CT Errata Compendium

[McPerth]

HG2, page 20, last sentence of the first paragraph under Technological level:

Equipement and components of a starship may¹ always be equal to or less than the ship's tech level

Shouldn't it say "must" instead of "may"?

As I understand the phrase, it means that no component may be of higher TL than the ship's overall, but if the Word used is may it seems to be optional (unless my English is failing me, of course...)

 

[Carlobrand]

Has anyone ever actually implemented the maintenance rules in Striker? I'm running some numbers, and it occured to me belatedly that the typical point defense grav vehicle spends its entire combat day in maintenance.

Grav or tracked vehicle needs 5 points, ACV needs 6.
Point defense fire control needs 12.
Point defense weapon needs another 12.
Energy weapon of 1 Mw or better needs 5, or CPR needs 2. (You could maybe use a gatling or VRF to avoid that.)
Radar or Ladar and ECM need 5 each, and another 5 each if you have a jammer or direction finder.
Plus one for radio and night vision equipment.
Comes in somewhere between 40 and 50 points depending on your tastes.

And, a maintenance person with tool box (and one workshop per 20) provides 50 points.

My best reading of that has it pretty close to one maintenance person assigned constantly to one vehicle, constantly busy testing or tweaking or repairing this or that item - well, for most of his work day, anyway - and once in a while bringing a part or the vehicle back to the shop for more detailed work. Or else the vehicle goes out 8 hours and then comes back for 8 hours of servicing. If it doesn't get it, there's that small but growing risk of things breaking. Any other interpretation leaves the maintenance guy with idle time that he can use serving other maintenance needs.

How is a vehicle even combat-worthy if it spends half its combat day in maintenance?

 

[Piper]

Maintenance in Striker is abstract. Those aren't daily requirements. If sufficient points are available then no maintenance-related issues occur. If points aren't available, then breakdowns may start to happen. No daily down time is expressed in the rules.


Overview of the maintenance required for a Blackhawk helicopter:

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10370631/a-look-at-the-uh-60a-black-hawk-helicopter


Keep in mind that maintenance costs are typically divided among several specialists.

 

[jec10]

Yes, as Piper explains, there is no time requirement for maintenance in CT/Striker. You just have to have personnel providing the requisite points on your roster or pay the price in breakdowns (which all take a standard week to repair). Plus, in combat, 5% of your maintenance points break down regardless.

 

[snrdg082102]

CT Book 6 Scouts Primary Star Type possible errata

Hello Donald and all other forum viewers,

CT Book 6 Scouts/Star System Features/Primary Star Type page 22:

Spectral types O and B are extremely rare and will not normally encountered . As a result, although they are on the column for generation, it is impossible to achieve these results.

The bold underlined text is, I believe, referring to the third column and the rows identified in the Die Roll column as 0 and 1 on the (Star) System Features Table, page 28.

The table shows that a die roll result of 0 and 1 returns Spectral Class B. In the text shown above Spectral Class O should be on the table.

My suggested errata update is as follows:

WORLDS AND ADVENTURES (Book 3, 1981 edition)
Page 28, System Features Table, Primary Type Column (correction): Star Systems Features Primary Star Type states that both Spectral Types O and B are found on the System Features Table on page 28. The under the column for Primary Type Spectral Class B is listed twice. Change the first B to O.

 

[Carlobrand]

Maintenance in Striker is abstract. Those aren't daily requirements. If sufficient points are available then no maintenance-related issues occur. If points aren't available, then breakdowns may start to happen. No daily down time is expressed in the rules.


Overview of the maintenance required for a Blackhawk helicopter:

http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10370631/a-look-at-the-uh-60a-black-hawk-helicopter


Keep in mind that maintenance costs are typically divided among several specialists.

Most things in Striker are abstract. Not meaning to start a debate in an errata forum, but the point is that any other interpretation leaves maintenance staff with idle time on their hands - ergo they could be doing more. One maintenance person is a fixed resource; he's got his 8-hour day, or whatever equivalent they've got going on in a far-future military. A vehicle that has 50 maintenance points has his full attention per the rules. Whether that's one man 8 hours a day, or ten men for 8 hours once in ten days, or whatever other mathematical equivalent one prefers, it's still indicative of a fairly heavy man-hour investment - or else you've got men idle who could be working. However you look at it, from roughly TL9 forward, whether we're talking daily work at the company level or semi-annual work at division, something on the order of a quarter of your total personnel is maintenance personnel maintaining your equipment.

That seems to me like quite a lot of maintenance work. On the other hand, if we costed it out at 1% like we do with ships, the cost hits right around the equivalent of a couple thousand man-hours labor, so maybe it's not so unreasonable. Does give me a devilish idea to apply the same requirements to the PC's vehicles. :devil:

 

[Piper]

Yeah, it's a lot of maintenance time but it doesn't seem unreasonable, particularly for complex systems.

A six gun SP artillery battery in the 1970's (fairly simple system in Striker terms) had an organic squad of full time mechanics, more mechanics at the battalion level and complete dedicated maintenance battalions at division. Truly complex systems (like aircraft) may well have more mechanics than crew.

I wasn't disputing your assessment, merely pointing out that the abstraction was there to prevent having to account for each hour of a mechanics time or having to calculate down time on a vehicle.

You want to really get nasty to players, apply these rules to their starship

 

[rancke]

That seems to me like quite a lot of maintenance work. On the other hand, if we costed it out at 1% like we do with ships...

Do we cost out maintenance at 1% with ships? It's 0.1% for the annual maintenance overhaul and 10% per year for everything (except combat repairs and replacement of wartime losses). But where does the 1% come from?


Hans

 

[Piper]

... That seems to me like quite a lot of maintenance work.

Been thinking about this a bit and I may have an interpretation that might make sense.

Mercenary units are typically small, independent and frequently operate on worlds with a lower TL than their own equipment. They can't fob off repairs to a higher echelon or draw on the local economy. As a result, you have your own maintenance staff.

A possible example: You're running a recon platoon with five G-carriers and you have an electronics tech to maintain the radios. Modern radio equipment doesn't require a lot of daily hands-on. Most of his work will be maintaining stocks of parts, keeping the test equipment calibrated and doing minor repairs because of accidental damage or environmental degradation. In short, yes, he's going to have a lot of idle and/or makework time. Always plenty of rocks to paint at the HQ.

But when the crew of Sled 2 scrapes off half the port side antennae on the loading bay hatch frame or some crud in the atmosphere on that last world you visited reacted with the polymers in the antenna cable insulation and now ALL the darn cables need replacing ... your tech is going to be pulling some all-nighters.

Just a thought.

 

[BlackBat242]

HG, page 20, last sentence of the firts paragraph under Technological level:

Equipemente and components of a starship may1 always be equal to or less than the ship¡' tech level

Shouldn't it say "must" instead of "may"?

As I understand the phrase, it means that no component may be of higher TL than the ship's overall, but if the Word used is may it seems to be optional (unless my English is failing me, of course...)

1. It would be nice if you had put something that would let us know where this quote came from.

I'm not disputing the quote (despite the atrocious spelling), as my copy of HG2E does indeed say "Equipment and components of a starship may always be equal to or less than the ship's tech level." - I just would like to be able to look at the original post. This is indeed a clumsy sentence, and is likely intended to read "must" or "should".


2. I see NO reason why a higher-tech system couldn't be fitted in a lower-tech ship.

Examples:
A. the UK's Weapon class destroyers - 4 were left incomplete at the end of WW2 (TL5) - in the late 1950s their ship-wide electric system was changed from DC (a TL4 system commonly used in many nations during & after WW1, but only by the UK for new ships in WW2) to AC (commonly installed in TL5 warships), and large area-search radars were installed along with computers, air conditioning, and other TL6 systems required to operate as area-control radar ships.

B. USS Chicago (and two other sister heavy cruisers built in WW2 (TL5) - completely rebuilt from the hull up from 1959-64, with all of their guns removed and replaced by 4 SAM missile launchers and associated radar and fire control (all TL6).

C. HMS Exmouth, early 1950s ASW frigate powered by oil-fired boilers and steam propulsion turbines (TL4/5) - in 1966-68 her entire propulsion plant was removed, and replaced by 1 large and 2 small gas turbines (TL6).


I see no reason why, with a suitable interface for essential power & control systems, a higher-tech power-plant, or drive, computer system, etc couldn't also be fitted into a starship - especially during initial construction, but also during a later refit.

Likewise, I see no reason that a drive, etc that is of higher TL than that of the building/refitting shipyard could not be installed, if the item is imported complete and ready to install from another system - and if specialized adaptation instructions (and perhaps a "tech rep"*) are included with the item.



Therefore, I suggest that the sentence should be reworded as "Equipment and components of a starship are normally equal to or less than the ship's tech level, but may be of a higher tech level at increased cost.".

A "per TL difference" cost increase should then be suggested, as well as an "import fee" if the item is of higher TL than the building/refitting shipyard.




*Tech Rep - a Technical Representative is an employee of the manufacturer of a component or system who travels around, providing assistance to installers/users of his company's product.

In my time in the USMC (aviation maintenance) I worked with a number of these, from several different companies. Some were present on long-term assignments and some were there for a "one-time" project.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello BlackBat242,

First my apologies for not quoting Post 390, my computer is apparently succeeding in throwing a tantrum and hashing my attempts to use the quote feature in any form.

Way off topic, but something I felt a need to comment on.

Please note that the author of the topic you have responded to is, if I recall correctly, is spelling words as was taught in schools based on the British form of English. Americans have in many cases have altered the spelling of many words in many of the languages that have be incorporated into the Americanized form of English.

So from the point of view other forum members we Americans have atrocious spelling habits, which have not been pointed out, for which I am thankful for.;-)

Back to the topic.

To address the comment "It would be nice if you had put something that would let us know where this quote came from."

McPerth had the following listed in a quote in Post 381: "HG, page 20, last sentence of the firts paragraph under Technological level:"

HG1 page 20 contains part of the Defenses and Procedures for Starship Design and construction, which HG2 has on pages 18 and 19.

The only piece of equipment I seem to recall that cannot be upgraded is the Jump Drive since in I think a JTAS magazine the jump grid is part of the hull plating. Everything else can be updated, however a point is reached that the upgrade cost is more than building a new hull.

 

[McPerth]

1. It would be nice if you had put something that would let us know where this quote came from.

I'm not disputing the quote (despite the atrocious spelling), as my copy of HG2E does indeed say "Equipment and components of a starship may always be equal to or less than the ship's tech level." - I just would like to be able to look at the original post. This is indeed a clumsy sentence, and is likely intended to read "must" or "should".

Way off topic, but something I felt a need to comment on.

Please note that the author of the topic you have responded to is, if I recall correctly, is spelling words as was taught in schools based on the British form of English. Americans have in many cases have altered the spelling of many words in many of the languages that have be incorporated into the Americanized form of English.

So from the point of view other forum members we Americans have atrocious spelling habits, which have not been pointed out, for which I am thankful for.;-)

Back to the topic.

To address the comment "It would be nice if you had put something that would let us know where this quote came from."

McPerth had the following listed in a quote in Post 381: "HG, page 20, last sentence of the firts paragraph under Technological level:"

HG1 page 20 contains part of the Defenses and Procedures for Starship Design and construction, which HG2 has on pages 18 and 19

Tank you Tom for your kind defense of my English, but I must admit BlackBat is right: I commited some typos on a single sentece, and I should have spell checked it. I use to, and I can only guess I had no time for it on this post.

Sorry about that (now fixed on my post).

About the reference, I thought is was quite clear (maybe I was wrong):

HG, page 20, last sentence of the firts paragraph under Technological level

The only addition should be (as Tom says) that I refered to HG2 (specifically, the FFE The Classic Books reprint). Fixed now too.

2. I see NO reason why a higher-tech system couldn't be fitted in a lower-tech ship.

Examples:
A. the UK's Weapon class destroyers - 4 were left incomplete at the end of WW2 (TL5) - in the late 1950s their ship-wide electric system was changed from DC (a TL4 system commonly used in many nations during & after WW1, but only by the UK for new ships in WW2) to AC (commonly installed in TL5 warships), and large area-search radars were installed along with computers, air conditioning, and other TL6 systems required to operate as area-control radar ships.

B. USS Chicago (and two other sister heavy cruisers built in WW2 (TL5) - completely rebuilt from the hull up from 1959-64, with all of their guns removed and replaced by 4 SAM missile launchers and associated radar and fire control (all TL6).

C. HMS Exmouth, early 1950s ASW frigate powered by oil-fired boilers and steam propulsion turbines (TL4/5) - in 1966-68 her entire propulsion plant was removed, and replaced by 1 large and 2 small gas turbines (TL6).


I see no reason why, with a suitable interface for essential power & control systems, a higher-tech power-plant, or drive, computer system, etc couldn't also be fitted into a starship - especially during initial construction, but also during a later refit.

Likewise, I see no reason that a drive, etc that is of higher TL than that of the building/refitting shipyard could not be installed, if the item is imported complete and ready to install from another system - and if specialized adaptation instructions (and perhaps a "tech rep"*) are included with the item.



Therefore, I suggest that the sentence should be reworded as "Equipment and components of a starship are normally equal to or less than the ship's tech level, but may be of a higher tech level at increased cost.".

A "per TL difference" cost increase should then be suggested, as well as an "import fee" if the item is of higher TL than the building/refitting shipyard.




*Tech Rep - a Technical Representative is an employee of the manufacturer of a component or system who travels around, providing assistance to installers/users of his company's product.

In my time in the USMC (aviation maintenance) I worked with a number of these, from several different companies. Some were present on long-term assignments and some were there for a "one-time" project.

About those refits you talk about are you sure the ships were TL5?

TTB sets TL5 as circa 1900-1939, while TL6 is shown as circa 1940-1969 (in my gaming group, we used to say TL5 to be WWI and TL6 WWII, for simplicity). I did not find those dates in LBB3 (at least on FFE The classic Books), but the ítems shown in page 14-15 for TL6 (auto-rifles, LMG, missiles, TV, ATV/AFV, submersibles) seem to concur with it (even some of those ítems being used in WWI). As all the ships you put as example were built after 1940, it could be arged that they were TL6 with some TL5 (even TL4) equipment (and so, fully in agreement of the rules).

I know you will came with other examples were clearly the TL to the ships were refitted wil lbe higher than its building TL (Iowas refits, CVL Cabot when transfered to Spain as CVH Dédalo, etc...), but then what whould the refitted ships' TLs would be? the original or the refitted ones?

To give you a practical example: usually a shipyard cannot repair a higher TL ship. If I refit captured TL12 ships to TL15 standards, can a TL12 shipyard repair them without problems (as their original TL is 12), so you'll need a TL15 shipyard for doing it properly?

And even with all this said, the quote was about designing ships, so about building them. I agree refitting may change some of the usual building limits.

The only piece of equipment I seem to recall that cannot be upgraded is the Jump Drive since in I think a JTAS magazine the jump grid is part of the hull plating. Everything else can be updated, however a point is reached that the upgrade cost is more than building a new hull.

Sometimes, when you're pressed to have more combat hulls, even if the cost is higher it may be worth to refit those ships, as you'll have them refitted quite sooner than if you must build new ones.

 

[BlackBat242]

Hello BlackBat242,

First my apologies for not quoting Post 390, my computer is apparently succeeding in throwing a tantrum and hashing my attempts to use the quote feature in any form.

Way off topic, but something I felt a need to comment on.

Please note that the author of the topic you have responded to is, if I recall correctly, is spelling words as was taught in schools based on the British form of English. Americans have in many cases have altered the spelling of many words in many of the languages that have be incorporated into the Americanized form of English.

So from the point of view other forum members we Americans have atrocious spelling habits, which have not been pointed out, for which I am thankful for.;-)

While many British would like us to believe that, it is reality that in many cases it is British English that has changed the spelling (an example is aluminum (the original worldwide and still American spelling) and aluminium (the modern, changed British & European spelling).

Back to the topic.

To address the comment "It would be nice if you had put something that would let us know where this quote came from."

McPerth had the following listed in a quote in Post 381: "HG, page 20, last sentence of the firts paragraph under Technological level:"

Tank you Tom for your kind defense of my English, but I must admit BlackBat is right: I commited some typos on a single sentece, and I should have spell checked it. I use to, and I can only guess I had no time for it on this post.

Sorry about that (now fixed on my post).

About the reference, I thought is was quite clear (maybe I was wrong):

The only addition should be (as Tom says) that I refered to HG2 (specifically, the FFE The Classic Books reprint). Fixed now too.

OK - to me, it looked like you were quoting someone else's post where that person had quoted the HG book. My misunderstanding.

About those refits you talk about are you sure the ships were TL5?

TTB sets TL5 as circa 1900-1939, while TL6 is shown as circa 1940-1969 (in my gaming group, we used to say TL5 to be WWI and TL6 WWII, for simplicity). I did not find those dates in LBB3 (at least on FFE The classic Books), but the ítems shown in page 14-15 for TL6 (auto-rifles, LMG, missiles, TV, ATV/AFV, submersibles) seem to concur with it (even some of those ítems being used in WWI). As all the ships you put as example were built after 1940, it could be arged that they were TL6 with some TL5 (even TL4) equipment (and so, fully in agreement of the rules).

I know you will came with other examples were clearly the TL to the ships were refitted wil lbe higher than its building TL (Iowas refits, CVL Cabot when transfered to Spain as CVH Dédalo, etc...), but then what whould the refitted ships' TLs would be? the original or the refitted ones?

To give you a practical example: usually a shipyard cannot repair a higher TL ship. If I refit captured TL12 ships to TL15 standards, can a TL12 shipyard repair them without problems (as their original TL is 12), so you'll need a TL15 shipyard for doing it properly?

And even with all this said, the quote was about designing ships, so about building them. I agree refitting may change some of the usual building limits.




Sometimes, when you're pressed to have more combat hulls, even if the cost is higher it may be worth to refit those ships, as you'll have them refitted quite sooner than if you must build new ones.

While the Baltimore class CAs were laid down after 1940, their design was originated before 1940 (and thus TL5) , and all but the radar systems and AA guns* (TL-6) aboard were identical to those in US cruisers laid down before 1938 (TL-5).

I can use different examples - such as the British "War-Emergency Destroyers"... which were all laid down to a virtually-identical design - which used 1939 tech, but in the early 1950s many were modernized with state-of-the-art ASW equipment as the Type 15 Frigate.

The Essex class carriers were 100% TL5 1939 tech when the first were designed (ordered April 1940 to already-completed design), and the later ships had TL6 radar & AA guns* when completed (in shipyards that were still using the same equipment, procedures, etc that they had used in the late 1930s), and most received TL6 catapults, radar, computers, etc in their 1950s modernizations.

HMS Victorious was laid down in 1937, launched in 1939, and commissioned in May 1940 - and was modernized in the 1950s with many TL6 systems, including the most advanced shipboard radar in the world.


So yes - ships can indeed carry systems that are at least one TL higher than the shipyard that built them - it just takes money, which (as snrdg082102 says) is the only real limiting factor.


And I mentioned the limit on a lower-TL shipyard installing higher-TL systems - they have to be "ready-to-install" and come with tech assist in one form or another - and the cost is higher than in a higher-TL shipyard. The Essex-class carriers (and the USN's South Dakota class battleships) are examples of TL5 design ships, built in TL5 shipyards, but receiving selected TL6 systems (radar especially) during their initial construction - the TL6 systems being built in and shipped from TL6 electronics manufacturing companies.

The same would apply for repairs - the low-TL shipyard would have to get the parts from an outside source, and would need higher-TL assistance in one form or another - and the cost would be higher (and the quality of work would be less than optimum).



* Actually, both the 20mm Oerlikon and the 40MM Bofors guns were mid-1930s designs, but the actual USN mounts and installations were post-1940.

 

[McPerth]

While the Baltimore class CAs were laid down after 1940, their design was originated before 1940 (and thus TL5) , and all but the radar systems and AA guns* (TL-6) aboard were identical to those in US cruisers laid down before 1938 (TL-5).

I can use different examples - such as the British "War-Emergency Destroyers"... which were all laid down to a virtually-identical design - which used 1939 tech, but in the early 1950s many were modernized with state-of-the-art ASW equipment as the Type 15 Frigate.

The Essex class carriers were 100% TL5 1939 tech when the first were designed (ordered April 1940 to already-completed design), and the later ships had TL6 radar & AA guns* when completed (in shipyards that were still using the same equipment, procedures, etc that they had used in the late 1930s), and most received TL6 catapults, radar, computers, etc in their 1950s modernizations.

HMS Victorious was laid down in 1937, launched in 1939, and commissioned in May 1940 - and was modernized in the 1950s with many TL6 systems, including the most advanced shipboard radar in the world.


So yes - ships can indeed carry systems that are at least one TL higher than the shipyard that built them - it just takes money, which (as snrdg082102 says) is the only real limiting factor.

I don't see the TLs as so a rigid boundary (up to end of 1939 is TL5 and after new year day 1940 is TL6), and I guess neither you intend to say so. See that the table on TTB says circa (so aproximately). I guess both the Chaco War (1932-35) and Spanish Civil War (1936-39) are borderline wars among TL5-6, and WWII is fully TL6, but I agree that is argueable and mileages may vary.

See that while LBB3 (page 15) refers as submersibles being TL 6, they were used in WWI, so even some TL6 elements were being used so soon. It's not specified, but I'd also put the Carriers as TL6.

Also TV is shown in the same tables (LBB3, page 14) as TL6, while the Olimpic Games in berlin 1936 were already TV emited...

And, as said before, even the Queen Elisabeth BB class (heavy refited from clearly TL5 to TL6 between wars), would be seen after refits as TL6 ships (even with TL5 hulls and other equipment), or as TL5 ships with some TL6 equipment added?

And I mentioned the limit on a lower-TL shipyard installing higher-TL systems - they have to be "ready-to-install" and come with tech assist in one form or another - and the cost is higher than in a higher-TL shipyard. The Essex-class carriers (and the USN's South Dakota class battleships) are examples of TL5 design ships, built in TL5 shipyards, but receiving selected TL6 systems (radar especially) during their initial construction - the TL6 systems being built in and shipped from TL6 electronics manufacturing companies.

The same would apply for repairs - the low-TL shipyard would have to get the parts from an outside source, and would need higher-TL assistance in one form or another - and the cost would be higher (and the quality of work would be less than optimum).

I understand your argument about being able to refit ships in lower TL shipyards. After all, Traveller cannon is contadictory on that, some places saying planetary TL si absolute limit, in others they are allowed to build/refit ships over its TL. Even several TL15 Kinunirs were built in Regina, whose TL was then 10 (IIRC the controversy about its TL began after the Kinunir was published).

But I guess repairs should be different, as they are (unlike building/refitting) not planed beforehand. If you want to build/refit a ship, you plan it, ask for the needed parts, etc. If you have to reapair a ship, you don't know beforehand what the repairs will be nor the parts you'll need (see that I always advocated for IN bases to be an exception, as spares are assumed to be there in large quantities if they are to be useful).

 

[Carlobrand]

Do we cost out maintenance at 1% with ships? It's 0.1% for the annual maintenance overhaul and 10% per year for everything (except combat repairs and replacement of wartime losses). But where does the 1% come from?


Hans

Whups, my bad.

 

[SanDragon]

Submersibles were used in the American Civil War!

Not a lot, but still used!

 

[Carlobrand]

Submersibles were used in the American Civil War!

Not a lot, but still used!

A TL4 submersible is like a TL8 jump drive - I would not want to be the one testing that experimental beastie out. H.L. Hunley killed five of her first crew and all of a second crew before she ever saw action, then killed her third crew in that action. U.S.S. Alligator had better luck: she had to be cut loose while under tow in a storm and sank, but at least she didn't kill anyone - on either side. Turtle, a Revolutionary War (TL3?) submersible, did a bit better: she never succeeded in a mission (and in fact there are some who say the mission was a hoax), but she did consistently bring her one-man crew home, and the only time she went down without coming up was when the tender she was on got sunk.

Really, if you have the tech to build a barrel that doesn't leak, you have the tech to build a submersible. There was knowledge of diving bells in the middle ages and there were even a couple of attempts at a submersible craft. Whether it will actually be useful for anything - that's the hard trick.

 

[snrdg082102]

CT Consolidated Errata page 27 TL 14 Laser fighter

Evening Donald,

I'm creating a CT Book 5 small craft design spreadsheet using the information on Consolidated CT Errata page 13, Small Craft, TL 14 Laser Fighter (clarification) as a guide. As usual my cost does not match the one listed for the clarification.

The cost difference is the result of me including the architect's fee, since I have [not] found any mention that the architects fee requirement was dropped on CT Book 5 pages 34 and 35.

What happened to the architect's fee when designing small craft?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

I just noticed that I dropped a word in the post, the correction is in bod type.

Next, Donald have you received my submissions on the Vargr Corsair that I emailed you on or about 7/25/14?

Evening Donald,

I'm creating a CT Book 5 small craft design spreadsheet using the information on Consolidated CT Errata page 13, Small Craft, TL 14 Laser Fighter (clarification) as a guide. As usual my cost does not match the one listed for the clarification.

The cost difference is the result of me including the architect's fee, since I have not found any mention that the architects fee requirement was dropped on CT Book 5 pages 34 and 35.

What happened to the architect's fee when designing small craft?

 

[DonM]

I think I have everything, but I'm actually waiting -- Andrea will soon (hopefully) be making some slight changes to HGS' output, and I hope those will allow for better checking of all designs and the current errata to such.