Advanced Low Berth?

Let's steal borrow @swordtart's table and add the new entries.

The chart presented has standard and then basic without a discount. This is in error. The basic IS the standard. The two are one and the same. That means the discount is valid and the so it should be valid for the other models. The Advanced, for example, is presented in the book at the discounted price and so the build has to have that discount to match the published materials. So, the follow-on discounts (same rate as the advanced) are equally valid.

Now, to make this a comparison of apples to apples, I made the chart for both the undiscounted price (including the basic) and then again for the discounted price.

Opps. I have too many attachments. Look for the follow up post that details what I found and my take on it.

I don't like the discounting in the Robot Handbook. It was a way to rationalise prices set out in other supplements that were not designed using the Robot Handbook. Unfortunately using it means that the pricing is irrelevant (since you can randomly ignore it). Whether a discount is available is a referee call.

The Standard Low Berth at KCr50 in my table is separate to the Basic Model because it is the one set out in the ship design section of the basic rules and High Guard. It is not one built up using the rules in the Robot Handbook as there is no indication that the standard low berth is even a robot (there is no implied brain of any description). It could be a simple machine entirely operated by a medical orderly.

The fact that you can make a robot low berth does not mean that all low berths are robots. The Robot handbook doesn't have a "standard low berth" in it.
 
I don't like the discounting in the Robot Handbook. It was a way to rationalise prices set out in other supplements that were not designed using the Robot Handbook. Unfortunately using it means that the pricing is irrelevant (since you can randomly ignore it). Whether a discount is available is a referee call.

The Standard Low Berth at KCr50 in my table is separate to the Basic Model because it is the one set out in the ship design section of the basic rules and High Guard. It is not one built up using the rules in the Robot Handbook as there is no indication that the standard low berth is even a robot (there is no implied brain of any description). It could be a simple machine entirely operated by a medical orderly.

The fact that you can make a robot low berth does not mean that all low berths are robots. The Robot handbook doesn't have a "standard low berth" in it.
Your call, of course. Nevertheless, this is a thread about advanced low berths, and the author of the Robot Handbook says they are the same, so for purposes of this comparison, I'll stick with what I said.
 
You only need the skilled medic on revival, so anyone can throw their mangled buddy into the cryobeth. You can then take your time getting them to somewhere you can hire a skilled medic with all the toys to revive them. A grav cryobeth will allow you to take them to a facility for the revival instead.
No roll is required to put someone under normally, but the 1 round cryoberth snap freeze version does. At -2 because it's considered Hasty. The fact that it even exists suggests the usual process is not suitable for someone that is critically injured. Cryoberths are the same TL, cost and size as a low berth, so if you could use a low berth for rapid freezing, there would be no need to have Cryoberths at all. The possibility of a dual function unit isn't discussed.

As it happens, the cryoberth description doesn't mention mobile units, and autodocs, cryoberths and low berths are all the same size in both CSC and Robot Handbook. Also, Robot Handbook has this:

"The Imperial Starport Authority standard for a low berth specifies a 50-Slot size medical chamber in dimensions that accommodate all but the most morbidly obese human – technically a human up to 2.25 metres tall and massing up to 150 kilograms, with allowance for overcapacity. This standard includes a specification for a standard spacecraft mounting, which corresponds to a Size 7 robot, 2 vehicle Spaces or 0.5 displacement tons. This standard applies to common low berths and autodocs."

(A mobile unit can be easily built using the Robot Handbook though.)

If the patient has been stabilized and is not bleeding out or clinically dead, I think low berths would be the way to go. When every second matters you don't have time to waste, snap freeze them. There also may be a disctinction between Low Berths being a state of hibernation that still requires a slowly beating heart, while Cryoberths are more or less putting a near-corpse in cryo-stasis.
 
No roll is required to put someone under normally, but the 1 round cryoberth snap freeze version does. At -2 because it's considered Hasty. The fact that it even exists suggests the usual process is not suitable for someone that is critically injured. Cryoberths are the same TL, cost and size as a low berth, so if you could use a low berth for rapid freezing, there would be no need to have Cryoberths at all. The possibility of a dual function unit isn't discussed.

As it happens, the cryoberth description doesn't mention mobile units, and autodocs, cryoberths and low berths are all the same size in both CSC and Robot Handbook. Also, Robot Handbook has this:

"The Imperial Starport Authority standard for a low berth specifies a 50-Slot size medical chamber in dimensions that accommodate all but the most morbidly obese human – technically a human up to 2.25 metres tall and massing up to 150 kilograms, with allowance for overcapacity. This standard includes a specification for a standard spacecraft mounting, which corresponds to a Size 7 robot, 2 vehicle Spaces or 0.5 displacement tons. This standard applies to common low berths and autodocs."

(A mobile unit can be easily built using the Robot Handbook though.)

If the patient has been stabilized and is not bleeding out or clinically dead, I think low berths would be the way to go. When every second matters you don't have time to waste, snap freeze them. There also may be a disctinction between Low Berths being a state of hibernation that still requires a slowly beating heart, while Cryoberths are more or less putting a near-corpse in cryo-stasis.

In the build rules in the Robot Handbook, the Medical Chamber Option: Cryoberth (basic and improved) and Medical Chamber Option: Low berth (basic and improved) are each eight slot additions to a medical chamber. They are add-ons that give the functionality rather than the chamber itself.
 
In the build rules in the Robot Handbook, the Medical Chamber Option: Cryoberth (basic and improved) and Medical Chamber Option: Low berth (basic and improved) are each eight slot additions to a medical chamber. They are add-ons that give the functionality rather than the chamber itself.
Yes? You either build them into a robot, or a medical chamber. That doesn't affect my point. They are the same size, TL and cost - interchangable - but one requires a somewhat risky roll to preserve the patient and the other needs no roll. Clearly you ONLY use the Cryoberth when you have to. It's not a cheaper or more portable version of the low berth. Conversely, a low berth must not normally be able to do a quick freeze, or there would be no point in having a cryoberth - you'd just use low berths if they could do both types of preservation.

(And in YTU, maybe that's how it works)

On the other hand, I'm fine with a Low Berth maybe being used as in an emergency as a quick freeze option with copious skill rolls, just like many jury rig and make do situations that arise with players.

And to use them to preserve non-living stuff. Meat, dairy, wine... corpses. ;)
 
I guess you can store the side of a cow in there.

Should be interesting, disinterring it and dumping it out the side, as a badly wounded passenger is reinterred by the cook/medic.
 
Your call, of course. Nevertheless, this is a thread about advanced low berths, and the author of the Robot Handbook says they are the same, so for purposes of this comparison, I'll stick with what I said.
Where does it say in the Robot Handbook that the Standard Low Berth is a Robot. There is mention of the definition of a standard medical chamber dimensions and standard space craft mounting that apply to common low berths and autodocs. It says this standard corresponds to a Size 7 robot, 2 vehicle spaces or 0.5 DTons.

And as it is a thread about advanced low berths it is perfectly valid to discuss the economic viability of them.

If you choose to define imperial years as 13 months IYTU that is your prerogative, but in doing so you risk fundamentally changing one of the basic economic drivers in the game (technically the Imperial calendar doesn't have months or weeks, it has years and days only). The rules talk about "Maintenance periods" rather than months and the standard calculation is that there are 12 maintenance periods per year (Core Rulebook p154). Mortgages are paid off over 40 years so if you are going to say each of those years is 13 maintenance periods rather than 12 then you might pay less per month, but you are making more payments, the amount stays the same. You also compress the timeframe for making the standard 2 jumps per maintenance period more challenging if you chop off three days per period.

I'll leave you with one more consideration. Assuming you are fitting low berths because you want to use them for commercial passenger freight (rather than for frozen watch or equivalent scenarios) you also need to consider the pay-back period. The standard KCr50 low berth pays for itself after 46 maintenance periods (with the standard 2 jumps per maintenance period), ditto the standard "advanced" low berth (i.e. the TL12+ version). The Advanced Plus Economy version at KCr68 takes 67 maintenance periods, almost 50% longer before you even start to turn a profit*.

*I will caveat the above as there is a common misconception regarding profitability and mortgages. Many player seem to think that if you don't make more than the mortgage, maintenance and crew fees (i.e. positive cashflow) you are not profitable. Maintenance is pretty much dead money, but crew fees are of course going to the crew, so there is a profit there if you are a crewmember and simply paying the mortgage is an investment as every maintenance period you own a little more of the ship (and ships are a collection of components so the same logic applies there as well). Where lack of positive cashflow might kill you is going bankrupt before you can realise that investment and the bank foreclosing on you, but that is a different issue.

After you have paid the KCr100 that the bank requires you to ultimately pay for that KCr50 low berth you have a KCr50 low berth you can sell on (and maybe get KCr40 for it). This will be in addition to any revenue it might have generated over its time in use so the economic viability calculation is a little more complex in the longer term.
 
Where does it say in the Robot Handbook that the Standard Low Berth is a Robot.
As he said, he asked Geir and Geir confirmed that RH basic low berth = HG standard low berth. I saw the conversation, and that is why in the latest version of my ship spreadsheet, the upgrade list for low berths starts at basic instead of standard.
 
Where does it say in the Robot Handbook that the Standard Low Berth is a Robot. There is mention of the definition of a standard medical chamber dimensions and standard space craft mounting that apply to common low berths and autodocs. It says this standard corresponds to a Size 7 robot, 2 vehicle spaces or 0.5 DTons.

This may be shocking, but everything built with the robot rules is technically a robot. ;) These have robotic slots, robot brains, use bandwidth, and are, under the rules, technically robots.

In a different thread about ship’s avatars, I talk about how Geir revealed that even the avatar controllers and receivers are technically robots (no locomotion, but brains and bandwidth).

Is that overbroad? Perhaps they should just be computerized, but that’s not how this system treats computers. Still, maybe thinking of them that way would be easier. Personally, I just consider them “equipment” built using the Robot Handbook rules.

And as it is a thread about advanced low berths it is perfectly valid to discuss the economic viability of them.

I’m not disputing that. I even agree with your assessments.

If you choose to define imperial years as 13 months IYTU that is your prerogative, but in doing so you risk fundamentally changing one of the basic economic drivers in the game (technically the Imperial calendar doesn't have months or weeks, it has years and days only). The rules talk about "Maintenance periods" rather than months and the standard calculation is that there are 12 maintenance periods per year (Core Rulebook p154). Mortgages are paid off over 40 years so if you are going to say each of those years is 13 maintenance periods rather than 12 then you might pay less per month, but you are making more payments, the amount stays the same. You also compress the timeframe for making the standard 2 jumps per maintenance period more challenging if you chop off three days per period.

I forget where I read that Charted Space uses 13 months of 28 days and one Holiday. Even so, I can repost the chart with 12 months. It won’t change things much.

I'll leave you with one more consideration. Assuming you are fitting low berths because you want to use them for commercial passenger freight (rather than for frozen watch or equivalent scenarios) you also need to consider the pay-back period. The standard KCr50 low berth pays for itself after 46 maintenance periods (with the standard 2 jumps per maintenance period), ditto the standard "advanced" low berth (i.e. the TL12+ version). The Advanced Plus Economy version at KCr68 takes 67 maintenance periods, almost 50% longer before you even start to turn a profit*.

I’ll add that to the spreadsheet for both discounted and not discounted as it does make things clearer.

*I will caveat the above as there is a common misconception regarding profitability and mortgages. Many player seem to think that if you don't make more than the mortgage, maintenance and crew fees (i.e. positive cashflow) you are not profitable. Maintenance is pretty much dead money, but crew fees are of course going to the crew, so there is a profit there if you are a crewmember and simply paying the mortgage is an investment as every maintenance period you own a little more of the ship (and ships are a collection of components so the same logic applies there as well). Where lack of positive cashflow might kill you is going bankrupt before you can realise that investment and the bank foreclosing on you, but that is a different issue.

After you have paid the KCr100 that the bank requires you to ultimately pay for that KCr50 low berth you have a KCr50 low berth you can sell on (and maybe get KCr40 for it). This will be in addition to any revenue it might have generated over its time in use so the economic viability calculation is a little more complex in the longer term.
I hear you. You do have intangible costs too. Like the number of dead bodies you have to deal with when using the basic low berth vs the advanced economy. I’ll wager most merchants would see that as a benefit worth the marginal cost increase, particularly since the berths in the Robot Handbook do use those discounts as part of the process.

Standard designs can and do get a discount as per the book. That was used by the author to match the price of the basic model to High Guard, so it is part of the system. If you chose to not use that, then the price of the one in High Guard need to be bumped up to match the basic without a discount as they are in fact the same unit. The comparisons need to be apples to apples.
 
Last edited:
Where does it say in the Robot Handbook that the Standard Low Berth is a Robot. There is mention of the definition of a standard medical chamber dimensions and standard space craft mounting that apply to common low berths and autodocs. It says this standard corresponds to a Size 7 robot, 2 vehicle spaces or 0.5 DTons.

And as it is a thread about advanced low berths it is perfectly valid to discuss the economic viability of them.

If you choose to define imperial years as 13 months IYTU that is your prerogative, but in doing so you risk fundamentally changing one of the basic economic drivers in the game (technically the Imperial calendar doesn't have months or weeks, it has years and days only). The rules talk about "Maintenance periods" rather than months and the standard calculation is that there are 12 maintenance periods per year (Core Rulebook p154). Mortgages are paid off over 40 years so if you are going to say each of those years is 13 maintenance periods rather than 12 then you might pay less per month, but you are making more payments, the amount stays the same. You also compress the timeframe for making the standard 2 jumps per maintenance period more challenging if you chop off three days per period.
I don't really choose to define it that way. There are 4 weeks of 7 days in a month for a grand total of 28 days.

page 153 of the CRB, "A starship operator faces many costs every four weeks, which must be paid in order to carry on flying. This four week ‘block’ is often known as a Maintenance Period."

Therefore, if We can all do the math, that means that there are 13 Maintenance Periods per year, by the CRB's definition.
 
I don't really choose to define it that way. There are 4 weeks of 7 days in a month for a grand total of 28 days.

page 153 of the CRB, "A starship operator faces many costs every four weeks, which must be paid in order to carry on flying. This four week ‘block’ is often known as a Maintenance Period."

Therefore, if We can all do the math, that means that there are 13 Maintenance Periods per year, by the CRB's definition.
That’s where I got it. Thanks.

I’ll stand by my 13 maintenance periods a year then. The mortgage is 12 times a year and I personally justify that by having the bank wave the 13th month because the ship is in annual maintenance (or should be) and they won’t earn enough to get by with the payment. That’s my hand wave to explain the discrepancy, so yours might be different.

What I can and will do is change the chart to use a year rather than per month/maintenance period. Then it doesn’t matter what you think about months vs maintenance periods. There are 26 two week periods in a year, but I will chop one for aforementioned annual maintenance and use 25.

Or I could include both for those daring souls who do maintenance as they go. I’ll do that. Less argument about what is correct that way.
 
Last edited:
That’s where I got it. Thanks.

I’ll stand by my 13 maintenance periods a year then. The mortgage is 12 times a year and I personally justify that by having the bank wave the 13th month because the ship is in annual maintenance (or should be) and they won’t earn enough to get by with the payment. That’s my hand wave to explain the discrepancy, so yours might be different.

What I can and will do is change the chart to use a year rather than per month/maintenance period. Then it doesn’t matter what you think about months vs maintenance periods.
I just house rule the mortgage to be divided by 260 instead of 240 since I figure that whomever wrote the mortgage calculation did not read the part about the Maintenance Period. They just assumed that years had 12 months in them.
 
The updated chart.

1744825109677.png

With the discounts used in the books as represented by the basic and advanced low berth costs vs the prices actually charged, superior and below will break even in less that (or just above) six years. The basic and economy models in less than three. Basic to Superior (economy) is just short of a year. On a ship you'll be working for 40 years to pay off, that isn't much of a difference. Even with the no discount chart, it's not much different.
 
Last edited:
As he said, he asked Geir and Geir confirmed that RH basic low berth = HG standard low berth. I saw the conversation, and that is why in the latest version of my ship spreadsheet, the upgrade list for low berths starts at basic instead of standard.
I meant for it to be an equivalent system: same capability, same cost.
Whether its a robot or an appliance (refrigerator?) is a matter of interpretation, but it might involve the counting of angels dancing on a needle point (not to be confused with angels doing needlepoint, which is altogether different)
 
I meant for it to be an equivalent system: same capability, same cost.
Whether its a robot or an appliance (refrigerator?) is a matter of interpretation, but it might involve the counting of angels dancing on a needle point (not to be confused with angels doing needlepoint, which is altogether different)
No matter what you call it, they are equivalent and the construction rules replicate it and give a framework for construction on a ship/lab and for further customization.
 
I meant for it to be an equivalent system: same capability, same cost.
Whether its a robot or an appliance (refrigerator?) is a matter of interpretation, but it might involve the counting of angels dancing on a needle point (not to be confused with angels doing needlepoint, which is altogether different)
Are some of these new AI Smart Refrigerators robots or appliances? I am not sure that I know the answer to that.

Edit- @Terry Mixon, can you build Us a refrigerator from the Robot Handbook?
 
Back
Top