Published Design Cost MCr

[snrdg082102]

Hello all,

I've often commented that I rarely match any published design's MCr and on a recent post Aramis pointed that the cause was my adding in the architect's fee.

Looking over LBB5 Starship Design checklist, page 26, and Small Craft Design checklist, page 36, as Aramis pointed out neither the architect's fee or volume discount is mentioned, which does mean I am calculating the cost incorrectly.

The problem is that regardless of adding the architect's fee and/or the volume discount adding up just the components I still seem to be off. Adding the architect's fee and/or volume discount I'm still of but usually closer.

Adventure 5 TCS came out with updates to the rules in LBB5. One of the updates introduced included changes to the Starship and Small Craft Checklists and introduced the a ship design worksheet and a small craft design worksheet. The checklists now mentioned determining the architect's fee and volume discount and including them in the total cost calculation. The worksheets show that the components costs are added together, followed by calculating the architect's fee, followed by calculating discounts and a are to total the last three lines.

Supplement 12 also has Starship and small craft design checklists and worksheets, pages 23 through 27.

The Starship Design checklist is on page 23 instructions state "This checklist covers the details of the system provided in Book 5, High Guard, and is intended for use with IN For 10, Ship Design Worksheet which are located on pages 24 and 25.

The small craft design sheet and checklist are on pages 26 and 27. Small craft use IN Form 11 Small Craft Design Sheet instead of Form 10.

Even following the material in TCS and Supplement 12 my costs rarely march the one for the published design I've tried to recreate.

The issue with not being able to match a published design's cost is one of the reasons I avoid sharing my designs or try to get the published in an official Traveller source.

Of course that hasn't damped my attempts to clear up the questions I have with the various Traveller design and construction procedures.

Here is my question:

Which checklist and/or worksheet should I be following Book 5, Adventure 5, or Supplement 12?

Thanks for all the past, present, and future help.

 

[Piper]

The worksheets are tools that (in theory) help you manage the design process. Use whichever you find most convenient.

I prefer the one in TCS myself.

The key thing to remember is that a worksheet doesn't alter the design rules. The boxes for architect fees and class discounts are only for special circumstances.

 

[mike wightman]

I've never used any of the official worksheets or any shipyard software.

I design a warship class and order ten of them.

The first vessel costs the base cost + architect fee.

Two to ten cost me 80% of the basic cost.

And I wouldn't worry about not matching published designs put you off publishing your own - the official designs in S:9 are pretty much all broken in some way and yet they published it anyway

 

[snrdg082102]

Evening PDT Piper and Mike Wightman,

What I have here is another failure to communicate clearly on my part.

The worksheets are tools that (in theory) help you manage the design process. Use whichever you find most convenient.

I prefer the one in TCS myself.

The key thing to remember is that a worksheet doesn't alter the design rules. The boxes for architect fees and class discounts are only for special circumstances.

The checklists in TCS and Supplement 12 are used to fill out the worksheets and IN Form 3 Ship's Data following the design and construction rules in Book 5. In Form 3 Ship's Data is then used to create the High Guard Statistics sheet per instruction on pages 50 through 52.

In Book 5 the checklists is used to fill in IN Form 3 which has a section that titled Universal Ship's Profile. The information in the USP is then used to create the High Guard Statistics sheet.

The checklists found in TCS appear to be modified and updated versions of the Book 5 checklists. TCS did away with the items that filled out IN Form 3. I created my own Book 5 version of the worksheets shown in TCS and Supplement 12 based by using the Book 5 checklists.

Supplement 12 page 22 IN Form 3 differs from the same form in Book 5.

The checklists in Supplement 12, pages 23 and 27 appear to be an updated version of the ones in TCS.

So which checklist should be followed when creating a ship, of the three checklists the ones in Supplement 12 are in my opinion the best and is what I use.

In Book 5 the navy's version of the architect's fee would be called something like development cost or some such thing and would be cheap at 1%.

At the end of construction all the ship's components are totaled arriving at a base cost. If the ship is built by a Navy and is a one off the total component cost is the ship's cost recorded in the statistics and IN Form 3.

The same hull built for a corporation or individual requires the architect's fee to be calculated. I can see that the architect's fee could be added to the ship's total cost because the blue prints had to be created, but then again maybe not. Of course I can't be sure since my costs normally don't match the published designs.

Personal preference is Supplement 12 checklists with adjusts made to the worksheets.

I've never used any of the official worksheets or any shipyard software.

I design a warship class and order ten of them.

The first vessel costs the base cost + architect fee.

Two to ten cost me 80% of the basic cost.

And I wouldn't worry about not matching published designs put you off publishing your own - the official designs in S:9 are pretty much all broken in some way and yet they published it anyway

I've used worksheets I put together prior to the published ones and the published worksheets modified to allow for things like calculating the transportation and tunneling costs of planetoids.

Over on GURPS JTAS, edited by Loren Wiseman, they used to run design contests and I submitted a number of entries, which were politely picked apart. Of course I've had the same issue with other non-Traveller games.

Thank you both for the replies.

 

[Piper]

It might be best, at this point, to go to specific examples.

Have you tried duplicating the design for the battlecruiser "Regal"? (TCS, pp 20-21)

I'm suggesting the "Regal" because it's a relatively simple design, fully documented and if there are any errors in it, we should be able to find them easily.

Failing that, is there some other published design that you can't duplicate and would like to walk through?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper,

It might be best, at this point, to go to specific examples.

Have you tried duplicating the design for the battlecruiser "Regal"? (TCS, pp 20-21)

I'm suggesting the "Regal" because it's a relatively simple design, fully documented and if there are any errors in it, we should be able to find them easily.

Failing that, is there some other published design that you can't duplicate and would like to walk through?

Yes, I've walked through HG2 designs of Unicorn, gig, Kinunir and pinnace followed by the TCS designs Regal and Gnat using the checklists in Book 5, TCS, and Supplement 5 on a couple of occasions . Unfortunately, I don't remember if I matched the MCr or not prior to reviewing the Consolidated CT Errata.

The Consolidated CT Errata has entries for the designs and I don't remember if I matched those either.

Thank you for the suggestion and I'll probably be walking through them again.

The checklists on HG2 pages 26 and 36 are used to fill-in IN Form 3 Ship's Data which in-turn is used to generate High Guard ship's statistics per HG2 pages 50 through 52.

Adventure 5 TCS came out sometime after HG2 and provides clarifications to HG2 rules. My understanding is that the ship design checklist, ship design worksheet, small craft design checklist, and small craft design worksheet are considered clarifications for the HG2 checklists.

Reviewing the TCS checklists reveals that there are some changes of the ones in HG2. The biggest change is the in TCS the architect's fee and volume discounts are included when determining the total cost of the ship.

Supplement 12 is published as a single source of blank forms and charts. A copy of IN Form 3, a Starship Design checklists with a blank worksheet, and a small craft design checklist with blank worksheet for HG2/TCS are located on pages 22 through 27.

The checklists in Supplement 12 are similar to the one in TCS, the changes are mainly cosmetic. The Supplement 12 checklists combine the several steps into one these are engineering related systems, weapons, passengers moved in with determine ship's crew, and step for totaling components lists the architect's fee, volume discount, and determining the total cost of the ship.

Are the checklists considered to be the most up-to-date method of verifying the design procedure?

Supplement 12's blank copy IN Form 3 most noticeable change is the layout. Unfortunately, some of blocks in the original form have been dropped or moved on the one in Supplement 12 page 22 which also alters the Block numbers. I think that the Supplement 12 IN Form 3 needs to be re-worked.

In summary:

Which design checklists (with or without worksheets) should be used the one in HG2, TCS, or Supplement 12?

Thank you again for the suggestion Piper.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper,

If you wish, we can go step-by-step through the design of the Regal in TCS. It has errors, but going through those may prove useful.

Use the checklist in TCS (although, truly, a blank sheet of paper works better) and I'll go through it using the same format and we can compare items.

Sound good to you?

Consolidated CT Errata version 8 by Donald McKinney has, in theory, the corrected data for the Regal, how does that compare with your work.

Sounds good to me, however, I have a spreadsheet and an data sheet based on the ones in Consolidated CT Errata. Would the format there be acceptable?

 

[Piper]

The fuel purification data for the Regal is wrong in both the original TCS and the errata.

34,500 tons divided by 1000 tons per purification unit equals 34.5 purifier units.

34.5 units times 20 tons per TL14 unit equals 690 tons not 69.

Cost is also off proportionately. The purifier for the Kinunir seems to have used the correct formula.

If it's okay with you, I'd like to use the design and checklist for the Regal in TCS as published (errors included). That way we can both be sure of being on the same page (pun intended)

Give me some time to chew on it and we'll compare notes.

Addendum: the TCS Regal has errors in the missile battery factors and costs, the gunnery crew and what appears to be a simple rounding error in the command crew.

Update: I'm checking the filled-out IN Form 10 on page 25 of TCS (no reference to any errata). Everything down to the spinal mount (inclusive) is correct with the exception of the fuel purifier. Should read 690 tons, 4.83MCr.
Run through that and see what you come up with.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper

The fuel purification data for the Regal is wrong in both the original TCS and the errata.

34,500 tons divided by 1000 tons per purification unit equals 34.5 purifier units.

34.5 units times 20 tons per TL14 unit equals 690 tons not 69.

Cost is also off proportionately. The purifier for the Kinunir seems to have used the correct formula.

TCS pages 14 and 15 changed the fuel purification plant table on HG2 page 36 basing the purification plant as a percentage of the fuel tankage on the Regal.

Using the table on TCS page 15 my fuel purification plant calculations match the examples on pages 20 and 21.

Fuel tankage = 34,500 tons
TL 14 Percentage is 0.20% of 1% which would be 0.002% of 100%.

34,500 x .002 = 69.000 x TL 14 MCr0.007 = MCr0.483

I figured out the calculations a while back when I built the combined HG2 and TCS spreadsheet. That was before I checked the Consolidated Errata which seemed to indicate that I followed the process for TCS fuel purification plants.

If it's okay with you, I'd like to use the design and checklist for the Regal in TCS as published (errors included). That way we can both be sure of being on the same page (pun intended)

My spreadsheet does use the TCS Ship Design Checklist, however the calculations have been corrected to match the errata where they didn't.

Give me some time to chew on it and we'll compare notes.

Addendum: the TCS Regal has errors in the missile battery factors and costs, the gunnery crew and what appears to be a simple rounding error in the command crew.

Update: I'm checking the filled-out IN Form 10 on page 25 of TCS (no reference to any errata). Everything down to the spinal mount (inclusive) is correct with the exception of the fuel purifier. Should read 690 tons, 4.83MCr.
Run through that and see what you come up with.

I'm still working through the design using my spreadsheet and altering my automated data sheet to include the components not in the sheet since I did work on the Vargr Corsair from CT AM3.

My copy of TCS is in FFE 003 soft copy of Adventures 1-13 The Classic Adventures and the Regal's IN Form 10 is on page 21

 

[Piper]

TCS pages 14 and 15 changed the fuel purification plant table on HG2 page 36 basing the purification plant as a percentage of the fuel tankage on the Regal.

Using the table on TCS page 15 my fuel purification plant calculations match the examples on pages 20 and 21.

Fuel tankage = 34,500 tons
TL 14 Percentage is 0.20% of 1% which would be 0.002% of 100%.

34,500 x .002 = 69.000 x TL 14 MCr0.007 = MCr0.483

I figured out the calculations a while back when I built the combined HG2 and TCS spreadsheet. That was before I checked the Consolidated Errata which seemed to indicate that I followed the process for TCS fuel purification plants.

And therein lies a problem.
TCS didn't intend to change the purifier formula: "The table is intended to assist in the design process, and simply restates the table in Book 5 in different terms." (TCS, p. 15).

It actually did change the formula as you can see by checking High Guard, the CT errata for High Guard and the example of the Kinunir in the CT errata.

The note under the TCS table reads: "Percentage of fuel required is shown as a fraction of 1%."
Using this rule, your calculation is correct. However, this results in a number that is a tenth that derived from the formula in High Guard.

The Kinunir has 587.5 tons of fuel. Using the formula from TCS, the purifier should be:

587.5 times .0015 equals .881 tons for the purifier.

Using the High Guard formula:

587.5 divided by 1000 equals .5875
.5875 times 15 equals 8.81 tons which matches the CT errata and the original design.

A good rule of thumb for anything I post is "never trust my math". Can someone jump in here and check my numbers, please?

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper,

Thanks Piper, hopefully I'll be posting my results soon.

And therein lies a problem.
TCS didn't intend to change the purifier formula: "The table is intended to assist in the design process, and simply restates the table in Book 5 in different terms." (TCS, p. 15).

Based on the calculations, regardless of intent, the Regal's calculation is based on TCS not HG2.

It actually did change the formula as you can see by checking High Guard, the CT errata for High Guard and the example of the Kinunir in the CT errata.

What ship are we doing the Regal or the Kinunir?

The note under the TCS table reads: "Percentage of fuel required is shown as a fraction of 1%."

Using this rule, your calculation is correct. However, this results in a number that is a tenth that derived from the formula in High Guard.

What checklist are we using the one in TCS or HG2?

The exercise, IIRC, is to follow the TCS design checklist errors and all, which as far as I know combined the rule changes found in TCS with the design rules in HG2.

I think I've finally got the data sheet updated and I'm in the process of comparing my work with the material on TCS pages 20 and 21.

Is there a possibility that I can send you a copy via email?

I'll post what didn't match as soon as I'm done with the comparison. Please note that my fuel purification plant matches TCS so that will not be part of my post.

The Kinunir has 587.5 tons of fuel. Using the formula from TCS, the purifier should be:

587.5 times .0015 equals .881 tons for the purifier.

Using the High Guard formula:

587.5 divided by 1000 equals .5875
.5875 times 15 equals 8.81 tons which matches the CT errata and the original design.

I'm getting very confused on which design we are stepping through. The Regal was designed using the changes introduced in TCS. The exercise is to use TCS.

Looks like we have found errata concerning the percentage-based fuel purification plant rule modification. Once the exercise finishes we can send what has been found to Donald McKinney for review.

A good rule of thumb for anything I post is "never trust my math". Can someone jump in here and check my numbers, please?

Good rule of thumb, which is part of the reason I created a spreadsheet since my calculator doesn't like me at times.

 

[snrdg082102]

Hello Piper,

I've checked, rechecked, and triple checked my work so here is what I've come up with.

1. Tons
All my ton values matched the written material on TCS page 20 and the worksheet on page 21.

2. MCr

The Regal's bridge cost per TCS is MCr7.5 which appears to use the bridge tonnage to calculate cost. I didn't find any material in TCS that modifies HG2 page 27. Such a bridge (designated as the main bridge or prime bridge) requires 2% of the ship's tonnage (minimum: 20 tons) at a cost of Cr 5,000 or MCr0.005 per ton of ship. Using HG2 the bridge has a price tag of 75,000 x 0.005 = MCr375.

All the bay weapons are missing the base cost of for the bay .

5x 100 ton Repulsor bays = Repulsor MCr10 x 5 = TCS MCr50 + 100-ton MCr1 x 5 MCr50 + MCr5 = MCr55.

5x 50-ton Fusion Gun Bays = Fusion Gun MCr8 x 5 = TCS MCr40 + 50-ton MCr0.5 x 5 = MCr40 + MCr2.5 = MCr42.5

10x 100-ton PA Bays = PA TCS MCr35 x 10 = MCr350 x 100-ton 1MCr x 10 = MCr350 +MCr10 = MCr360.

The only turret cost I'm not matching is for the 100x Triple Missile turrets. TCS has them at MCr300. 100 turrets x 3 missile racks = 300 x MCr0.75 = MCr225.

In TCS the double occupancy staterooms total to be MCr302.5 which works out to be a unit cost of MCr0.5. TCS page 15 has a single double occupancy stateroom priced at MCr0.25 which calculates to be 605 x 0.25 = MCr151.25.

3. EP
I matched The individual system energy point values listed on page 20, unfortunately my total EP used is 3219 and TCS shows 3669.

PP EP Output 4500 - Computer EP 9 - Meson Screen EP 900 - Nuclear Damper 60 EP - Repulsor Bay EP 50 - BLaser turret EP 300 - Fusion Gun Bay EP 100 - PA Bay EP 600 - Meson Gun Spinal mount EP 1200 = 3219.

4. Crew
The Regal's crew per TCS page 20 is 610 my count is 583.

Command Section: TCS = 37 my calculations have 17 which I could push up to 20 by including the three medics.

Engineering: TCS = 255 my calculation match

Weapons: TCS 168 my calculation is 151 without the meson screen and nuclear damper operators. Including the 4 meson screen operators and 4 nuclear damper operators I can push the number up to 159. I'm fairly sure why my numbers don't match which has to do with the following rules

HG2 page 33:
A. The ship should have a chief gunnery officer and at least one petty officer for each type of weapon on board.

I still have no idea why the Gunnery Officer position adds 1 to the weapons/screen crew count when the Chief Engineer and Second Engineer are part of the engineering sections crew count. I, however do add one to the crew.

The "at least petty officer for each weapon type onboard I use the rule: the gunnery section should have 10% officers and 30% petty officers.

The spinal mount requires a crew of 80 that breaks down to: 80 x .1 = 8 officers and 24 petty officers. The spinal mount meets the criteria of at least one petty office for that weapon type.

Apparently the rule means that each weapon needs to add 1 petty officer in addition to the 30% petty officer requirement.

The whole rule of adding a chief gunnery officer and at least one petty officer for each type of weapon on board doesn't make sense. Of course my naval experience is what makes me disagree with the criteria.

If you would like I can send you a copy of the data sheet and/or my Excel 2010 spreadsheet.

As usual my MCr doesn't match the one in Consolidated CT Errata and neither does my crew count.

Thank you for the help and exercise.

 

[Piper]

1. Tons
All my ton values matched the written material on TCS page 20 and the worksheet on page 21.

Agreed

2. MCr

Using HG2 the bridge has a price tag of 75,000 x 0.005 = MCr375.

Agreed. The design used per tons of bridge instead of per tons of ship. I made the same error.

All the bay weapons are missing the base cost of for the bay .

5x 100 ton Repulsor bays = MCr55.
5x 50-ton Fusion Gun Bays = MCr42.5
10x 100-ton PA Bays = MCr360.
100x Triple Missile turrets = MCr225.

Agreed. Repulsors were missing EP costs but I saw where you caught that in the EP section.

3. EP
I matched The individual system energy point values listed on page 20, unfortunately my total EP used is 3219 and TCS shows 3669.

Agreed.

4. Crew
Command Section: TCS = 37 my calculations have 17 which I could push up to 20 by including the three medics.

High Guard, p32: "On large ships (over 20,000 tons), the number of personnel in the command section should amount to 5 per 10,000 tons of ship."
This comes out to 37.5 which probably should have been rounded up to 38.

Engineering: TCS = 255 my calculation match

Agreed.

Weapons: TCS 168 my calculation is 151 without the meson screen and nuclear damper operators. Including the 4 meson screen operators and 4 nuclear damper operators I can push the number up to 159.

I come up with 166:
Chief Gunnery Officer: 1
Petty Officers per weapon type: 7 (does not include screens)
Spinal crew: 80
Bays: 40
Turrets: 30
Screens: 8

Edit: Add Medical section crew of 3 per CT errata
My total for the crew comes to 608.

 

[Piper]

The reason I was going on about the fuel purifier is that while the other errors in the design appear to be simple mistakes, the fuel purifier actually references an error in the rules (the table on TCS p. 15). The calculations on the Kinunir were posted as a proof of this.

For this exercise, I agree that we should ignore the fuel purifier.

 

[snrdg082102]

Morning PDT Piper,

I'm doing better than average so I'll reply to the areas that were out of whack.

Agreed. The design used per tons of bridge instead of per tons of ship. I made the same error.

I had already created a spreadsheet for HG2 and the bridge feature was one area I was able to consistently match with the numbers of published designs.

When I ran the Regal and discovered the mismatch I made the adjustment in the hope I would match the TCS final numbers, which didn't happen. At the time I didn't know about the various Traveller web sites and by the time I did I had forgotten about the problem and when I did remember the issue had been fixed.

Command Section

High Guard, p32: "On large ships (over 20,000 tons), the number of personnel in the command section should amount to 5 per 10,000 tons of ship."
This comes out to 37.5 which probably should have been rounded up to 38.

My error here was that my modifications of the spreadsheet being used I accidentally deleted part of the formula which showed 38. I've run Andrea Vallance's High Guard Shipyard (HGS) which verified the 38 personnel for the command section.

Gunnery Section

I come up with 166:
Chief Gunnery Officer: 1
Petty Officers per weapon type: 7 (does not include screens)
Spinal crew: 80
Bays: 40
Turrets: 30
Screens: 8

I did say I had an issue with the gunnery sections crew criteria, but I have made the adjustments and now my numbers match 166.

TCS has the gunnery section crew as 168 which indicates that the designer of the Regal consider the nuclear damper and meson screen as a type of weapon. Technically screens could be considered defensive weapons, however the TCS errata doesn't seem to agree.

Edit: Add Medical section crew of 3 per CT errata
My total for the crew comes to 608.

With the adjustments made to the command and gunnery sections my total crew is:

Command: 38 + Medical: 3 + Engineering: 255 + Weaponry: 158 + Screens: 8 + Service: 150 = 612 (I checked the math using a pencil and paper, followed by a calculator I keep coming up with 612.

I goofed and forgot to write down the costs of a completed hull without the items we found to be out of whack, but they didn't match.

 

[snrdg082102]

Almost noon PDT Piper,

The reason I was going on about the fuel purifier is that while the other errors in the design appear to be simple mistakes, the fuel purifier actually references an error in the rules (the table on TCS p. 15). The calculations on the Kinunir were posted as a proof of this.

For this exercise, I agree that we should ignore the fuel purifier.

Good call now what?

Edit:
Sorry for being short, but I discovered that the worksheet base cost of the hull + components didn't match the datasheet tally. I tracked the problem down, which turned out to be me adding the spinal mount cost twice, and mad adjustments.

Back to the TCS fuel purification plant rule not restating the HG2 rules.

Prior to finding the various Traveller forums I created a TCS spreadsheet based on the TCS worksheet which I seem to recall showed most of the same errors. Of course I adjusted the TCS fuel purification rule from the TL 14 0.2 to 0.002 to match the example.

Next I went back to my HG2 spreadsheet, which I had tested using the Kinunir, which resulted in blowing up the fuel purification plant calculations. This time my first step was to figure out check to see if the TCS minimum plant size matched the one-fifth the size in HG2. Next I divided 20 by 1000 resulting in a value of 0.02 when this worked I did the same with all the other numbers.

Until we went through the TCS example I had totally forgot about the TCS fuel purification plant rule issue.

My suggestion for errata would be to change the % of fuel column values to match dividing the HG2 plant tons by 1000 and deleting the note about Percentage of fuel required is shown as a fraction of 1%.

 

[Piper]

Good call now what?

Good question

What I was hoping to find in all this was something you were doing systemically that was preventing you from matching the published design costs. So far as I can tell, you're doing everything right subject to the occasional errors we all have (I made several in this attempt).

If I were putting together a "lessons learned" list from this I'd have to say that checking every line item on the design is crucial. Take nothing for granted. Also, some designs are so badly broken that no simple fix is possible. The "Regal" being an example of this.

Until we went through the TCS example I had totally forgot about the TCS fuel purification plant rule issue.

My suggestion for errata would be to change the % of fuel column values to match dividing the HG2 plant tons by 1000 and deleting the note about Percentage of fuel required is shown as a fraction of 1%.

Seems as good a fix as any. They'll need to redo the Regal example, too.

 

[Piper]

I did say I had an issue with the gunnery sections crew criteria

Yeah; I have no idea what those extra PO's are supposed to do. Maybe they're the librarians for the weapon systems tech manuals or some such.

 

[snrdg082102]

Good question

What I was hoping to find in all this was something you were doing systemically that was preventing you from matching the published design costs. So far as I can tell, you're doing everything right subject to the occasional errors we all have (I made several in this attempt).

If I were putting together a "lessons learned" list from this I'd have to say that checking every line item on the design is crucial. Take nothing for granted. Also, some designs are so badly broken that no simple fix is possible. The "Regal" being an example of this.


Seems as good a fix as any. They'll need to redo the Regal example, too.

I've run the Regal in the Consolidated CT Errata through the spreadsheet using the TCS fuel purification plant as written and matched the tons, cost, and EP. I matched the total crew of 612, unfortunately I didn't match the bridge (command section) count or the number of engineers required by the maneuver drive.

I'm fairly sure that 41 of the bridge crew 41 are the 38 command section personnel plus the 3 medics. I guessing the forty second crew member is an adjustment for the engineers.

Following the engineering crew rules in HG2 the tonnage of the jump drive. maneuver drive, and power plant are added together and divided by 100.

J-Drive 3,750 tons + M-Drive 12,750 tons + Power Plant 9,000 tons = 25,500 tons / 100 = 255 engineers.

Instead of the lump sum number of engineers being listed in the errata example the engineers are broken down by system. Using the 1 engineer per 100 tons I get the following:

J-Drive 3,750 / 100 = 37.5 round up makes the total engineers need as 38 which matches the count in the example.

M-Drive 12,750 / 100 = 127.5 round up 128 resulting in no match, but rounding down to 127 I get a match.

Power Plant 9,000 / 100 = 90 no fuss no muss and another match.

I went to CT Errata page, mentioning your name in passing, about the above and included the TCS fuel purification rule as being possible errata submissions.

 

[snrdg082102]

Howdy Piper,

Yeah; I have no idea what those extra PO's are supposed to do. Maybe they're the librarians for the weapon systems tech manuals or some such.

Per HG2 The gunnery section should have 10% officers and 30% petty officers.

The spinal mount, bays, and screens all have at least 1 petty officer out the gate using the above quoted requirement by using rounding.

If a hull has only one turret or combined into batteries the at least one petty officer makes sense.

I also have an issue with adding the Gunnery Officer when Engineering doesn't require a separate Chief Engineer. I'm waffling on the Second Engineer position.

Each weapon is counted as a separate component and makes sense to determine the crew needed

The j-drive, m-drive, and power plant are counted as separate components two, instead calculating separate crews they get lumped together. That doesn't make sense. Adding to nonsense the engineer and second engineer are lumped in with the rest.

Of the soap box and going to get something to eat.