CT Errata Compendium

[far-trader]

Perhaps I missed them?

More likely I'm misremembering. Probably started and got pulled away by other stuff. Life has been "interesting" and my mind mushier than usual. I think I have a freeish weekend to look into them though since it's snowing to beat all and the forecast is not favouring my project in the unheated garage this weekend :nonono:

 

[DonM]

More likely I'm misremembering. Probably started and got pulled away by other stuff. Life has been "interesting" and my mind mushier than usual. I think I have a freeish weekend to look into them though since it's snowing to beat all and the forecast is not favouring my project in the unheated garage this weekend :nonono:

Actually, we did walk through the standard "Book 2" designs in the rulebooks. What Book 2 designs we have not hashed through are:

The Express Boat (type X), Express Boat Tender (type XT), Far Trader (type A2) and Seeker (type J), all from Supplement 7, Traders & Gunboats. Note that the Scout/Courier as presented in this supplement matches the 1981 edition. The Subsidized Merchant (type R) in this book also matches the 1981 edition, except this one mentions having a fuel purification plant, which doesn't cost anything or take up any space (perhaps it uses the 15 tons leftover in the engineering space?). It's Magic!
:rofl:

The designs presented in Adventure 7 (Broadsword), Adventure 10 (Safari Ship), Adventure 13 (Signal GK), Double Adventure 3 (Argon Gambit/ Death Station), Double Adventure 5 (Chamax Plague/Horde), The Traveller Adventure, the various Alien Modules, and Spinward Marches Campaign also need to be verified against the 1981 ship errata.

Then we'll have the Book 2 designs covered.

 

[navanod]

Adv. 5 TCS Errata?

Whilst working on a side project, I've been reverse-engineering the designs for the Regal in Trillion Credit Squadron. Both the design sheet and text say the bridge is MCr7.5 - My calculations - Cr5000 * 75,000 tons = MCr. 375. I'll do a complete workthrough when I get a chance. Also, the text description and worksheet for the Regal says it has no cargo space, but 352 tons are show on the USP at the bottom of the page.

 

[DonM]

Whilst working on a side project, I've been reverse-engineering the designs for the Regal in Trillion Credit Squadron. Both the design sheet and text say the bridge is MCr7.5 - My calculations - Cr5000 * 75,000 tons = MCr. 375. I'll do a complete workthrough when I get a chance. Also, the text description and worksheet for the Regal says it has no cargo space, but 352 tons are show on the USP at the bottom of the page.

That ship is definitely on the list for checking. Might I suggest breaking it out into its own topic in the CT forum, so we can all discuss specifically it?

 

[Supplement Four]

Hey Don,

I just thought of something you may not have caught in the past (then again, maybe you have).

If you look in the early issues of JTAS (I think in JTAS #1), you'll see some Official rules (not variant) that MWM left out of Books 1-3. What comes to mind right now is the extra stuff on writing computer programs, but I think there were a few more rules that were considered part of the rule set. At least, that's what it says in the JTAS.

 

[DonM]

Hey Don,

I just thought of something you may not have caught in the past (then again, maybe you have).

If you look in the early issues of JTAS (I think in JTAS #1), you'll see some Official rules (not variant) that MWM left out of Books 1-3. What comes to mind right now is the extra stuff on writing computer programs, but I think there were a few more rules that were considered part of the rule set. At least, that's what it says in the JTAS.

Yes... items like this should appear in the "Lost Rules" document. Perhaps I should start a new topic for that, and list what items already appear in it...

 

[DonM]

Two items...

I was recently asked a question related to High Guard:

This cannot be confirmed, but the 50-ton Bay weapons chart may contain an error. Both fusion guns and plasma guns are shown to be available at TL12, but only one of these can legally be selected at a time and represented in the USP. Examples of ship designs from Fighting Ships (see Fighting Ships page 36 and page 42 notes below) have fusion guns in 50-ton bays at TL15, which is not allowed with the existing chart. Therefore, a possible correction would be to make fusion guns available at TLs 13-15.

Actually, why can't a design have a 50-ton fusion gun bay at TL 15? Certainly if the factor-9 bay is available at TL 14, it would also be available at TL 15 at the same factor. The correct errata for your question would be to extend the 100-ton missile bay line with factors of 9 at TLs 14 and 15, the 50-ton plasma gun bay line with factors of 6 for TLs 13, 14 and 15, and the 50-ton fusion gun bay line with a factor of 9 at TL 15. This doesn't take into account the idea some people have that the MT table changes imply errata for High Guard. I'm ignoring that for the moment.

The second item is that I'm noting the TL guidelines from the Alien Modules as "Lost Rules", not errata. Certainly many would consider them errata, but Marc hasn't confirmed that.

 

[DonM]

Version 0.04 is up on my website. Note that this is the version that should be on the revised CT CD-ROM.

 

[Gray Lensman]

Sorry

:rofl: Again Don, you didn't update the site itself. :rofl:

Maybe I am just in a picky mood............
Yep, time for a beer.

 

[DonM]

:rofl: Again Don, you didn't update the site itself. :rofl:

Maybe I am just in a picky mood............
Yep, time for a beer.

Well, technically, that one isn't available yet.

 

[Matt123]

Actually, why can't a design have a 50-ton fusion gun bay at TL 15? Certainly if the factor-9 bay is available at TL 14, it would also be available at TL 15 at the same factor.

I've always run on the principle that at any particular TL, all previous techs are available to use. I'm perplexed that someone would think otherwise and feel a TL15 ship could not incorporate a lower tech weapon system. Kinda implies that manual hatches cannot be used on TL9+ starships as they were invented for TL5-8 wet navies...

If you accept as a principle that all previous tech is available, it'll save a lot of errata corrections.

 

[far-trader]

Two items...

I was recently asked a question related to High Guard:

This cannot be confirmed, but the 50-ton Bay weapons chart may contain an error. Both fusion guns and plasma guns are shown to be available at TL12, but only one of these can legally be selected at a time and represented in the USP. Examples of ship designs from Fighting Ships (see Fighting Ships page 36 and page 42 notes below) have fusion guns in 50-ton bays at TL15, which is not allowed with the existing chart. Therefore, a possible correction would be to make fusion guns available at TLs 13-15.

Actually, why can't a design have a 50-ton fusion gun bay at TL 15?

I've always run on the principle that at any particular TL, all previous techs are available to use. I'm perplexed that someone would think otherwise and feel a TL15 ship could not incorporate a lower tech weapon system. Kinda implies that manual hatches cannot be used on TL9+ starships as they were invented for TL5-8 wet navies...

If you accept as a principle that all previous tech is available, it'll save a lot of errata corrections.

I think there's some confusion here I can clear up (or further muddy ). The issue seems to be partly High Guard's limitation of weapon types for USP display purposes confusing the original asker about TL issues. The question Don got was about that if I read it right. In HG you can't have both fusion and plasma weapons on the same ship because there is only 1 slot in the USP for Energy (Plasma and Fusion) weapons. Just as you can't mix Missile Bays and Missile Turrets in a single HG ship because there is only 1 slot in the USP for the Missile factor. So I think the original asker's suggestion is for a correction to the charts, basically filling in the dashes where the weapon doesn't advance, with the same factor I guess.

This touches on a small nit I've had too. That progression stops for the 50ton Plasma Bay before maxing out. The best you can have is factor 6 at TL12? You can't build a factor 7 at TL13? etc. It just seems odd. "Plasma weapons are so passe, nobody wants them after TL12 so we never improved on them. Can I interest you in the new Fusion weapons, they're all the rage with the fleet this year."

As for permitting lower tech items on a higher tech build there is no prohibition against it. In fact it's hard to avoid it in most builds. The only restriction is that the highest TL component of a ship marks the lowest possible TL the ship can be built at. A ship with mixed TL 9 through TL13 components must be built at a TL13+ shipyard.

In MTU such a ship would be a TL13 ship and the lower TL rated components would be locally built, to TL13 standards, with no break on cost or performance as part of the trade off of making them compatible. The lower TL rated components could NOT be repaired or replaced at less than TL13.

 

[Matt123]

In MTU such a ship would be a TL13 ship and the lower TL rated components would be locally built, to TL13 standards, with no break on cost or performance as part of the trade off of making them compatible. The lower TL rated components could NOT be repaired or replaced at less than TL13.

Ditto, with my justification being that a low tech item built at higher techs, for the same price, get better reliability, better ergonomics, more personalisation to the customers needs, easier maintenance, better after sales service, compatability with cutting edge products and of course make better profits for the manufacturer than cutting edge products.

Put more simply, at higher techs, consumer expectations are higher and that costs.

 

[DonM]

Ditto, with my justification being that a low tech item built at higher techs, for the same price, get better reliability, better ergonomics, more personalisation to the customers needs, easier maintenance, better after sales service, compatability with cutting edge products and of course make better profits for the manufacturer than cutting edge products.

Put more simply, at higher techs, consumer expectations are higher and that costs.

I agree with all of that, except it would NOT be errata at that point. It would be dangerously close to that old, beloved project I never seem to have enough time for.

 

[HG_B]

Ditto, with my justification being that a low tech item built at higher techs, for the same price, get better reliability, better ergonomics, more personalisation to the customers needs, easier maintenance, better after sales service, compatability with cutting edge products and of course make better profits for the manufacturer than cutting edge products.

Put more simply, at higher techs, consumer expectations are higher and that costs.

I take opposite view. Internal combustion auto engine for instance (TL 5). At TL 7 it cost less in real dollars for the same sized engine and they get better gas mileage and are more powerful, reliable, etc.

 

[far-trader]

I take opposite view. Internal combustion auto engine for instance (TL 5). At TL 7 it cost less in real dollars for the same sized engine and they get better gas mileage and are more powerful, reliable, etc.

I would argue the TL7 IC engine is not the same tech as the TL5 IC engine by a long way. Both in manufacture and innovation. I wouldn't agree the real dollar cost and performance is all that much better either, nor the reliability etc. Today's engines are far more complicated and larger for the same power, when you consider all that makes them work, and prone to more required maintenance and less able to perform out of spec. Heck the differences even from the mid 1970s through the late 1990s (when I dabbled mechanically) are enough to warrant a TL change imo in terms of innovation, but not in the actual cost and performance improvements and the rest, it's just not really there. Some change is just for the sake of change.

I'd call them different TLs but Traveller might not, taking the view we haven't leapt that break yet for significant improvement (well, not in production at least). The rotary engine came close/might yet qualify.

 

[HG_B]

I would argue the TL7 IC engine is not the same tech as the TL5 IC engine by a long way. Both in manufacture and innovation.

And neither is a TL 11 & TL 15 M-drive.

I wouldn't agree the real dollar cost and performance is all that much better either, nor the reliability etc.

Okay, I can only go by verified buying power of the USD and the listed costs for the dates in question. So, opinion doesn't really enter into the equation. Performance per C.I., look it up. Reliability, look up MTBF statistics. What can I say? N.B. My Bro-in-law was a design engineer for a big 3 for 20 years and showed me the stats one hot summer day.

 

[far-trader]

And neither is a TL 11 & TL 15 M-drive.

Gee, and yet in the game they are exactly the same in (most) rules

Okay, I can only go by verified buying power of the USD and the listed costs for the dates in question. So, opinion doesn't really enter into the equation. Performance per C.I., look it up. Reliability, look up MTBF statistics. What can I say? N.B. My Bro-in-law was a design engineer for a big 3 for 20 years and showed me the stats one hot summer day.

lol, verified buying power as compared how and to what listed costs (it's a rhetorical, we're far enough off topic already ), and yeah in actual use and repair which is where my experience is I see something different than an engineer, go figure

 

[HG_B]

Gee, and yet in the game they are exactly the same in (most) rules

I'm not responsible for the illogic of the game designers.

 

[E.D.Quibell]

In Advneture 0

Vinorian 701 Rhvlanor is missing from the listings.

Regards,

Ewan