CT Errata Compendium

[snrdg082102]

Hello 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.

Thank you for the update and hopefully Andrea's adjustments will help me square away my little issue with cost.

Speaking of which the quantity cost of the Vargr Corsairs are off since my calculation in then is Hull + Components + Architect's fee. Off course I have once again misunderstood the rules since my take on the total ship cost includes the architect's fee.

Other than the cost does the format work okay for the material I submitted?

 

[snrdg082102]

Consolidated CT Errata v0.8 page 36 Battlecruiser Regal

Hello Donald McKinney,

I've tested a revised spreadsheet using the TCS example for the Regal followed by using the Consolidated CT Errata for Adventure 5 TCS. Page 36 of the Consolidated CT Errata has the correction for the Battlecruiser Regal on TCS pages 20-21.

I have for a change matched MCr, unfortunately while my total crew count matches the counts for the command section and maneuver drive don't.

1. The corrected Regal has a command section of 42 my calculation based on HG2 page 32 hulls greater than 20,000 tons should have 5 crew members per 10,000-tons of ship.

75,000/10,000 = 7.5 x 5 = 37.5 round to 38

My guess is that the Medical Section is included as part of the Command Section on the Regal.

Per the consolidated errata 1 medic is required per 240 crew and troops onboard. The crew count without medics is 609 + 100 marines = 709

Medics = 709/240 = 2.9542 round to 3.

Total Command Section crew = 38 + 3 = 41 not 42

Where did the extra command section crew member come from?

EDIT:
I created a mostly automated form similar to that used in Consolidated CT Errata which when a summed up the crew my total was 212 the worksheet had 213. My guess is that the Gunnery Officer is the extra body in the command section

2. The Engineering crew is calculated at 1 engineer for each 100-tons of drives.

J-Drive tons 3,750/100 = 37.5 round to 38 and is a match with the number in the Consolidated CT Errata

M-Drive tons 12,750/100 = 127.5 round to 128 this doesn't match the number of 127 given in the Consolidated CT Errata.

Power plant tons 9,000/100 = 90 and I have another match.

The J-Drive 0.5 engineer round up to the nearest whole number. Why did the M-drive 0.5 engineer get rounded down?

EDIT:

3. Forum member Piper and I just stepped through Adventure 5 TCS and may have discovered a problem concerning the Percentage-based Purification Plant table on page 15.

The rule indicates that "The table is intended to assist in the deign process, and simply restates the table in Book 5 in different terms."

Using the TCS table as written my first inclination returned the Regal's purification plant being 34,500 x .2 = 6,900 tons with a cost of 6,900 x MCr0.007 = MCr48.3. The example lists the plant as 69 tons and MCr0.483. There seems to be a problem.

Looking at the notes below the TCS table indicates that the numbers in the % of fuel column are shown as a fraction of 1%. Trying again using the formula 34,500 x 0.2 x 0.01 = 5,900 x 0.01 = a 69 ton purification with a cost of 69 x 0.007 = MCr0.483

Applying Book 5 purification rules to verify the TCS rules a TL 14 purification plant of 20 tons processes 1,000 tons of fuel. The plant has a price tag of Cr140,000 or MCr0.14. The Regal has a total fuel tankage of 34,500 tons. The Regal's fuel purification plant would be 34,500/1000 = 34.5 x 20 = 690-tons with a price tag of 690 x MCr0.14 = MCr96.6.

The verification shows that the TCS percentage-based fuel purification plant rule did more than restate HG2 purification plant rules in both tonnage and cost. HG2's purification plant table does not include the one-fifth size plant available for the particular TL. However running the calculation results in the smallest size TL 14 plant is 20 x (1/5) = 4 tons which does match the TCS table.

To match the HG2 fuel purification plant of 690-tons and cost of MCr96.6 the TCS % of fuel TL 14 value would be 0.02 and the cost/ton Cr140,000.

Dividing 20 tons by 1000 = 0.02 adjusting all the % of fuel values using this method would fix that section of the table.

 

[Carlobrand]

Book 8 Robot issue: Transmission, Legs
"The transmission volume is external to the chassis volume; divide the transmission volume by the number of legs, to determine the transmission volume for each individual leg.
"For a contoured configuration or a pseudobiological configuration, legs have a [transmission?] volume twice that of other configurations. However, the transmission does not require any extra volume, so add one half of the final volume (that is the original volume before it was doubled) to the chassis volume.
...
"For example, a 150 liter pseudo-biological robot has a power plant that ouputs 60 kilowatts. Two legs require a suspension volume of 15 liters, which weighs 15 kg and costs Cr525. The 15 liters is subtracted from the chassis volume, giving a remaining chassis volume of 135 liters. The 60 units of transmission require 30 kw of power, have a volume of 30 liters, weigh 60 kg, and cost Cr900. Since this is a pseudo-bio configuration, the actual volume of the Iegs is twice the transmission volume, or 60 liters. Since the transmission only takes 30 liters of that volume, the other 30 liters of the leg volume is added back to the chassis, making a final remaining volume for the robot of 165 liters."

Under the old rules, the transmission was a massive beast that ate up half the power output and took a large amount of space - 30 liters, in the above example. I'm guessing it was moved outside because that solved a problem of overcrowding in the chassis: there just wasn't room to put the beast in the chassis and have much room for fuel. There was this arcane rule for the legs of contoured and pseudobios that, as near as I can read, translates to English as, "We're going to double the size of the transmission casing and then give you that extra room to put stuff in."

Why they did that, I don't know. It was weird. The suspension for contoured/psuedobio legs was too small to look like a human leg, but when you added the "external" transmission to that and then put skin on it, you had something in the right ballpark for a pair of legs.

Under the NEW rules, the transmission is a little thing, half a liter per 100 kilograms of bot; you might need 1 or 2 units for the 150 liter bot in the example. However, we still have the rule where the transmission volume is doubled and then only that empty space is added to the chassis. The transmission is no longer a big bulky design handicap, and the obscure rule no longer gives us much benefit: the rule is now just a bit of confusion that adds an unnecessary layer of complication for no obvious purpose.

Since it no longer serves a useful purpose, can we ditch the whole business about putting it outside and doubling the volume and all of that? It would greatly simplify the design process.

 

[snrdg082102]

Consolidated CT Errata armed small craft

Hello all,

I've got a slight quibble with all the armed small craft corrections in the Consolidated CT Errata which indicates that they all have turrets.

Book 5 HG2 Small Craft Weapons page 34.

"A small craft may mount the equivalent of one turret. In actuality, the mountings are probably rigid, and no actual turret is present. All computations, however, may assume that the craft carries one turret. Weight, tech level, cost, and energy point restrictions must be observed."

On the examples I've found that have descriptions and/or drawings of armed small they do not show or mention a turret.

1. The AHL, Game 3 and Supplement 5, description of the 20-ton Gunboat states "The weaponry consists of a laser gun mount fitted into the cargo and passenger compartment.

The drawing of the Gunboat appears to show location of the laser gun mount when installed is on the craft's port (left) side. My reason for appears to show is that in the FFE reprints for Game 3 and Supplement 5 detail on the left side didn't scan very well.

The drawings and written description of the Rampart fighters carried on AHL class ship do not mention or show that the carried weapons are in a turret.

2. In Supplement 7 the drawing a Gazelle's armed 20-ton gig does not show a turret that I can tell. However, there are two lines drawn on the nose of the craft. My guess is that one of the lines represents the laser, which if my guess is right, is rigidly mounted.

3. Supplement 9 page 20 the armed 50-ton gig description does mention a turret installed. Unfortunately, by looking at the illustration I am not sure where the turret is mounted. There is a small dome like structure located on top of the hull about the middle of the gig. On the bow/nose is another structure that appears to be slightly moveable up or down and possibly rotate. I'm guessing that the structure on the bow/nose is the turret.

On page 26 of Supplement 9 the 50-ton fighter can be armed, unfortunately how the weapons are mounted is not mentioned. My preference is that the weapons are fixed, but then again a turret may be the better option.

Unless the small craft descriptions clearly state the weapons are mounted in a turret I would recommend that the corrected small craft sheets in the Consolidated CT Errata remove the reference to the turret.

15-ton Laser Fighter change 1x dual laser turret to either 2x Laser or Dual Lasers or Dual BLasers.

 

[snrdg082102]

Consolidated CT Errata Starship & Non-starship Engineer Crew (sigh again)

Hello all,

My earlier post, identified as 402, after reading the post needs some work on my perceived possible errata for calculating Engineering crew.

Per Book 5 HG2 all starships and non-starships require a power plant. All starships require a jump drive, with the option to install a maneuver drive. All non-starships require a maneuver drive, with no option of installing a jump drive. The number of engineers needed is calculated by (J-drive tons + M-drive tons + Power Plant tons) / 100.

Using the Regal from Adventure 5 TCS again I will try to make a better case that the engineer count is off.

Per the rule in HG2 the engineering crew requirement is (12,750 ton m-drive + 9,000 ton power plant + 3, 750 ton j-drive) / 100 = 255 engineers.

The power plant has a volume of 9,000 tons, and being the only item installed, needs a crew of 9,000 / 100 = 90. The 90 engineers are needed regardless of having either just the j-drive or m-drive or both of them installed.

If the Regal where equipped with just the 3,750 ton j-drive and 9,000 ton power plant the number of engineers would be (9,000 + 3,750) / 100 = 12,750 / 100 = 127.5 rounded to 128. Knowing that the power plant require 90 engineers the j-drive needs 38.

Equipping the Regal with just a 12,750 ton m-drive and 9,000 ton power plant the number of engineers would be (12,750 + 9,000) / 100 = 21,750 / 100 = 217.5 round to 218. Subtracting the 90 power plant engineers = 128 m-drive engineers.

The Regal correction shown on Consolidated CT Errata version 0.08 page 36 has the following numbers:

Jump Drive engineers = 38 which matches the number using the example of (power plant + j-drive) / 100 and then subtracting the 90 engineers required by the power plant.

Maneuver Drive engineers = 127 which doesn't match the breakdown of the power plant and maneuver drive engineering requirement.

Power Plant engineers = 90 which matches the calculation for a stand alone power plant.

Combining the three systems and then determining the crew for the Regal, and probably all the designs, appear to be miss counting the engineers needed.

My recommendation would be to determine the engineers for the j-drive, m-drive, and power plant separately and then total the three values together to determine the Engineering Section Crew requirements.

 

[Carlobrand]

Running this one up the flagpole and see what people think.

Robots, Book 8, the little fusion power plants:
The power plants are based on the Striker TL12 fusion plant; the model A is a 1-ton Striker TL12 plant. The smaller plants are very nearly perfectly aligned with the MegaTrav miniplants for TL12 except they cost more. The little Model 7 overperforms, but only because it sits squarely on the MT break point for small plant efficiency decrease; a liter bigger and it'd be a nearly perfect fit, so it's probably good enough.

However, given that they do fall in so nicely with the MT microplants, I suggest we go the rest of the way and bring their cost in line with the MT costs:
URP 7: Cr50,000
URP 8: Cr100,000
URP 9: Cr150,000

It'd have the advantage of avoiding a big price change when moving a bot from one system to another, since a lot of Robots seems to be similar to MT.

 

[Carlobrand]

Robots, Book 8 again.

Item: the power interface.
Basically a fancy word for a place to plug the bot in. There is no reason I can think of why a power socket needs to draw 1000 watts of power when it's not plugged into power. In fact, there's no reason why a power socket needs to draw 1000 watts of power when it's NOT plugged in. All it's doing is draining down the robot faster when s/he's running on battery.

 

[Carlobrand]

Robots, Book 8

Item: weapons ammo.
Per rules, "Automatic weapons (including auto grenade launchers) have 100 shots, and all other weapons have 50 shots before reloading is required." Weapons, like all items, take up no volume - maybe they're outside some place. Weights are fudgy: in some cases the weapon is heavier than its hand-held variant and you can assume the ammo is in that extra bit, in others you're hoping the absence of a stock and such will account for the ammo weight 'cause there's otherwise no room for the ammo. No biggie in most cases, a few bullets are not gonna stress out your motors - until you get to the grenade launcher.

Fifty to a hundred rounds in a grenade launcher make up quite a lot of weight. The bot auto GL is a 7 kg unit, verses - assuming Book 4/TL7 - 6 kg for the weapon and 0.2 each for the grenades. Even allowing that the launcher saves by dropping the stock, 100 grenades alone is 20 kg. The RAM GL is 7 kg while fifty RAM grenades alone is about 23 kg. The RAM Auto GL is 21 kg while a hundred RAM grenades alone is 45 kg. Not a little difference if you're building a small warbot.

Option 1 is to downsize the load. Call it two clips - 32 rounds for the auto GL, 40 for the RAM auto. Doesn't leave much weight for the weapon's action and barrel, but it's a lot closer to the mark. Call it 5 clips for the RAM GL - 15 rounds. Keeps whatever existing designs are out there legal, just decreases their on-board munition load.

Option 2 is to increase the weight. Auto GL becomes - 24 kg? RAM GL becomes 26? RAM Auto becomes 50?

 

[Carlobrand]

And yet again with Robots Book 8, 'cause that's my project at the moment.

Heads are a special case. Other appendages, how much they can carry in installed equipment is decided by the weight of the appendage - which is fixed. Heads, their weight is a percentage of the weight of the chassis, which means how much they can carry depends in part on how heavy the chassis is.

"Multiply the chassis weight and price by the head's volume percentage to determine its weight and price."

Which is where things get interesting. The CT chassis weight is modified by armor: heavier armor, heavier chassis, the head gets heavier - and stronger. It can carry more. No surprise there. However,the rules also allow for the use of Striker armor values - and that's where things get interesting: CT Errata 1.1 introduced the use of the Striker advanced armor materials, and the formula's multiplicative, not additive:

F=A/a × WM, where A/a is the desired armor value divided by the original armor value and WM is the weight modifier, drawn from a table of Striker materials and identical to the table found in MegaTraveller Referee's Manual.

The Striker advanced armor materials are lighter for the same value of armor - they're stronger, so you're using less metal to achieve the same result. Bonded Superdense, for example, is 14% the weight of a standard steel chassis for the same armor value.

And, as a result, the head can only hold 14% of what it used to, even though the the lighter, thinner material is as strong as an equal value of steel. Law of unintended consequences.

Plan A is to calculate the amount the head can carry from the head's weight as if it had not been modified by the Striker advanced armored material percentages. It has the advantage of being simple, but it's not a perfect solution: the head's actually lighter but just as strong as before, so presumably it can additionally carry the difference between the old weight and the new weight, on top of that twice the (old) weight calculation.

Therefore, Plan B is to multiply the head's weight (calculated without the weight modifier) by three, then subtract the head's actual weight from that to arrive at how much additional weight of equipment can be carried in the head.

 

[snrdg082102]

CT Book 2 Scout/Courier versus Consolidated CT Errata

Morning all,

I've revamped a spreadsheet following the Book 2 design and construction procedure that blends CT Book 5 HG2 page 52 Universal Ship Profile.

After the revamping I ran the Scout/Courier, CT Book 2 page 19, through the spreadsheet and I came up with MCr27.63. On Consolidated CT Errata page 8 there is a notation that Scout/Courier is a standard design with a cost of MCr29.43 (after discount), which is the same cost listed on page 19 of CT Book 2. I think I may have discovered why I am MCr1.8 off.

Per CT Book 2 page 19 the Scout/Courier has "one double turret with its fire control is installed on the ship's hardpoint, but no weaponry is mounted." A Double turret has a cost of MCr0.5.

On a hutch I changed the empty double turret to a Double BLaser turret my spreadsheet's MCr matches the MCr29.43 listed on CT Book 2 page 19 and the Consolidated CT Errata page 8.

I sent Donald McKinney a PDF showing my work following the Scout/Courier description on page 19 of CT Book 2 1981 edition.

Errata Recommendation:

1. Change MCr29.43 to MCr27.63 to reflect the double empty turret.

2. Change the text on CT Book 2 page 19 from: "One double turret with its fire control is installed on the ship's hardpoint, but no weaponry is mounted." to "One double turret with its fire control is installed on the ship's hardpoint, and two beam lasers mounted."

 

[Carlobrand]

Morning all,

I've revamped a spreadsheet following the Book 2 design and construction procedure that blends CT Book 5 HG2 page 52 Universal Ship Profile.

After the revamping I ran the Scout/Courier, CT Book 2 page 19, through the spreadsheet and I came up with MCr27.63. On Consolidated CT Errata page 8 there is a notation that Scout/Courier is a standard design with a cost of MCr29.43 (after discount), which is the same cost listed on page 19 of CT Book 2.
... [/U]

I'm not getting that error.

Hull: MCr2
Streamlining: MCr1
Maneuver Drive: MCr4
Power Plant: MCr8
Jump Drive: MCr10
Bridge: MCr0.5
Computer: MCr4
Hardpoint: MCr0.1
Double turret: MCr0.5
4 Staterooms: MCr2
Air/Raft: MCr0.6
Total: MCr32.7

Discount 10%

32.7*0.9=29.43

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

Thank you for the double check and I know where the error occurred.

I'm not getting that error.

Hull: MCr2
Streamlining: MCr1
Maneuver Drive: MCr4
Power Plant: MCr8
Jump Drive: MCr10
Bridge: MCr0.5
Computer: MCr4

Darn computer gremlins changed my entry from Computer Model 1/bis to Model 1

Hardpoint: MCr0.1
Double turret: MCr0.5
4 Staterooms: MCr2
Air/Raft: MCr0.6
Total: MCr32.7

Discount 10%

32.7*0.9=29.43

Would it be possible for me to email you copies of the PDFs to check my work so I won't put additional egg on my face?

Thank you again for double checking.

 

[snrdg082102]

CT Book 2 page 19 Subsidized Liner

Donald,

The subsidized liner, CT LBB 2 page 19 copy right 1981, does not indicate the performance of the maneuver drive.

CT LBB 2 page 19 1977 indicates that the maneuver drive-C allows the subsidized liner 1-G of acceleration.

Consolidated CT Errata version 0.8 page 8 has an entry for CT LBB 2 that does not address the missing acceleration performance of the subsidized liner's maneuver drive.

Recommendation:

Update the Consolidated CT Errata Subsidized Liner to read something like the following:

Page 19, Subsidized Liner (type M) (correction and omission): Missing notation that this design uses a standard hull. The maneuver drive-C gives the subsidized liner 1-G acceleration. There are 2 tons reserved for drive upgrades, and the correct cost should be MCr245.97 (after discount).

 

[altasilvapuer]

Don, I have two minor confusions regarding Scouts errata in the latest version. I know it's not new to the latest version, but now's the first I've noticed them, and I know I've gone through the Scouts errata a few times - my hard copy is marked up with corrections.

First:

Page 31, Table of Zones, Orbit Zones for Star Size III, IV, and V (correction):
Remove the entries from all three
tables for star
types B0 and B5

A clarification: does this mean that type B stars cannot be generated in these three sizes (leaving them only to size Ia, Ib, II, and the dwarfs), or simply that they cannot have orbitals?

I'm assuming it's the latter, though the lack of a similar prohibition for the other star sizes confuses my layman brain a bit - I know type B stars are short-lived and/or young enough to be extremely unlikely to have any planets, but wouldn't this apply to all sizes?

If type B stars cannot be size III-V, then an alteration to the size generation rolls might be in order.

Second:

Page 28, System Features table (correction): Change the Primary Type result for a 10 to “G”. Change all Primary Size results of VI and D to V. Change the Companion Size results 5-11 to “V”.
Under Primary Star Type and Size, if a mainworld has already been created, and has an atmosphere of 4-9 or population 8+, the modifier should be +5

This one's more of a style confusion: The modifier and the Primary Type I have; the Primary Size results are new to me. This would make it impossible to generate dwarfs and sub-dwarfs, except as companion stars. I'm assuming this was a stylistic decision, but I'm a little curious as to why the decision was made. Weren't satellites that orbit the likely-tidally locked worlds around red dwarfs one of the more likely candidates for suitable worlds for human colonization at one time? Or has the thinking on this changed?

 

[Carlobrand]

...Would it be possible for me to email you copies of the PDFs to check my work so I won't put additional egg on my face?

Thank you again for double checking.

Yeah, no problem.

 

[whulorigan]

Weren't satellites that orbit the likely-tidally locked worlds around red dwarfs one of the more likely candidates for suitable worlds for human colonization at one time? Or has the thinking on this changed?

The code "D" does not refer to Red Dwarfs. "D" is always a "white (degenerate) dwarf" (regardless of what spectral class is listed). A Red Dwarf is an M_V type star (i.e. a Red Main-Sequence Star is a Red Dwarf). About 6% of stars are White Dwarfs, but the rules as written generate anomalously high abundances of White Dwarf stars. Hence, they were changed to Red Dwarfs.

 

[altasilvapuer]

The code "D" does not refer to Red Dwarfs. "D" is always a "white (degenerate) dwarf" (regardless of what spectral class is listed). A Red Dwarf is an M_V type star (i.e. a Red Main-Sequence Star is a Red Dwarf). About 6% of stars are White Dwarfs, but the rules as written generate anomalously high abundances of White Dwarf stars. Hence, they were changed to Red Dwarfs.

D'oh! I guess I was a little bit too much of a spaceman this morning when I was reading that. That makes more sense, now. Interesting.

-asp

 

[altasilvapuer]

A clarification: does this mean that type B stars cannot be generated in these three sizes (leaving them only to size Ia, Ib, II, and the dwarfs), or simply that they cannot have orbitals?

I'm assuming it's the latter, though the lack of a similar prohibition for the other star sizes confuses my layman brain a bit - I know type B stars are short-lived and/or young enough to be extremely unlikely to have any planets, but wouldn't this apply to all sizes?

If type B stars cannot be size III-V, then an alteration to the size generation rolls might be in order.

My apologies for the double-post and/or any perceived impatience, but does anyone know anything about the correction to the Type-B orbit data for sizes III-V (quoted here for ease of reference)?

-asp

 

[snrdg082102]

LBB2 1981 page 20 Patrol Cruiser

Hello Donald,

I've run the Patrol Cruiser on LBB2 page through my spreadsheet and found that my first attempt didn't match MCr per the Consolidated CT Errata on page 8.

Page 20, Patrol Cruiser (type T) (correction and omission): [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]The fuel tankage should be 160 tons. Pulse lasers are installed. The correct cost is MCr 229.59 (after discount), and the ship takes 16 months to build.
[/FONT][/FONT]
The other ships in the Consolidated CT Errata include the following entries:

Missing notation that this design uses a standard hull.
Missing notation that this design uses a custom hull.

The first attempt was run with the patrol as a standard 400 displacement hull which had the ship at MCr207.99.

My second attempt changing the patrol cruiser as using a custom hull does match the Consolidated CT Errata page 8 MCr229.59

Recommended change to the current Consolidated CT Errata Patrol Cruiser Entry on page 8.


Page 20, Patrol Cruiser (type T) (correction and omission): Missing notation that this design uses a custom hull. [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]The fuel tankage should be 160 tons. Pulse lasers are installed. The correct cost is MCr 229.59 (after discount), and the ship takes 16 months to build.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[snrdg082102]

LBB2 1981 page 20 Mercenary Cruiser

Morning Donald,

I've run LBB2 1981 page 20 Mercenary Cruiser through my spreadsheet and found two items I was not able to match: They are the required 1. crew and (a big sigh) 2. MCr

1. The minimum crew necessary for the mercenary cruiser is nine: commanding officer (CO), pilot, navigator, four engineers, and medic.

My count I get eight:

1 CO = 1 + 1 Pilot = 2 + 1 Navigator = 3 + 4 Engineers = 7 + 1 Medic = 8

Technically by the rules a Commanding Officer is only required on hulls >1,000 displacement tons so the required crew is 7.

LBB2 1977 7th printing page 19 has the following crew:

25 staterooms: Five for the senior crew: Commanding Officer, Pilot, Navigator, Medic, and Chief Engineer. These five get single occupancy staterooms.

The remaining 40 crew members are: 8 gunners, 4 engineers, 3 galley cooks, 2 pinnace pilots, 2 pinnace gunners, 1 admin clerk, 2 medic/orderlies, 1 forward observer, plus 17 spaces for research personnel, or technicians, or troops.

Comparing the two crews I guessing that the person who edited the details from the 1977 to the 1981 LBB2 included the chief engineer as one of the four engineers but used the number five for the senior crew and added the four engineers.

Recommendation for the next updated Consolidated CT Errata is to change "The minimum crew necessary for the mercenary cruiser is nine: commanding officer (CO), pilot, navigator, four engineers, and medic." to The minimum crew necessary for the mercenary cruiser is eight: commanding officer (CO), pilot, navigator, four engineers, and medic.

2. MCr per Consolidated CT Errata page 8 is 429.804 after discount by my calculations returns MCr426.564. I hope that Carlobrand got my email with the attached file showing my work and finds where I probably took a wrong turn.