Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
Don,
Just a few more bon mots in support of your unstinting efforts. This thread and the starports thread easily justify hanging around here even with the flame-fests going on in some other regions of the board. Keep up the great work.
I would love an 'erratized' Player's Manual (moreso than any of the other manuals), but I have to admit I'm a bit vague on how to 'do it myself'. I've got the PDF (one from DTRPG and one from the MT Disk from mark) but how to edit it up and fix it... that seems like a whole other kettle of fish. A man can dream that someday somebody else will do this task and it will be available....
Just a few more bon mots in support of your unstinting efforts. This thread and the starports thread easily justify hanging around here even with the flame-fests going on in some other regions of the board. Keep up the great work.
I would love an 'erratized' Player's Manual (moreso than any of the other manuals), but I have to admit I'm a bit vague on how to 'do it myself'. I've got the PDF (one from DTRPG and one from the MT Disk from mark) but how to edit it up and fix it... that seems like a whole other kettle of fish. A man can dream that someday somebody else will do this task and it will be available....
It's a Short Worlds Shogtun. They use it to shoot at tall Imperials.
When I was first introduced to Traveller, the referee kept saying what my ears were hearing as "Short Worlds"... So I introduced myself as a tall Imperial...
They didn't like that, and then the Shortworlders aimed their shogtuns at me.
When I was first introduced to Traveller, the referee kept saying what my ears were hearing as "Short Worlds"... So I introduced myself as a tall Imperial...
They didn't like that, and then the Shortworlders aimed their shogtuns at me.
To answer Kaldorn
Well, I am doing it the hard way with the Refeee's manual. I unlock the PDF (I own both the CD-Rom and the PDFs from DTRPG.com) I then open up my trusty copy of Word and proceed to cut and paste.
I have discovered 3 things.
1. Word gets balky with a 100 pg document with 40 or so pages of nested tables. It is almost to the point of having a frame-rate on my word processer.
2. Nested tables are a really, really bad idea. Of course, I didn't discover this until nearly the end of the project.
3. InDesign 2 is a very powerful program and just like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. I am undecided as to which it is.
I am almost done with the product. It is just a matter of finishing adding supplemental material, (Typed lovingly by hand since I can't get my %$^#!! OCR software to do it for me.)
Then I just have to get it all into InDesign, and Voila!
Well, I am doing it the hard way with the Refeee's manual. I unlock the PDF (I own both the CD-Rom and the PDFs from DTRPG.com) I then open up my trusty copy of Word and proceed to cut and paste.
I have discovered 3 things.
1. Word gets balky with a 100 pg document with 40 or so pages of nested tables. It is almost to the point of having a frame-rate on my word processer.
2. Nested tables are a really, really bad idea. Of course, I didn't discover this until nearly the end of the project.
3. InDesign 2 is a very powerful program and just like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. I am undecided as to which it is.
I am almost done with the product. It is just a matter of finishing adding supplemental material, (Typed lovingly by hand since I can't get my %$^#!! OCR software to do it for me.)
Then I just have to get it all into InDesign, and Voila!
Harry - for Word, I cheated -- I formatted sections as if they were Classic Traveller, and Word seems to handle it just fine...
However, I'm still using Word 2000, Not 2002 or Server2003, or OfficeXP...
And it winds up making for smaller doc files than it's WordXP successor.
However, I'm still using Word 2000, Not 2002 or Server2003, or OfficeXP...
And it winds up making for smaller doc files than it's WordXP successor.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Shotgun e-mails? Upset Shortworlders?
I loved that little story DonM, thanks for sharing. I just need to figure a way to work it into a game, it's priceless. Our own group has had it's share of such but not quite as good as that. We now return you to the All Errata program...
I thought I'd post my current "problems" list...
</font>
The nice thing is that the length of the list indicates that MT is certainly not gone as a game system.
</font>
- Merchant Free Trader characters cannot get Sensor Ops skill (PM 63)</font>
- Errata dropping the cost of radar exists; should there be a similar drop for radar jammers? (RM 68)</font>
- Should aircraft damage points NOT be multiplied by 10 like other vehicles?</font>
- Type X Particle Accelerator spinal mount weapon missing from tables (RM 71)</font>
- Overhaul stellar generation rules (RM 26)</font>
- How long do the effects of Trader skill apply (RM 54)</font>
- Simplify hasty tasks as half time, cautious tasks as double? (RM 14)</font>
- Prospecting buggy design missing (carried by Seeker) (IE 81)</font>
- Should hull require control points in vehicle designs? (affects computer and crew) (RM 81)</font>
- High Velocity Guns need to expand to allow naval guns (RM 77)</font>
- Fusion Rocket stats in COACC/Hard Times very wrong</font>
- Existing disintegrator errata makes weapon weaker</font>
- Incorporate TAC missiles from MTJ #3?</font>
- Incorporate Book 8 Robot Construction in MT?</font>
- Incorporate point defense rules from Striker in MT?</font>
- Would vehicle damage points make more sense derived from weight rather than volume? (RM 84)</font>
The nice thing is that the length of the list indicates that MT is certainly not gone as a game system.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Hey Don,
Just thought I'd correct you. Um, yes, Merchant Free Traders can get Sensor Ops skill.
See, Sensor Ops is an included skill. Anyone with Navigation skill has Sensor Ops (at Nav minus one).
Merchant Free Traders can get Nav, so they can get Sensor Ops too.
-S4
There is a TL 11 Seeker Buggy listed in "101 Vehicles", as well as a TL 13 Prospectors Bubble. I'll PM you with the stats.
Also, may I add to your list? I would really like to know what the damage effect of an antimatter missile is. If a nuclear missile gets +6 on the 'Surface Explosion Damage Table', what does an antimatter missile get? I would assume that the higher cost would translate to higher damage for such missiles.
S4: Included skills don't count; especially since that means Free Traders don't know how to work the sensors on their ships until they learn Navigation-2. That remains on the problem list.
Nick: The buggy is definitely the item, even if the TL doesn't match the Seeker.
And on the explosion of an antimatter missile, the reason I posted the list was to make it smaller, and you're breaking even. Sigh...
Nick: The buggy is definitely the item, even if the TL doesn't match the Seeker.
And on the explosion of an antimatter missile, the reason I posted the list was to make it smaller, and you're breaking even. Sigh...
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
# Merchant Free Trader characters cannot get Sensor Ops skill (PM 63)
Don, why does an (serves as skill not count and why should in be Nav-2 ?
Just as S4 noted, Nav-1 serves as SensorOps-0 and thats well enough to do a task without penalty ?
# Errata dropping the cost of radar exists; should there be a similar drop for radar jammers? (RM 68)
??
# Should aircraft damage points NOT be multiplied by 10 like other vehicles?
Well, if its about personal combat the damage points are multiplied by 10.
Why not ?
# Type X Particle Accelerator spinal mount weapon missing from tables (RM 71)
Following roughly the patterns this line could look like:
UCP TL Power Volume Weight MCr Hardpoints
X 17 300000 20000 4000 1000 15
But that issue is perhaps not a major one anyway....
# Overhaul stellar generation rules (RM 26)
Surely right, but perhaps less important for gameplay. Only a minority would notice anyway
# How long do the effects of Trader skill apply (RM 54)
Until a roll on the acutal value table for this lot is made ?
# Simplify hasty tasks as half time, cautious tasks as double? (RM 14)
IMHO this would exclude skill level effect from the result.
Personally I use time critical tasks only in special situations, and here I get along well with the original rule
# Prospecting buggy design missing (carried by Seeker) (IE 81)
Aha..
# Should hull require control points in vehicle designs? (affects computer and crew) (RM 81)
Yes. It could be considered etc. as volume impact on wiring affords, or at higher TLs as the active character of hull/chassis components.
# High Velocity Guns need to expand to allow naval guns (RM 77)
No idea
# Fusion Rocket stats in COACC/Hard Times very wrong
Yep. Only thinkable as fusion powered turbine/ramjet (sing air as reaction mass), but not as rocket in its very meaning.
The use of that PAW as propulsion system might maybe maybe maybe ok as a lift off site is a wasteland, but not very useful as a highly mobile aircraft.
(Now, thats exactly my problem with this Heplar stuff...)
# Existing disintegrator errata makes weapon weaker
Problem ?
# Incorporate TAC missiles from MTJ #3?
Good idea.
# Incorporate Book 8 Robot Construction in MT?
Another one
# Incorporate point defense rules from Striker in MT?
Yet another one...
# Would vehicle damage points make more sense derived from weight rather than volume? (RM 84
Not sure.
Maybe weight could represent a greater "structural stability", but this is rule wise perhaps done with the armor concept.
It might be correct for low tech constructions but at higher TLs I see no proportional relation between weight and stability any more.
Guess the topics should be tagged with a kind of priority, which represents "importance for gameplay".
I would not try to strive for a rulesystem to fully describe a world...
Regards,
TE
# Merchant Free Trader characters cannot get Sensor Ops skill (PM 63)
Don, why does an (serves as skill not count and why should in be Nav-2 ?
Just as S4 noted, Nav-1 serves as SensorOps-0 and thats well enough to do a task without penalty ?
# Errata dropping the cost of radar exists; should there be a similar drop for radar jammers? (RM 68)
??
# Should aircraft damage points NOT be multiplied by 10 like other vehicles?
Well, if its about personal combat the damage points are multiplied by 10.
Why not ?
# Type X Particle Accelerator spinal mount weapon missing from tables (RM 71)
Following roughly the patterns this line could look like:
UCP TL Power Volume Weight MCr Hardpoints
X 17 300000 20000 4000 1000 15
But that issue is perhaps not a major one anyway....
# Overhaul stellar generation rules (RM 26)
Surely right, but perhaps less important for gameplay. Only a minority would notice anyway
# How long do the effects of Trader skill apply (RM 54)
Until a roll on the acutal value table for this lot is made ?
# Simplify hasty tasks as half time, cautious tasks as double? (RM 14)
IMHO this would exclude skill level effect from the result.
Personally I use time critical tasks only in special situations, and here I get along well with the original rule
# Prospecting buggy design missing (carried by Seeker) (IE 81)
Aha..
# Should hull require control points in vehicle designs? (affects computer and crew) (RM 81)
Yes. It could be considered etc. as volume impact on wiring affords, or at higher TLs as the active character of hull/chassis components.
# High Velocity Guns need to expand to allow naval guns (RM 77)
No idea
# Fusion Rocket stats in COACC/Hard Times very wrong
Yep. Only thinkable as fusion powered turbine/ramjet (sing air as reaction mass), but not as rocket in its very meaning.
The use of that PAW as propulsion system might maybe maybe maybe ok as a lift off site is a wasteland, but not very useful as a highly mobile aircraft.
(Now, thats exactly my problem with this Heplar stuff...)
# Existing disintegrator errata makes weapon weaker
Problem ?
# Incorporate TAC missiles from MTJ #3?
Good idea.
# Incorporate Book 8 Robot Construction in MT?
Another one
# Incorporate point defense rules from Striker in MT?
Yet another one...
# Would vehicle damage points make more sense derived from weight rather than volume? (RM 84
Not sure.
Maybe weight could represent a greater "structural stability", but this is rule wise perhaps done with the armor concept.
It might be correct for low tech constructions but at higher TLs I see no proportional relation between weight and stability any more.
Guess the topics should be tagged with a kind of priority, which represents "importance for gameplay".
I would not try to strive for a rulesystem to fully describe a world...
Regards,
TE
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
I treat those just like nuclear missiles, except tat they are immune against nuclear dampers. You would need a proton screen here.
Regards,
TE
I guess it is true what they say, you just can't get good help nowadays...
TE, thanks for your reply. Your solution for antimatter missiles is straightforward and has the virtue that it certainly won't unbalance game play. It seems to me that it really short-changes the potential of antimatter warheads however.
According to this site the yield for an antimatter warhead is vastly greater than that of a nuclear warhead of similar reaction mass:
If antimatter is so much more powerful than nuclear, I have a hard time imagining that the military would not want to take full advantage of it when the technology becomes available.
So how might this affect combat results? Since all missiles in MT have the same volume, I would argue that they have similar sized warheads. The transition from HE to Nuclear has an 8 order of magnitude increase in yield and a corresponding bonus of +6 on the Surface Explosions Table. If the increase in yield for an antimatter warhead is an additional 2+ orders of magnitude, would it be unreasonable to give it an additional +2 bonus on the Surface Explosions Table for a total effect of +8? That would give it some extra punch, but hopefully not enough to seriously unbalance the game.
Thoughts anyone?
Commander Drax
SOC-12
How about +6 roll to damage on surface damage table and radiation damage table, can only be stopped by a proton screen, combined with automatic critical hits, against any vessel less than 600 tons displacement,
e.g. 1 Warhead Vs 600 Ton Vessel = 1 Crit
Vs 500 Ton Vessel = 2 Crit
Vs 400 Ton Vessel = 3 Crit
Vs 300 Ton Vessel = 4 Crit
Vs 200 Ton Vessel = 5 Crit
Vs 100 Ton Vessel = 6 Crit
Minimum of 1 Crit per hit.
Thus a single antimatter missile could devastate small starships such as patrol cruisers and escorts, whilst multiple hits could cause considerable damage for larger ships, after all most military missile turrets contain 3 missile racks.
e.g. 1 Warhead Vs 600 Ton Vessel = 1 Crit
Vs 500 Ton Vessel = 2 Crit
Vs 400 Ton Vessel = 3 Crit
Vs 300 Ton Vessel = 4 Crit
Vs 200 Ton Vessel = 5 Crit
Vs 100 Ton Vessel = 6 Crit
Minimum of 1 Crit per hit.
Thus a single antimatter missile could devastate small starships such as patrol cruisers and escorts, whilst multiple hits could cause considerable damage for larger ships, after all most military missile turrets contain 3 missile racks.
TheEngineer
SOC-14 1K
Hi !
So the question for special rules for AM missiles could be combined with additional rules for missile at whole.
Well, my approach to the ships combat topic is to see it as pretty abstract.
IMHO thats one reason, why there are not dozens of different missile types, rockets, torpedos etc in MT, all with different properties and behaviour.
Guess thats just below MTs resolution limit
Now, the AM missile is indeed a variant, but apparantly also pressed in MTs "unit system". The only obvious property of them is to be immune against damper technology.
Anyway I fear other interpretations - even if they would make both technological and rule wise sense, like Commander Drax note - would represent a rule extension with house rule character.
But, just thoughts....
Regards,
TE
I'm pretty aware of the devasting AM potential, but even regular nuclear missiles theoretically could be much more devasting.
So the question for special rules for AM missiles could be combined with additional rules for missile at whole.
Well, my approach to the ships combat topic is to see it as pretty abstract.
IMHO thats one reason, why there are not dozens of different missile types, rockets, torpedos etc in MT, all with different properties and behaviour.
Guess thats just below MTs resolution limit
Now, the AM missile is indeed a variant, but apparantly also pressed in MTs "unit system". The only obvious property of them is to be immune against damper technology.
Anyway I fear other interpretations - even if they would make both technological and rule wise sense, like Commander Drax note - would represent a rule extension with house rule character.
But, just thoughts....
Regards,
TE
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
