Errata - that difficult subject

[atpollard]

Shouldn't the percentage be 8% { (3x3G)-1 }?

Yes.
Or 4G = 11%

 

[DonM]

In the 2.17 draft, I've changed it to 4G = 11%.

I'm holding 2.17 for some more COACC details... :devil:

 

[christopher.boote]

Errata Errata

Pirate characters receiving a “letter of marquee” in mustering out are supposed to receive a positive DM for receiving a corsair? (PM 19)

Should say Letter of Marque
Unless you want your pirates to own really big tents...

 

[christopher.boote]

Errata Omission?

There is no attenuation given for HiVel guns in MT Ref's Manual
Is this intended?
Thanx
Chris

 

[christopher.boote]

Errata ... rewrites?

The power/volume figures for Internal Combustion, Improved Internal Combustion, and Gas turbines are way out

By putting in actual WWI, WWII and 1960s-1980s engines, I get figures that give efficiencies in the order of 10-50% of that you get from MT Ref's Manual

Is this something to add to the list of 'to address in the future'?

(BTW, it's a really simple fix. At the Tech Level that they come in, so TL5 for IC, TL6 for IIC etc. they suffer an 80% efficiency hit or need to be x5 volume for the same power, at the next TL they suffer a 50% hit, or need to be x2 volume)

 

[christopher.boote]

Errata - my error probably

I'm having trouble with PP damage 8-(

Take a TL15 100ton Type S scout

Hull vol= 1350
Hull inoperative DP = 90

To get 864MW, divide by 3 for efficiency and by 6 for PP (TL15 Fusion) = 48kl

To get DP, divide 48/1350*90 = 3.2 = 4

Compute power plant damage points as follows. (Round fractions up: a result can never be less than 1.)
Inoperative: (Volume of power plant / hull volume) x hull inoperative damage points.

So shouldn't the Power DP be 4/8?
Imperial Encyclopaedia lists it as 3/6

So should fractions be rounded down?
Should only fractions between 0 and 1 be rounded up?
Is the IE wrong?
Have I made an egregious arithmetical error?

 

[christopher.boote]

Errata - Imperial Encyclopaedia

The Type S Scout lists its controls as
Holo linked x 181, HeadsUp x1, Computer 1/bis
This gives (271.5 + 50) x 15 CPs = 4,822.5

All well and good BUT the Weapons section has been calculated at zero, as it has no weapons fitted
So once the weapons ARE fitted (say 1 Beam Laser, 1 Missile Rack, 1 Sandcaster) their cost is MCr2, which requires another

2,000,000 / 100,000 x 15 = 300 more CPs

Currently, a Scout can't have any weapons fitted if it actually wants the controls to be able to fire them

This can be easily fixed by assuming that the new turret comes with another HeadsUp display, for another 750 CPs, but it's (yet) another omission

 

[Jason]

This can be easily fixed by assuming that the new turret comes with another HeadsUp display, for another 750 CPs, but it's (yet) another omission

Probably an on-purpose ommission.

 

[aramis]

All ship listings in the MT rules are off by a factor of 10 anyway... the Ref's screen lists the eratta to multiply them all by 10... so it should be 32/64

 

[DonM]

There is no attenuation given for HiVel guns in MT Ref's Manual... Is this intended?

Unsure... do you have a suggested errata to propose?

The power/volume figures for Internal Combustion, Improved Internal Combustion, and Gas turbines are way out

By putting in actual WWI, WWII and 1960s-1980s engines, I get figures that give efficiencies in the order of 10-50% of that you get from MT Ref's Manual

Is this something to add to the list of 'to address in the future'?

(BTW, it's a really simple fix. At the Tech Level that they come in, so TL5 for IC, TL6 for IIC etc. they suffer an 80% efficiency hit or need to be x5 volume for the same power, at the next TL they suffer a 50% hit, or need to be x2 volume)

If you could make a suggestion as to how you would apply your change, and I'll see about squeezeing it in...

 

[DonM]

Probably an on-purpose ommission.

And I'm not sure how we would address this as errata... "if you add weapons, you need to add additional control interfaces".

Actually, there are no refit rules at all in MT, they are completely missing...

 

[sfchbryan]

Nor are there any rules in MT on how long it takes to build a ship.

Lets face it, the DGP were not gearheads. There are rules in CT that easily retrofit into MT however. For refitting ships, just lift the "Building Ships" section out of TCS on pg 33. For refitting, just go to the next page & there are very simple rules that will allow you to refit the Voroshilef with a Type A Disintegrator.

Don, didn't I send you a write up on this?

 

[DonM]

You might have. To be honest, before I started on the "what's missing in MT from CT" list, I was wanting to finish the CT errata, so that way I could start from a clean base.

But if you have a writeup on that, send it on. If you did send it, assume I dropped it and can't find it.

 

[sfchbryan]

I have resent you the info from TCS.

I have some more stuff somewhere (It is amazing how easy it is to fill up a 2TB raid.) I have corrections to the Referee's Companion & some corrections to World Builder's Handbook.

I'll start flipping through my files & find them.

 

[Swiftbrook]

Correction: On page 72 of the Referee's Manual (page 26 of the errata) you show the corrected table for a 100-ton missle bay. Unfortunetly, you miss-labeled the beginning TL as 8 instead of 7.

Thoughts/variations: On the Power Supply table (Ref p. 64) if you extrapolate the KL/Hr consumption at TL 13-14 the rate would be 0.0045 instead of the listed 0.005. Every little bit counts.

Thoughts/variation: Adding partial streamlining. MT did away with it but I prefer to have it. I'd make the following changes to table 5 on page 63:

Type 1 Needle/Wedge Partial Streamlining Price Mod 0.8
Type 2 Cone Partial Stremlining Price Mod 0.8
Type 3 CylinderPartial Stremlining Price Mod 1.1
Type 4 Box Partial Stremlining Price Mod 1.2
Type 5 Sphere Partial Stremlining Price Mod 0.8

-Swiftbrook

 

[Major B]

Thoughts/variation: Adding partial streamlining. MT did away with it but I prefer to have it. I'd make the following changes to table 5 on page 63:

Swiftbrook, (hope I recall this bit correctly) I don't think MT omitted partial streamlining, rather changed to naming convention. HG's partial streamlining is referred to as streamlined in MT. Also, HG's streamlined is renamed Airfoil in MT.

If you already knew that and are considering adding a new category of streamlining, I'd like to hear more.

 

[Swiftbrook]

Streamlining: Any ship of configuration one to six, regardless of streamlining, can land on a world with an atmosphere zero or one; for all other worlds, streamlining is required. Irregular structures and planetoids cannot land of any worlds.

Streamlining refers to the ability of the ship to enter atmosphere (partial streamlining allows fuel skimming but prohibits entry into world atmospheres for the purpose of landing).

I believe it's like this: An F-15 has an airframe, it's designed to fly in combat in an atmosphere and provide lift. The space shuttle is streamline, it's big and heavy but it can maneuver and land.

MT removed partial streamlining. The CE in CT had a partial streamline hull with its drop tanks but streamline without. Azanti High Lightning had a partial streamline hull, it could scoop fuel in an emergency. In MT, with no partial streamlining, the rules as writen allow the Azanti to land on a planet. That's a big stretch for me. I like the MT rules and miss a partial streamlining option.

-Swiftbrook

 

[Major B]

I believe it's like this: An F-15 has an airframe, it's designed to fly in combat in an atmosphere and provide lift. The space shuttle is streamline, it's big and heavy but it can maneuver and land.

MT removed partial streamlining. The CE in CT had a partial streamline hull with its drop tanks but streamline without. Azanti High Lightning had a partial streamline hull, it could scoop fuel in an emergency. In MT, with no partial streamlining, the rules as writen allow the Azanti to land on a planet. That's a big stretch for me. I like the MT rules and miss a partial streamlining option.

So, check me to see if I understand:

What you're recommending is three catogories of streamlining -

Airfoil (capable of high-performance atmospheric maneuver with a hull structure designed to provide lift)

Streamlined (capable of atmospheric flight but at reduced performance - the hull design does not provide lift but the maneuver drives compensate and maintain flight while the streamlined hull reduces friction)

Partially Streamlined (the hull design either produces too much friction or is structurally unable to survive atmospheric flight but the craft/vessel can skim fuel from a gas giant)

Interesting. Hope I'm understanding the distinctions correctly. If so, the idea brings a couple of questions to my mind:

One - would my description of partial streamlining above apply to what you have in mind or would the hull be capable of atmospheric operations at extremely degraded performance (i.e. very low speeds)?

Two - what would be the effect for vessels/craft in number one and for vehicles (streamlined hull in standard atmosphere = max 1000 kph - what about partial streamlined?), since MT design sequences apply to both?

 

[Swiftbrook]

So, check me to see if I understand:

You're spot on.

Since I quoted from HG, I started to look at it again. In HG, when you chose a configuration, the choice of streamlined, partial or no streamlining was made for you.

As for the effect on MT ships, I'm not sure. A quick look through Imperial Encyclopedia would really have minor effect. Just say that the Close Escort, with drop tanks, has it's streamlining degraded and is only partially streamline.

As for the larger naval ships, do they land on planets in your universe? I guess that's the key question. I personally look to Star Wars, B5, and Star Trek. Those large ships don't generally land on planets. It also creates a need for shuttles and space support facilities. But I also think that naval vessels need to be able to cunduct frontier refueling, either by support craft or by skimming. Azahanti is designed with the four fuel shuttles. But by the stats in Arrival Vengence, she can land on a planet. Just doesn't seem right.

I know this is more of a "feels right" argument than a stats one, but partial streamlining just fits well in Traveller and there is a lot of history of it in CT.

-Swiftbrook

 

[DonM]

I know this is more of a "feels right" argument than a stats one, but partial streamlining just fits well in Traveller and there is a lot of history of it in CT.

-Swiftbrook

The 10/1/88 errata tells us the Great Old Ones made the name changes on purpose. MT's streamlined IS HG's partially streamlined. And that explanation is in the current MT errata.