CT Ship Errata Discussion : Scout/Courier and Seeker

[far-trader]

So there's nothing wrong with the Scout/Courier Don? Well, not much I was checking the Seeker anyway so it's a bundle deal.

My take to kick things off follows, weigh in with your own ideas, suggestions, questions and whatever and we'll hammer out a best solution for Don.

The idea is (as I understand it) to seek the lowest possible change with the greatest possible match to the description while ensuring it works with the 1981 set of Book 2 design rules.

No totally redesigned "better, faster, stronger..." versions of "the way it should have been done"

So, on to the ubiquitous wedges from Supplement 7...

 

[far-trader]

Scout/Courier (Supplement 7):

+100tons Hull-Standard                           MCr2.000
           Streamlined                              1.000
 -10tons Jump Drive A2                             10.000
  -1tons Maneuver A2                                4.000
  -4tons Power Plant A2                             8.000
 -20tons Fuel x2parsecs
 -20tons Fuel x4weeks
 -20tons Bridge                                     0.500
  -1tons Computer Model/1bis                        4.000
  -1tons Hardpoints x1                              0.100
         Double Turret                              0.500
 -16tons Staterooms x4                              2.000
  -3tons Cargo
  -4tons Air/Raft                                   0.600

=100tons Total                                  MCr32.700

Cost with 10% discount is MCr29.43                           *1

*1 Which doesn’t match the listed (incorrect) cost, an easy fix and obvious typo/adding error imo


Let’s do the Seeker variant here as well which has small problem as well:

Seeker (Supplement 7):

+100tons Hull-Standard                           MCr2.000
           Streamlined                              1.000
 -10tons Jump Drive A2                             10.000
  -1tons Maneuver A2                                4.000
  -4tons Power Plant A2                             8.000
 -10tons Fuel x1parsecs                                      *2
 -20tons Fuel x4weeks
 -20tons Bridge                                     0.500
  -1tons Computer Model/1bis                        4.000
  -1tons Hardpoints x1                              0.100
         Double Turret                              0.500
         Pulse Laser                                0.500
  -8tons Staterooms x2                              1.000    *3
  -3tons Cargo
  -4tons Buggy                                      0.600    *4
 -18tons Ore Bays                                            *5

=100tons Total                                  MCr32.200

Cost with 10% discount is MCr28.98                           *6

*2 Adds 10tons, given over to ore bays

*3 Adds 8tons, given over to ore bays

*4 Was there ever an official cost on this vehicle

*5 Not the listed 20tons, another apparent adding error and simple fix

*6 Not sure how to address the cost issues since it's used and converted, none of which is addressed in Book 2

 

[DonM]

So there's nothing wrong with the Scout/Courier Don? Well, not much I was checking the Seeker anyway so it's a bundle deal.

Remember, the basic designs from the LBBs/TTB/ST are already done:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19721

 

[far-trader]

Remember, the basic designs from the LBBs/TTB/ST are already done:

Yep, just wanted to note the cost error of the Scout/Courier in Supplement 7, or was that already nailed? I didn't think to check first. And figured the side by side (top to below?) comparison with the Seeker would be helpful.

 

[Grognard]

In the text, it says that a lot of sensors and survey equipment were removed prior to being given to detached scouts.

If that is the case, what specs did the ship have with the gear...??

And how come we dont have any design specs for that?

 

[far-trader]

One of the great mysteries Grognard

With Book 2 about all you can do is say on active service it has Military sensors (longer range) but on Detached Duty those are stripped and you're stuck with Civilian sensors (shorter range) but you don't gain any extra room aboard.

Sidebar - My Book 5 build of the Type S has a larger computer and a survey lab to represent that. The DD Type S would have that reduced to the basic model/1bis and gain some cargo space.

EDIT: We can speculate of course, but with Book 2 rules the design is so tight I don't see where anything like that could be fit in. Well, I guess you could just handwave it in as part of the stateroom allowance.

 

[Grognard]

And did anyone else lose sleep over the fact that at 3m height per deck, the 3 decks are thicker than the hull at 7.5m ...???

I rule that the upper gallery is not a full height deck.......

 

[far-trader]

A few of us noticed, maybe even griefed a little I don't think I lost sleep over it, at least not as much as over some other deckplans :nonono:

Some of us did what you did, made the attic tight, little more than a crawlspace, shifted the cargo hold (in the nose it would also be pretty snug), stuff like that.

Thinking after posting the previous reply about the extra sensors and survey fluff it hit me, that's what it is, fluff. So it can be included in the rest of the ship without much issue. Call it part of the bridge tonnage (sensors in the attic) and stateroom tonnage (that survey lab in the back) and don't sweat it much. The DD Scout can cram some cargo in the survey lab or use it as a rec room, maybe even stuff some small things in the attic, since the IISS saw fit to remove all the gear from those spaces. And for an active duty ship just fill them in with the gear needed for the mission.

 

[far-trader]

Remember, the basic designs from the LBBs/TTB/ST are already done:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19721

Umm, I was double checking and somehow Wil and I missed the mistake in the above thread for the Scout/Courier and it's been adopted into the errata file. Unless I'm mistaken now. Double check please. It looks like the cost for the Type S should be as TTB shows, MCr29.43 after 10% discount, not as the errata has corrected it to MCr28.43.

And of course the price in Supplement 7 is wrong as noted above.

 

[Grognard]

So, I see two options for the Scouts dimensions...

Either it should be 9m tall rather than 7.5

OR

Each deck is only 2m rather than 2.5 (I assume .5m hull, and .25m between decks, leaving a deck celing height of 2.5m)

While changing the ship to 9m is eaiest, I like the idea that the Type-S is a cramped, low ceilinged ship....adds character.

I still want to see a design for the Type-S in service with appropriate sensor arrays installed.....LOL

 

[bozzutoman]

By my calculations, the S7 Scout/Courier's dimensions of 37.5 x 24 x 7.35 put it at ~1,125 cumets (275cu short)

Even using the 9m height, as depicted in the Seeker diagram, it only increases the volume to ~1,188 cumets (212cu short)

If however, the dimensions are increased to 39L x 28.5w x 9h the volume is ~1,404 cumets (only 4cu over).

 

[far-trader]

It's a bit beyond the purview of this thread however...

...as a sidebar I'm interested Errating the deckplans would be a whole nother thing. Unless Don wants to include some notes on it too.

So, I see two options for the Scouts dimensions...

Either it should be 9m tall rather than 7.5...

I like the flat wedge better too That's the one I seem to more often default to when doing my own deckplans of it. All on one deck. No attic. No underbelly cargo hold. It matches the old mini and the pic on the deckplan page.

I still want to see a design for the Type-S in service with appropriate sensor arrays installed.....LOL

LOL indeed for CT. Doable in MT though iirc. Not that they did it as I recall.

By my calculations, the S7 Scout/Courier's dimensions of 37.5 x 24 x 7.35 put it at ~1,125 cumets (275cu short)

I'd probably just mess up the math, if it's no trouble for you:

What about 37.5m x 25.5m (the deckplans show that, the 24m is in error) x 7.5m (that's what the little note says, is your's different or just a typo?). I'd really like to see the basic flat wedge work

If that doesn't cut it, the mini (and the pic seems to) show a mid-band of maybe 1.5m straight. So that would be a simple area calc of 1.5m thick, plus the rest short the 1.5m (so 6m tall). If you follow. Thanks in advance if you don't mind crunching the numbers

 

[aramis]

37.5x24x7.35/6=1102.5

39x28.5x9/6=1667.25... 267.25 over

37.5 x 25.5 x9 /6=1434.375 ... 34.375 over
36x25.5x9/6 = 1377
36.5x25.5x9/6=1396.125
37x25.5x9/6=1415.25



(Why /6 ? because the area of a diamond of axis dimensions X & Y is XY/2. and the volume of a Pyramid is V=BH/3... so XY/2*H/3=XYH/(2*3)=XYH/6...)

 

[far-trader]

Just divide by 6? I never knew it was so easy Thanks Wil.

Hey! The answer agrees with my more complicated attempt!

So, with a 1.5m mid-band and 37.5 x 25.5 x 7.5 (overall) I get about 120tons (at 14m3/ton). Nice that it hits the 20% overage

Though I'd rather it be 100tons.

 

[bozzutoman]

37.5x24x7.35/6=1102.5

39x28.5x9/6=1667.25... 267.25 over

37.5 x 25.5 x9 /6=1434.375 ... 34.375 over
36x25.5x9/6 = 1377
36.5x25.5x9/6=1396.125
37x25.5x9/6=1415.25



(Why /6 ? because the area of a diamond of axis dimensions X & Y is XY/2. and the volume of a Pyramid is V=BH/3... so XY/2*H/3=XYH/(2*3)=XYH/6...)

Yowch... I was waaaaaaay off... curse my SoCal education!

Thanks for that nifty trick.

 

[ranger2261]

i like the lindenmyer design,
which i think is more what you are describing

http://www.freelancetraveller.com/features/gallery/mikelinsenmayer/scout-2.jpg

 

[Khan Trav]

Assuming a detached duty goes down or is lost in orbit or deep space etc. What are the responsibilities of an adventurer party who happens to locate one?

 

[far-trader]

It and all contents are still military property as I understand salvage laws, iirc, so the proper course for the PC's would be to note the location and vector if in space and report it to the nearest Navy or Scout base or ship. If in immediate peril they might be considered helpful if they rescued it or investigated and turned over all material to the authorities so they could determine the cause of the loss. They could also check their library data to see if the ship is noted as lost or already found and possibly the wreck was declared hazardous or a war grave and is off limits. With serious consequences for trespassers.

 

[aramis]

Assuming a detached duty goes down or is lost in orbit or deep space etc. What are the responsibilities of an adventurer party who happens to locate one?

You turn it over to the 3I and get a 10% value plus expenses finder's fee, and a good rep.

Or you turn it over to the local non-3I gov't, and get quite possibly more, as they prepare it for infiltration use.

Or, you alter the markings and destroy the transponder, and head to your nearest free-port, and get it a new transponder... and salvage docs.

Within the 3I, not turning it over is likely to be a capital crime, on the charge of high piracy, unless you can prove beyond any shadow of doubt you were not responsible for the crew's demise.

If, however, it's on the lost-in-space roster, it's fair game for salvage, even "hostile salvage" (Storm and board)...

 

[DonM]

From what I see, the errata for the Seeker is as follows:

1. for Supplement 7, the two ore bays are 9 tons each, not 10 tons.

2. for Supplement 4, a note that from Supplement 7, the approximate cost would be MCr 17 for the original scout/courier, and MCr 7.59 for the conversion.

Anything else?