E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
The energy sync timescale is per combat round, so it's not Mw Hours it is Mw 20 minutes.
Best regards,
Ewan
Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
The energy sync timescale is per combat round, so it's not Mw Hours it is Mw 20 minutes.
Best regards,
Ewan
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Actually, an explosion is instantaneous not, 20 minutes long. It would therefore be; Mw Seconds
I know the timescale of combat turn, and that an explosion is instantaneous (actually would be Mw millisecconds), but most MT uses SI units, so, when talking about Mw as energy units, I assumed Mw hour, that is the unit used (along with the Joule) in SI for energy.
Noneless it can be assumed that it's Mw 20 min, as if BG fully stops a spinal weapon, it absorbs to the energy sinks the power this weapon throws in 20 min, then reducing the capacity of the sinks and the potency of an explosion by a factor of 3 to get Mw hour.
If using Mw 20 min, the storage for Mw hour hsould be reduced on a factor of 3, so the standard nuke would be about 7 kton range (TL12-) or 14 kton range (TL 13+).
If using Mw seccond, we would talk about 0.005555... kton for TL 12- or kton 0.01111... at TL13+, too small for a nuke, IMO
Last edited:
Then it comes down to figuring out the MW equivalent for a small warhead. That would actually shed light on the matter.
1 w = 1 joule/second
So, 1 wat hour= 3600 joules
1 kton= 4.184 x 10^12 joules = 1.16222 x 10^9 wat hour=1162 Mw/hour
As a factor 1 nuke missile gives 25000 Mw (we agreed they are Mw 20 min), so 8333 Mw hour, this gives my 7 kton range.
Does it help?
Some months ago, in another thread, there was an argument about how damage is applied to vehicles in zero penetration case.
Today, reviewing Traveller Digest nº 20 Q&A (*), I saw in zero penetration situation damage is given as NE with a note that says vehicles and robots take 10% damage as superstructure hits. So, personnel takes no damage (al long as armor is fully closed) and vehicles/robots 10% damage as superstructure (regardles if its armor is complete or it's not) if their armor is higher than penetration.
This gives us a paradoxal situation:
In a planet with standard atmosphere, we have a zone about 200 m in diameter where there are 6 Trepida Tanks (armor 40) and 15 soldiers in vacc suits (armor 5). (Trepidas took most of the budget and there was not money for better personal armor...).
A starship acting as ortillery support fires a factor 7 PA against them, hitting the center of the zone (standard hit, rolling just what is needed, so no multipliers for damage, nor automatic hits). Danger space is (factor x 15), so 105 m radius, affecting all the troops.
As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.
Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.
So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...
As much as I try, I cannot see any logic in this outcome, and I feel it's against rules spirit to allow PAs to be used as ortillery in atmosphere in first place, and making tanks more vulnerable than lighty armored infantrymen in second place. So I think something is flawed on those rules.
I know it's an extreme situation, but I've always believed extremes are the best to show the flaws in most rules/laws.
(*) EDIT: I'm not sure to which point Q&A form TD is cannon
Today, reviewing Traveller Digest nº 20 Q&A (*), I saw in zero penetration situation damage is given as NE with a note that says vehicles and robots take 10% damage as superstructure hits. So, personnel takes no damage (al long as armor is fully closed) and vehicles/robots 10% damage as superstructure (regardles if its armor is complete or it's not) if their armor is higher than penetration.
This gives us a paradoxal situation:
In a planet with standard atmosphere, we have a zone about 200 m in diameter where there are 6 Trepida Tanks (armor 40) and 15 soldiers in vacc suits (armor 5). (Trepidas took most of the budget and there was not money for better personal armor...).
A starship acting as ortillery support fires a factor 7 PA against them, hitting the center of the zone (standard hit, rolling just what is needed, so no multipliers for damage, nor automatic hits). Danger space is (factor x 15), so 105 m radius, affecting all the troops.
As atmosphere is denser than trace, penetration for PAs is 0. Of course distance is irrelevant (as long as it is in range), as you can halve 0 as much as you want and it won't change anything. So both troops and tanks are in zero penetration situation.
Damage for PAs is 2000. Troops are fully enclosed by armor, so, as zero penetration rules say, they are unhurt. Tanks are likewise fully enclosed, in zero penetration situation, but, as they are vehicles, they recieve 10% damage (200 hits) each as superstructure hits.
So, after the hit, we have 6 smoking destroyed Trepidas and 15 unhurt infantrymen in vacc suit...
As much as I try, I cannot see any logic in this outcome, and I feel it's against rules spirit to allow PAs to be used as ortillery in atmosphere in first place, and making tanks more vulnerable than lighty armored infantrymen in second place. So I think something is flawed on those rules.
I know it's an extreme situation, but I've always believed extremes are the best to show the flaws in most rules/laws.
(*) EDIT: I'm not sure to which point Q&A form TD is cannon
Last edited:
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
Has Scott Kellogg's Rotory engine suggestion been put forward for COACC?
Rotary engine:
..1 tons, 1.5ton thrust, Fuel=22 liters per hour, Cost=5000 Cr
Agility=+1 when turning left, -1 when turning right. Twin engine
planes may avoid this difficulty by having contra-rotating props.
Best regards,
Ewan
Rotary engine:
..1 tons, 1.5ton thrust, Fuel=22 liters per hour, Cost=5000 Cr
Agility=+1 when turning left, -1 when turning right. Twin engine
planes may avoid this difficulty by having contra-rotating props.
Best regards,
Ewan
In World Builder's Handbook, page 61,tables 4b (asteroid/planetoid belt zones), in some of the entries the percentage given for N-zone, M-zone and C-zone gives a result over 100% (e.g. on the first table [N-zone predominate], a roll of 11 gives you n-60 m-50 c-10, for a total of 120%)
Last edited:
On the craft design, when computing the loaded weight for grav vehicles, crew and passengers are not computed as weight. Every seat weights 0.02 ton regardless if it is occupied ot not.
I used to compute 0.1 ton per passenger/crewman on the loaded weight.
This may seem irrelevant in most vehicles, but on unarmored or lightly armored personal transports (light APCs, Grav bus, Grav bike, etc...), this may be a large percentage of its loaded weight, and so affect significatively its performance .
The Trasea grav bike, as example (WBH page 44, also in 101 vehivles, IIRC, but I have not it handy now), is rated as two person, has 1.3 ton thrust, unloaded weight of 1 ton, and loaded weight of 1.1 ton (fuel and cargo). Poeple on it seem to be weightless. If there are two adult people riding it, that would add 0.15-0.2 tons of weight, so affecting its performance significatively (even making it unable to fly).
I used to compute 0.1 ton per passenger/crewman on the loaded weight.
This may seem irrelevant in most vehicles, but on unarmored or lightly armored personal transports (light APCs, Grav bus, Grav bike, etc...), this may be a large percentage of its loaded weight, and so affect significatively its performance .
The Trasea grav bike, as example (WBH page 44, also in 101 vehivles, IIRC, but I have not it handy now), is rated as two person, has 1.3 ton thrust, unloaded weight of 1 ton, and loaded weight of 1.1 ton (fuel and cargo). Poeple on it seem to be weightless. If there are two adult people riding it, that would add 0.15-0.2 tons of weight, so affecting its performance significatively (even making it unable to fly).
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
The sophant weight against loaded weight is an issue, especially in smaller lower powered craft. Rob Dean brought this up back in the 90's when he was designing.
What I do is see if there is a significant impact on the vehicle, and if there is work out the numbers and write this up in the fluff after the specs.
When you are into low tech human or animal powered craft this can be a significant impact. Having said that so can loading 1kl of cargo space with 1 ton of weight. Anyway I use 80kg as average human weight, against 0.745 Kw per hourse or 0.2 Kw per human for power.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Ewan
What I do is see if there is a significant impact on the vehicle, and if there is work out the numbers and write this up in the fluff after the specs.
When you are into low tech human or animal powered craft this can be a significant impact. Having said that so can loading 1kl of cargo space with 1 ton of weight. Anyway I use 80kg as average human weight, against 0.745 Kw per hourse or 0.2 Kw per human for power.
Hope this helps.
Best regards,
Ewan
80 kg is what IE says as average weight for a human, but humans usually go clothed (and sometimes quite heavily so), and you must assume they can even go in vacc suit, so (and also to ease numbers) I assumed about 100 kg (0.1 ton) per human.
I never designed vehicles for other sophonts, but I guess this should be even worse for Aslan or K'Kree, and not as important for Vargr, Droyne or Hivers.
I agree with both of you - about 80kg - 100kg for a typical human. Being of the rotund nature myself, I'm 100kg when I'm naked! At some point we have to stop re-doing the figures because otherwise we'll end up re-computing top and cruising speeds for different humans. For smaller robot vehicles that can carry a sophont, this becomes much more of an issue - I've even drawn the distinction between "burdened" and "loaded" - where burdened means loaded plus the full load of all of their appendages.
I kind of fudge the rules for APCs and the like and go with 200kg per human where infantry could include battle dress or combat armour. For lower tech level's allowing 100kg including equipment is plenty, I reason because it's only the human plus their uniform / cloth armour plus whatever they can carry.
I kind of fudge the rules for APCs and the like and go with 200kg per human where infantry could include battle dress or combat armour. For lower tech level's allowing 100kg including equipment is plenty, I reason because it's only the human plus their uniform / cloth armour plus whatever they can carry.
In this regard, a thing I forgot to say is that I've always applied that cramped seats may not be used by personnel in Vacc Suit (incluiding combat Armor/Battledress), needing at least adequate seats if you want them to be carried on your grav vehicle (I know this has few relation with weight, but I thought it should be pointed for completeness).
About the equipement you talk about, I see it more as cargo than as 'in person' weight. That may mean an APC has a minimum cargo space per trooper carried, but that's another discussion...
Last edited:
In the PM, pages 77 and 80, enenrgy weapons ammunition is set at 0 when they have inherent power (PGMP 13+, FGMP) or are feed by one (vehicle/starship weaponry).
Even while is clear that doesn't mean they have no ammo (and so cannot fire ever), IMO it would be better to set ammunition at indefinite or NA.
Even while is clear that doesn't mean they have no ammo (and so cannot fire ever), IMO it would be better to set ammunition at indefinite or NA.
Last edited:
E.D.Quibell
SOC-13
No.
The closest is here:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=19354
so you might want to ask Don to sticky it and go from there.
Best regards,
Ewan
I've got a start on a T4 draft for Marc, but I wrote this book for Mongoose and, well, then I started working on :devil: and...
And I'm behind on the MT errata discussion here as well...
After so many years since MT is out of print, it's incredible we still find erratas on it. I don't beilve some time more to correct them would mind, so don't worry.
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
