• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Errata - that difficult subject

Hello aramis,

I am using a different computer that has IE and the Quote button works for material not quoted in the post. I'm wondering if I confused the web gremlins or there may be a glitch on the other system.

Essentially, a crew member can only use one add-on at a time. That's the errata. Any extra provide no benefit.

A small craft with two control panels are mounted with on to the left of centerline and the other is to the right of centerline. The panel on the left is normally assigned to the pilot and the other is for the co-pilot. Both positions can operate the craft. The only crew member assigned is a pilot and usually operates from the left position.

Both positions are identical and in my opinion will probably have the same add-on. I agree that the pilot can use only one control panel with one add-on. However, I do not see any reason why the control panel could not have a primary add-on and a back-up. During normal operations the primary add-on is used unless the Pilot decides to switch to the back-up. Damage to the primary add-on switches to the back-up.

The pilot can only use one add-on and has to make the decision of which one of them at a time.
 
Hello AnotherDilbert,

The web gremlins are not allowing me to Quote any part of Post 926 from 01/04/17.

Here is a copy and paste of the material:

One person can use many Control Panels (12 m³).
One person can use only one Add-on.
A craft need no basic Control Panels, it can have only Add-ons.

Consolidating a number of control panels adding up to 12 kiloliters in my opinion is one control panel and operated by one crew member.

The crew member can operate one add-on at a time, however a control panel in my opinion can have a back-up. The back-up system cannot be used at the same time as the primary.

CT Referee's Manual Step 8 Bridge p. 81
"Step 8-4: Select and install enough control panel units and control panel add-ons so the total CPs from the control units multiplied by the computer's CP multiplier (if installed) equals or exceeds the number of CPs required to control the craft.

Step 8-5: Special Control Panel Add-ons: Special add-ons all require a computer."

My understanding of the material above is that at minimum a craft needs a control panel that meets or exceeds the calculated Control Points in Step 8-2. Add-ons can only be selected when the craft or vehicle has a computer.
 
Consolidating a number of control panels adding up to 12 kiloliters in my opinion is one control panel and operated by one crew member.
Probably few ships will use enough control panels for each crew member to use 12 m³ each.

The crew member can operate one add-on at a time, however a control panel in my opinion can have a back-up. The back-up system cannot be used at the same time as the primary.
I agree. The Spare Systems rule in action.

My understanding of the material above is that at minimum a craft needs a control panel that meets or exceeds the calculated Control Points in Step 8-2. Add-ons can only be selected when the craft or vehicle has a computer.
I agree.
 
Hello AnotherDilbert,

The web gremlins are once again focusing on me again and the Quote button does not work on any computer I have access to using either IE or Firefox. They have expanded their torment to include preview post.

I agree that "Probably few ships will use enough control panels for each crew member to use 12 m³ each." after looking at Donald McKinney's errata for the MT Starship Design Example by Joe D. Fugate Sr. I think that the Battle Cruiser Regal needs 30,226 control panel units which 1,010.78 kiloliters. The Regal has a crew of 329, my tally is 330. I think that each crew member's control panel unit would be about 1,010.78/329 = 3.07228 kiloliters.

Yippee, I appear to have grasped the spare system rule, that craft need at least one control panel >= the control points, and Add-ons can only be used when the craft has a computer.
 
Hello all,

My MT Bridge conclusion at this time:

1. I believe that MT Referee's Manual Craft Design Step 8 and Step 9 defines a small craft's cockpit/bridge and a starship's or spacecraft's bridge. Further based on the discussion here Craft Design Step 8 title of Bridge should be renamed as something along the lines of Control Panels, Control Systems, or wording describing the determination of the interface between the crew and the vessel's systems.

2. MT Small Craft Cockpit/Bridge

A small craft's cockpit/bridge is determined by Step 8, Step 9-2 through 6. At minimum the cockpit/bridge consists of the combined requirements from Steps 8-4 through 6 determined by Steps 8-1 through 3 plus Step 9-6.

3. MT Starship/Spacecraft Bridge

A starship/spacecraft bridge size, in my estimate, is based on at minimum of Step 9-7 Bridge Crew plus using part of control panel units requirement determined in Step 8. Beyond Step 9-7 Bridge Crew and Step Control Panel Units requirement the actual size is subject to interpretation by the individual designer.

My interpretation of the MT Bridge size is based on personal experience serving on four submarines' control centers, one surface ship's bridge, influenced by the Star Trek Universe, CT crew seating prior to TNE BL Technical Booklet, and TNE FF&S.

In CT the bridge per CT Traveller LBB 2 Starships 2e 1977/1981 p. 13 includes the basic controls, communications equipment, avionics, scanners, detectors, sensors, and other equipment for proper operation of the ship.

Star Trek Bridge Positions: The Command Chair, Helm/Navigation Station, Communications Station, C.I.C Computer Central on the 1973 blueprints I believe this was the Science Station on the show, Navigation Station, Defense and Weapons Station, Defense Subsystem Station, Engineering Subsystems, Ship's Environment Monitoring* Station, and Engineering Station.

I added Monitoring* for clarification that the bridge position was not the ship's life support system. A submarine's control center has similarities to Star Trek's bridge the combination of which I use to visualize a Traveller bridge. The number of bridge stations is of course modified to fit the role of the ship.

In MT for hulls >= 100 tons one determines the number control panel units in the same way as chassis/hull for design < 100 tons. For a
chassis/hull < 100 tons crew positions or seats have been defines, which is not the case for hulls >= 100 tons.

My solution was based on comparing the CT crew crouch size of 0.5 tons or 7 m^3/kiloliters with the MT Crew Positions Table. The MT equivalent of a CT 0.5 is 6.75 kiloliters.

The 6.75 allocated to the crew member at a control panel unit is space that would have otherwise been part of the cargo hold.

Since hulls >= 100 tons are routinely operating for periods > 24 hours the real standard practice is to have three watch sections that are on duty for 2, 4, 6, or 8 hours. Each section has enough personnel to operate a minimum number of stations safely underway.

A Bridge with 8 stations would at maximum would have eight crew members the space needed would at minimum include the (control panel units plus my crew seat of 0.5 tons) x the maximum bridge crew.

Based on my experience on vessels moving in a hostile environment and the established standards given for Architectural Graphics Standards and USN habitability taking space from staterooms make no sense.

An alternate method based on TNE is to use Step 9-6 in the same way chassis/hull < 100 tons does.
 
It's funny how you can do something for years without giving it a second thought and then, suddenly, something that was there all along smacks you in the face.

RM: "Very Thin Atmosphere: The atmosphere has a pressure of 0.1 to 0.42 atmospheres, which requires the use of a compressor to ensure sufficient oxygen."

This is legacy information. Back at the dawn of time, the original CT said you needed compressors in very thin atmospheres. But ... isn't it bad to deliver air under pressure to the lungs, except in a rather narrow range? CPAPs deliver their bit in units of cmH2O, with 1 cmH2O roughly equivalent to about 0.4 inches of water (i.e at the 20 cmH2O mark it's like the pressure at 8 inches under water). Lungs can be damaged by as little as a 1/10 atmosphere difference. So, shouldn't these things be described as coming with a belly band? Also, below a certain point there you aren't going to deliver useful levels of oxygen unless the planet's atmosphere is unusually O2-rich or you apply pressures that could damage the lungs. Wouldn't an O2 concentrator be more useful than a compressor in very thin atmospheres? Should we be saying concentrator instead of compressor?

The other thought is that even with an O2 concentrator, you're not going to be able to deliver useful oxygen at 0.1 atmospheres at any pressure the lungs can handle, not without a belly band. Occurs to me that the bottom end of Very Thin should be about 0.2 Atm.

Or am I just not understanding this right?
 
Hello Carlobrand,

It's funny how you can do something for years without giving it a second thought and then, suddenly, something that was there all along smacks you in the face.

RM: "Very Thin Atmosphere: The atmosphere has a pressure of 0.1 to 0.42 atmospheres, which requires the use of a compressor to ensure sufficient oxygen."

This is legacy information. Back at the dawn of time, the original CT said you needed compressors in very thin atmospheres. But ... isn't it bad to deliver air under pressure to the lungs, except in a rather narrow range? CPAPs deliver their bit in units of cmH2O, with 1 cmH2O roughly equivalent to about 0.4 inches of water (i.e at the 20 cmH2O mark it's like the pressure at 8 inches under water). Lungs can be damaged by as little as a 1/10 atmosphere difference. So, shouldn't these things be described as coming with a belly band? Also, below a certain point there you aren't going to deliver useful levels of oxygen unless the planet's atmosphere is unusually O2-rich or you apply pressures that could damage the lungs. Wouldn't an O2 concentrator be more useful than a compressor in very thin atmospheres? Should we be saying concentrator instead of compressor?

The other thought is that even with an O2 concentrator, you're not going to be able to deliver useful oxygen at 0.1 atmospheres at any pressure the lungs can handle, not without a belly band. Occurs to me that the bottom end of Very Thin should be about 0.2 Atm.

Or am I just not understanding this right?

I may not be right but many items in Traveller cover more than one function in the case of a compressor when attached to a vehicle's air breathing engine it is dialed in to run engine. When used by a living body the compressor acts as a concentrator.
 
Hello Carlobrand,



I may not be right but many items in Traveller cover more than one function in the case of a compressor when attached to a vehicle's air breathing engine it is dialed in to run engine. When used by a living body the compressor acts as a concentrator.

Umm, probably not. A compressor for an engine has only the job of compressing air. It would have to be attached to the engine in such a way as to provide air through whatever inlet the engine was using, so it's most likely tailored to the engine, and it's most cost-efficient to design it only for the role it's serving.

An O2 concentrator has the additional job of removing nitrogen from the air mix, and then it must allow the result to return to ambient pressure to deliver it at a pressure tolerable to humans. These are steps a machine would not need, therefore representing additional cost and additional parts that would need servicing and might break down, without improving the operation of the machine. Something for a jet might be designed to be dual-purpose since it also has to serve the needs of the people in the jet, but a small man-portable item designed to serve a human - and this item weighs only half a kilogram - is not likely to be designed to also serve a machine.

The use of the word "compressor" in this instance brings to mind a specific action: compressing the air to deliver it at a higher pressure. This would in most cases injure a human.
 
Hello Carlobrand,

Umm, probably not. A compressor for an engine has only the job of compressing air. It would have to be attached to the engine in such a way as to provide air through whatever inlet the engine was using, so it's most likely tailored to the engine, and it's most cost-efficient to design it only for the role it's serving.

An O2 concentrator has the additional job of removing nitrogen from the air mix, and then it must allow the result to return to ambient pressure to deliver it at a pressure tolerable to humans. These are steps a machine would not need, therefore representing additional cost and additional parts that would need servicing and might break down, without improving the operation of the machine. Something for a jet might be designed to be dual-purpose since it also has to serve the needs of the people in the jet, but a small man-portable item designed to serve a human - and this item weighs only half a kilogram - is not likely to be designed to also serve a machine.

The use of the word "compressor" in this instance brings to mind a specific action: compressing the air to deliver it at a higher pressure. This would in most cases injure a human.

Here is the information I dug up:

Referee's Manual Generating Star Systems and Worlds Main world determinations after the fact Atmosphere p. 21

Very Thin Atmosphere: The atmosphere has a pressure of 0.1 to 0.42 atmospheres, which requires the use of a compressor to ensure sufficient oxygen.

Referee's Manual Environment Notes p. 61

They must have intake compressors to function on very thin atmosphere worlds. All pre-fusion engines, with the exception of rockets, are air breathers; a vehicle powered by batteries is not an air breather.

Craft Design 8 - Bridge 1 Environmental Controls p. 81

Intake Compressor (for power plants in very thin atmosphere)

Player's Manual Getting Your Feet Wet p.6

This book, the Players’ Manual, covers the player-related aspects of Traveller. Another volume, the Referee’s Manual, covers the referee’s duties of creating and administering an adventure (world generation, vehicle design, starship combat, encounter resolution). Yet a third volume, the Imperial Encyclopedia, provides background information, lists of equipment and vehicles, historical essays, checklists, and diagrams.

Imperial Encyclopedia Equipment p. 63

Respirator: A small compressor which allows an individual to breathe in very thin atmospheres.

Following the information trail the information for a compressor in the Referee's Manual is referring to vehicles and not characters who need to breathe.

Yes, my suggestion was off the mark and the correct piece of equipment for personnel to breathe in very thin atmospheres is a respirator.
 
Point blank range and agility

"Consider which is faster, the Queen Mary, or a rowboat?"

Worst. Explanation. Ever.

I think - I hope - we can all agree on that. The Queen Mary is stuck in an ocean, the water resisting the ship's effort to bring her powerful engines to bear in a new direction. Get her out of the water into space, give her inertial compensators and decent attitude jets, and Her Majesty can spin like a rowboat. As for that rowboat: how quickly it can change its heading becomes irrelevant unless it can also apply enough acceleration to, in essence, get out from under the incoming hit by making its precise location fuzzy to a distant attacker. Doesn't matter how fast you spin if you only end up taking the hit on the aft deck instead of amidships. It's thrust that makes your precise location uncertain.

(How your precise location can be uncertain at ranges of under a light-second, when you glow like an infrared firefly against the backdrop of space, is a separate issue. We rather need it since otherwise the only thing that matters is how good we are at pointing the laser, which eliminates agility as a factor at ranges under about a half light-second. Traveller went with the sci-fi hard-to-hit-ships trope because it's quite a bit more entertaining than see-him-kill-him, so we'll stick with that.)

So, what might be a better explanation? And, while we're at it, what about another seemingly unrelated problem?

From time to time, one looks at the personal combat rules and thinks, "Wow, if you could get a fighter to these ranges, you could really mess up a dreadnought." Lasers and energy weapons have double the penetration at ranges under 5 km (though atmosphere plays with that a bit; I may come back to that). That alone wreaks havoc, because even a maxed out armored dreadnought finds itself losing maneuver and weapons, and any lesser creature sees interior explosions and criticals become a possibility. But, there's more: time scale is 1/200th the space combat time, and lasers and energy weapons can potentially fire 30 times in a minute. If ships close to personal combat ranges, the rest of the battle stops while the two wrestlers swiss-cheese each other with their lasers.

Why doesn't that happen?

(Rationalization time!)

Perhaps because that miracle of future technology, the maneuver drive, behaves like a spinning top as your speed increases: the faster you go, the more effort it takes to change the orientation of the drive (and, by extension, the ship it's mounted to). Whatever magic it uses to interact with space to provide thrust has that one weakness: vector inertia. At speeds of a couple thousand kilometers per hour, the effect is insignificant, but at space battle speeds - a minimum of 75,000 klicks per hour - it can take a minute or two to manage a 180 degree turn, and the faster you go, the harder it gets.

This turns combat for ships at under 12,000 Km range into something that looks very much like the old Star Fleet Battles game: slower ships make little movement but turn quickly, inside the radius of their faster opponents. With constraints on the ability to turn based on your velocity, getting and staying close to someone pretty much requires their cooperation, so ships have no particular problem staying out of the 5 km kill zone, and what they do when they're both in the same hex becomes no different from what they'd be doing if they were in neighboring hexes.

How does that play into agility? Well, we need to be careful here. If we say added agility allows you to turn faster, then we're back to the more agile ship using that agility to turn inside the less agile one despite their higher speed, and we're in the swiss cheese factory again. No, in this case we take a page from the Starship Operator's Manual: for very brief periods, additional energy can be fed into the drives to increase the drive's acceleration by up to 400%. Since your drive can offer a bit of thrust in any direction (25% lateral, 10% reverse), you become a hummingbird, your vector gaining a quick burst left, right, forward, or back. Your overall vector remains predictable, but your precise location along that line becomes more difficult to predict. Unlike the normal operation of the maneuver drive, this function varies with the mass of your ship: heavier ships require more energy to alter their base vector beyond the normal rating of the drive. You are also still constrained by the limits of your inertial compensators, so the effect has an upper ceiling, but you become (within the Traveller universe convention of hard-to-hit ships) a harder target.

Oh, and you don't get to 5 km range unless the other guy cooperates or is dead in space.
 
Hard Times query:

Errata has two values for mass of a kiloliter of solid fuel. Which one is correct? On page 65, the first table shows a mass of 0.1 (tons?) per kiloliter. On the next page, the mass is 1 ton per kiloliter.

For a TL3 solid fuel - basically a black powder rocket, I guess - with the block of fuel being consumed in 6 seconds and generating 20 tons thrust, the first value generates exhaust velocities of 1200 m/s and a specific impulse of ... 122? (am I calculating that right?), which is about half again what I'd expect but there's a fudge factor, it being a game, and the later tech solid fuels seem about right. However, it floats! This stuff is as light as balsa wood.

The second value generates 1/10 that, which low for black powder by a factor of 6, and the later modern solid fuels are downright anemic, with the TL7 showing an exhaust velocity of about 270 m/s, but the density's right.
 
Question: did we ever figure out what was powering PGMPs and FGMPs?

Per canon, the PGMPs and FGMPs after TL12 had essentially infinite shots and were described as having "a small fusion reactor with effectively unlimited fuel for combat purposes" (Imperial Encyclopedia), but the smallest plants producible under the Referee's Manual rules at TL13 is a 150 kg plant, and it doesn't get smaller than 80 kg, that at TL16. This little sweetie is 60 kg at TL13 and 20 kg at TL15, and it acts like it's putting out about 10 times as much power as a Referee's Manual microplant. Even for something that needs maintenance every day or two, that's something that could be useful in other roles.
 
Correction to Errata Document.

Pg 53

Page 26, Fleets of the Imperium (clarification):

214 is Spinward Marches D and Corridor H - Deneb A is 194.
 
Re: MT Errata, an updated MT CD, and YOU

Don's last post before posting Version 2.21 (02/23/13) is numbered 725. This post is 935. I am currently digging through 209 errata posts.

From Pg 3 of the Consolidated MegaTraveller Errata
EXPANSIONS

 Wet Navy (Challenge #53, #54 and #60). I have a [very tentative] plan for this, since I found the unpublished Part 4 (Expanded Sailor Character Generation) on the HIWG disc.

 Wind & Wood, Steel & Steam, early tech design (Challenge #61). I didn't think to ask about this. I integrated it into my copy years ago, along with the One Small Step rules from Hard Times. If Don could sneak Challenge article ironmongery into the errata, there is no reason I can't. I'll send Marc 2 versions of the RM, 1 with, 1 without.
 Terry McInnes posted an outtake of COAAC on the TML (Special Weapons, AKA CBN). I added it.
 There were a few minor nicknacks that didn't make the transition from CT to MT.
 Different editions of the Core rulebooks had different maps in them. I consolidated them, along with the missing pages.
 IE had a wall of text listing all of the UWP info for the Spinward Marches along with a color map (done in B&W, which made it unreadable). That is now broken out by subsector.
 Marc agreed that the ships in FSOSI aren't salvageable - I think Clayton Bush not only converted the Supplement 9 ships to MT, he also assigned copyright to GDW, so I can just drop those in, once I find all of them.

From Pg 4 of the Consolidated MegaTraveller Errata:

PROBLEMS
There are certain issues with the MegaTraveller rules as presented for which no obvious errata exists.

At some point, it is hoped that the MT community might agree on “addenda” to cover these issues. For now, they are listed here as known problems…

 Should aircraft damage points NOT be multiplied by 10 like other vehicles?

 How long do the effects of Trader skill apply? (RM 54) (I'd say a week, myself)

 Prospecting buggy design missing (carried by Seeker) (IE 81)

 High Velocity Guns need to expand to allow naval guns (RM 77) (Done via Wet Navy.)

 Pirate characters receiving a “letter of marque” in mustering out are supposed to receive a positive DM for receiving a corsair? (PM 19)

 Tac missiles in MT? MTJ #3’s tac missiles are not the answer… (Mainly due to the fact it is DGP IP. OTOH, there isn't a reason we can't derive Tac Missiles from the Multiple Rocket Launcher Tables in RM.)

 Existing disintegrator errata makes weapon weaker than particle accelerators

I am on a short suspense. I need all of this buttoned up by 31 Dec. Speak now on these issues.
 
Harry, re: tac missiles.

I did some work porting tac missile design over from Striker and it works. Launchers port over too. I will try to find it and write that part up this weekend.

Was is missing is the rules for using tac missiles and I don't have any old work to fall back on for that so I can't guess how long that might take. There are a bunch of guys who could draft them faster than I could but I'm not sure how active they are now.

Mike
 
A week sounds good to me as well.

Makes sense. Do you need a recommendation for an exact modifier?

I am just quoting from the errata document. That should be a GM decision. IMTU, I run it as either a week or a day, depending on the starport size and/or traffic (based on Pop).

As a GM I don't spend a lot of time trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. At some point, the GM has to do some work.

Re: Pirate Characters & Letter of Marque.
From the PM:
"A letter of marque has no monetary value; it provides a positive DM for receipt of a ship as a benefit."

So, I'd say yes. I'll add a note to that effect under Mustering Out Benefit Objects (Corsair).
 
Harry, re: tac missiles.

I did some work porting tac missile design over from Striker and it works. Launchers port over too. I will try to find it and write that part up this weekend.

Was is missing is the rules for using tac missiles and I don't have any old work to fall back on for that so I can't guess how long that might take. There are a bunch of guys who could draft them faster than I could but I'm not sure how active they are now.

Mike

Thanks. I am sure we can figure out something.
 
On page 40 of the errata is written:

Page 94, left column, DMs for Ship Damage Tables, second entry (correction): Replace “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of 9 or less...”
with “If the weapon inflicting the hit has a UCP factor of A or more, apply a DM of +6.”

In my Referee's Manual the second entry is completely different:

"If the weapon inflicting the hit is a spinal mount, apply a DM of +6"

Should I just add the errata to the table or replace the entry with the errata? :confused:
 
Back
Top