CT Errata Compendium

[DonM]

Just curious. Have either of you read the scenario in 76 Patrons lately, and also the one that follows? Also, if you go with just the information in the book, the revolutionaries are supposed to believe that a fully equipped mercenary company, that no one is apparently paying, has suddenly been smuggled to their planet and is begging to help them in a revolution. Is not someone going to smell a very very large and stinky rat somewhere?

I've been assured the numbers in that Patron encounter were intentional. I brought this to Frank's attention previously, and he indicated that there were some snail mail exchanges and convention encounters in the 80s that he'd handled in a more abrupt fashion.

So I'd say use numbers you're comfortable with when you run your games. But no errata here.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello DonM,

I'm in the middle of playing catchup. However, the fixes to HGS are not yet ready, so I'm NOT taking Book 2 or Book 5 ship design errata at the moment, because I don't trust the verification.

If your errata suggestions are to do with the design rules, rather than a specific design, that's fine, but the upcoming CT errata update (1.2) will not add errata for designs because I'm lazy... :CoW:

So really, that means there isn't much.

Sorry Tom and others who have proposed design changes, but I prefer using a tool that allows all of us to reliably recreate designs.

I do not know if adding CT Book 5 Computers and Jump Drive TLs to the CT Book 3 Technological Chart is considered proposed design changes.

Don't worry I've given up on trying to verify CT Book 2 and CT Book 5 designs since I'm not able to convince other forum members about proposed changes.

I think I sent you a copy of the CT Book 3 1981 Technological Chart already, but I'm not sure.

 

[DonM]

Even if you did send it to me, post it here. I feel much more comfortable about errata if it's shaken out publicly.

Also, my stupid errata mistakes generally get caught by all these fine folks, and they are generally polite about it... :rofl:

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening DonM,

Even if you did send it to me, post it here. I feel much more comfortable about errata if it's shaken out publicly.

Also, my stupid errata mistakes generally get caught by all these fine folks, and they are generally polite about it... :rofl:

I have made several attempts to post the document here and up in the file section. My attempts here have failed since I cannot seem to get a handle on using the formatting features to replicate the CT Book 3 Technological Levels Chart. I have tried five times to upload a copy to the files section of the document none of the attempts appear to have added the file. Since I have not gotten a handle I have sent the material to you via email.

Further I've offered to send copies to any forum member via email for review. So far no one has taken me up on the offer.

Now I'm really bummed out and think I'll forget the whole thing. Hopefully someone else will have better luck than I'm having.

Thank you and the other forum members for the support I've received here.

Have a good one.

 

[Axe]

Even if you did send it to me, post it here. I feel much more comfortable about errata if it's shaken out publicly.

Also, my stupid errata mistakes generally get caught by all these fine folks, and they are generally polite about it... :rofl:

Howdy, Don.

Here is the main portion of an email I sent you a while back, just in case.

"I found a couple incorrect things in the original books. Additionally, I found a wording that doesn't make much sense.



1) This first one is a misspelling, trivial in nature, may not be worth mentioning:

BASIC TRAVELLER (301, 1981 edition)

CHARACTERS AND COMBAT (Book 1, 1981 edition)

Page 36, Untrained Weapon Usage (correction): In the first sentence, where the DMs are discussed, "definding" should be "defending."





2) This is an actual mistake and should make it into the errata, although minor:

BASIC TRAVELLER (301, 1981 edition)

WORLDS AND ADVENTURES (Book 3, 1981 edition)

Page 17, Personal Equipment , Vacc Suit (correction): Last sentence should read "More fully described, with variations, in Book 1, page 41." (not page 42)







3) This is the item where the wording doesn't make sense to me.

BASIC TRAVELLER (301, 1981 edition)

CHARACTERS AND COMBAT (BOOK 1, 1981 edition)

Page 36, Morale (correction?): A portion of the second paragraph reads:

"For an average party, 7+ is the throw to stand, or not break and run. Valiant parties may have a higher throw."

Basically, I think the word HIGHER should read LOWER.

The target number needed to be rolled is the "throw". In the case above, the throw is "7+" for an average party. I asked myself, "Self, why would a "Valiant party" have to reach a higher throw (a more difficult throw) to keep from running away?" It seems logical that a Valiant party would have to reach a lower throw (a greater chance to stand their ground). I liken a Valiant party to be a highly motivated, elite, possibly belief driven force, which would stand its ground under more dire circumstances.

I guess another way to clear it up is to eliminate the sentence and add to the DM list: "+1 (or +2) if a party is Valiant." This solution doesn't really seem right because DMs are usually based on quantitative factors, whereas throws are usually adjusted using qualitative conditions."

Keep up the good work.

 

[hdan]

Yes, and tracked down for Starter and '81...

Oops, sorry, I guess I didn't read the posted errata closely enough.

 

[snrdg082102]

Unable to find a PM

Hello DonM,

I received an email with the following message "You have received a new private message at Citizens of the Imperium from DonM, entitled "CT tech pages".

When I clicked on the link I had to re-log into the COTI forums and did not find any new PMs. Looks I'm on the web gremlins list of victims to mess with again.

I'm fairly sure that the PM has something to do with the merging CT Book 3 Technological Levels Table with the TLs for Computers and Jump Drives found in CT Book 5 High Guard that I mentioned early. Unfortunately, I do not have a guess of what was in the body of the message. My attempts to do the errata in the format used by the CT Book 3 Technological Levels Table was to hopefully make it easier to insert in next update of Consolidated CT Errata. Since my non-existent skills with the formatting features, inability to upload the document, and failure to get anyone to review my efforts I'll do a brief summary here for computers and a full list for the jump drives. I guess I could have done this earlier, sorry DonM about not thinking this through earlier.

1. Verified the CT Book 5 1980 Computer TLs with the CT Book 3 1981 Technological Levels Table and added fib, Models 8, and 9 at the appropriate TL.

2. Added the maximum jump rating in CT Book 5 to the list of jump drive letters on CT Book 3 in the Space column of the Technological Levels Table on page 15.

09 = Drives A - D, maximum potential jump drive 1.
10 = Drives E - H, maximum potential jump drive 1.
11 = Drives J - K, maximum potential jump drive 2.
12 = Drives L - N, maximum potential jump drive 3.
13 = Drives P - Q, maximum potential jump drive 4.
14 = Drives R - U, maximum potential jump drive 5.
15 = All Drives, maximum potential jump drive 6.

Hope the above helps and again my apologies for not being too quick on the figuring out how to use the forum.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello DonM,

Sorry Tom and others who have proposed design changes, but I prefer using a tool that allows all of us to reliably recreate designs.

Not a problem, however I have a feeling that a reliable tool is not going to be easy to come by based on my recent experience with CT Book 2 1977, CT Book 5 1979, CT Book 5 1980, and CT Book 2 1981.

In my experience with the various versions of HGS is that custom components, like the pop and mobile turrets of the express boat tender, have not been included. I do understand that lack of the background to create the two non-standard turret systems is safer to them leave out. Hopefully, someone can provide a solution that the majority of the CT community can agree with.

 

[exedore6]

TCS Maintenance Costs

Looking through the campaign rules in Trillion Credit Squadron and something struck me- maintenance costs are 10% the ship build cost. Compared to 0.1% in Book II, that's a huge difference. Do we know if that's intended (if so, it explains why people use the generally bigger, more fuel hungry standard designs)

is there any other known evidence of High Guard Maintenance costs?

 

[boomslang]

Looking through the campaign rules in Trillion Credit Squadron and something struck me- maintenance costs are 10% the ship build cost. Compared to 0.1% in Book II, that's a huge difference.

I always assumed this huge cost reflects general overhead and therefore also covers salary & benefits, logistics, consumables, maintaining naval bases, and all the other operational support costs of having a navy, simply abstracted based on the currently-commissioned total fleet tonnage.

Thus it is two orders of magnitude larger than is strictly required by engineering support, but we do not have to get into tedious bookkeeping details; tax revenue is generated and pumped directly into the navy budget, ships are built and deployed, and no one has to have Accountant-4 as a skill to keep 'em flying...

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello exedore6,

Looking through the campaign rules in Trillion Credit Squadron and something struck me- maintenance costs are 10% the ship build cost. Compared to 0.1% in Book II, that's a huge difference. Do we know if that's intended (if so, it explains why people use the generally bigger, more fuel hungry standard designs)

is there any other known evidence of High Guard Maintenance costs?

Drat, looks like boomslang beat me to the answer.

CT Book 2 Starships and CT Book 5 High Guard 1980 (HG2) are for individual ships, while CT Adventure 5 Trillion Credit Squadron is geared towards building naval squadrons for an interstellar or interplanetary navy or a corporation's fleet of ships.

If you look into companies and government's that operate fleets today and then compare this to a person operating a single vessel the costs are a lot more.

Of course I may be a bit off in my thinking, after all I'm a retired submarine sailor. ;-)

 

[exedore6]

That makes sense, those costs will add up, especially if you start looking at things like recruiting budgets and whatnot. On the other hand, .1% and 10% are close enough that it could have been a mistake, and worth bringing up.

 

[rancke]

I always assumed this huge cost reflects general overhead and therefore also covers salary & benefits, logistics, consumables, maintaining naval bases, and all the other operational support costs of having a navy, simply abstracted based on the currently-commissioned total fleet tonnage.

Me too. Look at what the player doesn't have to worry about to see what is covered by those 10%. Everything but combat damage and new ships. It even covers peacetime replacement of ships, which helps a lot with the figures (2½% p.a. if ships are replaced every 40 years).


Hans

 

[Matt123]

Fuel Purification Plant errata

Hey Don, could we please get a clarification on the correct calculation for the Fuel Purification Plant.

This thread identifies the issues (it rambles a little...). Essentially the HG and TCS calculations are out by a factor of 10.

Some examples, the Kinunir, Regal and the Tigress.

HG
Kinunir (TL 15) has 587.5 ton of fuel / 1000 * 15 = 8.8125 ton
Regal (TL 14) has 34,500 ton of fuel / 1000 * 20 = 690.0 ton
Tigress (TL 15) has 190,000 ton of fuel / 1000 * 15 = 2,850.0 ton

TCS
Kinunir (TL 15) has 587.5 ton of fuel * 0.0015 = 0.88125 ton (minimum of 3 ton at TL15)
Regal (TL 14) has 34,500 ton of fuel * 0.0020 = 69.0 ton
Tigress (TL 15) has 190,000 ton of fuel * 0.0015 = 285.0 ton

In CT Errata v1.1 the Kinunir uses the HG calculation and the Regal uses the TCS calculation (both discussed in the thread link).

On the face of it the TCS calculation is only intended to restate the Book 2 calculation (TCS p15). In which case the errata should restate the table % from TL8 5.0% to TL15 1.5% and drop the referance to the percentage being a fraction of a percent. However it does make for very large refinaries.

One side benefit of ruling for the HG calculation is that it may make dedicated refinery ships of strategic interest.

 

[DonM]

Digging. On the face of it, TCS does appear to reduce the purification plant to one-tenth the HG size.

I know there was a discussion of this somewhere (not COTI). I'll go do some digging.

 

[DonM]

Digging. On the face of it, TCS does appear to reduce the purification plant to one-tenth the HG size.

I know there was a discussion of this somewhere (not COTI). I'll go do some digging.

Found it... in the discussions I had with Marc in 2008(!) regarding the HG3 draft and the reworking of the MT tech back to High Guard. (sigh)

The reduction was at first unintended, then intentional (Frank and Marc apparently liked the results). So that's real HG errata.

 

[McPerth]

Possible errata (purple part) casually detected:

LBB4: Mercenary:

Page 4, under survival:

Injuries and wounds have no effect except in the tree assignments marked with an asterisk (Police Action, Counterinsurgency and Raid). Each of this actions is officially classified as a combat action (...)

So, in the groups I've played, we always assumed each such assignments awarded a Combat Service Ribon (and if command officer a Combat Command too).

BTW, I've never seen those asterisks told about (posible errata?)

 

[Axe]

PC Movement During Combat in "The Traveller Book"

Howdy!

Short and sweet. I suspect a problem and suggest the following:

The Traveller Book (201, 1982)
Page 38, WEAPONS USAGE, Square Grid Activity (Correction): Walking speed should be 17 squares per combat round (not 8 squares) and running speed should be 33 squares per combat round (not 16), to match the Speeds table on page 47, as well as other sources. Greater speeds are in multiples of 17 squares per combat round (not 8).


The size of the squares are 1.5 meters on page 38 and page 47 (Range Bands). These ranges are:
17 (1.5 meter) squares = 25.5 meters
33 (1.5 meter) squares = 49.5 meters

I've played Deluxe Traveller since it came out.
1 range band = 25 meters
Walking movement per combat round = 1 range band = 25 meters
Running movement per combat round = 2 range bands = 50 meters

Starter Taveller (page 20) states the same movement/range band rules as Deluxe Traveller.

In Striker, personnel move 50 meters per turn (30 seconds) while walking, 100 meters while running. Converted to Classic Traveller, personnel move 25 meters per turn (15 seconds) while walking, 50 meters while running.

Are the numbers given on page 38 correct, which are based upon Snapshot? I have only read the Snapshot rules and haven't looked deeply into the AP system.

A 12 meter (8 square) walking speed and a 24 meter (16 square) running speed doesn't seem to jive.

 

[DonM]

Howdy!

Short and sweet. I suspect a problem and suggest the following:

The Traveller Book (201, 1982)
Page 38, WEAPONS USAGE, Square Grid Activity (Correction): Walking speed should be 17 squares per combat round (not 8 squares) and running speed should be 33 squares per combat round (not 16), to match the Speeds table on page 47, as well as other sources. Greater speeds are in multiples of 17 squares per combat round (not 8).


The size of the squares are 1.5 meters on page 38 and page 47 (Range Bands). These ranges are:
17 (1.5 meter) squares = 25.5 meters
33 (1.5 meter) squares = 49.5 meters

I've played Deluxe Traveller since it came out.
1 range band = 25 meters
Walking movement per combat round = 1 range band = 25 meters
Running movement per combat round = 2 range bands = 50 meters

Starter Taveller (page 20) states the same movement/range band rules as Deluxe Traveller.

In Striker, personnel move 50 meters per turn (30 seconds) while walking, 100 meters while running. Converted to Classic Traveller, personnel move 25 meters per turn (15 seconds) while walking, 50 meters while running.

Are the numbers given on page 38 correct, which are based upon Snapshot? I have only read the Snapshot rules and haven't looked deeply into the AP system.

A 12 meter (8 square) walking speed and a 24 meter (16 square) running speed doesn't seem to jive.

Just saw this. Yes, at first glance, they do appear to be based on Snapshot, as that was seen as what the game was moving to. Do we need to give this it's own area for some review?

 

[Redcap]

Given I've just pulled the trigger on the CD-Rom CT edition from FFE (due inside a fortnight via jump mail, apparently ), is the "Consolidated CT Eratta, v1.2 (03/31/15)" the definitive version, or is a new version due out soon?