Errata - that difficult subject

[Carlobrand]

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...

"50 bursts" = fifty 10-round bursts of fire, i.e. you've got 50 turns worth of shooting available. Sorry if I was confusing. That's calculated from the COACC entry showing a 400 kg pod containing what is presumed to be a 200kg 20mm autocannon and, if we accept that the rest is ammo, 200 kg (or 500 rounds at 0.4 kg/round) of ammo.

It's likely some of that weight is stuff besides the gun and ammo - casing and such. However, if the COACC values are accurate, they're too inconsistent from pod to pod to make any guesses as to what's going on.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

"50 bursts" = fifty 10-round bursts of fire, i.e. you've got 50 turns worth of shooting available. Sorry if I was confusing. That's calculated from the COACC entry showing a 400 kg pod containing what is presumed to be a 200kg 20mm autocannon and, if we accept that the rest is ammo, 200 kg (or 500 rounds at 0.4 kg/round) of ammo.

Nope, you where not confusing, I'm not too fast on the uptake and not as familiar with the combat rules as I should be. Thanks for being my remedial math tutor.

It's likely some of that weight is stuff besides the gun and ammo - casing and such. However, if the COACC values are accurate, they're too inconsistent from pod to pod to make any guesses as to what's going on.

I agree that an empty gun pod adds some weight, but compared to the weapon and ammo not a significant enough to include sort of like in Striker Book 3.

Too bad we can't get a hold of Terry McInnes to help clear-up this item. I have Space Master and I did contact the author/designer to get help when I got stumped on a similar issue.

Have a good one Carlobrand

 

[SanDragon]

I have a bugaboo with the Bridge errata!

The latest version (v2.20 (09/01/11) states

Page 81, Step 2, Control Points (correction and additions): Do not figure control points on hull. When determining control points required by the power supply, ignore storage batteries. Storage batteries require no control points.

So... How would you fly the thing if it has an airframe hull? Never mind a streamlined hull?

May I suggest figuring hull control points just using the configuration and streamlining cost?

Thoughts? Ideas? Point defense fire knocking it out of the sky? (The suggestion!)

Also, under Accommodations, you need Hull CP to calculate needed Maintenance Crew.

Let the wordfire commence.

 

[SanDragon]

I already found a hole in my suggestion.

Certain multipliers for hull configuration are fractions, reducing the base cost of the hull.

You can't calculate hull CPs with a negative result.

So, calculate Hull CPs with the base hull cost?

Maybe not...

 

[SanDragon]

From the Referee's manual...

Page 68, Radio Direction Finders (omission): Radio Direction Finders were omitted from the MegaTraveller rules.
RADIO DIRECTION FINDER
————————— Weight in tons by tech level —————————
5........6.......7......8.......9.......10.....12......14......16......17
0.5 0.05 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.0015 0.001 0.0007 0.0005 0.0001
Power Requirement (Mw): Weight in tons. Price: Weight in tons; if TL 5, ×3; if TL 6, ×2. Volume (kl): Weight in tons ×2.

...how is price calculated?

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning SanDargon,

From the Referee's manual...



Page 68, Radio Direction Finders (omission):

​

​

Radio Direction Finders were omitted from the MegaTraveller rules.​

RADIO DIRECTION FINDER

————————— Weight in tons by tech level —————————

5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 17
0.5 0.05 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.0015 0.001 0.0007 0.0005 0.0001
Power Requirement (Mw): ​

Weight in tons. Price: Weight in tons; if TL 5, ×3; if TL 6, ×2. Volume (kl): Weight in tons ×2.​

...how is price calculated?

Per the cited errata Weight = Price.​

I have penciled in my copy that the radio direction finder's is 2 x the cost of a radio communicator at the same tech level. Unfortunately, the part of my penciled in change indicating the source used is smeared and faded beyond recognition. Maybe, in ten or fifteen years , I will recover the source from my stored memories.

I will also ensure I make future changes in ink instead of pencil.​

 

[Carlobrand]

Per the cited errata Weight = Price.​

...

I'm thinking the intent was not to make a Radio DF that costs less than a packet of gum.

Much of MT was evolved from Striker; radios in particular are a straight lift. The Striker radio DF was a straightforward "same ... as a 100 power radio", which put it at Cr300, but Errata didn't follow that lead. Still, one does not expect a radical departure. For MT, I think the unstated assumption is the cost is in MCr - in other words a TL14 radio DF, for example, would cost MCr0.0007, or Cr700.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning Carlobrand,

I'm thinking the intent was not to make a Radio DF that costs less than a packet of gum.

Much of MT was evolved from Striker; radios in particular are a straight lift. The Striker radio DF was a straightforward "same ... as a 100 power radio", which put it at Cr300, but Errata didn't follow that lead. Still, one does not expect a radical departure. For MT, I think the unstated assumption is the cost is in MCr - in other words a TL14 radio DF, for example, would cost MCr0.0007, or Cr700.

Oops, I didn't think about including the MCr since that is the default price unit unless otherwise shown for the system being selected. Thank you for catching my oversight.

Of course since I'm very cheap being able to buy the system at gum prices is appealing;-)

 

[SanDragon]

Yes, thank you.

I was beginning to think it may be price in MCr.

 

[Carlobrand]

One of several items not carried forward from Striker to MT was the Multiple Rocket Launcher (MRL) design rules. Consolidated MT Errata 2.2 introduced three MRLs to fill the void: the 6-inch, 12-inch, and 18 inch MRL. They don't appear to bear much relationship to Striker design rules, and in fact close study suggests they originated from the Book-4 MRLs. However, what is provided is incomplete and appears to contain errors:

First, and most critically, there's nothing indicating how many tubes the launchers mount.

Second, while the 18 and 12 cm MRLs' mass in tons is equal to their volume in cubic meters, the 6cm light MRL - with a volume of 0.120 cubic meters - masses a mere 6 kg. It would make a dandy flotation device.

Third, the rockets themselves have the unusual property of getting larger as their payload and range increases - but not getting any heavier. The 6 cm short-range rocket has a volume of 0.001 m^3 and a weight of 1 kg, while the TL6 18 cm with its larger warhead and longer range has a volume of 0.003 m^3 ... and a weight of 1 kg.

Contemporary examples of MRLs include:

M-13 13cm "Katyusha" rocket: 180cm length by 13.2 cm diameter, 42 kg., range ~5500 m.
BM-13 "Katyusha" launcher: 16 launch rails on a Studebaker 2 1/2 ton 6x6 truck, 6 tons total weight, estimated weight of launcher ~1.6 tons;

15cm Wurfgranat 41: 93cm length by 15.75 cm diameter, 31.8 kg., range 7000 m.
15cm Nebelwerfer 41 6-tube launcher: 1130 kg empty w carriage & wheels

21cm Wurfgranat 41: 93cm x 15.75 cm, 112.6 kg., range 7850 m.
21cm Nebelwerfer 42 5-tube launcher: 550 kg empty w carriage & wheels. 1.3m barrel

Type 75 130mm rocket: 43 kg., range 15,000 m.
Type 75 130mm tracked MRL vehicle: 30 barrels, based on 13.33t Type 73 APC chassis, wt 16.5t

M26 227mm rocket: 394cm length by 22.7 cm diameter, 306 kg., range 32,000 m.
MLRS launch vehicle: 12 launch tubes in a 24-ton tracked vehicle, weight of launcher unknown

As with all things reality-wise, extrapolating trends from this is pretty difficult - different countries using different chemical propellants and different proportions of propellant to payload, all that.

For comparison purposes (since the Striker rockets were based off of mortar weights):
a Striker 13cm mortar round weighs 23kg;
a Striker 15cm mortar round weighs 30kg;
a Striker 21cm mortar round weighs 70kg;
a Striker 23cm mortar round weighs 85kg;

These are the current Errata values:
TL . Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Power . Volume . Weight . Price (Cr) . Range . . . . . . . Sig . ROF
6 . . 18cm tube MRL-6 . . . . . . . . 0.010 . 3.600 . . 3.600 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . . . . . . . . . — . . 1
. . Short range rocket . . . . . . . . .—. . . . 0.003 . . 0.001 . . . 170 . . . . V. Distant (9). . . H
. . Medium range rocket . . . . . . . —. . . . 0.004 . . 0.002 . . . 340 . . . . V. Distant (18) . . H
. . Long range rocket . . . . . . . . . —. . . . 0.005 . . 0.003 . . . 510 . . . . V. Distant (32) . . H
10 . 12cm tube Remote MRL-10 . . 0.020 . 2.000 . . 2.000 . . 5,000 . . . . . — . . . . . . . . . — . . 1
. . Short range rocket . . . . . . . . .—. . . . 0.002 . . 0.001 . . . . 75 . . . . V. Distant (7). . . H
. . Medium range rocket . . . . . . . —. . . . 0.003 . . 0.002 . . . 150 . . . . V. Distant (13) . . H
. . Long range rocket . . . . . . . . . —. . . . 0.004 . . 0.003 . . . 225 . . . . V. Distant (22) . . H
11 . 6cm tube Light MRL-11. . . . . 0.004 . 0.120 . . 0.006 . . . 500 . . . . . — . . . . . . . . . — . . 1
. . Short range rocket . . . . . . . . .—. . . . 0.001 . . 0.001 . . . . 11 . . . . Distant (4). . . . . M
. . Medium range rocket . . . . . . . —. . . . 0.002 . . 0.002 . . . . 22 . . . . V. Distant (6) . . . M
. . Long range rocket . . . . . . . . . —. . . . 0.003 . . 0.003 . . . . 33 . . . . V. Distant (10) . . M


These are some alternative values for consideration. This variant assumes the Book-4 launcher weight (the original Errata volumes are in fact the Book-4 weights in kg divided by 500, which perhaps not coincidentally is the Striker convention). It also assumes the existing 6cm round as base, then calculates up for the larger rounds. I also explored making all sizes available at TL-6 (as is the Striker norm, and because there's really no rationale for not doing it that way) and offered TL range advancements consistent with the Striker norm:

MULTIPLE ROCKET LAUNCHERS, revised 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . Power . Volume . Weight1 . Price (Cr) . TL6 . TL8 . TL10 . TL12 . Sig . ROF
18cm tube MRL . . . . . 0.010 . . 3.600 . . 1.800 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . — . . — . . . — . . . — . . 40
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.025 . . 0.025 . . . 170 . . . . . 9 . . 9 . . 10 . . . 10 . . . H
. . Medium range rocket — . . . . 0.050 . . 0.050 . . . 340 . . . . 17 . 18 . . 19 . . . 20 . . . H
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.075 . . 0.075 . . . 510. . . . . 26 . 30 . . 34 . . . 40 . . . H
12cm tube MRL . . . . . 0.020 . . 2.000 . . 1.000 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . — . .— . . . — . . . — . . 100
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.008 . . 0.008 . . . . 75 . . . . . 6 . . 7 . . . 8 . . . 9 . . . H
. . Medium range rocket — . . . . 0.016 . . 0.016 . . . 150 . . . . 11 . . 13 . . 15 . . 17 . . . H
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.024 . . 0.024 . . . 225. . . . . 19 . . 21 . . 23 . . 26 . . . H
6cm tube Light MRL . . 0.004 . . 0.120 . . 0.060 . . . 500 . . . . — . . — . . — . . . — . . . — . . 100
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.001 . . 0.001 . . . . 11 . . . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . 6 . . . .M
. . Medium range rocket —. . . . 0.002 . . 0.002 . . . . 22 . . . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . 8 . . 10 . . . M
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.003 . . 0.003 . . . . 33 . . . . . 7 . . . 9 . . 11 . . 14 . . . M
1: empty weight
Remote MRLs are available at TL10 by incorporating remote control equipment and communications systems, at a cost of Cr 1000 for the MRL and Cr 1000 for the gunner plus the cost of the chosen communication systems (one for the MRL and one for the gunner).


This variant keeps the Book-4/Errata values for most data but uses Striker for the rocket weights:

MULTIPLE ROCKET LAUNCHERS, revised 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . Power . Volume . Weight1 . Price (Cr) . TL6 . TL8 . TL10 . TL12 . Sig . ROF
18cm tube MRL . . . . . 0.010 . . 3.600 . . 1.800 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . — . . — . . . — . . . — . . 40
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.030 . . 0.030 . . . 170 . . . . . 9 . . 9 . . 10 . . . 10 . . . H
. . Medium range rocket — . . . . 0.060 . . 0.060 . . . 340 . . . . 17 . 18 . . 19 . . . 20 . . . H
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.090 . . 0.090 . . . 510. . . . . 26 . 30 . . 34 . . . 40 . . . H
12cm tube MRL . . . . . 0.020 . . 2.000 . . 1.000 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . — . .— . . . — . . . — . . 100
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.014 . . 0.014 . . . . 75 . . . . . 6 . . 7 . . . 8 . . . 9 . . . H
. . Medium range rocket — . . . . 0.028 . . 0.028 . . . 150 . . . . 11 . . 13 . . 15 . . 17 . . . H
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.042 . . 0.042 . . . 225. . . . . 19 . . 21 . . 23 . . 26 . . . H
6cm tube Light MRL . . 0.004 . . 0.120 . . 0.060 . . . 500 . . . . — . . — . . — . . . — . . . — . . 100
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.002 . . 0.002 . . . . 11 . . . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . 6 . . . .M
. . Medium range rocket —. . . . 0.004 . . 0.004 . . . . 22 . . . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . 8 . . 10 . . . M
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.006 . . 0.006 . . . . 33 . . . . . 7 . . . 9 . . 11 . . 14 . . . M
1: empty weight
Remote MRLs are available at TL10 by incorporating remote control equipment and communications systems, at a cost of Cr 1000 for the MRL and Cr 1000 for the gunner plus the cost of the chosen communication systems (one for the MRL and one for the gunner).


This variant keeps the Book-4/Errata values but uses Striker for rocket weights and launcher weight:

MULTIPLE ROCKET LAUNCHERS, revised 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Range
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . Power . Volume . Weight1 . Price (Cr) . TL6 . TL8 . TL10 . TL12 . Sig . ROF
18cm tube MRL . . . . . 0.010 . . 6.400 . . 3.200 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . — . . — . . . — . . . — . . 40
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.030 . . 0.030 . . . 170 . . . . . 9 . . 9 . . 10 . . . 10 . . . H
. . Medium range rocket — . . . . 0.060 . . 0.060 . . . 340 . . . . 17 . 18 . . 19 . . . 20 . . . H
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.090 . . 0.090 . . . 510. . . . . 26 . 30 . . 34 . . . 40 . . . H
12cm tube MRL . . . . . 0.020 . . 4.600 . . 2.300 . . 5,000 . . . . — . . — . .— . . . — . . . — . . 100
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.014 . . 0.014 . . . . 75 . . . . . 6 . . 7 . . . 8 . . . 9 . . . H
. . Medium range rocket — . . . . 0.028 . . 0.028 . . . 150 . . . . 11 . . 13 . . 15 . . 17 . . . H
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.042 . . 0.042 . . . 225. . . . . 19 . . 21 . . 23 . . 26 . . . H
6cm tube Light MRL . . 0.004 . . 1.000 . . 0.500 . . . 500 . . . . — . . — . . — . . . — . . . — . . 100
. . Short range rocket . — . . . . 0.002 . . 0.002 . . . . 11 . . . . . 3 . . . 4 . . . 5 . . 6 . . . .M
. . Medium range rocket —. . . . 0.004 . . 0.004 . . . . 22 . . . . . 4 . . . 6 . . . 8 . . 10 . . . M
. . Long range rocket . —. . . . . 0.006 . . 0.006 . . . . 33 . . . . . 7 . . . 9 . . 11 . . 14 . . . M
1: empty weight
Remote MRLs are available at TL10 by incorporating remote control equipment and communications systems, at a cost of Cr 1000 for the MRL and Cr 1000 for the gunner plus the cost of the chosen communication systems (one for the MRL and one for the gunner).

 

[McPerth]

In 101 vehicles, Page 2, the MRLs are described.

Its description is per tube (or at least that's how I understand them), but all other probles you quote are there too. Probably errata took the table directly form it.

 

[DonM]

In 101 vehicles, Page 2, the MRLs are described.

Its description is per tube (or at least that's how I understand them), but all other probles you quote are there too. Probably errata took the table directly form it.

Yes... so, this is errata both for the MRLs and for 101 Vehicles?

 

[McPerth]

I haven't checked MRLs in errata, but in 101 vehicles all rockets weight the same, regardless of its caliber, while larger calibers mean greater volume rockets, as Carlo points.

 

[Carlobrand]

MT: Rebellion Sourcebook offers a table, "Expected Troop Strengths on a Specific World". I recall it from a JTAS article on the guidelines used to develop the Fifth Frontier War boardgame. It has an ... interesting bit:

At TL 5 and TL 6, population factor 3 worlds have one battalion each. A population factor 3 world has a population of 1000 to 9000 people. That's presumably of all ages from infancy through elderly. Figure roughly a quarter of the population are too young or too old for military service - maybe more depending on the cut-off age a given society prefers. A small percentage of military-age adults are unqualified for reasons of health - this guy lost a hand in an accident, that one's a diabetic, and so forth.

So, maybe 2/3 of the population is eligible for service - of which a substantial fraction need to be left to run the farms and other work needed to keep the colony going. Say a militia-style part-time force can pull in maybe 30% of the population - more or less - without crippling the colony.

A typical infantry battalion can have anything from 500 to 1000 men in it. On a pop-3 TL 5-6 world, at very best 5.5% of the population is under arms - at worst, every living person including the kindergartners and the geriatrics are in uniform and carrying weapons. Put more succinctly, it is impossible for about a third of the Pop-3 worlds to support the battalion that they are claimed to be supporting.

With the use of WTC pop codes, this entry in particular becomes a problem. Are the entries in the Rebellion table intended to represent the midpoint of the UPP pop factor (WTC pop code 5), or is this some kind of errata?

 

[atpollard]

Sigh, sorry to bring up an old can of worms, but there is a need for the rules to explicitly state whether or not a control panel add-on benefits from the computer CP multiplier.

The current discussion is HERE:
Computer needs in MT craft design

If they can benefit from the computer multiplier, then several cannon designs need some errata, and if they do not benefit from the computer multiplier then Joe Fugate's Design Example has yet another correction to be made.

The current errata and rules can be read either way since page 60 of the Referee's Manual states

A computer multiplies the effects of the ship’s installed control panels if the control panels are of the “linked” type.

and the current errata states

Page 60, left column, Controls and Bridge Section, Panel Add-ons (clarification): Panel add-ons can be installed to augment a craft’s control panel needs. The power and volume requirements of an add-on are usually superior to that of straight control panel units for a given CP value. In all cases, a control panel add-on can act as a direct replacement for weaker control panel units. However, as a rule of thumb, do not install any more control panel add-ons than you expect to have crewmembers. It is a bit ridiculous to install 10 large holodisplays when you only expect to have one crewmember.
Also, holodynamic linked and holographic linked panel units refer to the same type of panel unit.

So does a panel 'add-on' act as a 'linked' panel (which can be multiplied by the computer) or does it act as a 'non-linked' panel (which cannot be multiplied by the computer)?

The rules can honestly be read either way and Joe Fugate read it one way while other cannon designs are reported to meet their CP requirements treating the add-ons as non-linked.

 

[McPerth]

If they can benefit from the computer multiplier, then several cannon designs need some errata, and if they do not benefit from the computer multiplier then Joe Fugate's Design Example has yet another correction to be made.

The current errata and rules can be read either way (...)

Glad to see it was not just my wrong reading or understanding

Unfortunately, while MT is my favoreite rules set, i must agree clarity is not one of its strong points, not even after errata amounting to what would be another book and 70 pages more fo errata disucsion in this forum

 

[aramis]

As someone else so eloquently put it, they're OUTPUT devices, and already require a computer. They certainly shouldn't count against the CP maximum input limit.

Also they need a limit of their own.

If they do get the input bonus, then a scout ship can be run with a holo hud and a couple panels... also an issue.

 

[atpollard]

As someone else so eloquently put it, they're OUTPUT devices, and already require a computer. They certainly shouldn't count against the CP maximum input limit.

Also they need a limit of their own.

I think that when the errata already states that control panel add-ons "can act as a direct replacement for weaker control panel units" that pretty much means that an add-on IS a control panel ... so the only question remaining is are they 'linked'.

If they are linked, then they can plug into a computer, can gain the computer multiplier and do count towards the computer's maximum input.

If they are not linked, then they can't plug into a computer, can't gain the computer multiplier and don't count towards the computer's maximum input.

If they do get the input bonus, then a scout ship can be run with a holo hud and a couple panels... also an issue.

Why is this 'an issue'?
If it has the required CP then it meets the rules doesn't it?
[I'm not arguing or baiting, this is just a straight up question.]

 

[McPerth]

Form MT consolidated errata v2.2 (07/01/2011), page 25:

Page 62, Hull Design (clarification): To determine the values for a non-standard hull size, just extrapolate the values from the closest hull size using the following formula to determine the modification factor:

F = N ÷ B, where:

F = the factor to apply to the base hull value, and

N = the desired non-standard hull size, and

B = the closest standard hull size to use as a base.

For example, if a 440 UCP hull size is desired, simply multiply the values for a 400 UCP hull by a factor of 1.1 (440/400). If, on the other hand, a 460 UCP hull is desired, then multiply the values for a 500 UCP hull by a factor of 0.92 (460/500).

I’m afraid this can lead to some strange results:

If I want to design a 13 Kdton ship, cost would be the one for a 10 Kdton (the closer, MCr 13.4) multiplied by 1.3, so MCr 17.42, more than a 20 Kdton hull (MCr 15.6).

At first I though that was intended, as a unconventional hull, but if I intend to build a 16 Kdton ship, then cost would be that of a 20 kdton hull (as is now closer) multiplied by 0.8, so MCr 12.48, less than a 10 Kdton Hull.

I suggest to change the formula to

Cost = cost of lower hull + the percentage of difference proportional to the tonnage between threesholds desired.

So, a 13 kdon is 30% from 10 to 20 kdton. Its cost is the one for a 10 kdton (MCr13.4) + 30% of the difference between the 10 kdton hull and the 20 Kdton one, so 13.4 + 30% (15.6-13.4) = 13.4 + 0.3 x 2.2 = 14.06, while a 16 Kdton hull would cost 13.4 + 0.6 x 2.2 = 14.92.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy McPerth,

TNE uses the following, which I'm 99.8% sure I have right, for custom/non-standard items.

Select the lower and higher standard values the custom value falls between.

Step 1: Determine the difference between the standard values by subtracting the lower standard value from the higher standard value.

Step 2: Determine the difference between the custom and lower standard values by subtracting the lower standard value from the custom value.

Step 3: Divide Step 2 by Step 1 to determine the multiplier.

Step 4. Determine the difference between the lower standard weight/price value by subtracting from the higher standard weight price value.

Step 5. Multiply Step 4 by Step 2

Step 6. Add result of Step 2 to Lower standard weight/price

Example: Custom hull UCP 440

1. Standard Higher UCP 500 - Standard Lower UCP 400 = 100
2. Custom UCP 440 - Standard Lower UCP 400 = 40
3. Multiplier = 40 / 100 = 0.4
4. Custom UCP weight = Standard Higher value UCP 500 weight 160- Standard Lower value UCP 400 weight 130 = 30
5. Step 4 = 30 x Step 3 multiplier 0.4 = 12
6. Custom UCP 440 weight = 130 + Step 5 of 12 = 142

Repeat Steps 4 through 6 for price.

4. Custom UCP weight = Standard Higher value UCP 500 price 665,000 - Standard Lower value UCP 400 price 535,000= 130,000
5. Step 4 = 130,000 x Step 3 multiplier 0.4 = 52,000
6. Custom UCP 440 price = UCP 400 price 535,000 + Step 5 of 52,000 = 587,000

Form MT consolidated errata v2.2 (07/01/2011), page 25:



I’m afraid this can lead to some strange results:

If I want to design a 13 Kdton ship, cost would be the one for a 10 Kdton (the closer, MCr 13.4) multiplied by 1.3, so MCr 17.42, more than a 20 Kdton hull (MCr 15.6).

At first I though that was intended, as a unconventional hull, but if I intend to build a 16 Kdton ship, then cost would be that of a 20 kdton hull (as is now closer) multiplied by 0.8, so MCr 12.48, less than a 10 Kdton Hull.

I suggest to change the formula to

Cost = cost of lower hull + the percentage of difference proportional to the tonnage between threesholds desired.

So, a 13 kdon is 30% from 10 to 20 kdton. Its cost is the one for a 10 kdton (MCr13.4) + 30% of the difference between the 10 kdton hull and the 20 Kdton one, so 13.4 + 30% (15.6-13.4) = 13.4 + 0.3 x 2.2 = 14.06, while a 16 Kdton hull would cost 13.4 + 0.6 x 2.2 = 14.92.