T5 Errata Discussion Thread

[rancke]

MgT changed the definitions of starport classes a bit:

Class-A: Can build any ship of any size
Class-B: Can build ANY ship (Jump or non-Jump) up to 5000ton
Class-C: Can build small craft​

Has T5 kept those definitions? (Oh, I really, really hope so!) If not, what are the T5 definitions?

(I have an errata if the MgT definitions apply).


Hans

 

[whulorigan]

Starports

MgT changed the definitions of starport classes a bit:

Class-A: Can build any ship of any size
Class-B: Can build ANY ship (Jump or non-Jump) up to 5000ton
Class-C: Can build small craft​

Has T5 kept those definitions? (Oh, I really, really hope so!) If not, what are the T5 definitions?

(I have an errata if the MgT definitions apply).


Hans

Unfortunately, T5 kept the old CT/MT definitions of Starports & Spaceports. But I would wholeheartedly second an errata item that changes them to the MgT reinterpretation.

 

[Hemdian]

MgT changed the definitions of starport classes a bit:

What was the reasoning behind the MgT change and why do you prefer it?

 

[whulorigan]

What was the reasoning behind the MgT change and why do you prefer it?

I do not know the reasoning behind the MgT change, nor what Hans's reasons might be, but the one that stands out for me is that according to the CT/MT RAW, a Class-B port could theoretically build a 100,000ton+ System Super-monitor, but would not be able to build a 100ton Type-S Scout. That seems to me to be totally ludicrous.

The ONLY difference between the Class-A port and Class-B port as far as ship construction is the ability to install Jump-Drives, and I do not know rationally why that should be. Further, from the meta-game perspective, it means that if I as a GM want to have a world (or design a world) that has the modest ability to build a 200ton Type-A Free Trader, I have to justify the world having a Class-A port to do it.

Since Starport type is already tied somewhat to world population and importance, it makes much more sense to me that decreasing port-size (along with decreasing world importance, population, and economy) would in general go hand-in-hand with decreasing maximum tonnage that a starport-yard can handle as far as starship construction, independent of the ability to install a Jump Drive.

Most average star systems ought to have the meager ability to build a simple small-craft, I would think, so that works well for the Class-C and larger ports in MgT having that ability. Class-D and E ports are too poor quality to warrant such capability, IMO.

In general I think the MgT Starport ratings for ship-construction are just far more believable conceptually.

See also my earlier post in the [FONT=arial,helvetica]Subsector Fleet make-up in 1105 [/FONT]Thread (Post #148)
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showpost.php?p=478463&postcount=148

 

[Hemdian]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

I think the problem is that the UWP was intended for a specific audience/purpose (small traders) but in the absence of other data it is being overloaded in terms of what people use it for (in this case economic and military modeling).

IMTU the ship building capabilities of a general starport refer to small numbers of ACS scale ships only. (I think this is alluded to in the T5 Starports chapter.) Large scale mass production and/or BCS scale ships require a separate shipyard that should be rolled for just like rolling for a naval base or scout base.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I think the problem is that the UWP was intended for a specific audience/purpose (small traders) but in the absence of other data it is being overloaded in terms of what people use it for (in this case economic and military modeling).

Good point. I never thought about it that way before, from an in-game point of view.

IMTU the ship building capabilities of a general starport refer to small numbers of ACS scale ships only. (I think this is alluded to in the T5 Starports chapter.) Large scale mass production and/or BCS scale ships require a separate shipyard that should be rolled for just like rolling for a naval base or scout base.

I like this idea. Consider it [o]stolen[/o] borrowed for MTU-in-progress.

 

[Reban]

Ah, I see. Thanks.

I think the problem is that the UWP was intended for a specific audience/purpose (small traders) but in the absence of other data it is being overloaded in terms of what people use it for (in this case economic and military modeling).

I agree. I've always thought of the UWP as akin to Sailing Notes or Pooley's Airfield guides. Just enough information to allow a navigator to plan a voyage or flight and be confident of the facilities and geography of the destination.

IMTU the ship building capabilities of a general starport refer to small numbers of ACS scale ships only. (I think this is alluded to in the T5 Starports chapter.) Large scale mass production and/or BCS scale ships require a separate shipyard that should be rolled for just like rolling for a naval base or scout base.

I like that interpretation and I'm also stealing it. Actually thinking about it from an Age of Sail point of view almost every port and harbor had some sort of facility ranging from a small repair yard up to a capable ship builder's, but particular ports were famous for their ship builders and navies had their own dockyards for the construction of ships of the line (BCS ships in T5 terms).

I can see Megacorp shipyards occupying facilities filling the Mainworld orbital region and in the belts too rather than just being at the Starport. T5 Starports also mentions importing modular parts from other worlds, so there must be shipyard/factories out there somewhere with production capacity above local requirements.

 

[David Johansen]

We've had a lot of discussion on errata and unclear rules but I'd like to suggest a new project.

An index. I'm not sure what the process for building one would be but we need one and we ain't got it.

 

[Hemdian]

I was looking at the habitable zone tables in various parts of the book (p45, p80, and p440) and noticed a couple of things. First, these tables don’t agree with each other. Second, that all stars have a designated HZ orbit ... while back in CT Book 6, some stars were so cold that even orbit 0 was classified as ‘outer zone’.

I’ve tried recalculating them based on a set of figures from Tyge Sjöstrand, using the square root of the luminosity to get the radius of the HZ in AUs. The first problem is that, according to Sjöstrand’s notes, the luminosity of a subgiant or larger star can vary from 30% to 200% for the same spectral classification. The second problem was that luminosity for dwarves was based on temperature and radius ... so I tried to approximate the spectral type by matching up temperature (and got something pretty close to CT Book 6). The third problem was that subdwarfs were missing altogether from Sjöstrand’s data set ... so I made some approximations based on CT Book 6.

Anyway, here’s what I got:

No HZ: M4-M9 V, K2-M9 VI, A0-M9 D
0: M0-M3 V, O0-B9 D
1: K3-K9 V, G3-K1 VI
2: G6-K2 V, F7-G2 VI
3: F9-G5 V, F4-F6 VI
4: G6-G9 IV, F2-F8 V
5: F2-G5 IV, A7-F1 V
6: A5-F1 IV, A2-A6 V
7: A2-K4 III, B9-A4 IV, B9-A1 V
8: A5-G9 II, B8-A1 III, K5-M1 III, B8 IV, B6-B8 V
9: A0-A4 II, K0-K7 II, B7 III, M2-M9 III, B5-B7 IV, B3-B5 V
10: A5-K0 Ib, B7-B9 II, K8-M9 II, B4-B6 III, B3-B4 IV, B0-B2 V
11: F4-F6 Ia, B5-A4 Ib, K1-M1 Ib, B4-B6 II, B2-B3 III, B1-B2 IV, O8-O9 V
12: B5-F3 Ia, F7-M9 Ia, B1-B4 Ib, M2-M9 Ib, B0-B3 II, O8-B1 III, O7-B0 IV, O5-O7 V
13: O7-B4 Ia, O6-B0 Ib, O6-O9 II, O4-O7 III, O3-O6 IV, O2-O4 V
14: O1-O6 Ia, O1-O5 Ib, O1-O5 II, O0-O3 III, O0-O2 IV, O0-O1 V
15: O0 Ia, O0 Ib, O0 II​

Thoughts?

 

[rancke]

Thoughts?

Yes. Fixed orbits are not (AFAIK) scientifically based. That's why I always use First In for determining orbits when detailing a system. It's a much more flexible system and allows you to fine-tune the temperatures of your worlds.

Mind you, fixed orbits is fine as a simplification of the system detailing process.


Hans

 

[Hemdian]

Agreed. And before T5 came out I was giving serious thought to using, IMTU, a mashup of Tyge's system, 2300AD, and GT for system generation but then expressing the output in Traveller terms for the players.

But HR's query made me take a second look at the T5 RAW. (There are still many parts I've not scrutinized properly yet.). Initially I assumed it was just some typos causing the tables to not line up and had a post for the main errata thread ready to go. Then I realised the figures were bogus. Hense the number crunching.

 

[Blue Ghost]

Is it possible that there was some honest human error here, and that portions of the preview T5 got accidentally mixed in with what was supposed to have been the final product?

I've gone through my T5 disk, and it looks okay to me.

 

[mvdwege]

I'm working through my first detailed world mapping, and I ran across an oddity. When generating the world triangles, it appears that you only ever generate 1 Town on Ni and Lo worlds, but you always generate Cities (assuming Pop > 0).

This is against all realistic patterns of urbanisation, ending up with or 1 Town or no Town for multiple Cities.

Am I really reading the rules right here?

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I agree with you mvdwege, I've had the same experience in mapping (see my blog for the resulting map).

I believe the correction should be that on page 457 "Creating World Maps 11", steps 18 and 19 currently read:

If Lo 18. Low Population. Place one Town. Skip to 20.
If Ni 19. Non-Industrial. Place one Town.

But I suggest they should read:

If Lo 18. Low Population. Place one Town. Skip to 22.
If Ni 19. Non-Industrial. Place one Town. Skip to 22.

The "If Hi" should preclude a mistake being made, but "skip to 22" will add clarity as Lo, Ni and Hi are mutally exclusive.

In addition, step 20:

20. Cities. Place Cities equal to Pop, one per Continent. If Atm=0-1, A-C, or E+ = Domed.

... presents two other potential problems. Firstly, if the NIL status shows up as "Exotics" - i.e. Pop 7+, Atm A+ - then there will be no need for the cities to be domed. The life will be adapted to local conditions. Secondly we come across the problem of low TL's and domed cities, although this is less of a problem: deteriorating technology from a society previously capable of manufacturing the domes would be a common scenario. If the T5 universe is intended to have a scattering of low technology societies living amongst technological ruins, then this is not a problem at all.

My suggested correction would be:

20. Cities. Place Cities equal to Pop, one per Continent. If Atm=0-1, A-C, or E+ and NIL Status is not Exotics = Domed.

 

[mvdwege]

Hi Ojno,

That makes sense alright, but that wasn't quite what I was objecting to.

What bugs me is that the urbanisation pattern generated by the mapping rules is unrealistic, generating only cities (with their attendant suburbs if you start mapping higher detail levels). I'd expect a lot of scattered towns for every City. They may not be visible at the highest level, but once you start mapping Terrain or Local Hexes they should show up.

 

[OjnoTheRed]

I see now - and I agree with you.

One possible way out is to say that unless the 'town' is the only major population centre, we don't worry about marking towns on a map when we've got enough population to mark a city. Then the "rural" hexes placed near cities are assumed to include towns and villages. This balances a reasonably quick and definite generation process with a lot of leeway for the Referee to place what is needed for the adventure.

But I probably need to have a closer look at the World / Terrain / Local hex mapping.

 

[mvdwege]

Yep, that was my idea as well, they just don't show up at the resolution of mapping.

Then again, the little Frontier Town is a setting I could visualise in a T5 campaign; I will probably just have to put 'em down by Referee fiat instead of letting the mapping rules generate them for me.

 

[tjoneslo]

Beastmaker rule, p. 581, chart 6 (Speed). If you roll a 4, what happens? The 4 result apparently has both XSlow (20 kph) and VSlow (30 kph). So the creator picks one?

 

[whulorigan]

CommPlus & Meson Communicators

[FONT=arial,helvetica]Regarding my Errata comment in the T5 Errata Thread about CommPlus and its ambiguity as to its TL of introduction and whether or not it is Meson or Neutrino based:

Historically, Meson Communicators (in MT at any rate) were introduced at TL13.

Regarding Neutrino Communication: we have already (several years ago) sent pulsed neutrino signals from one large laboratory facility to another thru the Earth and spelled the word "neutrino" to the receiver. I do not know if that helps or not on deciding the best choice for the TL of a neutrino-based CommPlus.
[/FONT]

 

[Ackehece]

Unrefined Fuel has no discernible effect from the rules in the BBB

Unrefined Fuel:

It definitely is not in the BBB related to jump (used PDF search on unrefined).

The only section that refers to the consequences of unrefined fuel is for fuel cells on page 378 "Refined or unrefined status is inconsequential for Fuel Cell fuel."

I would say that it should refer to the issue of unrefined for Fusion Plants on page 377 under related to Fusion Overclock and cross referenced to pg 372 Initiating the Jump.

crossposted to the errata thread from http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=33305