HG Personnel Errata query
- Thread starter DonM
- Start date
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I am not sure that i follow you on this "show the math"? And are you the person to send CT errata too? I have picked up a couple that I do not think are on your list.
The ship design worksheets for errata should be self-explanatory as to crew requirements. And yes, I'm the errata guy... and send errata to me at don.mckinney@gmail.com (or travellererrata@gmail.com).
At which point, you may as well
(1) use the same spreadsheet for all of them (so they're all equally correct or wrong
(2) rewrite S7 & S9
I've considered #2 more than once. Heck, the Revised SS4 on the FFE CT CD was actually my proof-of-concept that we could revise the materials.
Then Marc finally got my interest in T5. But I still dabble...
So, is the spreadsheet correct? Have I finally got the personnel where we agree or not?
Then Marc finally got my interest in T5. But I still dabble...
So, is the spreadsheet correct? Have I finally got the personnel where we agree or not?
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
It took me a while to figure out that you page numbers are referring to the 2nd edition of High Guard. I have two copies, so one might be the 2nd edition. Have fun trying to get everything to mesh.
Almost no one uses 1st ed HG. If you're one of the few... well...
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I did not say that I used it, I have a copy. The sales sticker that is still on it is from the Great Lakea Navy Base Exchange, and tells me that I paid $4.90 for it, with no sales tax, and a list price of $5.98.
I have this problem with ships that cost tens to hundred of billions of credits to be built. I keep looking at formulas to determine how long it should take to build a ship of a certain tonnage given the ability of the average ship yard worker to produce X number of tons of ship a year, then look at starships massing hundreds of thousands of tons, and thinking, no way. It does, I assume, make a considerable number of people happy. I also keep looking at the fact that no faster-than-light sensors exist, which means for very long range search you have a built-in time lag. Also, in all of the ships pictured in the various Traveller books, I have yet to see any with a really serious radar array, capable of detection of a ship at several hundreds of thousands of miles, say something on the order of a Ballistic Missile Early Warning Radar. Even the small ships in Traders and Gunboats, except for the X-Boat tender, do not have anything remotely resembling a sensor array.
It does have, on page 40, a nice description of using the maneuver drive as a weapon, calling it a fusion drive, which is where the ambivalence of exactly what is a maneuver drive appears. Based on that statement, a maneuver drive is a fusion reaction drive. Does that appear in the 2nd Edition book as well? Looking through Supplement 9, Fighting Ships, there are a very large number of pictures of ships showing exhaust trails. Not a lot of sensor arrays though.
Last edited:
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Morning timerover51,
The CT design system, based on a lot of discussion, is a basic no major frills sequence to produce ships quickly. MT/TNE/T4/GT design systems came out to satisfy, to a degree anyway, gear heads for items like sensor arrays. Striker Book 3 is an attempt at a design system to include the items mentioned here for the planet bound forces.
Of course each of the design sequences have had items streamlined and/or simplified, relatively speaking, to make, in theory, the process flow easier.
To get the feel of the equipment one of the later design systems needs to be used.
I'm sure that there are articles out there that have addressed the concerns mentioned here. I think that Christopher Thrash, I hope I got the name right I working from memory here
, work a piece. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where the article is archived on my computer or which forum or board to look at.
If I find my copy or remember the links I'll let you know.
The CT design system, based on a lot of discussion, is a basic no major frills sequence to produce ships quickly. MT/TNE/T4/GT design systems came out to satisfy, to a degree anyway, gear heads for items like sensor arrays. Striker Book 3 is an attempt at a design system to include the items mentioned here for the planet bound forces.
Of course each of the design sequences have had items streamlined and/or simplified, relatively speaking, to make, in theory, the process flow easier.
To get the feel of the equipment one of the later design systems needs to be used.
I'm sure that there are articles out there that have addressed the concerns mentioned here. I think that Christopher Thrash, I hope I got the name right I working from memory here
, work a piece. Unfortunately, I'm not sure where the article is archived on my computer or which forum or board to look at.If I find my copy or remember the links I'll let you know.
No, HG 2E drops the fusion torch references.
Note that sensors are canonically subsumed into bridge tonnage - that the artists don't show the dedicated sensor kits is an issue for you, but I know that a well designed 1m IR scope can easily pick up a ship further out - and will be at most a 1Td install of the minimum 20Td of bridge. Later, in T20, the basic HG assumption is challenged slightly, putting the sensors into the computer tonnage, in an otherwise HG compatible design sequence.
I've more of an issue with HG of the lack of distinction between military and civilian bridge costs, and a lack of a civilian drive set (namely PP and JD) with costs more inline with Bk2. (The increased costs of operation and payment are not made up for sufficiently by the increased cargo tonnage under Bk5, breaking the base prices for Bk2/3 trade.)
Also note: Sensors become part of the design sequence in MegaTraveller. In general, the level of detail needed to make it worthwhile was more detail than most people used in play. I did, but I'm a mild form of gearhead.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
I do have the 2nd edition of High Guard as well, and I noticed that the fusion torch reference was gone.
I am working on a set of house rules for that. It mainly involves shrinking the military drive sets and doubling the price, while the civilian drive sets remain the same size, but are at least 50% cheaper than listed prices. I much prefer the simplicity of the basic Classic Traveller books over what follows in terms of ship and other material design.
As for bridge design for military ships, I am planning on using a flat 5% of hull volume, minimum size is 20 tons, and cost is 10 Million Credits per ton. For civilian ships, it is 1% of hull volume or 20 tons, whichever is greater, and costs as stated. That basically lets ships up to 2000 tons displacement volume keep the 20 ton bridge.
With respect to the sensor design sequence in MegaTraveller, I am not sure if it is worth the ink and paper used to print it. I will stick with extrapolating from real-world systems.
At which point, you're not playing traveller anymore...
once you decide the tropes of the setting don't work for you and overwrite them, your work becomes an unusuable bit for almost everyone else.
MegaTraveller's sensor rules are "good enough." Realistic sensor rules, as for T4, get overly complex rather quickly. Further, Many, if not most, of the players of T4 hated the design sequences - lots of those niggling little details which really add nothing to play.
It really got annoying with T4 to spend 10 minute working out that even a missile could be detected with a 1Td sensor at 2LS.
In any case, this is all tangential to the issue of the crew rules errata that Don was asking about.
Last edited:
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
Okay, I will drop the subject before being dinged again. I did say that I prefer Classic Traveller.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Evening timerover51,
Interesting points, but this thread is about CT crew and my recommendation is to start a new thread for the sensors and drive. At least I'm not the only one who goes off on tangents in threads, I don't feel all a lone.
Interesting points, but this thread is about CT crew and my recommendation is to start a new thread for the sensors and drive. At least I'm not the only one who goes off on tangents in threads, I don't feel all a lone.
Last edited:
You got dinged for admitting you pirated Traveller materials. NOTHING ELSE.
snrdg082102
SOC-14 1K
Evening aramis,
Yep, I'll agree that MT's expanded rules that covered material glossed over in CT are good enough. My issue with the T4 design sequence is the messed up formulas and having to flip back and forth in the book. Of course, I'm more of a gear head and usual don't consider the time needed to detect something.
Have a good one
Yep, I'll agree that MT's expanded rules that covered material glossed over in CT are good enough. My issue with the T4 design sequence is the messed up formulas and having to flip back and forth in the book. Of course, I'm more of a gear head and usual don't consider the time needed to detect something.
Have a good one
