Errata - that difficult subject

[Swiftbrook]

I'll add this to the MT 'Additions from books 4-8' when it's started, but my thoughts are:

Unstreamlined - never enters a atmosphere or lands on a planet
Partial - can land on planet with atmosphere 0 or 1, can skim gas giants
Streamlined - can land on a planet and skim gas giants
Airframe - as streamlined but can land unpowered and perform combat maneuvers in an atmosphere

-Swiftbrook

 

[Swiftbrook]

Imperial Encyclopedia page 94 and following.

Data tables have UPP instead of UWP as described on page 16 of the Referee's Manual.

 

[aramis]

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.

And Marc also approved T20's 4 SL types: USL, PSL, SL, and AF...

 

[Major B]

And Marc also approved T20's 4 SL types: USL, PSL, SL, and AF...

Aramis, do you know the max atmos speeds allowed for each type in T20?

For MT it is:
USL: max 300 kph
SL: max 1000 kph
AF: unlimited

I'm curious to see where T20 drew the lines.

 

[Swiftbrook]

Aramis, do you know the max atmos speeds allowed for each type in T20?

For MT it is:
USL: max 300 kph
SL: max 1000 kph
AF: unlimited

I'm curious to see where T20 drew the lines.

I'm not claiming to be Aramis, but I can quote my copy of T20 Handbook:

Streamlined: The streamlined hull configuration allows a ship to function and maneuver in the atmosphere of any world, including take-off and landings. In an atmosphere, a streamlined ship's top speed is 2-G.
Partially Streamlined: These configurations allow a ship to function and maneuver in the upper atmosphere of worlds with an atmosphere of Very Thin (2) or heavier, but they may not land on such worlds. In an atmosphere a partially streamlined ship has a top speed of 1-G.
Unstreamlined: An unstreamlined ship may not enter any part of a Very Thin (2) or heavier atmosphere for any reason.
Airframes Airframe hulls are designed for maximum performance within an atmosphere. A ship with an airframe hull may use its full acceleration rating within an atmosphere (see .... ). An airfram must begin with a Fully Streamlined hull, add 10% to the cost of the hull, add +1 to the minimum Model Flight Avionics computer .....

-Swiftbrook

 

[Major B]

Thanks Swiftbrook, but it looks like T20 didn't have the same scope in mind as the MT authors...

See, in MT the design sequence is for vehciles and space/star vessels, so the data provided allows for vehicle designs. The example from T20 you provided seems to only concern vessels, neglecting vehicles.

But it does help some...

Streamlined: The streamlined hull configuration allows a ship to function and maneuver in the atmosphere of any world, including take-off and landings. In an atmosphere, a streamlined ship's top speed is 2-G.
Partially Streamlined: These configurations allow a ship to function and maneuver in the upper atmosphere of worlds with an atmosphere of Very Thin (2) or heavier, but they may not land on such worlds. In an atmosphere a partially streamlined ship has a top speed of 1-G.
Unstreamlined: An unstreamlined ship may not enter any part of a Very Thin (2) or heavier atmosphere for any reason.
Airframes Airframe hulls are designed for maximum performance within an atmosphere. A ship with an airframe hull may use its full acceleration rating within an atmosphere (see .... ). An airfram must begin with a Fully Streamlined hull, add 10% to the cost of the hull, add +1 to the minimum Model Flight Avionics computer .....

This means T20 puts the cutoffs at:
USL: 0
PSL: 1200 kph
SL: 2120 kph
AF: unlimited

The only problem I have are for vehicles that are unstreamlined, and I suppose I could port in the MT cutoff of 300 for that.

Thanks again for posting the pertinent section.

 

[Swiftbrook]

The only problem I have are for vehicles that are unstreamlined, and I suppose I could port in the MT cutoff of 300 for that.

If I get what your saying it's like this. An unstreamlined grav tanks would have a top speed of 300, but an unstreamlined Lab Ship still could not enter an atmosphere of 2 or greater.

I just don't think in terms of vehicles being streamlined, unstreamlined and partially streamlined. But I think that may be how the rules are written so it sould be addressed.

-Swiftbrook

 

[Major B]

If I get what your saying it's like this. An unstreamlined grav tanks would have a top speed of 300, but an unstreamlined Lab Ship still could not enter an atmosphere of 2 or greater.

I just don't think in terms of vehicles being streamlined, unstreamlined and partially streamlined. But I think that may be how the rules are written so it sould be addressed.

Exactly right. The MT design rules are intended to be universal for all craft and the definition of craft includes vehicles, spacecraft, and starships. This decision leads to some confusion in the tables (I think) but results in a more cohesive and smooth set of design rules than the combination of various CT rule sets (again my opinion).

I liked your idea when you first posted it and have been twiddling with a house rule for MTU hat fit. All that was missing was to set the upper limits. If you've checked your PM recently you should have received a hull mod table I built as a first draft.

All that said, I'm not entirely sure that 300 is the right answer - it seems like quite a jump from 300 to 1200, but thats something I'll work with.

Thanks again for the idea and for following up.

 

[aramis]

Thanks Swiftbrook, but it looks like T20 didn't have the same scope in mind as the MT authors...

No, it doesn't. T20 vehicle designs are a separate design sequence. T20 ship design is essentially HG++

 

[far-trader]

Aramis, do you know the max atmos speeds allowed for each type in T20?

Also not Aramis and as Swiftbrook noted T20 kind of confused acceleration with speed.

It does however have max speeds in atmo for Airframe ships, though again, it's tied to (confused with) acceleration:

1G = 3500kph max, 2625 cruise, 875 noe
2G = 4700kph max, 3525 cruise, 1175 noe
3G = 5300kph max, 3975 cruise, 1325 noe
4G = 5600kph max, 4200 cruise, 1400 noe
5G = 5800kph max, 4350 cruise, 1450 noe
6G = 5900kph max, 4425 cruise, 1475 noe

A nice bit is after this table there are modifiers for atmo density:

Vac, Trace, V Thin = speed times 2
Thin = speed times 1.5
Dense = speed times 0.75
V Dense = speed times 0.25

Not saying any of it is realistic. And I'm sure I asked about this, and the missing speeds for the other hull types way back in the early days of T20 but I don't recall an answer. Not an official one anyway.

The Standard Designs offer some hints, and if correct aren't tied to acceleration. All the "Streamlined" small craft, with accel from 1G to 6G have the same atmo speeds listed:

375kph max, 200 cruise, 275 noe

Which seemed a bit odd (noe higher than cruise? a typo? 75 maybe?). And why so much slower than ships? (see below) I don't recall if the errata changed that (and it's not handy for me to check at the moment)

The Standard Design ships are similar.

Streamlined, 1G and 2G have the same atmo speeds:

1100kph max, 825 cruise, 275 noe

Partially Streamlined, 1G, 3G, and 4G have the same atmo speeds:

300kph max, 200kph cruise, 75 noe

So it looks like T20 is to MT (sort of):

MT     T20

US     PS
SL     FS
AF     AF

 

[Major B]

Thanks Dan-not-Aramis. The additional information just confuses things more, but then again I confuse easily...

Even for an airframe, those speeds seem high to me (compared to MT and Striker). MT too confuses the distinction a little between acceleration and speed, but the listed speeds are slower and are capped for different configurations then modified for different atmosphere densities.

All that said, this line of discussion has veered off the subject of errata into house rules for MTU, so I think I'll post the modified hull table I'm thinking about in a new thread and see what the smart people out there think about what the caps should be.

 

[DonM]

Trying to catch back up on the next update of the MT errata, which seems to keep escaping me...

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.

Someone else found that, but it's a good catch...

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.

Not sure on this... any other comments?

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:

Sounds like a house rule, not errata. If enough folks climb on board the train, perhaps we'll get the bits to add in. A good topic to start another thread on.

 

[DonM]

Received an e-mail with some new errata bits, and I need assistance with a couple of them...


First, on page 75 of the Imperial Encyclopedia, Mesh has no volume listed. Anyone have a guess as to the volume of mesh?

Second, on pages 92/93 of the Imperial Encyclopedia, the "Travel Times To/From 10 Diameters" tables have some issues, like it takes more time at 5G to travel from a size 1 world than a size 2 world, or it takes more time at 3G from a size 0 world than it does at 2G or even 1G?

So, suggestions for fixing that table would be handy.

 

[far-trader]

Received an e-mail with some new errata bits, and I need assistance with a couple of them...


First, on page 75 of the Imperial Encyclopedia, Mesh has no volume listed. Anyone have a guess as to the volume of mesh?

2? No, 4! (a force propels FT off the bridge into the chasm "AAAaaa..." )

Sorry, silly mood In seriousness, best guess, volume 4, same as Jack. It is just high tech Jack with bonus high tech chain reinforcing. So the TL helps keep the volume manageable. imo.

I vaguely recall the travel time issues, but not the solution. I'm half way thinking they were corrected on the screens. I'll go have a look for mine and check that out. Otherwise it shouldn't be much to do the math, except I'm too tired at the moment There's a web site with a function somewhere to do it...

EDIT: ...no luck finding either (screen or website) on a quick look, sorry

 

[DonM]

2? No, 4! (a force propels FT off the bridge into the chasm "AAAaaa..." )

Sorry, silly mood In seriousness, best guess, volume 4, same as Jack. It is just high tech Jack with bonus high tech chain reinforcing. So the TL helps keep the volume manageable. imo.

I don't think it's 4. There's an errata item that has a TL 7 vacc suit which gives the same protection as mesh with a volume of 3.6, and I'd think that vacc suit would have more volume than mesh by itself. Split the difference at 3?

I vaguely recall the travel time issues, but not the solution. I'm half way thinking they were corrected on the screens. I'll go have a look for mine and check that out. Otherwise it shouldn't be much to do the math, except I'm too tired at the moment There's a web site with a function somewhere to do it...

EDIT: ...no luck finding either (screen or website) on a quick look, sorry

Annoyingly, TNE does fix the tables, but changes them into something different, so the fixes may not be applicable to MT. Arrgh. Looking at the screen... no, it's not there either.

 

[far-trader]

I don't think it's 4. There's an errata item that has a TL 7 vacc suit which gives the same protection as mesh with a volume of 3.6, and I'd think that vacc suit would have more volume than mesh by itself. Split the difference at 3?

But the vacc-suit volumes are specifically listed as kiloliters while the presumed/default units for equipment are liters. So that's 3600 liters for the TL7 vacc-suit (puffy padded insulation, thick metal joints and cuffs, etc). While a simple, foldable, light, jacket or body suit of leather and light chain should be much less. I don't think they can be compared. imo. Of course the whole thing could be a mess of units and figures. Maybe armor was supposed to be in kiloliters too. The extra decimals have always had me wondering.

But sure, 3 (whatevers) works for me (never really worried too much about clothing/armor volumes, generally it was worn, not packed, and I was anal about encumbrance, and volume for packed items... which reminds me of an issue with backpacks, in MT? or was it T4? supposed to allow more encumbrance but just added to it... )

Annoyingly, TNE does fix the tables, but changes them into something different, so the fixes may not be applicable to MT. Arrgh. Looking at the screen... no, it's not there either.

Yeah, and SOM doesn't have tables, just more detailed/complicated calculations. I might have a go at the math tonight if I'm in the mood. No promises though I have a feeling it'll just lead to more questions than answers...

I'm now thinking all I did for a fix way back was a quick interpolation where things looked wrong, but I don't recall it actually coming up. Of course by the time I'd managed to collect and work out the errata to a point where I felt I could run a game with MT so much time had passed our group had pretty much lost interest in playing

 

[E.D.Quibell]

I don't think it's 4. There's an errata item that has a TL 7 vacc suit which gives the same protection as mesh with a volume of 3.6, and I'd think that vacc suit would have more volume than mesh by itself. Split the difference at 3?

CT Starter Eddition lists it as the same weight as cloth (Charts and Tables page 4). So I would suggest that in MT it's the same weight as Cloth?

Regards,

Ewan

 

[E.D.Quibell]

Hi Don,

In the REBELLION SOURCEBOOK (and in the CONSOLIDATED MEGATRAVELLER ERRATA, v2.16) the Page 78, Vargr Aek Naz-class Battle Cruiser, can't be Junp-4 at TL11. It's got to be Jump-2.

Regards,

Ewan

 

[E.D.Quibell]

There are no Radio Direction Finders in the Design Sequenses on Page 68 of the REFEREE'S MANUAL, although they are mentioned on page 70 in the Passive EMS, and they presented on page 42 of Striker.

An easy suggestion would be for them to be the same cost/weight/volume/power as Radios.

Regards

Ewan

 

[aramis]

Based upon real world examples, I'd put them about half mass/vol/power; far smaller interface, passive only, far simpler decoding circuitry.

Heck, I'd put RX-only radios at half, as well.