Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
Thank you for your answer.
What about my other question (the use of gunnery skill, entry 526, march 14th, page 53 this thread)?
Last edited:
Then this will be my last entry on this subject till open again.
Forgive my daring for making the proposal.
Time ago, with some friends, we talked about the theme and proposed to have a new table that pitched the disintegrator against the armor class. If disintegrators penetrated this table, the ship was simply destroyed (lethal enough?).
HTML:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 a b c d e
a 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8
b 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8
c 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7
d 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7
e 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6
f -1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6
g -1 -1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5
h -2 -1 -1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5Of course, numbers may be modified as you feel free, if you find the idea is worth it.
Sadly, we didn’t talk so much about antimatter missiles…
PS: sorry for that mess. I don't know how to insert the table on the post. I hope you'll understand it anyway. If anyone can fix it, I would be grateful.
Last edited:
Psionics: 4 places - 1st on pg 17 - -
Retirement: A character may served any number of terms volunarily and my leave after any term (provided a mandatory reenlistment throw of 12 does not occur). If a character chooses to seek Psionics training, they automatically muster out to the game (regardless of the mandatory reenlistment throw).
2nd place - pg 46 under
Reenlistment and Mustering Out: After completing a total of four assignments, a character has finished one ter, and he or she may attempt to reenlist. If a character chooses to seek Psionics training, they automatically muster out to the game (regardless of the mandatory reenlistment throw). At the conclusion of a character's last term, mustering out benefits are received in a manner similar to that described in Initial Character Generation (pg 17).
3rd place - Each Advanced Character Generation chapter has a chapter on reenlistment and mustering out. Add the following sentence to the 1st paragraph under Reenlistment and Mustering Out:
If a character chooses to seek Psionics training, they automatically muster out to the game (regardless of the mandatory reenlistment throw).
4th place - Advanced Checklists (Mercenary, Navy, Scouts, Merchants):
7B - Add: Desire Psionic Training - Muster out immediately.
Rank & Service Skills pg 23. (The copy I am working off of is the 1st edition from Drivethru.rpg.)
Under Default skills table (upper right hand corner, 1st table, after the homeworld tech default skills, I have Navy, Marine, Flyers, & Scouts - Should have whatever default skills (not rank & service skills) for Law Enf, Doctor, Diplomat, Bureaucrat, Scientist & Noble - if they have any.
Last edited:
Other new posts....
Post 543 - Robots - Lets ask Ojno the Red aka Bob Prior - he is working the MT Robots Supplement & probably has some good insight on this.
Post 544 Movement Rates – 2 places
1. Pg 74 is crowded already, but if this were put there, the best place would be as a note under the Movement Points Table.
2. Large Scale Combat Chapter in the Referee's Companion - I would recommend making it the last sentence in the Distance scale paragraph on pg 6.
Post 545 - Separate post.
Post 548 - Fire Control - I think breaking out direct & indirect is guilding the lily.
I'd recommend merging Direct & Indirect Fire Control Modules.
Post 549 - I agree with Maj B. - The craft design sequence is derived from Striker, therefore go with the Striker Data.
Post 550 - Obscuration & Protective Devices - Adding Decoy - good add.
Post 551 - Much better fit for IE.
Post 553 & 554 - Definitely need a separate thread on this.
Post 563 - Disintegrators - Penetration = ship destruction may be a little too much. The Imperium is starting to reach TL 16 (avg. 1 TL G world per sector). On the other hand, each penetration giving an automatic hit on the critical damage table as opposed to the Interior Damage Table may do the trick.
Post 543 - Robots - Lets ask Ojno the Red aka Bob Prior - he is working the MT Robots Supplement & probably has some good insight on this.
Post 544 Movement Rates – 2 places
1. Pg 74 is crowded already, but if this were put there, the best place would be as a note under the Movement Points Table.
2. Large Scale Combat Chapter in the Referee's Companion - I would recommend making it the last sentence in the Distance scale paragraph on pg 6.
Post 545 - Separate post.
Post 548 - Fire Control - I think breaking out direct & indirect is guilding the lily.
I'd recommend merging Direct & Indirect Fire Control Modules.
Post 549 - I agree with Maj B. - The craft design sequence is derived from Striker, therefore go with the Striker Data.
Post 550 - Obscuration & Protective Devices - Adding Decoy - good add.
Post 551 - Much better fit for IE.
Post 553 & 554 - Definitely need a separate thread on this.
Post 563 - Disintegrators - Penetration = ship destruction may be a little too much. The Imperium is starting to reach TL 16 (avg. 1 TL G world per sector). On the other hand, each penetration giving an automatic hit on the critical damage table as opposed to the Interior Damage Table may do the trick.
Much enough to send a hand picked team and a valuable J6 transport/courrier across several war infested for some parts that may well not be there?
Yes, quite much, but we must accept that we're talking about desintegrators...
The premise on this use is that harder materials (better armor type) should be more resistent to them. Superdense materials, and bonded superdense must be more resistent to any force that tries to separate the atoms that just wood or stainless steel
Of course, this is only a begining. Modifiers may be used for size too, if you think it's better.
And don't forget you must first penetrate the nuclear dampers, that are quite good at stopping them.
The world 'penetrate' is used in this table as standarization talking, in truth it should be more seen as a saving throw for the ship.
The idea was that if this table was 'penetrated', ship has lost a part large enough (disintegrated) that is was crippled/virutally destroyed, not fully vaporized (at least on large ships, that's why using a size-based modifier was also discused). If this 'penetration' was failed then standard damage applied, either as standard rules (surface explosion + internal explosion) or as in the errata (surface explosion, +9 modifier, damage to armor)
That said and clarified, we'd better wait for a thread about that subject to be started and not overload this one, if you agree.
Last edited:
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Juist had an economic discussion about Low Berths here:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=373850&posted=1#post373850
Where MT low berts are not economical vs CT low berths that are.
Suggest changing the volume of low berths back to the CT volume to make them economical again.
Consolidated Errata has:
"The volume of all accommodations was doubled from the original volumes given in High Guard to allow for access—what good does it do to put in a bunk if you can’t get to it?"
Best regards,
Ewan
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?p=373850&posted=1#post373850
Where MT low berts are not economical vs CT low berths that are.
Suggest changing the volume of low berths back to the CT volume to make them economical again.
Consolidated Errata has:
"The volume of all accommodations was doubled from the original volumes given in High Guard to allow for access—what good does it do to put in a bunk if you can’t get to it?"
Best regards,
Ewan
Not sure this should go to this thread, as is more a question than pointing an errata, but in MT a dton is 13.5 kl, while in all other traveller versions I've readed so far, one dton is 14 kl. Why this difference?
PS: I don't intend that changed, as it will affect too much the system, just wondered if there is a true rationale under that discrepancy
PS: I don't intend that changed, as it will affect too much the system, just wondered if there is a true rationale under that discrepancy
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
If I recall the reasoning is 14m3 (or kl) is the actual displacement of 1ton of liquid hydrogen. This was actually the measure given in CT/HG originally also. It was soon changed to a "soft" conversion of 13.5m3 because that worked better with the scale of 1.5m squares (two of which is 13.5m3 and close enough to 14m3 to be called "1 ton").
TNE went back to 14m3 because (or to "fix") the scale changed to 2m squares (the new adopted house combat system of the time) and made 1 square (2m x 2m x3.5m) the new deckplan standard.
Thank you
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
It's the low berth being 0.5 dton that I think should be changed. i.e. a low berth should be 6.75 kl.
Appologies for not pointing that out.
Best regards,
Ewan
It's because of that I said I don't intend it to be changes, because that would need to change all volumes to adapt. Just I had the curiosity about this incongruence with other versions, and Far-Trader has answeed succesfully
Last edited:
Mathematically I may agree with you. However, the impact on the game, while not deep, would be wide spread. Many, many ships have 1t low berths. How do you change all those plans? Add 1/2 the low berth tonnage as cargo? Redraw deckplans? Double the number of low berths? This last idea has a huge ripple effect -- increases cost, increases power, increased cost increases control panel needs, and so on ....
Unless a simple solution can be found to all the problems this change would cause, I'm not in favor of implementing it.
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Spotted by Rob Dean:
DGP, Travellers Digest 20, page 43: Spectre Budget Space Vehicle
Endurance should be 1.45/4.34 Days because they forgot about the oxyagen requirement in vacume.
Best regards,
Ewan
DGP, Travellers Digest 20, page 43: Spectre Budget Space Vehicle
Endurance should be 1.45/4.34 Days because they forgot about the oxyagen requirement in vacume.
Best regards,
Ewan
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Don,
Where did you get the fuel usage stats for the new One Small Step review in errata 2.19?
I ask because they are just horendus. I mean order of magnitude jumps across the board. It pretty much invalidates every single low tech published design, and makes it imposible to design craft that will work from planetary surfaces.
I couldn't design a armour 4C TL7 20 ton craft that could reach earth orbit with it's own power.
You literally have to wait for grav technology at TL9 before you can get into space.
Suggest raining them back massivly. Order of magnitude back. i.e. change TL7 Liquid rocket fuel from 570 kl/hour to 57 kl/hour.
Best regards,
Ewan
In fact with the fuel weights they can't even lift themselves!
Where did you get the fuel usage stats for the new One Small Step review in errata 2.19?
I ask because they are just horendus. I mean order of magnitude jumps across the board. It pretty much invalidates every single low tech published design, and makes it imposible to design craft that will work from planetary surfaces.
I couldn't design a armour 4C TL7 20 ton craft that could reach earth orbit with it's own power.
You literally have to wait for grav technology at TL9 before you can get into space.
Suggest raining them back massivly. Order of magnitude back. i.e. change TL7 Liquid rocket fuel from 570 kl/hour to 57 kl/hour.
Best regards,
Ewan
In fact with the fuel weights they can't even lift themselves!
Last edited:
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
In fact they can't lift themselves.
45 tons of thrust at 570 kl/hour
is 12.666r kl/h per ton of thrust.
Each kl of fuel weighs 0.95 tons.
So to reach earth orbit (2G for 6 minutes) you need 2.533r kl of fuel and this weighs 2.406r tons.
So it doesn't even lift off the ground! it's heavyer by 0.4 tons!
Best regards,
Ewan
45 tons of thrust at 570 kl/hour
is 12.666r kl/h per ton of thrust.
Each kl of fuel weighs 0.95 tons.
So to reach earth orbit (2G for 6 minutes) you need 2.533r kl of fuel and this weighs 2.406r tons.
So it doesn't even lift off the ground! it's heavyer by 0.4 tons!
Best regards,
Ewan
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
I would advise not changing the "One Small Step" numbers. At least not without doing due diligence and research. If I recall they are aimed at realism. I think it is your build habits that need to change Ewan 
Think "age of rocketry" not "sci-fi"
For one thing your idea of a 20ton orbital space craft is far too small.
And you fuel endurance is also probably too large judging from your use of kl/hr burns.
And you don't need 2G to get to orbit from a 1G world, anything over 1G will start you on your way.
Think multiple stages and recalculate your new burn/thrust for each stage, or even at discrete intervals. As you burn fuel (and you will burn it very very fast) your rocket gets lighter and higher in the gravity well (less gravity).
The Saturn V for example gulped TL7 Liquid Rocket fuel at something like 1700kl PER SECOND! Granted that was to lift some 2.7 million kg (the rocket is about 250dtons in Traveller terms) total (mostly the aforementioned fuel). The payload limit for leo was only some 100 thousand kg though (about 10dtons in Traveller).
All presuming I did the math more or less right, I was sloppy in rounding and rushed so it may be off. I leave it to you to work out how close it is to the "One Small Step" numbers
Think "age of rocketry" not "sci-fi"
For one thing your idea of a 20ton orbital space craft is far too small.
And you fuel endurance is also probably too large judging from your use of kl/hr burns.
And you don't need 2G to get to orbit from a 1G world, anything over 1G will start you on your way.
Think multiple stages and recalculate your new burn/thrust for each stage, or even at discrete intervals. As you burn fuel (and you will burn it very very fast) your rocket gets lighter and higher in the gravity well (less gravity).
The Saturn V for example gulped TL7 Liquid Rocket fuel at something like 1700kl PER SECOND! Granted that was to lift some 2.7 million kg (the rocket is about 250dtons in Traveller terms) total (mostly the aforementioned fuel). The payload limit for leo was only some 100 thousand kg though (about 10dtons in Traveller).
All presuming I did the math more or less right, I was sloppy in rounding and rushed so it may be off. I leave it to you to work out how close it is to the "One Small Step" numbers
Don't change the One Small Step numbers just to improve performance.
One thing to remember with a ship that is mostly fuel is that it gets lighter as it burns fuel, so a ship that weighs 1000 tonnes on the launch pad and 100 tonnes in orbit will have its total performance for the launch calculated at 550 tonnes average weight [(1000+100)/2]. Another critical issue is going to be maximum G. The engine that starts out lifting the 1000 tonne rocket at 1.5 G will end up at 15 G as it reaches orbit with the crew unconcious or dead. Droping a stage every time you reach 4G to downsize your engines will greatly reduce the total mass needed to reach orbit.
Overall, YES ... realistic reaction drives suck compared to magic Grav Drives.
PS. Real rocket scientists aim for 1.2 G (or higher) at liftoff and 4G max for people.
One thing to remember with a ship that is mostly fuel is that it gets lighter as it burns fuel, so a ship that weighs 1000 tonnes on the launch pad and 100 tonnes in orbit will have its total performance for the launch calculated at 550 tonnes average weight [(1000+100)/2]. Another critical issue is going to be maximum G. The engine that starts out lifting the 1000 tonne rocket at 1.5 G will end up at 15 G as it reaches orbit with the crew unconcious or dead. Droping a stage every time you reach 4G to downsize your engines will greatly reduce the total mass needed to reach orbit.
Overall, YES ... realistic reaction drives suck compared to magic Grav Drives.
PS. Real rocket scientists aim for 1.2 G (or higher) at liftoff and 4G max for people.
Last edited:
The revised numbers are from an e-mail exchange between Charles Gannon and George W. Herbert in 1992, which George Herbert then posted to the TML. George was a real world rocket designer (as demonstrated in the "reviser's notes", which I've quoted below). I tracked him down in 2010 by finding his comments on some aerospace forums. Your mention though reminded me I was supposed to get back to him to see if he had more material, so I've just dropped an e-mail out.
I've broken liquid fuel engines into three categories: "normal" liquid fuel engines, running on some hydrocarbon (usually kerosene or a rough equivalent) and Liquid Oxygen (LOX), "hypergolic" liquid fuel engines, running on something like Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrazine, and "Liquid Hydrogen" rockets, running on LOX and Liquid Hydrogen.
Each has its own advantages and disadvantages. Normal liquids are reliable and cheap and low-tech. Liquid Hydrogen improves performance at the cost of reliability, something which I'm striving to write some rules for. Hypergolics are the most reliable (and cheapest, engine wise), but the fuels are excessively toxic and hard to handle (remember that Titan silo that blew up around 1985?).
I've added Hybrids, where a liquid oxidizer and a solid fuel are burned in a thrust chamber sort of like a solid rocket engine. These need more work, and I'm doing it, but right now a real-world hybrid engine rocket design of mine is eating my time and such
All of the listed values correspond with known specific impulse, barring mathematical error while I was calculating them (I spot checked a few and they're right, so they in general are pretty close).
Perhaps some older COTI members might remember George W. Herbert from the TML? He apparently didn't stick around for TNE...
Last edited:
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
