CT Ship Errata Discussion : X-Boat

[far-trader]

Per DonM's request for working out errata fixes for some of the problem ships in CT here's the first one to look at. 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.

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

There are more ships to look at, and I'll get around to posting threads for each. Please wait until the threads are open to start discussing them. First up, the Express Boat from Supplement 7...

 

[far-trader]

Express Boat (Supplement 7):

Ah, the X-Boat, “It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.” But what is the key? Patience…

There are a couple (or more?) ships like it, caught between first and second printing of Book 2, not that I‘m telling you anything new but I feel verbose. Two clues point to it’s bastardization.

First there is the “Power Plant: None…” notation. That is clearly first printing where the Jump Drive had/was it’s own built in power plant.

Second is the “Electronics: ISMM Model/1bis…” note, again a first printing clue where jump wasn’t dependent on computer model, just fitting the programs needed into the slots. However in the text description the computer is a Model/4. So it seems there was a transition but changes were missed in editing.

So, how to “fix” it? I decided to work it up from scratch again and see if anything new came to me before looking up my old fix. And I think I stumbled on that key...

...I have a strong memory of some mention of X-Boats coming out of jump with precious little life support left, but still can’t find the reference. It might be something we came up with on our own as no one else has mentioned recalling it when I’ve asked around the boards and contacts. There is that note in the writeup though, “Range: One jump-4. Three days.” Three days? But a jump takes seven days! Problem. Ah, but wait! There are the Book 2 rules on page 6 for battery backup for life support and basic lighting! That gives 1D6 days. See what you think of this take:

+100tons Hull-Custom                            MCr10.000   *1
           Streamlined                              1.000   *2
 -15tons Jump Drive B4                             20.000
  -7tons Power Plant B4                            16.000   *3
 -40tons Fuel x4parsecs
  -5tons Fuel x3days                                        *4
 -20tons Bridge                                     0.500
  -4tons Computer Model/4                          30.000   *5
  -8tons Staterooms x2                              1.000
  -1ton  Cargo

=100tons Total                                  MCr78.500

Cost with 10% discount is MCr70.65                          *6

*1 Has to be custom to fit the drives, and make the cost match

*2 Another cost match measure, and it looks streamlined

*3 Power Plant 4 required of course

*4 Actually 3.5days, to match the note and fit the hull, of course on jumps of less than 4 parsecs there will be lots of fuel for longer endurance, but take it as 3.5days. Then add the battery backup of 1D6 days and figure the average of 3.5days. Total of 7days! Eureka! Makes X-Boat service risky (if you roll it) with some pilots relying on Vacc-Suits to make it or dying (that low survival roll has another reason). Of course the mail still gets through even if the pilot doesn’t. I like it.

*5 Includes the noted “extensive databanks” in my opinion

*6 Matches the cost in the writeup

I think it does a fair job of matching the description (all the features, correct price) while fixing the no power plant change.

I feel I should also mention the variants noted:

Variant 1 - With maneuver drive added:

I see no way to recreate the first one because J3 and M1 isn’t doable for a 100ton hull with Book 2. Unless you use larger drives but lower ratings. For example install a maneuver A for 1G instead of 2G due to running the power A at 1 instead of 2 to save fuel, and the jump being reduced to 3P because of lack of fuel. It really doesn’t add up in second printing, might work in first because of the power plant. In any case my take on variant 1:

Replace the cargo hold (picturing it being located at the tail of the ship) with a maneuver A for 2G, utilizing the power plant. Deemed impractical since it would be rarely needed and on any J4 leg there wouldn’t be any fuel left to fire it up anyway.

Variant 2 - With light sail replacing one stateroom:

Should work as written. And I like that it gives us (interpreted) stats for light sails that should be noted and included somewhere. That being 4tons per 100tons of ship. But we need a cost and performance. Cost equal to a stateroom (MCr0.5) might be reasonable and certainly convenient. Performance would just be a wag, maybe make it 1G for simplicity. I like this variant as it actually has a shot at being useful without impacting the utility of the boat. It could allow a GG fuel skim, using the light sail to set up a slingshot then pulling it in before the dive. Voila you come out with enough fuel for the power plant and jump drive to rescue yourself, or maybe live long enough to be found.

 

[boomslang]

Ah, the X-Boat, “It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key.” But what is the key? Patience…

The only possible "improvements" I have ever been able to come up with to the design you specced out above would be:

1. Because it is a government vessel, and it is only ever described as carrying a Pilot and possibly a single Passenger, you could drop the second stateroom and go with double occupancy on those rare occasions the Xboat is not operated solo. That buys you 4 dtons and saves some pocket change on per-vessel cost.

2. Then, go with a Model/3bis computer out of HG1; that will buy you an additional 1 dton without sacrificing the cargo capacity.

3. Now you can bump powerplant fuel up to 10dtons total, which is exactly enough for the one week of Jump, with the aforementioned batteries to keep the air scrubbed between breakout and XT rendezvous.

4. Lose the streamlining; it shaves a tiny percentage off your fleet costs, and unless you plan to mount a maneuver-drive-A in place of the cargo hold (an interesting mod in itself), you do not need atmo capabilities.

But other than maybe some of that, there is not much room to fiddle with the spec as inherited...

 

[rancke]

I would do serious violation to the 20T bridge. For example, I'd claim that a "standard" bridge included a Captain's Office (or whatever you want to call it) and a true bridge (= command center) with at least five crew stations plus whatever else I needed to use up 20T. Then I'd cut the fat; remove the ready room, reduce the command center to two duty stations, etc.

To answer the question "Why don't every other design do the same?" I'd make it explicit that crew tend to get quite frazzled in just a week under such cramped conditions and has to have time off after a jump.


Hans

 

[Dominator]

Express Boat (Supplement 7):

...I have a strong memory of some mention of X-Boats coming out of jump with precious little life support left, but still can’t find the reference. It might be something we came up with on our own as no one else has mentioned recalling it when I’ve asked around the boards and contacts. There is that note in the writeup though, “Range: One jump-4. Three days.” Three days? But a jump takes seven days! Problem. ...

S7 near bottom of pg 10, just above "Variants" says "The express boat is also capable of only limited endurance. ... its power, atmosphere, and food reserves are good for only about three days after break-out."

 

[DonM]

We cannot use computers from HG1, since this is for errata for Sup7. The double occupancy suggestion is a good one, but that note in S7 seems to indicate that 3 days of endurance was a considered design decision.

And hacking at the 20ton bridge is also right out.

Seems like far-trader is real close, and the only question is the double occupancy, but if you do that, you've got four more tons to play with...

Thoughts?

 

[Whipsnade]

Don,

To my addled mind, the snippet of text Dominator pointed out is the key here: "...its power, atmosphere, and food reserves are good for only about three days after break-out." This snippet should change our interpretation of the rest of the S:7 x-boat material.

Dan quotes a part of the S:7 description which read "Range: One jump-4. Three days." Let me suggest that the writers in 1980 expressed themselves poorly and the description Dan quotes would have been better written as "Range: One jump-4, plus three days."

We all know, as did the S:7 authors, that jumps do not last 3 days. So, when the range/duration description was written, it was intended to denote a range/duration of one jump plus an additional 3 days.

With this semantics issue settled, Dan's excellent re-design of the x-boat can be used as a starting point. The second stateroom is dropped, increasing PP fuel tankage to 9 tons. That should last through the entire jump leaving Dan's battery solution to provide the power "... for only about three days after break-out" as mentioned elsewhere in the text.

The second stateroom is unnecessary. X-boats need a single crewman, any rare passenger can double bunk with them, and the 20dTons allotted for the bridge will provide whatever "elbow" room two sophonts require.

This re-design also explains why the system includes tenders. X-boats are quite literally running on batteries after break-out and must be physically contacted as soon as practicable.


Regards,
Bill

 

[DonM]

Ok, so we take Dan's design, toss out the second stateroom, fix the statement about endurance to indicate one jump PLUS three days, and that's it?

For Supplement 7, the errata would be:
Page 9, Xboat Deck Plans (correction and clarification): Under Range, “One jump-4. Ten days endurance.” Under Electronics, the computer is a Model/4, not a Model/1bis. Under Cargo, “One ton. One passenger possible with double occupancy.”
Page 10, Express Boat (type X) (correction and omission): Correct the third sentence to read “Fuel tankage is forty-nine tons, enough for one jump-4, but only three days of in-system operations.” The fifth sentence should read “The ship has a single stateroom for the single crew member; a passenger can be carried under double occupancy.” Remove the sixth sentence. In the next paragraph, the cost should including discounts should be MCr 70.2.

 

[rancke]

And hacking at the 20ton bridge is also right out.

Of course. Heaven forfend that the rules should be made more reasonable and flexible.


Hans

 

[DonM]

This is errata, not rewrite. Don't even get me started there.

Anyway, comments on the draft errata above?

 

[rancke]

This is errata, not rewrite. Don't even get me started there.

>Shrug<<. If the system is flawed, fixing it IS errata. In my opinion, that is. And claiming that 20T is the absolute minimum size of a bridge is, again IMO, a flaw. Obviously YMV. Anyway, I'll hold my peace now.


Hans

 

[boomslang]

Ok, so we take Dan's design, toss out the second stateroom, fix the statement about endurance to indicate one jump PLUS three days, and that's it?

Probably not.

49 dtons of fuel is inadequate to support a 100-dton vessel making a Jump-4 for one full week in Jumpspace. The B2 powerplant-B functioning as a powerplant-4 will run dry and shut down after 6.3 days, which is right at the minimum end of Jump duration if using the now-conventional, post-HG2, 168-hours-plus-or-minus-10-percent calculation. By the same popular SOM and "Jumpspace article" conventions, a powerplant which does not function at the rated level of the Jump for the entire duration of the Jump causes a Misjump. As such, a Type X with only 49 dtons of fuel is nearly certain to Misjump every time it attempts a Jump-4.

You are going to have to either lose the 1 dton of cargo or go with a B2-compatible Model/3bis computer (at a significant cost increase) in order to make room for the full 10 dtons of powerplant fuel to use during Jump-4, although even this still leaves a 50% chance of Misjump (unless using HG2 Jump duration numbers). Viz that issue, I would recommend some combination of the old CT Jump duration numbers (150 to 175 hours, as per HG2), and the idea that someone (Far-Trader, maybe?) once suggested on these boards about Jump duration being calculable beforehand (so if the plotted Jump exceeds fuel endurance, you wait a bit for the cosmic wheels to turn, then recalculate until you get more-survivable numbers).

The emergency batteries are definitely going to get used until XT rendezvous after a Type X makes a Jump-4...

 

[DonM]

Hmm... sticking strictly to Book 2 (1981), is there ANY legal fix for the Xboat?

+105tons Hull-Custom                            MCr20.000
 -15tons Jump Drive B4                             20.000
  -7tons Power Plant B4                            16.000
 -40tons Fuel x4parsecs
 -14tons Fuel x10days
 -20tons Bridge                                     0.500
  -4tons Computer Model/4                          30.000
  -4tons Stateroom                                  0.500
  -1ton  Cargo
 
=105tons Total                                  MCr87.000
 
Cost with 10% discount is MCr78.3

I know it's not really legal.

 

[boomslang]

Hmm... sticking strictly to Book 2 (1981), is there ANY legal fix for the Xboat?

Not that I have been able to concoct in decades of idle pondering.

The reason that I champion the Model/3bis computer (mentioned in HG1 where the formula for calculating Bis capacities and costs is for once explained) is that BT only lists up through the Model/2bis presumably because Bis models above 2 make no economic sense -- higher-numbered Bis versions are significantly more expensive yet have less programming capacity than one-number-higher regular computer models appearing at the same TL. Comparatively, the Bis models are, however, slightly lower in displacement than conventional models supporting the same Jump level. When one is trying to shoehorn high-performance engineering into a tiny B2 drives and hull combination, the cost-for-performance trade-off of a White Elephant like the Model/3bis make singular sense.

Besides, I also contend the Bis architecture fulfills the expository "extensive databanks" feature plausibly; outside of the IISS Communications Branch Type X (and perhaps some university/industry research centers), there will be remarkably few of the larger Bis architecture computers in use, and thus such big iron will be highly unusual and unfamiliar to most people, requiring some cursory explanation.

 

[DonM]

I would concede on adding a Model/3bis computer (MCr 36, 3 tons, Cap 10/0, TL 10), but with that and removing the 1 ton cargo bay, we're still cramming 103 tons into a 100-ton hull. How many days of power plant do we get with 11 tons? Not quite 8? We need ten to match the designer intent...

 

[DonM]

Ok, for my sanity, I'm suggesting the following errata for the Express Boat:

Page 9, Xboat Deck Plans (correction and clarification): Under Range, “One jump-4. Ten days endurance.” Under Electronics, the computer is a Model/4, not a Model/1bis. Under Cargo, “One ton. One passenger possible with double occupancy.”
Page 10, Express Boat (type X) (correction, omission and clarification): The Xboat has a custom hull, model B jump drive and power plant, giving jump-4 capability but no maneuver. Fuel tankage is 54 tons, enough for a single jump-4 and ten days of operation. The ship has one stateroom for the single crew member; one passenger can be carried at double occupancy. The cost is MCr 78.3 including discounts. Under strict Book 2 (1981) rules, no 100-ton design capable of jump-4 is possible; this errata covers all requirements of the design, but comes in at 105 tons.

I'm just not satisfied adding rules, revising others, all for one design. Thoughts?

 

[boomslang]

I would concede on adding a Model/3bis computer (MCr 36, 3 tons, Cap 10/0, TL 10), but with that and removing the 1 ton cargo bay, we're still cramming 103 tons into a 100-ton hull. How many days of power plant do we get with 11 tons? Not quite 8? We need ten to match the designer intent...

Which is why I would go with drives-B (J & PP), Model/3bis, 1 stateroom, 1 dton of cargo, the regular bridge, and exactly 50 dtons of fuel (one J-4 and one 168-hour week). 100 dtons, tight.

Then revert to the pre-SOM Jump duration of 150-to-175 hours (consistent with a "pure BT" approach), allow Jump duration to be predictable from the Jump calculations (which contradicts nothing in a minimalist BT canon), use the batteries to make up the difference between breakout and rendezvous, and hope one doesn't get Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from the handwaving...

Matches the designer intent as far as I can see, admittedly relies on some by turns old school and loophole-exploiting readings of the BT rules, but does not actually break anything in BT.

"Best effort", as they say.

 

[DonM]

The more I thought about it, I changed my mind on the Model/3bis. See the errata I proposed just before your post.

 

[rancke]

I'm just not satisfied adding rules, revising others, all for one design.

I've been waffling for more than ten minutes between holding my peace and making a really profound point. In the end, I think the point is important. I know I'm not being helpful, and my apologies for that.

I totally agree that you should not add and revise rules for the sake of a single design. You should do it to correct flaws that the design has made obvious, you should do it to fix the rules.

Yeah, I know you're constrained from doing so. I'll try to hold my peace now.


Hans


PS. If you can't make it work and you're not allowed to fix it, a disclaimer is the best way to go.

 

[aramis]

10 T fuel, not 14, and no cargo space, shaves 5 Td off

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
004 Model 4
040 JFuel 1J4
010 PP Fuel 7.5 days
004 Stateroom
000 Cargo
===
100 Total

(10/40)x30=7.5 days PP. Which is enough for 95% of jumps. 3 days is battery backup by itself, IIRC. (TTB p51 shows 1d days for batteries.)

Another 2 tons could be cribbed by using a small craft stateroom. At which point, another .75 days brings us to 8.25+ 1-6 days battery and 1T cargo comes back.
020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
004 Model 4
040 JFuel 1J4
011 PP Fuel 8.25 days
002 Small Stateroom
001 Cargo
===
100 Total

020 Bridge
015 JD B=4
007 PP B=4
004 Model 4
040 JFuel 1J4
012 PP Fuel 9 days
002 Small Stateroom
000 Cargo
===
100 Total

It's just much simpler to make it a Bk 5 design;
020 Bridge
004 Model 4
005 J4 drive
008 P4 plant
004 PP Fuel, 4 weeks
040 JFuel 1J4
008 2xSR
001 Cargo
010 10xModel/1 "extensive data banks"