CT Errata Compendium

[Carlobrand]

Yeah, I've never played much with black globes.

On a related subject:

"Fuel Tanks Shattered" is an interior damage result. It is possible when a ship with an armor rating of less than four is struck by a spinal-mount particle accelerator or by nuclear missiles, or when any ship is struck by a spinal-mount meson beam. For the particle beam and nuclear missiles, the weapon must first roll an Interior Damage result on the Surface Damage column; the odds for rolling an Interior Damage result depend on the ship's armor rating - anything from 9 in 36 (25%) to 1 in 36 (~2.8%) for ships of armor rating 0 to 3; the meson beam goes directly to the Internal Damage column. On any given Interior Damage roll for these weapons, the odds for a Fuel Tanks Shattered result are 4 in 36, about 11%. So, the odds of a Fuel Tanks Shattered result on any given particle beam or missile hit ranges from 2.8% to 0.3% - if the ship's armor is less than 4 - while the meson beam has an 11% chance.

(A black globe will modify both particle beam and meson beam results, but it does so both for incoming and outgoing fire, and Traveller canon presents the black globe as a rare device at TL15 rather than as routine equipment.)

If a ship receives a Fuel Tanks Shattered result, it is pretty much out of the game: "No ship systems requiring energy points may operate." Under previous interpretations of the game, that left the ship with missiles and sandcasters but no computer (if it was a model 3 or greater), which was as good as having no missiles/sandcasters in most situations. Under the revised guidelines of Consolidated CT Errata 7, all weapons and the computer (irrespective of rating) are inoperative: the ship's basically in a blackout mode, running life support and emergency lighting on batteries and that's about it.

Under High Guard 2 rules, the spinal weapons receive an additional damage roll for each rating by which they exceed a rating of 9, modified by armor in the case of the particle beam; the meson beam is not modified by armor. As a result, a TL15 Factor T meson gets 18 extra rolls: the odds of a Fuel Tanks Shattered result over that many rolls are 89%. The smaller Factor J and N mesons favored by cruisers and battleriders have a 69% and 81% chance, respectively.

The net result is that a given TL15 meson spinal hit has anywhere from a 69% chance upward of taking its target out of the game. At TL14 it's a bit lower, but not much. At TL13 it ranges from 51% to 83%. Even the primitive TL11 meson- A has a 21% chance. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Particle Beam spinal stops being a quick killer after 4 factors of armor, unless you get lucky with criticals - and those depend on the target's size and are reduced by armor too.

Assuming best agility and equal computers, the typical dreadnought has a 15/36 to 26/36 chance of getting hit. Penetrating the meson screen depends on the rating of the meson beam being used; figure it stops anywhere from 1/6 to 5/6 of the incoming hits. Anything from 5% to half of the targeted battlewagons are crippled in the first exchange. Battleriders are a bit harder to hit but tend to have a tougher time getting through the opposing meson screen.

These are circumstances that favor small ships - very small ships, ships small enough, agile enough and numerous enough that killing them all before they scrub your hull clean of weapons is a real challenge. This is the universe of piranhas, where small fish eat big fish and even proud battleriders quake with fear at the thought of the sharp teeth of the rodent hordes. Not exactly the Traveller universe that the canon milieu envisioned.

There are compensating factors. A bit of logic and judicious use of the skill rules could be applied to put elite crews in the battleships and battleriders, giving them an edge that might offset the big-ship disadvantages - at least in the early stages of a war; meson hits would quickly deprive you of those crews over the course of a campaign, giving big ships a reputation as deathtraps to be avoided; the rodents would emerge from their warrens to dominate the battlefield once the elite crews were gone. Big ships have certain repair advantages if they can get home - and a rodent attack won't stop them from getting home. However, small ships on the defense are already home and can be repaired and redeployed pretty quickly; the occasional "ship vaporized" crits make for gradual attrition in the small-ship force, but it's a long, slow war.

Then there is the logic factor: how does one shatter all of a ship's fuel tanks in one blow? Warship designers are not complete idiots. Once they see a problem, they're going to take measures to prevent it and ensure their ship stays in the fight as long as possible - and this problem's been around since TL11. Fuel tanks will be smaller, separated so one hit can't disable an entire ship. Fuel tanks are pretty useful as a kind of armor anyway - put them between your jump drive and the hull, and they take the hit instead of your jump drive, and you have a chance at getting home; under that model, you want your fuel tanks small and separated anyway so you can minimize fuel loss when you take that hit.

As with the crew casualty change, the "Fuel Tanks Shattered " rule is desperately in need of revision. One thought is to consider it a more violent form of the standard fuel hit. In this case, one of the several tanks is shattered, the ship loses 10% of its fuel or a minimum 1000 dTons - and the fuel hit cannot be repaired in the field; the tank is shattered, it would require a starport to rebuild the tank or provide a replacement tank sealed enough and insulated enough to deal with liquid hydrogen, and to conduct the hull repairs implied by this kind of damage result.

(Why 1000 dTons? First, it's easy to remember. Second, the single fuel hit is devastating to a fighter/small craft; the Fuel Tanks Shattered result would remain devastating to escort-sized ships, while cruisers and larger ships could fight on with the depth they're supposed to have.)

 

[atpollard]

As with the crew casualty change, the "Fuel Tanks Shattered " rule is desperately in need of revision.

A well presented argument, but I respectfully disagree.
This is a good start for a rules variant (worthy of publication in Stelar Reaches or some other fanzine) but not really errata (in my opinion).

 

[McPerth]

These are circumstances that favor small ships - very small ships, ships small enough, agile enough and numerous enough that killing them all before they scrub your hull clean of weapons is a real challenge. This is the universe of piranhas, where small fish eat big fish and even proud battleriders quake with fear at the thought of the sharp teeth of the rodent hordes. Not exactly the Traveller universe that the canon milieu envisioned.

There are compensating factors. A bit of logic and judicious use of the skill rules could be applied to put elite crews in the battleships and battleriders, giving them an edge that might offset the big-ship disadvantages - at least in the early stages of a war; meson hits would quickly deprive you of those crews over the course of a campaign, giving big ships a reputation as deathtraps to be avoided; the rodents would emerge from their warrens to dominate the battlefield once the elite crews were gone. Big ships have certain repair advantages if they can get home - and a rodent attack won't stop them from getting home. However, small ships on the defense are already home and can be repaired and redeployed pretty quickly; the occasional "ship vaporized" crits make for gradual attrition in the small-ship force, but it's a long, slow war.

Here things are different if you want to represent a single more or less equal engagement (as a TCS contest is) or a full campaign (as Islans Cluster is).

In the first case, you don't care about "the next engagement", and so about keeping your best crews alive, as all you intend is to win this engagement.

In the second case, OTOH, the main focus would be force concentration, and probably you'll flee (unless defending home world) from any uneven engagement that is going to go against you, as you must husband your ressources for the next engagement, but also may be worth to destroy as many roedents as you can, as they will take long time to replace them, and an engagement where you destroy 100 of them while having a pair of BBs with weaponry reduced, but able to leave (or better yet, holding the field in the end) is a clear victory, as your BBs will be again at full power in a few weeks, ehile the roedents are gone fo good (or captured).

One of the worst criticisms I keep doing to HG system (as most of you would have read many times) is the lack of ship destruction, most of the crippled ships being recovered/captured (unless scuttled) by the victor after the engagement, and repairable in short time, making the "keeping of the field" an important factor, as you can recover your crippled ships and capture enemies'.

As with the crew casualty change, the "Fuel Tanks Shattered " rule is desperately in need of revision. One thought is to consider it a more violent form of the standard fuel hit. In this case, one of the several tanks is shattered, the ship loses 10% of its fuel or a minimum 1000 dTons - and the fuel hit cannot be repaired in the field; the tank is shattered, it would require a starport to rebuild the tank or provide a replacement tank sealed enough and insulated enough to deal with liquid hydrogen, and to conduct the hull repairs implied by this kind of damage result.

(Why 1000 dTons? First, it's easy to remember. Second, the single fuel hit is devastating to a fighter/small craft; the Fuel Tanks Shattered result would remain devastating to escort-sized ships, while cruisers and larger ships could fight on with the depth they're supposed to have.)

We all know that the FTS result is one of the main ship killers once meson spinals come into play, and I agree some revision would be in order. In another thread, on the line you suggest, I suggested to make this fuel loss dependent on the USP rating of the weapon producing the result (let's say 50 tons per rating of the weapon), so giving heavier weapons larger fuel losses.

 

[Carlobrand]

A well presented argument, but I respectfully disagree.
This is a good start for a rules variant (worthy of publication in Stelar Reaches or some other fanzine) but not really errata (in my opinion).

I present it as potential errata because the crew-hit issue was handled similarly. While there are arguments for keeping things as is, it remains a fact that High Guard 2 is out of step with the canon depiction of fleets in the Traveller Universe. Someone, somewhere, made the decision to change the crew-hit rule for MegaTraveller - presumably to make dreadnoughts survive better in combat - and it was retrofitted to High Guard as errata. Well and good, but the Fuel Tanks Shattered event almost as deadly and the key reason that dreadnoughts - contrary to their abundance in canon - are not workable. (Not to mention that the logic for the event isn't there.)

If not for the way they handled that crew-hit rule, I'd have argued it as a variant instead.

...One of the worst criticisms I keep doing to HG system (as most of you would have read many times) is the lack of ship destruction, most of the crippled ships being recovered/captured (unless scuttled) by the victor after the engagement, and repairable in short time, making the "keeping of the field" an important factor, as you can recover your crippled ships and capture enemies'.

The idea that a scuttled ship could be turned around so easily is odd - one would think the crew would be setting off scuttling charges as they left, leaving every ship system a wreck so that any effort to repair the ship would be prohibitively time-consuming.

However, the tech level constraint does create some limits: there are precious few ports that can repair or replace a Model-9 computer or repair bonded superdense armor damaged by critical hits. (I'd say the owner's Naval Base could, and the opponent's Naval Base might if his fleet's overall tech level is at that same level or higher, but a civilian port on a TL13 world probably couldn't.) So, the repaired ship may well be going back into combat a good deal less combat-ready than when it first rolled new off the slips. If you play it by the book - and depending on what the tech levels of the ports in the combat theater are - the victor's fleet of repaired prizes is going to be a pretty dilapidated collection of patch-jobs.

As to ship destruction per se - I don't know. Warships are pretty hardy. Historically, most of the ones that are lost sink rather than being "destroyed;" some of those have been refloated and put back into service when the water was shallow enough. With nowhere to "sink" in space - unless you were unlucky enough to be on a grazing course with the local sun or a collision course with a large body at the time your drives failed - it would require an impressive force to break the back of the ships Traveller is portraying, with their bonded superdense hulls as strong as ten meters or more thickness of steel. You could utterly wreck the interior, but nothing stops you from completely rebuilding the interior if that impressive hull is still intact and usable - it'd just take a lot of time, which is where the rules don't get it right.

We all know that the FTS result is one of the main ship killers once meson spinals come into play, and I agree some revision would be in order. In another thread, on the line you suggest, I suggested to make this fuel loss dependent on the USP rating of the weapon producing the result (let's say 50 tons per rating of the weapon), so giving heavier weapons larger fuel losses.

I like that. Factor T blows out, what, 900 dTons? That'd work nicely.

 

[Carlobrand]

On another subject: missiles in Special Supplement 3.

Both Special Supplement 3 and the Errata 07 corrections are confusing to me, partly because Errata 07 itself appears to contain a bit of errata and partly because some of the original rules don't make sense.

For continuous burn, SS3 declared that fuel weighs 1 kilogram per burn, but in the table it generated fuel weight by multiplying G-rating times number of burns. Errata 07, seeking to clarify, went with G-rating times number of burns.

SS3 declared that fuel costs Cr100 per kilogram, but in the formula it multiplies G-rating times number of burns, then in the table applies G-rating squared times number of burns. Errata 07, seeking to clarify, went with Cr100 per kilogram. So far, no issues, but …

For limited burn, SS3 declared that fuel weighs 1 kilogram per burn, but in the table it multiplied G-rating times number of burns. Errata 07, seeking to clarify, went with number of burns, adding the explanation, "Limited burn propulsion assumes mass of fuel required depends on the number of burns, not Gs, but that higher performance requires better fuel " - then contradicted itself in its example, declaring, "for example, a 4G4 missile has fuel weighing 16 kilograms," which was impossible under the revised table and therefore clearly in error.

Which brings me to this puzzler: why isn’t that higher performance solid fuel available to the continuous burn motor? The limited burn motor is portrayed as differing from the continuous burn by having its fuel segregated in discrete increments. There's no reason fuel should differ. The continuous-burn motor is being compelled to use inferior fuel for no apparent reason.

Moving right along: for limited burn, SS3 declared that fuel costs Cr100 per kilogram, but in the formula it multiplies G-rating times number of burns, then in the table applies G-rating squared times number of burns. Errata 07, seeking to clarify, went with Cr200 times G-rating per kilogram - then proceeded to give us a table in which the fuel cost was calculated at Cr100 times G-rating per kilogram. (To be specific, the table used Cr300*(G+5)+100*G*B, where G was the G-rating and B was the number of burns.)

Then there are other puzzlers:
Continuous burn motors cannot change course. Why? There's no air in space for a rudder arrangement, true, but a small gyroscopic maneuvering system should do the trick nicely given the length of the game turns in which to manage the turn. Barring that, put rudders in the exhaust stream; that's been tried with limited success at TL6 to guide ground-launched missiles until they got up to speed, it should be doable with better success at TL 8 to provide some degree of in-space maneuvering.

In SS-3, "Limited burn missiles may be launched at less than maximum acceleration, but that acceleration may not be increased or decreased as the missile moves." What? The missile has its fuel segregated in discrete increments, it achieves higher accelerations with the same mass of fuel by using better fuel - and this somehow allows it to be launched at a lower-than-rated acceleration?

Let's imagine a solid-fuel missile with its fuel in discrete increments: as each burn completes, it jettisons the used-up section of casing and, when desired, lights off the next section - it cannot adjust its acceleration, it controls only when to accelerate. Now let's re-imagine that missile with each discrete increment further divided into six sub-increments arranged in a rosette: it can light off only one or all six sub-increments to generate a selective thrust of one to six G's, and when that burn's done, it jettisons that section along with any unused sub-increments in that section to bring the next rosette-section on-line and again have a choice of one to six G's. So, if it is designed in increments and can be launched at less than maximum, then it can be designed so that subsequent increments have the same range of choice. If it can’t do that, then it also can't throttle back from the beginning - it goes as fast as that section is designed to go and no slower.

SS-3 continues on to describe course adjustments in limited burn missiles. "Its course change potential is one-half the difference between its maximum G rating and its current G rating with fractions rounded down. It may alter its course by its course change potential (times 100 millimeters) in each turn. Fuel for course changes is expended at 2 burns for 1 G of change. For example, a 6G12 continuous burn missile could be launched at 4G and would have the ability to change course at 1 G (using 2 burns of fuel to do so); it could be launched at 1G and would have the ability to change course at 2G (using 4 burns to do so)." What was that all about? What is the basis for such a complex course change rule for a missile flying through vacuum in 16-minute turns on a board where a fingernail's width represents a thousand kilometers? Why not allow the missile to turn just like any other maneuvering craft on the board, simplify things rather than leaving players doing extra calculations that might lead to arguments?

Presumably they want some potential for a ship to outmaneuver a missile, but is all of that realistic in a movement system based on 16-minute turns? Are solid-fuel rockets really so miserable at turning in vacuum that it would take 2 burns to make a 1-G vector change while accelerating at 4 Gs over 16 minutes? Nothing I've ever heard suggests so. If the potential for dodging exists, it exists in the terminal phase, when the missile is within a few kilometers and a ship with powerful maneuvering thrusters might (maybe) manage a faster turn-and-thrust or a sudden Z-axis drop that a missile with high momentum and using exhaust rudders couldn't match. Wouldn't It be better to reflect that at the point of impact, by allowing a roll to hit at that point rather than permitting an automatic hit? High Guard's base roll of 6+ for the Factor 1 missile would seem to be ideal for this situation.

This is how I see it:
The Continuous Burn motor should provide x G's every turn, no choice, for a number of turns equal to its number of burns.

The Limited Burn Motor should provide x G's when desired, but only in x G increments. It can do that a number of times equal to the number of burns available.

The Discretionary Burn Motor should provide any number of G's up to its rated maximum. It has fuel equal to the number of Gs times the number of burns and subtracts the number of Gs used in each burn from that pool.

The things should be able to turn like any other craft - assuming a homing system or other guidance to command the turn. If they are to be dodged, implement a to-hit roll at the point of impact to reflect the target's last-ditch effort to evade the hit.

 

[rancke]

The idea that a scuttled ship could be turned around so easily is odd - one would think the crew would be setting off scuttling charges as they left, leaving every ship system a wreck so that any effort to repair the ship would be prohibitively time-consuming.

It could be a result of the prevailing conventions of war. The crew of a surrendered ship does not scuttle it and the victor picks up survival pods and treat the crew as prisoners of war.


Hans

 

[BlackBat242]

Which brings me to this puzzler: why isn’t that higher performance solid fuel available to the continuous burn motor? The limited burn motor is portrayed as differing from the continuous burn by having its fuel segregated in discrete increments. There's no reason fuel should differ. The continuous-burn motor is being compelled to use inferior fuel for no apparent reason.

There is a possible technical reason.

1. In space it is very hard to eliminate accumulated heat. Almost the only method is by direct radiation, which is very inefficient and slow.

2. The materials the missile nozzles are made of can handle a lot of heat, but not an unlimited amount.

3. A certain percentage of that will always transfer to the missile body structure via conduction (a far more efficient mode of thermal transfer). A certain portion of this will always transfer to the remaining fuel.

4. Fuel ignites when hot enough... no exceptions.

5. Higher output-per-kg fuels will always generate more heat.


Therefore, the high-efficiency fuels usable in a "limited-burn" missile, with its ability to jettison the "hot" sections so as to not allow thermal transfer to prematurely heat the remaining fuel, would, when used in a "continuous burn" missile, likely cause a significant portion of the unburned fuel to "cook off" and destroy the missile prematurely, due to excessive heating.

The lower-efficiency fuels generate less heat... so that the last of the fuel burns out just below the maximum heat tolerance of the last grams of fuel.

 

[McPerth]

The idea that a scuttled ship could be turned around so easily is odd - one would think the crew would be setting off scuttling charges as they left, leaving every ship system a wreck so that any effort to repair the ship would be prohibitively time-consuming.

This, along with the dificulty to repair them and the standarization issues involved was quite discussed in this old thread http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=23597

In any case, I guess comercial ships will not be scuttled as often and will be easier to repair, while Rebellion canon talks also about heavy losses in them, mostly in large tonnage ships, something not easily swallowed (IMHO) with HG (ot MT) rules, at least for large commercial ships (there is a 20 kdton example in MT).

EDIT: As rules stand, I guess in HT most B rated (and quite a C one) shipyards will busy by repairing those commercial ships, either to be used as auxiliary military or to be outright used as they were and keep some commerce going.END EDIT

It could be a result of the prevailing conventions of war. The crew of a surrendered ship does not scuttle it and the victor picks up survival pods and treat the crew as prisoners of war.

I guess this will also be an important factor in this issue. Don't forget that along naval history (and keeping all distances with space war) many ships have been captured, and some fleets have been quite agumented on prizes.

I like that. Factor T blows out, what, 900 dTons? That'd work nicely.

Glad you like. A T rated will destroy 1350 tons, 900 tons would be a J rated.

I'm afraid you started counting at A, while I meant per raw factor, begining at 1. A 1 rated weapon can acheve a FTS hit by achieving an Interior explosion result on the Surface Explosion table in HG (not in MT, due to different table organization and the fact that Interior Explosion rolls so rolled are unmodified).

 

[Carlobrand]

There is a possible technical reason.

1. In space it is very hard to eliminate accumulated heat. Almost the only method is by direct radiation, which is very inefficient and slow.

2. The materials the missile nozzles are made of can handle a lot of heat, but not an unlimited amount.

3. A certain percentage of that will always transfer to the missile body structure via conduction (a far more efficient mode of thermal transfer). A certain portion of this will always transfer to the remaining fuel.

4. Fuel ignites when hot enough... no exceptions.

5. Higher output-per-kg fuels will always generate more heat.


Therefore, the high-efficiency fuels usable in a "limited-burn" missile, with its ability to jettison the "hot" sections so as to not allow thermal transfer to prematurely heat the remaining fuel, would, when used in a "continuous burn" missile, likely cause a significant portion of the unburned fuel to "cook off" and destroy the missile prematurely, due to excessive heating.

The lower-efficiency fuels generate less heat... so that the last of the fuel burns out just below the maximum heat tolerance of the last grams of fuel.

Interesting but speculative - and the motor itself is already speculative. The continuous burn motors are handwavium science: a 1 kg fuel block produces enough thrust to drive a 50 kg missile at 1 G for 1000 seconds - each gram of fuel is providing 500 newtons thrust. To the best of my knowledge, there's no conceivable combustion process that can produce those levels of energy, and the temperatures involved are incredible. Then we are presented with limited-burn fuels that are up to six times more potent.

What precisely are the properties of a handwavium solid fuel that can do that? How much of that incredible heat is transferred to the nozzle? How hot would it have to get before the unburned fuel cooks off?

The answer is: pretty much whatever we choose. It's already deep into the realm of the impossible. If we want it to cook off beyond a certain point, it cooks off. If we want our magical fuel to not cook off, it doesn't cook off. The motor is simply a fictional device to get the warhead from point-A to point-B within the constraints imposed by the game, and those constraints force it to be a thing of magic; whatever secondary characteristics we give it at that point are driven by how we want it to behave in the game, not by how "real" magical motors would behave under those circumstances.

In my mind, adopting two different standards for handwavium rocket fuel creates unnecessary complication without offering an in-game benefit to justify it. All that happens is the rules on the continuous burn motor end up as unnecessary wordage describing a system that has no practical use - unless you have a passion for 1-2 G unguided rockets. (There's that other little bit about it not being able to change course.)

Y'know, if we could harness that fuel in Striker, it would make some ferocious weapons. :devil:

...Glad you like. A T rated will destroy 1350 tons, 900 tons would be a J rated.

I'm afraid you started counting at A, while I meant per raw factor, begining at 1. A 1 rated weapon can acheve a FTS hit by achieving an Interior explosion result on the Surface Explosion table in HG (not in MT, due to different table organization and the fact that Interior Explosion rolls so rolled are unmodified).

Oops. My bad. Like it even better.

 

[Carlobrand]

I've been doing demographics on the Marches, because ... well, I have this weird passion for numbers, what can I say?

At any rate, estimated values for the populations of the various subsectors, based on the population data in Spinward Marches Campaign, is as follows:

Chronor: 9.2 -10.2 billion
Querion: 19.1 - 29.1 billion
Darrian: 15.5 - 26.6 billion
Five Sisters: 0.96 - 1.12 billion
Jewell: 37 - 56 billion
Vilis: 17.9 - 20 billion
Sword Worlds: 35.6 - 46.8 billion
Dist. 268: 10.5 - 12.6 billion
Regina: 67.6 - 82.4 billion
Lanth: 1 - 1.3 billion
Lunion: 20.1 - 22.3 billion
Glisten: 22.4 - 26.4 billion
Aramis: 32.8 - 42.8 billion
Rhylanor: 36.6 - 49.3 billion
Mora: 40.9 - 60.7 billion
Trin's Veil: 15.2 - 25.2 billion

The wide range is because of the way the pop code works: a pop A world with 20 billion pop per SMC for example could have anything from 20 to 29 billion pop. In many cases there's only one high-pop world in the subsector driving the pop figure, so splitting the difference doesn't work well because it implies information about that single world's population that we don't actually know. I'm in no position to do that, so I'll leave that for someone else.

Total population for the Marches is between 382.4 billion and 512.8 billion. That we can split the difference on, so figure 447.6 billion.

Contrasting that with the Supplement 3 figures, I observe that many of the pop figures are significantly off:

Chronor's 3.682 billion is way low.
Querion's 11.12 billion is way low.
Darrian's 23.36 billion is within range.
Five Sisters' 1.845 billion is way high.
Jewell's 21.12 billion is way low.
Vilis' 2.324 billion is way low.
Sword Worlds' 33.73 billion is a bit low.
Dist. 268's 2.456 billion is way low.
Regina's 165.6 billion is way high.
Lanth's 3.358 billion is high.
Lunion's 24.41 billion is a bit high.
Glisten's 4.518 billion is high.
Aramis' 111.1 billion is way high.
Rhylanor's 131.1 billion is way high.
Mora's 221.1 billion is way, way high.
Trin's Veil's 111.3 is way high.

Even accounting for the fact that one comes from the 1105 survey and the other from the 1109 survey, the figures are not defensible. There's some pop code variation between Supplement 3 and SMC, but it's not nearly enough to account for this. There just were never enough high-pop worlds in the Mora, Trin, Rhylanor, Regina, and so forth subsectors in the original Supplement 3 data to justify those figures.

 

[snrdg082102]

Possible HG 2 Space Combat Errata

Howdy all,

I'm stepping through HG2 Starship Combat and discovered some minor errata:

Page 38, Starship Combat, Required Material 2. A Ship's Data Sheet (correction): The blank Ship's Data Sheet is on page 37 not page 38.

Page 38, Starship Combat, Sequence of Play. (correction): The Game-Turn Sequence is found on pages 46 and 47 not pages 48 and 49.

 

[Matt123]

Hi Don,

This may be errata given my post generated only one reply from Carlobrand indicating he's not aware of the question being asked before either.

I'm playing with writing a shipbuilder (again ). Which always brings up interesting little issues.

HG for several crew types refers to x per 100 tons or x per 1000 tons. The meaning of this may be more "obvious" in the states, but in NZ this could mean per full 1000 tons or per 1000 tons or part there-of.

Meaning for example, service crew on a 10,300 ton ship could equal 30 (at a rate of 3 per 1000 tons), 33 (at 3 per 1000 ton or part there-of) or 31 (10,300/ 1000 * 3 = 30.3 rounded up).

or another example, a ship with JD, MD & PP summing to 1000.2 tons, could equate to 10 Engineers (at 1 per 100tons) or 11 (at 1 per 100 tons or part there-of).

Personally, I've generally assumed a pro-rata basis, rounded up, meaning for the example above, I'd arrive at 31 Service crew.

 

[Matt123]

Related to my previous post and in part causing it...

Just to add to this, the Service crew split as detailed in Don's errata needs a polish.

Book 5 states 2 per 1000 tons, a ship of 10, 501 ton gets 22 (assuming 10501 / 1000 * 2 rounded up), or 3 per 1000tons if there are no ships troops getting 32 ((assuming 10501 / 1000 * 3 rounded up).

The errata states;
Service crew, 2 per 1000 ton, giving 22 (again using 10501 ship tons)
Security troops 1 per 1000 ton, giving 11, total 33 rather than 32.

Better might be;
Service crew, 2 per 1000 tons of ship or 3 per 1000 tons of ship if there are no ships troops, one third of which are ship security.

My apologies for cross posting, but given the lack of opinions expressed in my original thread, I felt it should be placed here.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Matt123,

Hi Don,

This may be errata given my post generated only one reply from Carlobrand indicating he's not aware of the question being asked before either.



Personally, I've generally assumed a pro-rata basis, rounded up, meaning for the example above, I'd arrive at 31 Service crew.

I missed the the question, but then again I've been posting a lot of my own.

I'm not sure if you are referring to Ship's Troops or Service Crew which are found on HG2 page 33.

The complement for Ship's Troops can be calculated as being 3 per 100 tons or vessel or 3 per 1,000 tons of vessel.

In the Service Crew the ration is 2 per 1,000 of hull if there are Ship's Troops onboard or 3 per 1,000 tons on ships without troops. The extra body is for ship security, or more like a Star Trek Red Shirt.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello again Matt123

Related to my previous post and in part causing it...

Originally Posted by Matt123
Just to add to this, the Service crew split as detailed in Don's errata needs a polish.

Book 5 states 2 per 1000 tons, a ship of 10, 501 ton gets 22 (assuming 10501 / 1000 * 2 rounded up), or 3 per 1000tons if there are no ships troops getting 32 ((assuming 10501 / 1000 * 3 rounded up).

The errata states;
Service crew, 2 per 1000 ton, giving 22 (again using 10501 ship tons)
Security troops 1 per 1000 ton, giving 11, total 33 rather than 32.

Better might be;
Service crew, 2 per 1000 tons of ship or 3 per 1000 tons of ship if there are no ships troops, one third of which are ship security.

My apologies for cross posting, but given the lack of opinions expressed in my original thread, I felt it should be placed here.

Sorry I didn't wait a bit longer you posted the addendum while I was typing. I'm slow don't you know.

 

[Matt123]

You missed the point I am raising

The complement ... can be calculated as being ... 3 per 1,000 tons of vessel.

So is it;

• 3 per 1000 tons, ignoring fractions or
• 3 per 1000 tons or part there-of or
• 3 per 1000 tons or pro-rata.

Leading to crew of, (in the same order) for a ship of 10,700 tons;

• 30 or
• 33 or
• 32 crew.

 

[snrdg082102]

You missed the point I am raising

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
The complement ... can be calculated as being ... 3 per 1,000 tons of vessel.

I probably did miss the point since I was replying to the Today 09:01 PM post. After I sent my response I saw the addendum.

So is it;

• 3 per 1000 tons, ignoring fractions or
• 3 per 1000 tons or part there-of or
• 3 per 1000 tons or pro-rata.

Leading to crew of, (in the same order) for a ship of 10,700 tons;

• 30 or
• 33 or
• 32 crew.

Using the published designs I found the following method usually comes up with the correct totals:

Service Crew = round((10,700/1,00) x 3,0) = round(10.7 x 3,0) = round(32.1,0) = 32

However, I would rather round fractional parts like 0.9 down because in my mind that doesn't make up an enter person.

I also have a disagreement with how the engineering crew is calculated. To me Engineering has three departments which are PP, M-Drive, and J-Drive, sort of like the different weapons and screens that make up the gunnery section.

I do two Engineering calculations one by the book and the other by breaking them down by each component.

The result is if I ever share designs the numbers will, with the exception of my math errors, hopefully follow the book.

 

[Matt123]

Service Crew = round((10,700/1,00) x 3,0) = round(10.7 x 3,0) = round(32.1,0) = 32

Ok, we have a con-census of two. We both pro-rata the fraction.

But the question remains, is this what is intended given there are three ways to interpret the rules, giving potentially three different results.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening PST Matt123,

Originally Posted by snrdg082102
Service Crew = round((10,700/1,00) x 3,0) = round(10.7 x 3,0) = round(32.1,0) = 32

Ok, we have a con-census of two. We both pro-rata the fraction.

But the question remains, is this what is intended given there are three ways to interpret the rules, giving potentially three different results.

I've spent some time helping Donald McKinney on the errata and Andrew Vallance with the latest version of High Guard Shipyard. Part of the work was comparing the crew calculations. My best efforts concluded that the example for the Service Crew above returned the same results, barring my math errors.

Of course I could be out to lunch and talking through my hat.

 

[snrdg082102]

Special Supplement 3 Missiles possible errata

Hello Donald McKinney Keeper of Traveller Errata,

I believe that Consolidated CT Errata version .07 page 31 entry for Missiles in Traveller (JTAS #21, Special Supplement 3, 1984) concerning the Page 3, Missile Identification correction needs a correction to the propulsion system.

Per Consolidated CT Errata:

"A 5G6 continuous burn (36 kg, Cr 3,600, TL 8).... missile, costing Cr 5,600 and massing 48 kg."

The following are the calculations I've made:


01. Model 5G6 max acceleration = 5G with fuel for a Burn of 6

Continuous Burn Casing Mass = G = 5 kg
Continuous Burn Casing Cost = 100 x Casing Mass = 100 x 5 = Cr 500
Fuel Mass = Burns x G = 6 x 5 = 30
Fuel Cost = 100 x Fuel Mass = 100 x 30 = Cr 3,000

Specification:
5G6 continuous burn propulsion system (35 kg, Cr 3,500, TL 8).

The corrected Continuous Burn Propulsion System Table entry on errata page 32 cross references from the Burn 6 row to the 5G columns as 35 and 3500 which appears to support the calculations made using the equations.

On the topic CT Special Supplement 3 Missiles & Consolidated CT Errata Piper indicated that the missile appeared to be 6G6. Unless my math is way off I don't believe the missile in the example is using a 6G6 system.

02. Model 6G6 max acceleration = 6G with fuel for a Burn of 6

Continuous Burn Casing Mass = G = 6 kg
Continuous Burn Casing Cost = 100 x Casing Mass = 100 x 6 = Cr 600
Fuel Mass = Burns x G = 6 x 6 = 36
Fuel Cost = 100 x Fuel Mass = 100 x 36 = Cr 3,600

Specification:
6G6 continuous burn propulsion system (42 kg, Cr4,200, TL 8).

The errata's corrected table numbers for a 6G6 propulsion system match the numbers

03.Model 6G5 max acceleration = 6G with fuel for a Burn of 5

Continuous Burn Casing Mass = G = 6 kg
Continuous Burn Casing Cost = 100 x Casing Mass = 100 x 6 = Cr 600
Fuel Mass = Burns x G = 6 x 5 = 30
Fuel Cost = 100 x Fuel Mass = 100 x 30 = Cr 3,000

Specification:
6G5 continuous burn propulsion system (36 kg, Cr 3,600, TL 8).

My third comparison with the corrected continuous burn propulsion system matched. Adding the specifications of the other missile components with a 6G5 continuous burn propulsion system results in a "missile, costing Cr 5,600 and massing 48 kg."

Recommendations:

1. Change 5G6 to 6G5, this way only two items change.

2. Change (36 kg, Cr 3,600, TL) to (35 kg, Cr 3,500, TL 8) and "missile, costing Cr 5,600 and massing 48 kg." to "missile, costing Cr 5,500 and massing 47 kg."