Errata - that difficult subject
- Thread starter vraymond
- Start date
Just one question here. Your calculations are to arrive there in full thrust or with a 0 relative speed?
I didn't calculate. They are typos.
World Size 0
1G = 14 minutes
2G = 10 minutes
3G = 18 minutes = Typo
4G = 07 minutes
5G = 06 minutes
6G = 05 minutes
World Size 1
1G = 40 minutes
2G = 28 minutes
3G = 23 minutes
4G = 20 minutes
5G = 28 minutes = same as 2G, typo
6G = 16 minutes
These errors also apply to Chart 11 - TRAVEL TIME FROM TEN DIAMETERS - since it is the same chart.
forthekill
SOC-11
Starports and TL level
In the errata for the Referee's Manual there is this entry:
Page 24, Technology Level, Technology Die Modifiers (omission): The modifier for Governments E and F should be –1. The modifier for Starport F should be +1. The modifier for Atmosphere F should be +1.
There is no mention of a possible Starport F type in the mapping instructions on page 20, or in the tables on pages 23 and 24.
Is it a mistake in the errata?
In the errata for the Referee's Manual there is this entry:
Page 24, Technology Level, Technology Die Modifiers (omission): The modifier for Governments E and F should be –1. The modifier for Starport F should be +1. The modifier for Atmosphere F should be +1.
There is no mention of a possible Starport F type in the mapping instructions on page 20, or in the tables on pages 23 and 24.
Is it a mistake in the errata?
What is the situation on the stars assigned to the Spinward Marches worlds in MT Imperial Encyclopedia? Quite a few of the worlds are circling stars with no habitable zones.
I have Consolidated MegaTraveller Errata 2.2, 9/1/11. If I apply that errata to the data in the MT Imperial Encyclopedia on the Spinward Marches, something like a quarter of the worlds have star types that are either errata (Class-VI subdwarfs, etc.) or just plain can't host a habitable planet (M5-9 main sequence). Is there an errata update which addresses this, are there plans for an errata update to address this, or are we just supposed to work it through on our own? There are 102 worlds involved, including such notables as Gram and Mora.
I have Consolidated MegaTraveller Errata 2.2, 9/1/11. If I apply that errata to the data in the MT Imperial Encyclopedia on the Spinward Marches, something like a quarter of the worlds have star types that are either errata (Class-VI subdwarfs, etc.) or just plain can't host a habitable planet (M5-9 main sequence). Is there an errata update which addresses this, are there plans for an errata update to address this, or are we just supposed to work it through on our own? There are 102 worlds involved, including such notables as Gram and Mora.
Yeah, I have issue with that as well. Have a look at the Rech System in my signature block - this analogous what you're talking about: an Ag world, TL6. But then an M0V star which has an HZ at orbit 1 - which turns out to be too cold for the profile of this world, and at orbit 0 is too hot.
I fudged it. Created a captured orbit, moving the world until it was in the goldilocks zone. Created some calculations (not really shareable) along the way to reverse-engineer the desired average surface temperature.
Note that the mainworlds were generated first in line with Classic Traveller rules. Then the stellar details were produced, which do balance the number of red stars to the rest based on real astronomy. But there wasn't an alignment of our standard atmosphere planets orbiting very cold stars. I would suggest the way around this would be to provide some form of modifier on the primary star table when generating a star after generating a mainworld.
Because of this effect, if you roll for system presence first, then primary / companion star types and the rest of the system before rolling for a mainworld, you get a very different feel in YTU.
At the end of the day, the needs of the story over-ride everything else. For the most part, I'd hand-wave a lot of the detail, or just assume that you can nudge the actual orbiting distance a bit. The last remaining issue, then, is that if so many habitable planets orbit DMs or M5V's - M9V's, they would have to be tidally locked to be in the goldilocks zone. This might make 'normal' in the Spinward Marches very different to the Earth that we know.
I fudged it. Created a captured orbit, moving the world until it was in the goldilocks zone. Created some calculations (not really shareable) along the way to reverse-engineer the desired average surface temperature.
Note that the mainworlds were generated first in line with Classic Traveller rules. Then the stellar details were produced, which do balance the number of red stars to the rest based on real astronomy. But there wasn't an alignment of our standard atmosphere planets orbiting very cold stars. I would suggest the way around this would be to provide some form of modifier on the primary star table when generating a star after generating a mainworld.
Because of this effect, if you roll for system presence first, then primary / companion star types and the rest of the system before rolling for a mainworld, you get a very different feel in YTU.
At the end of the day, the needs of the story over-ride everything else. For the most part, I'd hand-wave a lot of the detail, or just assume that you can nudge the actual orbiting distance a bit. The last remaining issue, then, is that if so many habitable planets orbit DMs or M5V's - M9V's, they would have to be tidally locked to be in the goldilocks zone. This might make 'normal' in the Spinward Marches very different to the Earth that we know.
The T5 Spinward Marches Update does exactly this. We're (Marc, et al) still discussing how to release that data through the errata process. The MT Imperial Encyclopedia also needs names, and I'm sure there are other issues.
F is a spaceport, as opposed to a starport.
Don,
Any chance of an update? We've discussed many ideas but haven't punched out a new version is seven months.
Any chance of an update? We've discussed many ideas but haven't punched out a new version is seven months.
MT Referee's Manual, P88, Passive Energy Scan:
Mentions Passive EMS, laser sensors, radar direction finders, radio direction finders, and neutrino sensors. Then there's a nice table that assigns a score based on range band. However, nowhere can I find a range band equivalent for laser sensors, radar direction finders, or radio direction finders.
Is there any guidance on a range band equivalent for a system that detects someone else's emissions? On the one hand, I'd suspect that would fluctuate according to the target's emissions, but on the other hand Passive EMS very clearly declares a range band, perhaps an indication of increasing sensitivity. Do laser sensors, radar direction finders, and radio direction finders vary in sensitivity, or are they fixed? (I recall from Striker that the DFs were fixed while the laser sensors varied by TL.)
And how does all this correlate with the intensity of the target's emissions?
Mentions Passive EMS, laser sensors, radar direction finders, radio direction finders, and neutrino sensors. Then there's a nice table that assigns a score based on range band. However, nowhere can I find a range band equivalent for laser sensors, radar direction finders, or radio direction finders.
Is there any guidance on a range band equivalent for a system that detects someone else's emissions? On the one hand, I'd suspect that would fluctuate according to the target's emissions, but on the other hand Passive EMS very clearly declares a range band, perhaps an indication of increasing sensitivity. Do laser sensors, radar direction finders, and radio direction finders vary in sensitivity, or are they fixed? (I recall from Striker that the DFs were fixed while the laser sensors varied by TL.)
And how does all this correlate with the intensity of the target's emissions?
A few more items:
First, battery-rounds: MT Referee's Manual, c. 1987, P74 says Rate of Fire applies to personal combat, not space combat. It says one round of fire from a battery is called a battery-round. Then it factors Rate of Fire into the battery-round equation. As if that's not confusing enough, it factors the RoF in by dividing by RoF instead of multiplying by it: "...the battery-round for one 100-ton missile bay is 50 (100 missiles divided by ROF of 2) missiles."
Errata 2.20 repeats that Rate of Fire applies to personal combat, not space combat, says one round of fire from a battery is called a battery-round - then factors Rate of Fire into the battery-round equation by dividing by RoF: "the battery-round for one 100-ton missile bay is 50 missiles (100 missiles / ROF 2)". Then it factors in the RoF of a sandcaster turret by multiplying by RoF: "A battery-round for one triple sandcaster turret is 18 canisters (ROF 6)."
If the Rate of Fire does not apply to space combat, why is it being factored in. If it's being factored in, and it's the RoF per minute, why is only 1 minute's fire being factored in, and are we multiplying or dividing?
Second, I see there are a couple of proposed errata that are slated for addition to the official errata (Page 51 of this thread). Any news when that's going to be added?
Third, that item brings to mind a question regarding the Emergency Atmospheric Reentry Capsule, an interesting half-dTon Cr22,000 capsule introduced in Errata 2.2, designed to allow emergency re-entry for three people. The EARC launch system, containing one capsule, occupies 1 dTon and costs Cr80,000 (presumably including capsule). However, unless I've made a serious mistake, MT vehicle design rules allow a 1/2 dTon vehicle of identical characteristics to be designed for a bit under Cr18,000, and per vehicle design rules it nests in a vehicle hangar occupying only another 1/4 dTon (for 3/4 dTon total) and costing Cr 1013.
Why does it cost Cr 58,000 tons and take an additional half-ton for a hole in the hull that a half-ton capsule launches out of under its own power? Which brings up: in an abandon-ship situation, can all of the hangar-based variants (and other carried craft) launch as soon as the passengers are in them, or are they constrained to the 1 per launch facility per turn rule? (And where does it say how many launch facilities a ship has? High Guard was 1 per 10k, but I don't find it in MT. Will the launch facilities or launch tubes, which require no power, permit carried craft to launch under their own power when the ship is dead? Strikes me that the price of 40 vehicle hangars and a launch tube is still quite a bit less than the price of 40 EARC launch systems, assuming the tube can be used when the ship's disabled.)
(My variant is a sphere with a 1-ton thrust TL9 standard grav thruster and TL13 0.110 Kl battery providing juice for 2.87 hours at 1.156g or 22 hours with drive off. Includes cramped seating for 3, the radio, 0.356 kg cargo capacity - presumably including occupant weight? - two TL7 control panels and a 5km all-weather radar. I think it's right, would appreciate a double-check.)
Fourth, has there been anything final on that business of the design system not factoring in passenger weight? Big factor for the smaller vehicles. Are we agreed on 100kg/person?
First, battery-rounds: MT Referee's Manual, c. 1987, P74 says Rate of Fire applies to personal combat, not space combat. It says one round of fire from a battery is called a battery-round. Then it factors Rate of Fire into the battery-round equation. As if that's not confusing enough, it factors the RoF in by dividing by RoF instead of multiplying by it: "...the battery-round for one 100-ton missile bay is 50 (100 missiles divided by ROF of 2) missiles."
Errata 2.20 repeats that Rate of Fire applies to personal combat, not space combat, says one round of fire from a battery is called a battery-round - then factors Rate of Fire into the battery-round equation by dividing by RoF: "the battery-round for one 100-ton missile bay is 50 missiles (100 missiles / ROF 2)". Then it factors in the RoF of a sandcaster turret by multiplying by RoF: "A battery-round for one triple sandcaster turret is 18 canisters (ROF 6)."
If the Rate of Fire does not apply to space combat, why is it being factored in. If it's being factored in, and it's the RoF per minute, why is only 1 minute's fire being factored in, and are we multiplying or dividing?
Second, I see there are a couple of proposed errata that are slated for addition to the official errata (Page 51 of this thread). Any news when that's going to be added?
Third, that item brings to mind a question regarding the Emergency Atmospheric Reentry Capsule, an interesting half-dTon Cr22,000 capsule introduced in Errata 2.2, designed to allow emergency re-entry for three people. The EARC launch system, containing one capsule, occupies 1 dTon and costs Cr80,000 (presumably including capsule). However, unless I've made a serious mistake, MT vehicle design rules allow a 1/2 dTon vehicle of identical characteristics to be designed for a bit under Cr18,000, and per vehicle design rules it nests in a vehicle hangar occupying only another 1/4 dTon (for 3/4 dTon total) and costing Cr 1013.
Why does it cost Cr 58,000 tons and take an additional half-ton for a hole in the hull that a half-ton capsule launches out of under its own power? Which brings up: in an abandon-ship situation, can all of the hangar-based variants (and other carried craft) launch as soon as the passengers are in them, or are they constrained to the 1 per launch facility per turn rule? (And where does it say how many launch facilities a ship has? High Guard was 1 per 10k, but I don't find it in MT. Will the launch facilities or launch tubes, which require no power, permit carried craft to launch under their own power when the ship is dead? Strikes me that the price of 40 vehicle hangars and a launch tube is still quite a bit less than the price of 40 EARC launch systems, assuming the tube can be used when the ship's disabled.)
(My variant is a sphere with a 1-ton thrust TL9 standard grav thruster and TL13 0.110 Kl battery providing juice for 2.87 hours at 1.156g or 22 hours with drive off. Includes cramped seating for 3, the radio, 0.356 kg cargo capacity - presumably including occupant weight? - two TL7 control panels and a 5km all-weather radar. I think it's right, would appreciate a double-check.)
Fourth, has there been anything final on that business of the design system not factoring in passenger weight? Big factor for the smaller vehicles. Are we agreed on 100kg/person?
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
MT: Referee's Manual page 84 possible minor errata
The design Evaluation has an example for a Slow Tug and the Type as TW in the left hand column of page 84. In the right column is under the header of CraftId is the Space-faring Craft Type Codes Table. Checking the Type table Primary column T = tanker or tender and the Qualifier column shows that W = slow.
Under the letter T in the Primary column is U which is the designation for a Tug. Wouldn't the Type designation be UW instead of TW.
The design Evaluation has an example for a Slow Tug and the Type as TW in the left hand column of page 84. In the right column is under the header of CraftId is the Space-faring Craft Type Codes Table. Checking the Type table Primary column T = tanker or tender and the Qualifier column shows that W = slow.
Under the letter T in the Primary column is U which is the designation for a Tug. Wouldn't the Type designation be UW instead of TW.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
COACC: I know that's an unpopular one, but ...
I'm seeing a 20mm single autocannon with 200 rounds weighing 400 kg - and then a 20 mm tri-barrel autocannon with 300 rounds weighing ... 300 kg? Are the figures reversed?
And why does the tribarrel only get 6 bursts? 3 times the barrels, 50% more ammo, I had it figured at 1/3 x 1.5 or half the shots of the single: 10 bursts. Am I missing something?
I'm seeing a 20mm single autocannon with 200 rounds weighing 400 kg - and then a 20 mm tri-barrel autocannon with 300 rounds weighing ... 300 kg? Are the figures reversed?
And why does the tribarrel only get 6 bursts? 3 times the barrels, 50% more ammo, I had it figured at 1/3 x 1.5 or half the shots of the single: 10 bursts. Am I missing something?
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Hello Carlobrand,
COACC is not unpopular with me, just one of the items I haven't done much with.
I believe you are asking about the Gun Pods Ordnance table on COACC page 69. Challenge 43 Errata & Corrigenda pages 31 - 33 has some errata for COACC.
On Challenge 43 page 32 is an entry about adding gun weight table on page 69.
Page 69: Add Gun Weights Table. Weights are in kilograms. Machinegun belts hold 100 round; autocannon belts hold 50 round. Multi-barrel autocannon are fed from drum-like ammunition hoppers. These hoppers typically hold between 500 and 1500 rounds, depending on the available carrying capacity of the aircraft design.
Gun Weights (sorry I haven't figured out how to do tables properly here)
Medium Machinegun:
Weight per gun 9.5 kg; Weight per Belt: 2.5 kg; Weight per round: -
Light Machinegun:
Weight per gun 5.5 kg; Weight per Belt: 2.5 kg; Weight per round: -
Heavy Machinegun:
Weight per gun 15 kg; Weight per Belt: 10 kg; Weight per round: -
20mm autocannon:
Weight per gun 200 kg; Weight per Belt: 20 kg; Weight per round: .4
20mm 3-barrel autocannon:
Weight per gun 220 kg; Weight per Belt: -; Weight per round: .4
20mm 6-barrel autocannon:
Weight per gun 310 kg; Weight per Belt: -; Weight per round: .4
30mm autocannon:
Weight per gun 240 kg; Weight per Belt: 40 kg; Weight per round: .8
30mm 6-barrel autocannon:
Weight per gun 370 kg; Weight per Belt: -; Weight per round: .8
Looking at the added Gun Weights table the 20mm autocannon gun pod holds 1 cannon and 10 belts of ammunition.
Here is what I get reverse engineering the 20mm 3-barrel autocannon:
20mm 3-barrel autocannon gun pod = 300 kg
20mm 3-barrel autocannon gun = 220 kg
20mm ammunition weighs 0.4 kg per round
300 - 220 = 80 kg of ammo = 80 / 0.4 = 200 round of ammunition.
Hope this helps
COACC is not unpopular with me, just one of the items I haven't done much with.
I believe you are asking about the Gun Pods Ordnance table on COACC page 69. Challenge 43 Errata & Corrigenda pages 31 - 33 has some errata for COACC.
On Challenge 43 page 32 is an entry about adding gun weight table on page 69.
Page 69: Add Gun Weights Table. Weights are in kilograms. Machinegun belts hold 100 round; autocannon belts hold 50 round. Multi-barrel autocannon are fed from drum-like ammunition hoppers. These hoppers typically hold between 500 and 1500 rounds, depending on the available carrying capacity of the aircraft design.
Gun Weights (sorry I haven't figured out how to do tables properly here)
Medium Machinegun:
Weight per gun 9.5 kg; Weight per Belt: 2.5 kg; Weight per round: -
Light Machinegun:
Weight per gun 5.5 kg; Weight per Belt: 2.5 kg; Weight per round: -
Heavy Machinegun:
Weight per gun 15 kg; Weight per Belt: 10 kg; Weight per round: -
20mm autocannon:
Weight per gun 200 kg; Weight per Belt: 20 kg; Weight per round: .4
20mm 3-barrel autocannon:
Weight per gun 220 kg; Weight per Belt: -; Weight per round: .4
20mm 6-barrel autocannon:
Weight per gun 310 kg; Weight per Belt: -; Weight per round: .4
30mm autocannon:
Weight per gun 240 kg; Weight per Belt: 40 kg; Weight per round: .8
30mm 6-barrel autocannon:
Weight per gun 370 kg; Weight per Belt: -; Weight per round: .8
Looking at the added Gun Weights table the 20mm autocannon gun pod holds 1 cannon and 10 belts of ammunition.
Here is what I get reverse engineering the 20mm 3-barrel autocannon:
20mm 3-barrel autocannon gun pod = 300 kg
20mm 3-barrel autocannon gun = 220 kg
20mm ammunition weighs 0.4 kg per round
300 - 220 = 80 kg of ammo = 80 / 0.4 = 200 round of ammunition.
Hope this helps
Not really, though I thank you for the effort. Recalculating the ammo load to suit the weight is one of several ways to address the problem in our local TUs, but the real question is whether or not the official data is an error and - if so - whether there is an official errata addressing the issue, or whether it might be addressed in future. Which is to say: should I accept the data at face value and fold it as-is into my projects, or should I expect an errata at some point in future?
The idea of a pod with more barrels weighing less and having fewer available bursts for combat is puzzling to me. If we recalculate ammo load to solve the problem for all the pods, I'm left with a 20mm single-barrel that should have 500 rounds instead of 200 - which means the arms dealers went from a 50-burst single-barrel pod to a 6-burst tri-barrel pod. Big difference in combat endurance.
I'm wondering if they were trying to emulate known real-world equipment rather than aiming to make it internally consistent. That seems to have been a theme in COACC.
The idea of a pod with more barrels weighing less and having fewer available bursts for combat is puzzling to me. If we recalculate ammo load to solve the problem for all the pods, I'm left with a 20mm single-barrel that should have 500 rounds instead of 200 - which means the arms dealers went from a 50-burst single-barrel pod to a 6-burst tri-barrel pod. Big difference in combat endurance.
I'm wondering if they were trying to emulate known real-world equipment rather than aiming to make it internally consistent. That seems to have been a theme in COACC.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Morning Carlobrand,
The effort would have been quicker had I checked Consolidated MT Errata version 2.20 page 63 instead of digging through my Challenge magazines.
For my part I work with what I have and then make modifications with the errata I find along the way.
I've not sure where the figure 50-burst single barrel autocannon comes and I might be wrong on how I'm figuring a burst.
A single barrel 20-mm gun pod can fire 20 times with 200 rounds of ammunition, which by my calculations that each pull of the trigger or burst uses 200 ÷ 20 = 10 rounds.
A tribarrel 20-mm gun pod can fire 6 times with 300 rounds of ammunition, which by my calculations that each pull of the trigger or burst uses 300 ÷ = 50 rounds.
I have not taken an in depth look at the COACC design sequence but so far the only reference about bursts and Rate of Fire I've found is on COACC page 53
Rate of Fire:
One 10-round burst per machinegun
One 10-round burst per single-barrel autocannon
One 50-round burst per tribarrel autocannon
One 100-round burst per six-barrel machinegun or autocannon
Looking at the Rate of Fire list on page 53 and my calculations I appear to be arriving at the same numbers. That doesn't mean I'm in the ball park though.
Of course that still doesn't help with the weight of the autocannon pods. I'm guessing that this might be an overlooked piece of errata
I agree that overall the MT vehicle design sequences are trying to get a closer fit real-world items.
The effort would have been quicker had I checked Consolidated MT Errata version 2.20 page 63 instead of digging through my Challenge magazines.
For my part I work with what I have and then make modifications with the errata I find along the way.
I've not sure where the figure 50-burst single barrel autocannon comes and I might be wrong on how I'm figuring a burst.
A single barrel 20-mm gun pod can fire 20 times with 200 rounds of ammunition, which by my calculations that each pull of the trigger or burst uses 200 ÷ 20 = 10 rounds.
A tribarrel 20-mm gun pod can fire 6 times with 300 rounds of ammunition, which by my calculations that each pull of the trigger or burst uses 300 ÷ = 50 rounds.
I have not taken an in depth look at the COACC design sequence but so far the only reference about bursts and Rate of Fire I've found is on COACC page 53
Rate of Fire:
One 10-round burst per machinegun
One 10-round burst per single-barrel autocannon
One 50-round burst per tribarrel autocannon
One 100-round burst per six-barrel machinegun or autocannon
Looking at the Rate of Fire list on page 53 and my calculations I appear to be arriving at the same numbers. That doesn't mean I'm in the ball park though.
Of course that still doesn't help with the weight of the autocannon pods. I'm guessing that this might be an overlooked piece of errata
I agree that overall the MT vehicle design sequences are trying to get a closer fit real-world items.
Similar threads
MT Only:
My MT Errata Odyssey
