CT Only: LBB2 Subsidized Liner page 19

[rancke]

To me the write-up is not an example of how the numbers where determined since the math is not shown when the ship was created using the design and construction procedure.

So far most of the time I've made a guess on rounding based on the write-ups I've been wrong, with the exception of MCr which appears that I've finally figured out. That is when I insert the right components.

Then I guess you're on your own.


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello aramis,

General rules of math in english, as taught in grade 5
if it says "Y for each X" or "Y for every X", round up Y.
if it says "Y for every full X", round down Y
If it asks, "how many Y given X rate", round down Y, as the fraction can't.

Now I know why I'm so bad at English and why I can't remember grade 5 math.

From Basic Math Refresher by Stephen Hearne copyright 2005 ISBN 0-7386-0052-0 page 75 in an English format I understand.

"Rounding works like this. First, you choose the decimal place that you want to round to. Then, you look at the digit in the decimal place to the right of it. If it is 5 or greater then round up. If it is 4 or less, then leave it alone. Lastly, get rid of all the remaining digits to the right of the decimal place that you want."

Example Set 1 page 76:

Round the following number to the nearest tenths.
21.36 ≈ 21.4

The number to the right of the tenth place is 6. Since 6 is greater than 5, round the 3 up to 4. Lastly drop the 6. Note that the symbol ≈ means approximately equal to.

Round the following number to the nearest tenths.
21.34 ≈ 21.3

The number to the right of the tenth place is 4. Since 4 is less than 5, leave the 3 alone. Lastly drop the 4.

Example Set 2 page 78
Round the following number to the nearest tenths.
3.6 ≈ 4

The number to the right of the ones place is 5. Since 6 is greater than 5, round the 3 up to 4. Lastly drop the 6.

Example Set 4 page 81:
The following numbers are rounded to the nearest ones.

23.4 ≈ 23; 4.5 ≈ 5; 97.28 ≈ 97; 12.57 ≈ 13; 9.62 ≈ 10; 24.367 ≈ 24

This informs the language in HG, as does common sense.

Common sense says that if you don't have at least as many as the unrounded number, you're undercrewed. (TNE allows undercrewing, but has rules to cover it.)

I always round up all the fractions in crew calculations, because of that very principle.

EG: if the ratio works out to 1.333 engineers needed, 1 engineer isn't meeting the requirement. 2 is, but life is easier on both of them.

As a house rule (not a house rule, but a rule in TNE) round up to the nearest 10th and see if you can put in a multi-role position...

Apparently the Navy's common sense is different from match reality the submarine sonar divisions when I during my time in service was supposed to have 12 trained sonar personnel assigned which broke down to 3 watch sections of 4 sonar personnel. On all four submarines we had 11 sonar technicians/operators. The Chief Leading Petty Officer, when there was one, and Leading Petty Officer usually got pulled to stand watches outside of sonar. Interesting that we where undermanned and when we couldn't get someone like the corpsman or undesignated strikers the number of times one or more of the sonar types stood more watches.

So once again my experience is at odds with the rules, not to mention all the math books I've dug through in addition to Basic Math Refresher.

Another, adjustment to my spreadsheet is in the works.

This takes care of the engineers, but I'm still trying to figure out how to calculate the number of stewards required.

Would the best way to handle the stewards be to subtract the number staterooms needed for the pilot, navigator, engineers, medics and at least 1 steward then divide by 8 high passengers.

The liner has 30 staterooms at least 6 staterooms are needed for the crew without stewards. Using this method 24 staterooms are available to book high passengers. The number of stewards needed would be 24/8 = 3. The 3 stewards each require a stateroom which drops the available staterooms to 21. To check the number 21/8 = 2.6250 or 3 stewards.

Would that be a good fix or is there another way to go about the calculation.

 

[snrdg082102]

Then I guess you're on your own.


Hans

Hans the problem is that I've submitted designs that have been dinged because of my numbers when I've done the calculations on my own. Trying to get the dings down to zero is what I'm trying for and my guessing has a 50% of being right or 50% being wrong and I usually my average is something like 90% wrong.

Hopefully my reply to aramis may get me on the right track and I won't hit any more snags.

Thanks for your attempts to beat this into my hard head.

 

[rancke]

Hans the problem is that I've submitted designs that have been dinged because of my numbers when I've done the calculations on my own.

Submitted where? Dinged by whom? It sounds like your problem isn't getting it right but getting it the way whoever you submit to thinks is right. So ask whoever-it-is how he requires the rules to be interpreted. If you're trying to get designs accepted by someone, that's the person whose opinion matters, not mine or Wil's or even your own.


Hans

 

[atpollard]

This engineer issue really is as much common sense as anything else.

Do you really believe that a ship with 17 dTons of drives and power plants requires no engineers?

If an airplane requires one flight crew member per 1000 tons, should a 450 ton airplane be able to operate with no flight crew?

Sorry, you are probably not going to find rules for rounding engineers written out in the rules.
If Marc wrote land development codes for a living, then the rule might have been written "Starships shall provide one engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plants, or fraction thereof."
Unfortunately, he did not write land development code, so you have to struggle with less precise language, more common sense and a handful of official designs.

 

[snrdg082102]

Submitted where? Dinged by whom? It sounds like your problem isn't getting it right but getting it the way whoever you submit to thinks is right. So ask whoever-it-is how he requires the rules to be interpreted. If you're trying to get designs accepted by someone, that's the person whose opinion matters, not mine or Wil's or even your own.


Hans

I've submitted two designs on ct-starships and several to the contests held on the JTAS site sponsored by Steve Jackson around 10 or 12 years ago.

In both cases the numbers and portions of the fluff where dinged, even when I showed the math. I'm vaguely recalling that you might have dinged a couple of my designs in an effort to make me better. Unfortunately, I decided to stop entering the contest and just voted.

Since then I've worked on some designs which haven't been shared since I don't have a handle on any one design sequence.

Part of my efforts is to verify the designs in LBB2, if I ever get my act together. Once my act is together my next objective is to see what happens when LBB2 jump drives, maneuver drives, and power plants are combined with LBB5. The final goal is once I get LBB 5 deign and construction down I'll pass my finding to Don McKinney for entries in to the Consolidated CT Errata.

Which is why I'm trying very hard now to get the systems down and becoming a pain in your choice of location.

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening atpollard,

This engineer issue really is as much common sense as anything else.

Do you really believe that a ship with 17 dTons of drives and power plants requires no engineers?

If one is applying common sense then the scout/courier with the same power plant, maneuver drive, and power plant as the far trader should have an engineer. The same goes for an X-boat since it has a jump drive and power plant.

However, the rules say that both only need a pilot.

If an airplane requires one flight crew member per 1000 tons, should a 450 ton airplane be able to operate with no flight crew?

By being an airplane common sense, not the requirement of one flight crew per 1000 tons, dictates that a pilot is required otherwise the plane sits on the tarmac taking up space.

Sorry, you are probably not going to find rules for rounding engineers written out in the rules.

If Marc wrote land development codes for a living, then the rule might have been written "Starships shall provide one engineer per 35 tons of drives and power plants, or fraction thereof."

Unfortunately, he did not write land development code, so you have to struggle with less precise language, more common sense and a handful of official designs.

How about something simple like, round fractions up to the nearest ones or whole number which as far as I know has nothing to do with land development.

My common sense tells me, without any math, that a jump drive should have at least one engineer and the power plant should have at least one engineer.

I'm kind of on the fence with the maneuver drives since I vaguely recall that one of the books indicated that the maneuver drive was an addition to the power plant. However, based on what I saw in the engineering spaces in the real world I am more inclined the say that the maneuver drive should have at least one engineer.

So if a ship has a jump drive, maneuver drive, and a power plant the number of engineers should be 3.

Having either drive and the power plant there should be a minimum of 2.

Anyway, I'm adjusted the engineers to roundup.

I'm still not sure how to calculate the subsidized liner's required 3 stewards. I understand, now that, there needs to be 1 crew member with steward skills so that the ship can transport high passengers. My guess and may be a little common sense, suggests that the liner hopes to fill all the staterooms not occupied by the crew with high passengers.

Of course the yacht as written in LBB2 requires a steward even though the ship is privately owned by someone rich. Consolidated CT Errata does indicate that if the yacht is in commercial service then a steward is required.

Another bit of confusion for me to figure out for the yacht.

A quick look at the Mercenary Cruiser shows 9 crew are required and my count comes out to 8. Commanding Officer, Pilot, Navigator, 4 engineers, and medic. The Consolidated CT Errata for LBB2 1981 doesn't mention the difference in numbers.

 

[aramis]

One giant cookie serves 6 students. You have 32 students. How many cookies do you need?
If you answered 5, you just flunked a real grade 5 math question.

An engineer can maintain 35 tons of drive. You have a 42 ton drive. How many engineers do you need?

 

[Sir Brad]

One Engineer drawing 4000cr a month to look after nothing but the Drives & Power-plant and one Maintenance Technician drawing 1000cr a month to do the rest of the shipboard maintenance, but we'll tell the ITSB that the other guy is also an Engineer.

 

[mike wightman]

Within the 3I he would require engineering skill credentials - hope your forgery skills are up to it

 

[RandyB]

Within the 3I he would require engineering skill credentials - hope your forgery skills are up to it

<threadcross> The Maintenance Tech came out of the Other career - he can forge his own papers. </threadcross>

 

[GypsyComet]

I suspect that it's the result of a mistake. The baggage allowance of a Low passenger was said to be 10kg, that of a Mid passenger to 100kg, and that of a High passenger to 1000kg -- one metric ton. Somehow someone confused the metric ton with the dT and the mistake got turned into canon. It's not a serious mistake; 1/10th of a dT is a large closet, but it leaves 1.9 dT over for the rest of the stateroom, and 1/100th of a dT can be fitted into a 0.5dT low berth. So my reccomandation is to go with all three baggage allowances being interpreted as dtons. Whatever one may think the original intent was.

Or perhaps the intent was that it was dtons all along. Who knows?


Hans

My copy of the 77 edition of Book 2 says "10 kilograms", "100 kilograms", and "one ton", while my FFE BFB (built from the 81 edition) says "10 kilograms", "100 kilograms", and "1000 kilograms". This all occurs before the displacement ton is defined in the same book, so the implication is that all three are mass, not volume.

If you are shipping exotic fish in meter cube tanks, have them shipped as freight and pay the premium to have them loaded where you can get access to them to feed them. A two-dton cargo cube will comfortably carry fourteen with room for a door, fish food storage, and full tank access. Gravitic chicanery can get that up to 18, but you may need skills in zero-G to feed them.

 

[snrdg082102]

One giant cookie serves 6 students. You have 32 students. How many cookies do you need?
If you answered 5, you just flunked a real grade 5 math question.

5 with 2 not getting any cookies. I'm one of the two and I didn't get a cookie because I sassed the teacher, while the other was the kid that the person who brought the cookies was mad at.

An engineer can maintain 35 tons of drive. You have a 42 ton drive. How many engineers do you need?

1 to be undermanned
1.2 to be manned at the required level
2 to be over manned
3 to be really over manned

 

[rancke]

My copy of the 77 edition of Book 2 says "10 kilograms", "100 kilograms", and "one ton", while my FFE BFB (built from the 81 edition) says "10 kilograms", "100 kilograms", and "1000 kilograms". This all occurs before the displacement ton is defined in the same book, so the implication is that all three are mass, not volume.

I agree 100%. But when, in the course of time, the ton gets REinterpreted as a dT instead of a metric ton, it seems to me reasonable to conclude that the other two measurements get the same treatment. Otherwise you have baggage allotment expressed in two different measurements. Not impossible, granted, but awkward.

Mind you, I'm not insisting that this is the One True Way. I'm just explaining how I got 1/10th and 1/100th dT out of 100 and 10 kg.


Hans

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

Per LBB2 crew rules:

Medic: Each starship of 200 tons or more must have a medic (medic-1 skill or better). In addition, there must be at least one medic per 120 passengers carried.

The liner is greater than 200 tons and must have one medic.

The liner has the potential to carry 21 passengers in staterooms and 20 passengers in low berths. Total potential passengers carried is 41. The passengers requires 41/120 = 0.3147 per the discussion they require 1 medic.

Total medics = 1 since the liner is >= 200 tons + 1 because of the 41 potential passengers = 2 medics.

The crew list shows only 1 medic can someone please explain why this is the case?

 

[atpollard]

Hello all,

Per LBB2 crew rules:

Medic: Each starship of 200 tons or more must have a medic (medic-1 skill or better). In addition, there must be at least one medic per 120 passengers carried.

The liner is greater than 200 tons and must have one medic.

The liner has the potential to carry 21 passengers in staterooms and 20 passengers in low berths. Total potential passengers carried is 41. The passengers requires 41/120 = 0.3147 per the discussion they require 1 medic.

Total medics = 1 since the liner is >= 200 tons + 1 because of the 41 potential passengers = 2 medics.

The crew list shows only 1 medic can someone please explain why this is the case?

Because BOTH conditions must be met, but they may overlap.

A ship of 200 dTons or less with 0 passengers requires no medics because it is not over 200 dTons.
A ship of over 200 dTons with 0 passengers still needs 1 medic because it is over 200 dTons.

In addition, any ship of any size requires 1 medic if there is at least 1 passenger and not more than 120 passengers. At 121 to 240 passengers the ship requires two medics.

So the liner that you describe is served by 1 medic because that medic fulfills both the requirement for at least 1 medic on any ship over 200 dTons, and the requirement for at least 1 medic on any ship that carries between 1 and 120 passengers.

The requirement for at least 1 medic for any ship over 200 dTons only becomes an issue if the ship has no passengers. If the ship has passengers, then the requirements for medics to service the passengers will be the more restrictive code requirement.

I deal with these sorts of overlapping regulatory criteria every day at work ... they generally do not stack (add the requirements together), but the 'most restrictive rule' prevails.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello atpollard,

Because BOTH conditions must be met, but they may overlap.

A ship of 200 dTons or less with 0 passengers requires no medics because it is not over 200 dTons.
A ship of over 200 dTons with 0 passengers still needs 1 medic because it is over 200 dTons.

LBB2 to specifically states "Each starship of 200 tons or more must have one medic (medic-1 skill or better).

Apparently non-starships >= 200 tons do not require any medics, which my common sense is out to lunch.

In addition, any ship of any size requires 1 medic if there is at least 1 passenger and not more than 120 passengers. At 121 to 240 passengers the ship requires two medics.

So the liner that you describe is served by 1 medic because that medic fulfills both the requirement for at least 1 medic on any ship over 200 dTons, and the requirement for at least 1 medic on any ship that carries between 1 and 120 passengers.

The requirement for at least 1 medic for any ship over 200 dTons only becomes an issue if the ship has no passengers. If the ship has passengers, then the requirements for medics to service the passengers will be the more restrictive code requirement.

I deal with these sorts of overlapping regulatory criteria every day at work ... they generally do not stack (add the requirements together), but the 'most restrictive rule' prevails.

o: I think I see where this is heading the passenger criteria has the phrase "at least" in the requirements. Because the liner has a medic the 41 passengers are covered. If the liner carried 121 passengers then another medic needs to be hired.

Does A scout/courier carrying a VIP from destination A to destination B need to have a medic?

 

[Carlobrand]

... Apparently non-starships >= 200 tons do not require any medics, which my common sense is out to lunch.
...

Nonstarships do a lot of ground-to-orbit work. When they're going planet to planet, it could be as little as a day or as much as a week. That makes it difficult to set a hard and fast rule. That being the case, it would be up to the gamemaster to rule on whether a nonstarship needed a medic for a given trip in his universe.

... Does A scout/courier carrying a VIP from destination A to destination B need to have a medic?

Is this a formal fare, or some role-played under-the-table deal that might not get the attention of the customs people?

Is the scout carrying the VIP because he was ordered to? In that case, what do the people giving the orders say?

 

[atpollard]

Apparently non-starships >= 200 tons do not require any medics, which my common sense is out to lunch.

Personally, I am with you on this one ... boats should have medics IMO.

But the rules say otherwise, so my best guess for what the author might have been thinking is that a boat can radio a distress call and help is on the way in minutes and scheduled to arrive in hours (from another ship or 6G patrol craft from the home world) and advice is available in minutes. A starship is isolated from the universe for a week, so medical emergencies are handled by the ship's medic or not at all.

 

[rancke]

Keep in mind that there are three different reasons for game rules: It's the way the universe works, it's what the Law says, or it's the way it's usually done. In this case, will the Great Bird of the Galaxy destroy any starship that lifts without its proper complement of medics, does the Law require a specific number of medics, or do people usually carry medics on starships but not on spaceships?

My take would be that these are the Imperial regulations for manning starships which do not apply to spaceships (cause starship go between the stars and spaceships don't). There may or may not be similar planetary regulations for spaceships that vary from world to world; more often than not there are. And even when there are no laws that say you have to carry a medic, people are free to carry one anyway. Our VIP in the Scout/Courier very likely include a personal physician in his retinue. Our 400T interplanetary shuttle probably has a medic on the crew.


Hans