Advanced Low Berth?

Geir said:
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)
Click to expand...
OK for the avoidance of doubt, what page is the Basic Low Berth listed in the current Robot Handbook. I have looked several times and cannot see it.

I see an Advanced Low Berth and a Grav Low Berth. I see Low Berth options in Autodocs, Clone Tank et al. But I see no Basic Low Berth, I see no words in the RH that say the KCr50 standard low berth listed in the ship build process in HG or CRB is a robot. I see no words in HG or CRB that indicates that the Low Berth listed there is a robot, has any robot brain or can be modified in any way.

You can build a basic low berth using the Robot Handbook if you want, but the HG and CRB design is wholly unspecified other than it takes up a certain volume, it costs KCr50 and it has low berth capability. It has no armour, no resilience and it has no internal power source as far as I can determine. Any of these factors would be necessary to ensure the design was similar.
 
swordtart said:
OK for the avoidance of doubt, what page is the Basic Low Berth listed in the current Robot Handbook. I have looked several times and cannot see it.

I see an Advanced Low Berth and a Grav Low Berth. I see Low Berth options in Autodocs, Clone Tank et al. But I see no Basic Low Berth, I see no words in the RH that say the KCr50 standard low berth listed in the ship build process in HG or CRB is a robot. I see no words in HG or CRB that indicates that the Low Berth listed there is a robot, has any robot brain or can be modified in any way.

You can build a basic low berth using the Robot Handbook if you want, but the HG and CRB design is wholly unspecified other than it takes up a certain volume, it costs KCr50 and it has low berth capability. It has no armour, no resilience and it has no internal power source as far as I can determine. Any of these factors would be necessary to ensure the design was similar.
Click to expand...
On reflection, I might have built it as I don't see it there either. I've slept since then so it's possible. My apologies. In any case, the two are functionally identical. I guess @Arkathan can rename the Basic to Standard. Sorry!

Since the CRB and HG came before the Robot Handbook, I'm not surprised they don't say they are robots (or at least built with the robot rules). When the next revision of High Guard comes around, I'd expect that book to use the same rules. So, it might not be accurate to say they are robotic now, but it also doesn't say they aren't.

In any case, the version I designed to match the Standard has the same cost. For purposes of economics and survivability, it doesn't matter if one uses the Standard model or the equivalent one I built (likely using the advanced and dropping capability to match price).

If units built with the Robot Handbook aren't to your taste, don't use them. This discussion was about advanced models, and I likely built the Basic/Standard model for completeness. Feel free to just use the standard one and the rest of us can talk about more advanced versions. Your Traveller Universe, your rules. I'm not going to get hung up arguing about whether the units are precisely the same. The rules are in the game and this discussion is valid so let's just say I see your point and I'm moving on.
 
Last edited:
Terry Mixon said:
On reflection, I might have built it as I don't see it there either. I've slept since then so it's possible. My apologies. In any case, the two are functionally identical. I guess @Arkathan can rename the Basic to Standard. Sorry!

In any case, the version I designed to match the Standard has the same cost. If units built with the Robot Handbook aren't to your taste, don't use them. This discussion was about advanced models, and I likely built the Basic/Standard model for completeness. Feel free to just use the standard one and the rest of us can talk about more advanced models. Your Traveller Universe, your rules. These units are designed by the book and expand on what is presented.
Click to expand...
Except the whole justifications for the discount was that it applied to the standard model in the RH to make it match the CRB and HG and could be read across. Since there is no standard model there is no read across.

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.

They are not the same unit or even functionally identical either. I could design a "standard" model that has all the listed capability of the Low Berth in HG or CRB using the RH that cost less than KCr50. You can reduce the armour by 1 (as the CRB version has no armour), half the resilience (as the CRB version has no hits) , give it no internal power (you can sing the chorus). There will be other savings as well, but stripping out the brain and medic software alone would save you KCr22 since there is nothing in the basic low berth description that indicates it has any medical capability or any intelligence, it is just a machine.

That would then remove the precedent for a 20% reduction. It would probably indicate that a price increase were necessary to make it match the cost in HG and CRB which should be read across for the advanced versions.

A robot is only a robot if it has a brain. If it has a drone controller it is a drone. If it only has switches it is an appliance. Just because you can make a robot refrigerator, it does not make all refrigerators robots.
 
Last edited:
swordtart said:
Except the whole justifications for the discount was that it applied to the standard model in the RH to make it match the CRB and HG and could be read across. Since there is no standard model there is no read across.

I could design a "standard" model using the RH that cost less than KCr50. You can reduce the armour, half the resilience, give it no internal power. Stripping out the brain and medic software alone would save you KCr22 since there is nothing in the basic low berth description that indicates it has any medical capability or any intelligence, it is just a machine.

That would then remove the precedent for a 20% reduction. It would probably indicate that a price increase were necessary to make it match the cost in HG and CRB which should be read across for the advanced version.

A robot is only a robot if it has a brain. If it has a drone controller it is a drone. If it only has switches it is an appliance. Just because you can make a robot refrigerator, it does not make all refrigerators robots.
Click to expand...
Well, building the advanced low berth exactly as in the Robot Handbook means that it has to have a discount to meet the published price, too. The logic is the same. That's inside the same book. Run the build yourself.

With that establishing that there was a 20% discount on the Advanced model, there is no reason the same wouldn't be true for the Standard. Or any other model. The evidence is right there. If you want to compare the undiscounted prices vs the book price of the standard model, do it. I'll even update the chart to satisfy you (if that is possible). So far as I am concerned, the discount is valid (and only 11% for the Basic/Standard model to match High Guard) and I'm not going to argue about it anymore.

1744831201882.png
 
Last edited:
swordtart said:
OK for the avoidance of doubt, what page is the Basic Low Berth listed in the current Robot Handbook. I have looked several times and cannot see it.

I see an Advanced Low Berth and a Grav Low Berth. I see Low Berth options in Autodocs, Clone Tank et al. But I see no Basic Low Berth, I see no words in the RH that say the KCr50 standard low berth listed in the ship build process in HG or CRB is a robot. I see no words in HG or CRB that indicates that the Low Berth listed there is a robot, has any robot brain or can be modified in any way.

You can build a basic low berth using the Robot Handbook if you want, but the HG and CRB design is wholly unspecified other than it takes up a certain volume, it costs KCr50 and it has low berth capability. It has no armour, no resilience and it has no internal power source as far as I can determine. Any of these factors would be necessary to ensure the design was similar.
Click to expand...
My bad, I did both books and the basic autodoc (and the TL14 one) are the direct equivalents. Nothing to prevent the low berth from being built as a particularly dumb robot, though.

The lack of a universal maker process for MgTv2 is both a blessing and a curse, but to be fair, it would be almost impossible to retrofit into an existing system. The maker process has to be there first. I used discounts smudge the existing robot designs into the mold, but while working on the CSC, I tried to create a behind-the-scenes model for building suits (vacc suits, combat armour, battledress, etc.) and it just can't be finessed. But the components for a low berth robot, or an autodoc, are close enough for them to be finessed with robot rules.
 
Terry Mixon said:
Well, building the advanced low berth exactly as in the Robot Handbook means that it has to have a discount to meet the published price, too. The logic is the same. That's inside the same book. Run the build yourself.

With that establishing that there was a 20% discount on the Advanced model, there is no reason the same wouldn't be true for the Standard. Or any other model. The evidence is right there. If you want to compare the undiscounted prices vs the book price of the standard model, do it. I'll even update the chart to satisfy you (if that is possible). So far as I am concerned, the discount is valid (and only 11% for the Basic/Standard model to match High Guard) and I'm not going to argue about it anymore.
Click to expand...
There is no point arguing about the discount itself, it only applies to YTU after all, and I don't spend any time there. I wish Geir had left the discounts out of the published designs and simply put in a comment that designs published in other supplements might have different prices and specs as they were not designed using the system in the RH and referees were free to consider them special offers, prototypes etc. rather than trying to break the books design rules to be retrospectively compatible.

I was querying the repeated reference to the basic low-berth design as I thought I must be going mad, but as you have conceded that was a mis-remembering on your part I think we have completed our interaction in that regard.

Thank you for putting the effort into generating the designs, I think the discussion about profitability was useful and we needed some concrete examples to work from. Any actual design is going a matter of personal preference and interpretation. I am sure that many of my designs would not pass the Mixon test :)
 
Geir said:
My bad, I did both books and the basic autodoc (and the TL14 one) are the direct equivalents. Nothing to prevent the low berth from being built as a particularly dumb robot, though.

The lack of a universal maker process for MgTv2 is both a blessing and a curse, but to be fair, it would be almost impossible to retrofit into an existing system. The maker process has to be there first. I used discounts smudge the existing robot designs into the mold, but while working on the CSC, I tried to create a behind-the-scenes model for building suits (vacc suits, combat armour, battledress, etc.) and it just can't be finessed. But the components for a low berth robot, or an autodoc, are close enough for them to be finessed with robot rules.
Click to expand...
I have been editing technical docs with internal inconsistencies for the last year (rather than doing real engineering) so I feel your pain.

I also played Car Wars for years and that didn't even have a consistent skill mechanic :)

"A man with a clock knows the time, a man with two clocks is never quite sure."
 
Last edited:
swordtart said:
I have been editing technical docs with internal inconsistencies for the last year (rather than doing real engineering) so I feel your pain.

I also played Car Wars for years and that didn't even have a consistent skill mechanic :)

"A man with a clock knows the time, a man with two clocks is never quite sure."
Click to expand...
Car Wars: I could not convince half our group that the model in which the front end follows the tires was the correct way to turn as opposed to moving forward and then pivoting.
They insisted it was the latter. But only in instances in which they could hit another player by using that method...
 
I stripped EVERYTHING out of the basic low berth build that was not required to make it work, including internal power. It has no brain, no skills, no medikit, no arms, no anything. I have abandoned all attempts to make the price match High Guard and will create leave the one that was created to price match as the Basic Low Berth Plus.

1744834885152.png1744834919071.png


Here is the chart with it in place. Make of it what you will.

1744835113346.png
 
Terry Mixon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Bankers aren't the forgiving type.
 
Terry

May I request a heavily armored version of your iridium model. The sort of berth that a hated and despised tyrant universally beloved leader would need in case of medical needs and certain factions assassins.
 
Shardan13 said:
Terry

May I request a heavily armored version of your iridium model. The sort of berth that a hated and despised tyrant universally beloved leader would need in case of medical needs and certain factions assassins.
Click to expand...
Here you go. I had to remove the Vargr compatibility and part of the storage to make everything fir with max armor. May the great and glorious leader live many long years. No discount as it's definitely a specialty model. Enjoy!

1744937162680.png
 
Shardan13 said:
Terry

May I request a heavily armored version of your iridium model. The sort of berth that a hated and despised tyrant universally beloved leader would need in case of medical needs and certain factions assassins.
Click to expand...
Though, if I might suggest an alternative to His Benevolence, perhaps a Deluxe AutoDoc with the ability to reanimate the recently dead might be better suited for his needs. It, too, can act as a low berth and is heavily armored.

1744938055899.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Terry Mixon
A New Innovation in Low Berth Hardware: Low Berth Clusters!
2
Replies
36
Views
755
rinku
R
T
Background Robots (unfinished)
Replies
1
Views
451
To Tha Moon!
T
Terry Mixon
  • Question Question
Ask MongooseMatt ANYTHING!!!
5 6 7
Replies
121
Views
3K
Condottiere
C
G'Naakbusters
How the Steppelord Stole Christmas Dinner
Replies
0
Views
284
G'Naakbusters
G'Naakbusters
ottarrus
The Imperium and Dystopian Worlds
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Condottiere
C
Back
Top