Freedonian System Defense Boat

[Whipsnade]

It's there in black and white - the math can't be argued with - and no one does it.

Mike,

That's right, no one does it. Even the people who wrote the rules and provided examples, which means the that reading of the armor rules is incorrect. ct-starships has been over this for years. The "Zero Armor Costs" argument depends on an exclusionary and thus faulty reading of the armor section, as I'll explain below.

First, the armor section deals with adding armor and not buying hulls. You're told how to figure hull prices in another section. When you choose to add armor to a hull, the armor rules come into effect.

Second, the armor rules contain both words and formulas so you need to apply when adding armor to a design. Both the words and the formula apply to the situation. In this case, zero armor is not adding armor, so the formula does not apply.

You're looking at the formula alone while deliberately ignoring the intent of the words in the armor rule. An intent, I should add, that is backed up by the many unarmored HG2 designs GDW published.

A zero armor rating does not cost either MCr or dTons. Period.


Regards,
Bill

 

[Matt123]

"The HG2 rule for armour 0 is clearer than the the rule for bays, and yet most people ignore the fact that to have armour 0 costs you tonnage. ."

I pulled out my copy of HG2 and checked this. It says you produce a basic hull (which has armor 0) and the armor section says you add armor to the basic hull at a set rate. I don't see where armor 0 costs tonnage since you can't add nothing to the basic hull.

Just to provide the contrary view...

The Hull is described as a "foundation onto which other parts are added" costing 0dtons and implying a framework, decks, internal bulkheads/compartments and a light outer skin. There is no mention of inherant armour.

The Armour section states "The armour factor is the type of armour used." 0 is a factor, "null" is not a factor, -1 is not allowed as a factor. It goes on to state "if no armour is selected, the armour factor is 0". This makes 0 a base armour factor/type for non-armoured ships.

The rules go on immediately to apply the chosen factor, without excepting armour factor/type 0.

The final sentance of the paragraph refers to "added value of armour" implying strongly that the added armour is added to a base line, I'd pick Armour factor/type 0. Onto which added value may not exceed the ships TL.

The only exception to this is the disperesed structure, which is excluded from consideration in the opening sentances of the paragraph and re-introduced in the second paragraph, giving it a default Armour-0 without having to pay for it.

Refering to Striker, which Frank Chadwick was working on at around the same time as he reviewed HG2, he applied a striker armour factor of 40 (= tank armour levels...) to HG ships with Armour-0, requiring 33cm thickness of steel at TL6 & 18cm at TL7-9, etc. Obviously Frank at the time thought Armour-0 was definately not the equivalent of 'no amour'. I very much doubt he intended the HG rule to be interpreted as Armour-0 is free.

In conclusion, I agree, we should all be paying for Armour-0. That we are not has doomed our brave starfarers to interstellar radiation, micrometeorites and knocks from portside dockworkers driving grav-lifts.

But we have all spent the last 30 years using an unspoken 'house-rule'. Changing or correcting this now means undoing 30 years of work. On this basis alone I hesitate to see it corrected.

Cheers!
Matt

 

[DonM]

You're looking at the formula alone while deliberately ignoring the intent of the words in the armor rule. An intent, I should add, that is backed up by the many unarmored HG2 designs GDW published.

And by the official clarifications list. I found that other file... let's see...

Armor, p. 29: The text reads “The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected.” If no armor is selected, no tonnage is required. The Hull Armor table does not imply that all TL 7 – 9 designs sacrifice 4% of their tonnage, etc., even if the Armor USP is zero.

 

[mike wightman]

If the 'If no armor is selected, no tonnage is required' bit written in the sentence above had been included in the rules there wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't and there has been no errata/clarification for HG2 published in an official supplement that I can find other than the clarifications in TCS.

The rules really are clear - Select desired armor rating, no armor is armor factor 0, armor factor zero costs a % of the hull based on TL.

 

[rancke]

The rules really are clear - Select desired armor rating, no armor is armor factor 0, armor factor zero costs a % of the hull based on TL.

There, there. The important thing is that you think the rules are clear.

How about those who think the rules are clear agree to disagree with those who think the rules are clear the other way and those who think the rules and the examples together are clear and those who think the clarifications make them clear?


Hans

 

[Theophilus]

If this was all that was said we could argue, but:

Page 51, Kinunir example has a line by line description. It lists all the items used, it says:
"no armor, spinal mount or bay weapons", if the arguement is that a TL15 ship still needs armor 1+a=1% there should be 12.5 tons allotted to armor/hull, There is not.

Page 52 Kinunir's 35 ton gig, NO armor, nor is there .35 tons allotted to Hull.

As Mike has said, "it's there in black and white, no one can argue with it"

I'm not sure that the text is vague, I think that no one read the last three pages of the book where it gives specific examples of ship designs which clarify the rules.

p.s. page 50 has the description for a gazelle class escort, which does have armor added, and which allots tonnage for it.

 

[Matt123]

If this was all that was said we could argue, but:

Page 51, Kinunir example ...snip...

p.s. page 50 has the description for a gazelle class escort ...snip...

lol, you realise that relying on these two ship examples means we can do other things, like for example include drop tanks in hardpoint calculations (Gazelle) and make up random crew numbers (Kinunir & virtually every other canon ship).

I'd steer clear of attempting to use canon ships as reliable examples of the ship design rules...

Thanks for the referance tho', I figured out why the Kinunir doesn't get Agility-1 when you attempt to re-build the ship. The Nuclear Damper in the design description is miss-labled as Nuclear Damper-5 whilst the build stats are for Nuclear Damper-4. I'd pen corrected it at some stage, but Fighting Ships & probably the Adventure, obviously copied the USP given without checking the design description. The differance in EP needed gives the Kinunir Agility-1. Still haven't figured out why the Kinunir gets TL12 missile batteries tho...

Cheers!
Matt

 

[mike wightman]

The Kinunir was built originally using HG1 - the port to HG2 requires a bit of fudging (notice the ship has gained 50t as a HG2 design).

And as I said up thread no one applies the armor 0 rule - not even the game designers it appears (although since so many of their designs are broken I have to wonder which rules they were using for anything ).

But it is there:

The armor factor is the type of armor used; if no armor is selected, the armor
factor in the USP is zero. The armor table indicates formulae for the computation
of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected. For example, the formula
at tech level 9 is 4+4a (a is armor factor). On a 100-ton ship with an armor factor of
3, this formula indicates that the ship must allocate 16% (4+4x3), or 16 tons. Cost
is MCr.3+.la per ton; the cost per ton is MCr.6 (.3+.1x3), or MCr9.6 (16 tons times
MCr.6) total for the ship. The added value of armor on a ship may not exceed the
ship's tech level.

In the above example substitute no armor selected - therefore a USP of 0 for armor. Now use the formula for the TL.
Clear enough but totally ignored.

 

[mike wightman]

There, there. The important thing is that you think the rules are clear.

How about those who think the rules are clear agree to disagree with those who think the rules are clear the other way and those who think the rules and the examples together are clear and those who think the clarifications make them clear?


Hans

Yep, very clear

Shame that the clarifications weren't clearly clarified a lot sooner to clear things up.

 

[mike wightman]

The reason for posting the above is to show that a few things in HG2 weren't really as clear as they could have been.

I personally did bay weapons wrong for many years, and also have always ignored the armor 0 costs hull% too.

 

[Whipsnade]

The reason for posting the above is to show that a few things in HG2 weren't really as clear as they could have been.

Mike,

Yes, the verbiage should have been clearer. The examples were crystal clear however.

I personally did bay weapons wrong for many years, and also have always ignored the armor 0 costs hull% too.

I handled maximum armor levels incorrectly for decades.


Regards,
Bill

 

[atpollard]

A zero armor rating does not cost either MCr or dTons. Period.

Yeah, what he said.

 

[DonM]

Since I've got everyone's attention, here's what's on the current list of official clarifications for for the CT errata project. Still open if anyone has other suggestions for items, and clanges to the wording, before I make a final submission to Marc.

Remember, there is NO errata for HG2, just clarifications (Marc's words). It might look like errata, but it's not.

HIGH GUARD (Traveller Book 5, 1980 edition)
In 1981, Adventure 5 – Trillion Credit Squadron was released. The “Rules and Rulings” section (TCS p. 12–16) are official changes to the High Guard rules. However, there are some remaining items which require clarification:
Computer Models, p. 26: The “Ship” Column is poorly explained as “the ship requiring this computer as a minimum”, which leads to the question: “Is a Model/1 computer required for all hulls from 0 to 699 tons, or for hulls from 600 to 999 tons?” To allow for larger hull sizes at lower TLs, the following interpretation is suggested:
Minimum Computer Required Tonnage Range Code Range
None 0 to 599 0-5
Model/1 600 to 999 6-9
Model/2 1000 to 3999 A-C
Model/3 4000 to 9999 D-J
Model/4 10,000 to 49,999 K-N
Model/5 50,000 to 99,999 P-Q
Model/6 100,000 to 999,999 R-X
Model/7 1,000,000+ Y
Armor, p. 29: The text reads “The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected.” If no armor is selected, no tonnage is required. The Hull Armor table does not imply that all TL 7 – 9 designs sacrifice 4% of their tonnage, etc., even if the Armor USP is zero.
Batteries, p. 29: The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the HG Combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. Weapons in a mixed turret must be organized as single weapon batteries; they cannot be organized into batteries with weapons from other turrets (mixed or not).
Bay Weapons, p. 30: If the hull size is less than 1000 tons, no bay weapon (regardless of size) may be installed.
Computer-n damage, p. 49: The only affect that a fibre optic backup has is to negate Computer-n results from the Radiation Damage Table. Such results from the Interior Explosions Damage Table, or the Computer Destroyed result from the Critical Hit table, are not affected, even if the roll for the Critical Hit was from a result on the Radiation Damage table.
Fuel-n Damage, p. 49: The percentage of fuel loss is based on the original, undamaged tank size, even if the tanks are only partially full. The actual physical tank is not damaged or reduced – only carried fuel is lost.
Weapon-n Damage, p. 49: Regardless of n, the loss is a single battery, unless there is only one battery of that weapon type remaining, in which case the USP factor of the battery is reduced by n.

 

[Matt123]

Hmmm, I was awaiting with eager anticipation for feedback on Don's clarifications. Its worth you guys at least saying you agree or otherwise.

I've seen it on Ct-Starships so my feedback won't be news to Don. I agree with most of it & most IMHO clarifies or restates the obvious. The only issue I have is with the armour clarification.

Armor, p. 29: The text reads “The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected.” If no armor is selected, no tonnage is required. The Hull Armor table does not imply that all TL 7 – 9 designs sacrifice 4% of their tonnage, etc., even if the Armor USP is zero.

I agree with the end result of Armor-0 is free, but the logic given above at worse fails under scrutiny and at best is subject to strong debate. IMHO the only thing the two sides of the debate agree on is that the majority of us play it as Armour-0 is free. In the interests of setting a 'clarification' that we can all agree on, I suggest a text like...

Armor, p.29: The text and table can be read two ways, Armor-0 is free or Armor-0 costs. Debate is strong among experienced HG players, however the community as a whole plays it as Armor-0 is free. The official clarification is therefore in line with the community, Armor-0 is free. Armour-0 costs may still be used as a house rule as desired.

In one swoop, the clarification follows the will of the community, avoids issues of declaring one side of the debate wrong, avoids sounding like errata and sets a standard for the community to follow without appearing to ostracise the dissenters. The debate will likely never die, regardless of any 'clarification' but at least we can all keep playing to an agreeable ruling in the meantime.

Thoughts?

 

[atpollard]

Hmmm, I was awaiting with eager anticipation for feedback on Don's clarifications. Its worth you guys at least saying you agree or otherwise.

There are 10 pages of what people think, but for the sake of discussion:

Computer Models, p. 26: The “Ship” Column is poorly explained as “the ship requiring this computer as a minimum”, which leads to the question: “Is a Model/1 computer required for all hulls from 0 to 699 tons, or for hulls from 600 to 999 tons?” To allow for larger hull sizes at lower TLs, the following interpretation is suggested:

While I generally agree with this interpretation, it suggests that there should be a “Model/0” computer for ships less than 600 dTons. The alternative is a 500 ton interplanetary Cargo/Liner that flies from Earth to the Asteroid Belt “by the seat of the pants” (without an onboard computer). “Just keep Saturn in the window and you’ll stay on course” stretches credibility further than I am comfortable with.

Armor, p. 29: The text reads “The armor table indicates formulae for the computation of armor tonnage and cost, based on the factor selected.” If no armor is selected, no tonnage is required. The Hull Armor table does not imply that all TL 7 – 9 designs sacrifice 4% of their tonnage, etc., even if the Armor USP is zero.

I agree 100%. The table and text apply to adding armor and the ‘typical’ ship from the LBB2 and HG hull descriptions consists of a structural shell and a single bulkhead separating the Engineering from the Crew sections. The ‘Hull’ protects against radiation (including that from Engineering as implied in the LBB2 rules) and micro impacts (implied in LBB2 and HG and made explicit by the Striker-HG armor conversion.)
With respect to the issue of cost of armor-0, that’s what the 100,000 credits per dTon of ship hull is.

Batteries, p. 29: The text is somewhat confusing. In order to use the HG Combat rules, all ships must organize their weapons into batteries. Weapons in a mixed turret must be organized as single weapon batteries; they cannot be organized into batteries with weapons from other turrets (mixed or not).
Bay Weapons, p. 30: If the hull size is less than 1000 tons, no bay weapon (regardless of size) may be installed.

While I disagree with both of these views for IMTU, they are the correct reading of the rules as written.
I would allow multiple identical mixed turrets to be combined into batteries since I could easily imagine a half dozen mixed triple turrets (Beam/missile/sand) being aimed and fired together at the same target. IMHO, only one gunner would be needed, but the 6 turret battery could only be aimed in one direction (at one target or cluster of targets) at a time.
I would also allow no more than 1% of the ship to be dedicated to turrets (no turrets below 100 ton hulls, no barbettes below 500 ton hulls), 10% of the ship to be dedicated to bay weapons (yes, a 50 ton bay on a 500 ton ship), and 1 coaxial spinal mount per 100,000 tons of ship (sue me, I like Death Stars).
But as I said, my preferences are not what is written in the rules.

Fuel-n Damage, p. 49: The percentage of fuel loss is based on the original, undamaged tank size, even if the tanks are only partially full. The actual physical tank is not damaged or reduced – only carried fuel is lost.

I hated this rule in play – it always felt odd that a turret missile did damage proportional to the size of the target ship. So this is the way the rule was written (and thus a correct clarification) but it is also one of the main reasons that I generally shied away from actually using the HG combat rules.

 

[atpollard]

The actual physical tank is not damaged or reduced – only carried fuel is lost.

Actually, how does that work? If I shoot a hole in a gas can and the gas pours out through the hole, then the fuel is lost AND the can has a hole in it until I patch the hole. Why and where are self-sealing tanks implied?

For that matter, a hole in a tank could easily damage the tank and insulaton and expose the LH2 to 4 degrees K of deep space, freezing the fuel solid at the breach. This would actually damage the tank but NOT loose any fuel. Exactly the opposite of the clarification. I think some explanation for this clarification (in the clarification document) might be in order.

 

[dean]

Actually, how does that work? If I shoot a hole in a gas can and the gas pours out through the hole, then the fuel is lost AND the can has a hole in it until I patch the hole. Why and where are self-sealing tanks implied?

For that matter, a hole in a tank could easily damage the tank and insulaton and expose the LH2 to 4 degrees K of deep space, freezing the fuel solid at the breach. This would actually damage the tank but NOT loose any fuel. Exactly the opposite of the clarification. I think some explanation for this clarification (in the clarification document) might be in order.

Differences in pressures may cause flow to overcome freezing at least temporarily, losing a significant amount of fuel prior to frozen self-seal occurring; in addition, most penetrative weapons will impart a significant amount of heat at the site of impact, this retart the freeze-seal as well.

 

[DonM]

Replies to a whole bunch of comments...

I agree with the end result of Armor-0 is free, but the logic given above at worse fails under scrutiny and at best is subject to strong debate. IMHO the only thing the two sides of the debate agree on is that the majority of us play it as Armour-0 is free. In the interests of setting a 'clarification' that we can all agree on, I suggest a text like...

No "opiniony" (is that a word) text; Marc tells me they never expected anyone to pay for what they didn't buy, so I'll believe him.

While I generally agree with this interpretation, it suggests that there should be a “Model/0” computer for ships less than 600 dTons. The alternative is a 500 ton interplanetary Cargo/Liner that flies from Earth to the Asteroid Belt “by the seat of the pants” (without an onboard computer). “Just keep Saturn in the window and you’ll stay on course” stretches credibility further than I am comfortable with.

Hmm... I never thought about a model/0 computer; the idea is that apparently larger vessels need a bigger computer just by the nature of the size of the vessel. Adding a Model/0 wouldn't be just errata, it would be addenda, and I'm not authorized to do addenda to HG2. Just clarifications.

Actually, how does that work? If I shoot a hole in a gas can and the gas pours out through the hole, then the fuel is lost AND the can has a hole in it until I patch the hole. Why and where are self-sealing tanks implied?

Remember, physical damage to fuel tankage is done by the "Fuel Tanks Shattered" critical hit.

 

[DonM]

And I've had a couple of specific requests for these items, which are basically damage details buried in the construction rules. If anyone has items like that (hard-to-find details buried in the wrong rule), I can drop those in without too much fuss:

Maneuver-n Damage, p. 49: Remember that from the Agility rule (p. 28), a ship’s agility rating may never exceed its maneuver drive rating.
Power-n Damage, p. 49: Remember that from the Agility rule (p. 28), for each power plant hit received in combat (cumulative) the ship's agility rating is reduced by one.

 

[Matt123]

No "opiniony" (is that a word) text; Marc tells me they never expected anyone to pay for what they didn't buy, so I'll believe him.

Fair enuff. Long live the cut & thrust of rules debate

Hmm... I never thought about a model/0 computer; the idea is that apparently larger vessels need a bigger computer just by the nature of the size of the vessel. Adding a Model/0 wouldn't be just errata, it would be addenda, and I'm not authorized to do addenda to HG2. Just clarifications.

I always figured the bridge had some sort of computer system, for small craft at least it equates to computer-0. The computer-1 & up in my mind, were more like main-frames requiring seperate facilities & allowing huge advantages in battle and jump computations.

Hmmm, rereading the Computer section, the opening line is "One central computer for the ship must be specified...". As the minimum computer is the model-1, perhaps the table should read.

Model/1 100 to 999 1-9
Model/2 1000 to 3999 A-C

Having the "None" option when you can't design a ship with no computer, might be confusing.

Remember, physical damage to fuel tankage is done by the "Fuel Tanks Shattered" critical hit.

& fuel tank damage from fuel-n hits is likely amongst the easier, relatively speaking, battle damage to temporarily repair. I'm picking that fuel tanks would be compartmentalized hence the 1% loss each hit, and repairs would be undertaken after the battle & on the way to get more fuel. At need during battle, damage control in vacc-suits could conduct repairs from within the fuel tank. An advanced, large, roll out patch with a hardener (similar to fibreglass) would do the trick as a temporary repair.

Just thoughts.