ... nothing in the game hits the 19-22 results. We have them on the table, but nothing goes there.

 

[BytePro]

Black globes provide a DM based on factor (x2) to damage rolls...

pg .42 HG (Classic Reprints 1980 ed.) -
'all damage rolls against the ship will receive a DM ... all damage rolls it inflicts will also have a +8 DM (example is for 40% flicker). Unlike normal armor, a black globe also affects meson guns.

So I would presume this is the reason all the columns go to 22+ on the SHIP DAMAGE TABLE (aside from the armor DM for surface explosions and the +6 factor DM for less than 9).

 

[Carlobrand]

Black globes provide a DM based on factor (x2) to damage rolls...

pg .42 HG (Classic Reprints 1980 ed.) -
'all damage rolls against the ship will receive a DM ... all damage rolls it inflicts will also have a +8 DM (example is for 40% flicker). Unlike normal armor, a black globe also affects meson guns.

So I would presume this is the reason all the columns go to 22+ on the SHIP DAMAGE TABLE (aside from the armor DM for surface explosions and the +6 factor DM for less than 9).

That makes more sense.

 

[BytePro]

Easily overlooked.