CT Errata Compendium

[snrdg082102]

Hello GypsyComet,

No, that would be a Supplement. Like the Air/Raft and ATV, the subcraft were presented as pre-builds.

Okay, that saves me from writing a submission for not a non-starship design sequence for hulls less than 100 tons as errata.

If the lack of a design process for non-starships under 100 tons is not errata then the missing information on the emergency low berths falls in the same black hole.

Still does not help with my cost of the custom 600-ton Zhodani Escort hull from CT AM 4 not matching.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[SpaceBadger]

For that matter, as far as I can tell, there is no way to design the five non-starships listed on page 17 since they all are under 100 tons.

Was there ever errata provided that explained how these five non-starships could have been constructed?

If not, would the lack of a non-starship ship's vehicle warrant an errata entry?

I agree with GypsyComet that this omission isn't really errata; more like the listings of weapons and vehicles without a GunMaker or VehicleMaker, these are just pre-built examples.

However, if you are wanting to do more with customizing small craft, there are some rules at p.61 in The Traveller Book.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening SpaceBadger,

I agree with GypsyComet that this omission isn't really errata; more like the listings of weapons and vehicles without a GunMaker or VehicleMaker, these are just pre-built examples.

However, if you are wanting to do more with customizing small craft, there are some rules at p.61 in The Traveller Book.

While looking through the Consolidated CT Errata I have noticed that omissions have been included, however I'm not sure that at the examples looked over if the missing <100 ton non-starship design sequence was errata.

Book 2 has pre-built stock weapons used by everyone in the OTU. this makes for easier design and playability. Unfortunately I really don't think everyone uses the same weapons. Look at the different weapons used today, when we don't have Hivers or K'kree, among others, around.

About the simplest way I can think of is to make everything one-tenth the tonnage and price. Of course I haven't actually tried the idea out yet, but I may sometime in the future.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[DonM]

Now comes a new question: Donald, may I please enable editing of Consolidated CT Errata v1.1?

You can do with your copy whatever you need to. The whole reason for this was that without PDF/A, some folks were not getting the correct fonts to look right.

There was a discussion of this somewhere here on COTI.

 

[snrdg082102]

Early PST Donald,

Thank-you for the reply.

You can do with your copy whatever you need to. The whole reason for this was that without PDF/A, some folks were not getting the correct fonts to look right.

There was a discussion of this somewhere here on COTI.

I spent eight of my twelve years in a college IT department working with software and associated licensing. Since I wasn't sure if I could enable editing, after downloading the latest Reader version, I asked for permission.

As for the discussion about using PDF/A compliance I probably missed the whole thing.

Thanks again for the permission and clarification.

 

[snrdg082102]

Deck plans with ship's lockers and airlocks per Bk 2-81 & Bk 4 HG2-80 Again

Howdy all,

Looking at the deck plans presented in Supplement 5 Lightning Class Cruisers, Supplement 7 Traders & Gunboats, and several other products one frequently sees spaces identified as ship's lockers and airlocks.

Book 2 1981 p. 15 mentions ship's lockers as an optional component without indicating that the locker needs to subtract tons from what is available in the hull.

I know the tons devoted is variable based on the designer's whim but is there a minimum value in tons ship's locker occupies?

Airlocks are also shown on the deck plans but I can not seem to find, not that the information is missing, the criteria for them in either Book 2 Starships 1981 or Book 5 HG2 1980.

At minimum one airlock allowing access from inside the ship to the external environment is probably free of credit cost. The lack of information that I can find on my own brings up a couple of questions.

How many airlocks should a hull have, including the one needed for access when the hull is built?

So far my review of MT, which I thought I saw something about airlocks has come up empty.

TNE FF&S Mk. 1 Mod. 1, p. 77, uses the formula Hull tons divided by 100, rounding all fractions up.

What is the minimum tons that one airlock requires from the hull tons?

TNE FF&S Mk. 1 Mod. 1 p. 77 in the Life Support table has an airlock requiring 3 m^3 or about .2 tons of hull.

Would there be a cost in Cr or MCr for all the installed airlocks or just airlocks installed over the minimum required by the hull?

TNE FF&S Mk. 1 Mod. 1 p. 77 in the Life Support table has an airlock with a cost of MCr 0.005.

Hopefully I'll find the information on airlocks I think is in MT, but if someone can cut my search time down I would appreciate the help

A ship's locker in my opinion is a type of cargo space since the locker stores equipment.

An airlock is, again in my opinion, a component in a similar manner to a stateroom.

 

[aramis]

Tom,

In CT, airlocks are part of "bridge" tonnage.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy aramis,

Tom,

In CT, airlocks are part of "bridge" tonnage.

Thanks for the reply. I will go along with the idea the first airlock is probably located near the bridge and could be part of the bridge tonnage.

Unfortunately, I still don't know how much tonnage an airlock takes from the bridge or for that matter what the minimum tonnage the ship's locker can be.

I wish that there was a specific book and page could be provided to support the airlocks and by extension ship's lockers are part of the bridge tonnage since there are deck plans that do not comply, here are some of the ones I can quickly access.

From Supplement 5

Page 18 Items 17 and 18 airlocks on the Fuel deck allows access to the fuel tanks and starship exterior hull.
Page 20 Item 63 is listed as an airlock providing access to the spinal mount and is located in the Crew Quarters Deck.

Page 21 Item 36 is another airlock which is located on the bridge and provides access to the spinal mount per the diagram on page 22.

From Supplement 7
Pages 8 and 9 the X-boat has manual and iris value airlocks located on the crew deck.

Page 11 X-boat Tender diagram shows what appear to be an airlock located on the Drive Deck

Page 17 Scout/Courier has a number of access points from inside the hull to the exterior.

Item 12 Drive Space has two iris valves one is in the forward bulkhead accessing the ship and the other is on the aft bulkhead accessing the exterior of the hull between the drives. The set-up makes the drive space one big airlock.

Item 13 another iris valve accessing the exterior of the hull on the aft bulkhead. The manual hatch located between Item 8 the Common Area and Item 11 a hatch in the overhead when secured would make this entire area a huge air lock.

Items 15 and 14 has a bulkhead with an iris valve accessing the air/raft bay which is in my opinion another airlock.

Item 20 the forward cargo bay is accessible for the outside per the write-up.

The diagram on page 28 for the modified Scout/Courier for mining identifies the main hatch as being in the space identified as item 13.

The Gazelle Close Escort on pages 32 and 33 have three designated airlocks. Airlocks, Items 16 and 17 page 33, are located aft of the triple laser turrets in the Maneuver Drive spaces. Airlock, Item 33 , and a ship's locker, Item 34, are located on the port (left) side aft of the bridge.

The Far Trader deck plans on page 25 has the following items:
Item 6 is probably an airlock and is forward of the starboard laser turret in the common area aft of the bridge.

Item 19 is forward of the port laser turret in the corridor leading Item 22 the Captain's Cabin.

Items 8 and 17 are cargo locks which are big airlocks.

Items 11 and 14 are, in my opinion, airlocks giving access to the fuel purification plants noted as Items 12 and 13.

On the aft bulkhead inboard of the Maneuver Drives are two manual hatches that access the exterior of the hull. On the forward bulkhead are two iris valves which makes the entire space a huge airlock.

How can airlocks located away from the bridge be part of the bridge tonnage?

 

[SpaceBadger]

How can airlocks located away from the bridge be part of the bridge tonnage?

The same way that all of your passages all over the ship, common rooms, lounges, etc are taken out of stateroom tonnage. It's just bookkeeping, doesn't affect actual placement on the deckplans.

 

[atpollard]

How can airlocks located away from the bridge be part of the bridge tonnage?

:CoW:
Looking too hard at this will lead to lots of 'logic' issues and head banging.

My advice is to treat the CT design rules as broad guidelines, ignore the printed deck plans except for general inspiration, and do what makes you happy.

A common 'rule of thumb' used by others who make deck plans is to use 50% of the required tonnage for the named space (10 dTons for the physical bridge itself, 2 dTons for each physical stateroom, etc.) and the other 50% of the space can be used more flexibly (corridors, lifts, air locks, lockers, refreshers, etc.).

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy SpaceBadger,

The same way that all of your passages all over the ship, common rooms, lounges, etc are taken out of stateroom tonnage. It's just bookkeeping, doesn't affect actual placement on the deck plans.

I will admit that I have some issues with the slop factor allowed in the design system especially when drawing deck plans. On more than one deck plan the some of the slop factor was the airlocks and ship's lockers.

To me for book keeping purposes airlocks and ship's lockers or any other component should be accounted for.

Of course I do have a slight issue with trying to be closer than government work on certain issues, deck plans and the design sequence are in that category. Not being able to get the same cost is something I am still trying to correct.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[snrdg082102]

CT Adventure 1 The Kinunir Marine Contingent errata

Hello all,

In CT Adventure 1 pages 34 to 36 provides the information under the header of Marines the first paragraph last sentence that the contingent has a command section and three squads. The contingent has 4 officers, 10 NCOs, and 26 enlisted men which, if my math is right, is a total of 40 Marines.

The next paragraph states that the NPC statistics where generated using Mercenary Traveller Book 4, pages 3 - 16. Following the text appears to be the table of organization for the contingent, which seems to conform to the organization section on Mercenary Traveller Book 4, pages 27 - 28. By my calculation the personnel shown in the table of organization totals 34, which is 6 short of the 40 identified in the text. Further the count of NCOs in Marine contingent is 13 and the enlisted is 17.

The 6 personnel missing in the table of organization appears to be in the second and third teams of the three squads.

This appears to be errata, which I would like someone to confirm that my math and understanding of the rules are correct before submitting a detailed email to Donald McKinney showing both the information from Adventure 1 and a possible entry for the next errata update.

Of course if I am out to lunch there isn't a need to bother Donald.

 

[jec10]

I think it is the bit suggesting there are 40 troops that is in error. Everywhere else in Adv1 it says there are 35 Marines (which I take to be the 34 listed plus the shore liaison officer listed elsewhere in the crew list).

Hello all,

In CT Adventure 1 pages 34 to 36 provides the information under the header of Marines the first paragraph last sentence that the contingent has a command section and three squads. The contingent has 4 officers, 10 NCOs, and 26 enlisted men which, if my math is right, is a total of 40 Marines.

The next paragraph states that the NPC statistics where generated using Mercenary Traveller Book 4, pages 3 - 16. Following the text appears to be the table of organization for the contingent, which seems to conform to the organization section on Mercenary Traveller Book 4, pages 27 - 28. By my calculation the personnel shown in the table of organization totals 34, which is 6 short of the 40 identified in the text. Further the count of NCOs in Marine contingent is 13 and the enlisted is 17.

The 6 personnel missing in the table of organization appears to be in the second and third teams of the three squads.

This appears to be errata, which I would like someone to confirm that my math and understanding of the rules are correct before submitting a detailed email to Donald McKinney showing both the information from Adventure 1 and a possible entry for the next errata update.

Of course if I am out to lunch there isn't a need to bother Donald.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning jec10,

I think it is the bit suggesting there are 40 troops that is in error. Everywhere else in Adv1 it says there are 35 Marines (which I take to be the 34 listed plus the shore liaison officer listed elsewhere in the crew list).

Thanks for taking the time to cross check my count and do a better check of Adventure 1 than I did. There seems to be a few other points about the Kinunir's crew that has been missed in addition to what is in the Consolidated CT Errata.

If the author or authors of Adventure 1 where following the recommended organization and not just character generation from Mercenary Traveller Book 4 my feeling is that the thirty-fifth body is probably a medic. A shore liaison officer is, at least in my mind, responsible for dealing with the locals for the ship not just the Marines.

IIRC Striker Book 1 or Book 2 also suggests that ground force units have a certain number of medics.

Maybe I had better just leave matters as they exist, since the possible changes would appear to affect more than just the material on Adventure 1 pages 34 - 36.

Thank you again for the cross check.

 

[rancke]

Maybe I had better just leave matters as they exist, since the possible changes would appear to affect more than just the material on Adventure 1 pages 34 - 36.

The erratum would be to change the line on p. 34 "...numbering 4 officers, 10 NCOs and 26 enlisted men" to "...numbering 4 officers, 10 NCOs, and 20 enlisted men".

Note that the Shore Liason Officer on the Luuru is a) a Navy Lieutenant and b) in excess of normal requirements.

Also change any references to 35 marines to 34 marines. There's one on p. 31.


Hans

 

[Meteoric Assault]

Just wanted to say thanks for the compendium ... I am digging into it presently.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello rancke, aka Hans,

Thank you for bailing me out on figuring out the changes with the least impact to the adventure.

The erratum would be to change the line on p. 34 "...numbering 4 officers, 10 NCOs and 26 enlisted men" to "...numbering 4 officers, 10 NCOs, and 20 enlisted men".

Note that the Shore Liaison Officer on the Luuru is a) a Navy Lieutenant and b) in excess of normal requirements.

Also change any references to 35 marines to 34 marines. There's one on p. 31.


Hans

However, I would recommend adding a corpsman/medic who is independent of the Kinunir's medical section and would bring the organization more inline with those outlined in Mercenary and Striker.

If I run the adventure my changes would either be combining the third team with the first and second teams or add a fourth team member to the second and third teams. I am leaning more towards the combining option since I wouldn't have to generate characteristics.

 

[jec10]

Or the 35th man is a mechanic. If you go by the CT/Striker campaign rules then having a mechanic for the Grav APC would be handy.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy jec10,

Or the 35th man is a mechanic. If you go by the CT/Striker campaign rules then having a mechanic for the Grav APC would be handy.

To me having a dedicated corpsman/medic to patch up the Marines better than having a mechanic handy to patch up the Grav APC.

Of course looking more carefully at the Marine contingent the first teams in the first and second squads have a private rated as Medic-1. I also see that there are at least three different Marines with either mechanical or grav vehicles which may or may not, can't remember what they cover, cover for a dedicated maintenance and repair of the Grav APC.

Of course there is also the ship's crew that would also cover the maintenance and repair of ship's assigned small craft and vehicles.

I finally checked out the Shore Liaison officer and with the forward observer skill I'm guessing that this officer is the person who directs ship's fire on targets for the Marines. Of course my guess is probably out to lunch.

 

[hdan]

Reflec in the Weapons Matrix?

I don't see a fix in the errata, so I was wondering: Are there a number of errors in the Reflec column as it appears in TTB, Starter Traveller and the QLI reprint?

From the description, it should count as "unarmored" against all but lasers.

As it stands, Reflec is better than Mesh against Claws, Hands, and Teeth.

Pikes&Spears appear to have the wrong sign, assuming Reflec should be unarmored against them.

Reflec is also as good as Cloth against Body Pistols, but mirrors Unarmored against other firearms.

Also, Ablat turns out to be remarkably useful against natural weapons, beating out cloth on everything but hands, hooves and threshers. Time to re-evaluate the utility of Ablat?