High Guard - Errors?

[snrdg121408]

Hello Nerhesi,

The High Technology chapter should have been split up between equipment you may introduce, and equipment that doesn't fit into the Third Imperium.

While I did not craft that chapter, the overwhelming impression with many of us was that it was a chapter of equipment that does not fit into 3I.

I think there have been further examples after HG2 that have challenged that (Collectors and Meson Bays) - it was a bit of surprise to me but you just roll with it I guess

CT LBB 5 HG 2e pp. 24-25 3I weapons list includes
Spinal Mount: Meson Gun & Particle Accelerator
100 ton bays: Meson Gun, Particle Accelerator, Repulsor, & Missile
50 ton bays: Meson Gun, Particle Accelerator, Repulsor, Missile, Fusion Gun, & Plasma Gun
Turret: 1 d-ton (Laser, Missile, & Sand), 2-dton (Fusion Gun & Plasma Gun), 3 d-ton Particle Accelerator, & 5 d-ton Particle Accelerator (called barbette on the table)

MT Referee's Manual pp. 71-74 3I weapons list includes
Spinal Mount: Meson Gun, Particle Accelerator, Disintegrator, & Jump Projector
100 ton bays: Meson Gun, Particle Accelerator, Repulsor, Missile, Tractors, Disintegrator, & Jump Damper
50 ton bays: Meson Gun, Particle Accelerator, Repulsor, Missile, Fusion Gun, Plasma Gun, Tractors, Disintegrator, & Jump Damper
Turret: 1 d-ton (Laser, Missile, & Sand), 2-dton (Fusion Gun & Plasma Gun, Disintegrator), TL-14 Particle Accelerator 5 d-ton, TL-15 Particle Accelerator 3 d-ton, TL-16 2-dton & TL 18 Particle Accelerator 1 d-ton.

I was very surprised not to find all of the CT and MT weapons as part of the MgT HG 2e Weapons & Screens chapter.

 

[Jeraa]

I was very surprised not to find all of the CT and MT weapons as part of the MgT HG 2e Weapons & Screens chapter.

Apparently, Marc (the creator of Traveller) decided he wanted to change the setting. That is what caused the changes, and why certain things that used to be available to all ships is now relegated to a separate, optional chapter. And why certain things that previously weren't in Traveller (like firmpoints and tachyon beams) are now available.

Or so I've heard, at least.

 

[phavoc]

I admit to rarely reading product reviews so I do not know if the reviewer only says good things about a product. However, I have a copy and checked out her review.

Addressing the bit about Megan not purchasing a copy of MgT HG 2e to my knowledge many book reviewers do not purchase the books they review either, they get special copies sent to them by publishers. If Megan got a copy to review without cost that does not make her review any less valid than the individual getting a free copy of a book to review.

Nothing against copies going out for free to reviewers. My issue with it was that I question her objectivity and her thoroughness of her reviews. I have found some of her reviews to be missing entire sections or points of a supplement. I personally like to see more objective reviews, especially by players. I've found a lot of reviews by people who were given free copies to be objective and complete.

Apparently, Marc (the creator of Traveller) decided he wanted to change the setting. That is what caused the changes, and why certain things that used to be available to all ships is now relegated to a separate, optional chapter. And why certain things that previously weren't in Traveller (like firmpoints and tachyon beams) are now available.

Or so I've heard, at least.

I get it that various publishers like to add their own tweaks and changes (how else can you get people to justify buying a new set of books?). In this instance I think the jury is still out trying to decide if this was a good upgrade or not.

 

[Condottiere]

It's Marc's game, and since he still has ownership, he can dictate policy.

However, when you retcon, it should be done conscientiously; if there are no meson bays, there should be no meson sleds; if there are no tractor pressor beams, don't present Imperium warships with them installed as examples.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I usually use the spacrecraft presented in High Guard as the model as to how to design my own ships, so due care should be taken them make them canonical and accurate.

If they aren't, you could have saved the space.

 

[phavoc]

It's Marc's game, and since he still has ownership, he can dictate policy.

However, when you retcon, it should be done conscientiously; if there are no meson bays, there should be no meson sleds; if there are no tractor pressor beams, don't present Imperium warships with them installed as examples.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I usually use the spacrecraft presented in High Guard as the model as to how to design my own ships, so due care should be taken them make them canonical and accurate.

If they aren't, you could have saved the space.

Agreed. The ships published in HG or Core I also consider to be the baseline canonical models. It IS frustrating when they come fresh from the printers with errors.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello phavoc,

I admit to rarely reading product reviews so I do not know if the reviewer only says good things about a product. However, I have a copy and checked out her review.

Addressing the bit about Megan not purchasing a copy of MgT HG 2e to my knowledge many book reviewers do not purchase the books they review either, they get special copies sent to them by publishers. If Megan got a copy to review without cost that does not make her review any less valid than the individual getting a free copy of a book to review.

Nothing against copies going out for free to reviewers. My issue with it was that I question her objectivity and her thoroughness of her reviews. I have found some of her reviews to be missing entire sections or points of a supplement. I personally like to see more objective reviews, especially by players. I've found a lot of reviews by people who were given free copies to be objective and complete.

Apparently, Marc (the creator of Traveller) decided he wanted to change the setting. That is what caused the changes, and why certain things that used to be available to all ships is now relegated to a separate, optional chapter. And why certain things that previously weren't in Traveller (like firmpoints and tachyon beams) are now available.

Or so I've heard, at least.

I get it that various publishers like to add their own tweaks and changes (how else can you get people to justify buying a new set of books?). In this instance I think the jury is still out trying to decide if this was a good upgrade or not.

In most cases I have purchased Traveller products before or a long time after the reviews got published.

Yep, Mr. Miller provided a license laying out guidelines and let the publishers add their own tweaks. Some that work and others that do not in my opinion. MgT's tweaks that removed some of the classic weapons from the earlier rule sets is something I did not expect. However I do like the variety of new weapons introduced in MgT.

 

[DivineWrath]

I agree that with the idea that ships should be accurate. After having half a book to lay out rules of how to design your own ships, the ships provided in the book should reflect the rules. I think it should be expected that people are going to analyze those ships to make sure they understand the rules right. Any errors will cause confusion that could have been avoided.

As to whether or not the ships provided should be in theme with the default setting... I'm inclined to favor it as well. The reason I favor it is because technically the stuff that is not canon can be added by players and GMs who intended to play non-canon traveller campaigns. Or borrow these rules for non-traveller games. I don't think you could easily predict the kind of ships you would need for those possibilities. I don't think this is the book to attempt it either. Save such attempts for separate books.

 

[snrdg121408]

Evening PST DivineWrath,

I agree that with the idea that ships should be accurate. After having half a book to lay out rules of how to design your own ships, the ships provided in the book should reflect the rules. I think it should be expected that people are going to analyze those ships to make sure they understand the rules right. Any errors will cause confusion that could have been avoided.

As to whether or not the ships provided should be in theme with the default setting... I'm inclined to favor it as well. The reason I favor it is because technically the stuff that is not canon can be added by players and GMs who intended to play non-canon traveller campaigns. Or borrow these rules for non-traveller games. I don't think you could easily predict the kind of ships you would need for those possibilities. I don't think this is the book to attempt it either. Save such attempts for separate books.

I am one of the individuals, as can be seen by many posts, that compares design examples with the design sequence. Thanks to Nerhesi and many others I appear to have finally wrapped my mind around firmpoints.

I disagree with the ruling that hardpoints/firmpoints are automatically part of the hull and available for immediate use not because CT requires them to be designated during construction.

Most civilian vehicles do not have hardpoints/firmpoints straight from the factory.

Military vehicles may or may not have them as part of there design from the start. In some cases once the military vehicle was in service for a while the originals get retro-fitted with hardpoints/firmpoints and later models get them at the factory. The original F-18 Hornet has seven mounting points the Super Hornet has nine.

 

[DivineWrath]

I seem to be having trouble fitting some of these rules into a spread sheet. What happens when you try to mix non-gravity hulls with planetoids? Non-gravity changes the price to 25,000 Cr per ton, but planetoid hulls change it to 4,000 Cr. And what happens when you throw reinforced hulls and streamlined hulls into the mix? This is really making things confusing. Do I add results, multiply, or do a mix of both? What about spacecraft options?

Right now I'm considering that non-gravity hulls don't mix with planetoid hulls. My reasoning? Non-gravity hull are 50% the price of regular hulls, which give a savings of 25,000 Cr per ton. Planetoid hulls are worth 4,000 Cr per ton. So the savings of skipping out on gravity plating, or to look at it another way, to add gravity plating to non-gravity hulls is worth more than what you paid for planetoid hulls. So you can't afford to put gravity plating to a planetoid hull on a 4,000 Cr per ton budget; to do so would require that you increase the budget by 25,000 Cr per ton.

As for hull type (such as streamlined) and reinforcement (or lighter hulls), I'm thinking you apply hull type first, then apply reinforcement next. So it might look like 5 MCr for a 100 ton hull, apply 20% for streamlining, then apply 50% for reinforced hull. So 5 * 1.20 * 1.50 = 9 MCr. I think it works. If you increase the surface area, such as making it streamlined, then you have more area you have to reinforce. Or more area you have to cover with armor plating. I mean, the Heavy Fighter didn't increase its cost just multiplying (hull + streamlining) and skip reinforced, it multiplied (hull + streamlining + reinforcement).

Meh. I feel like I had to think out loud to sort these thoughts out. I hope you all didn't mind.

 

[AndrewW]

Right now I'm considering that non-gravity hulls don't mix with planetoid hulls. My reasoning? Non-gravity hull are 50% the price of regular hulls, which give a savings of 25,000 Cr per ton. Planetoid hulls are worth 4,000 Cr per ton. So the savings of skipping out on gravity plating, or to look at it another way, to add gravity plating to non-gravity hulls is worth more than what you paid for planetoid hulls. So you can't afford to put gravity plating to a planetoid hull on a 4,000 Cr per ton budget; to do so would require that you increase the budget by 25,000 Cr per ton.

Planetoid hulls include grav plating.

As for hull type (such as streamlined) and reinforcement (or lighter hulls), I'm thinking you apply hull type first, then apply reinforcement next. So it might look like 5 MCr for a 100 ton hull, apply 20% for streamlining, then apply 50% for reinforced hull. So 5 * 1.20 * 1.50 = 9 MCr. I think it works. If you increase the surface area, such as making it streamlined, then you have more area you have to reinforce. Or more area you have to cover with armor plating. I mean, the Heavy Fighter didn't increase its cost just multiplying (hull + streamlining) and skip reinforced, it multiplied (hull + streamlining + reinforcement).

Yes, they stack.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello DivineWrath and AndrewW,

The slight issue I have is that constructed hulls have the option to use artificial gravity at a cost of Cr25,000 over the cost of non-gravity hull while Planetoid hulls have to by default install artificial gravity.

Planetoid hulls probably start out as M class asteroids, MgT HG 2e p. 74, that in their initial raw state would be considered non-gravity hulls.

In MgT HG 2e the cost of transporting, tunneling, and installing by default artificial gravity plates has a cost of Cr4,000. Personally, the default of requiring planetoid hulls to use artificial gravity plates does not make sense when constructed hulls have the option not to include them when planetoid hulls start out with, depending on size, almost zero gravity.

Of course I admit to being largely influenced by CT design rules which has been reinforced by MT, TNE, T4, GURPS Traveller, Traveller 20 and a number of other games in the genre.

 

[Condottiere]

Speaking of accuracy, the light and fleet carriers are armed with meson bays.

Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.

 

[snrdg121408]

Hello everyone,

On Tue Nov 08, 2016 4:01 pm I posted my definition for spacecraft since I could not find one HG 2e. While checking in CRB 2e I stumbled on the following official definition

My definition:
Spacecraft: None provided in MgT HG 2e Introduction on p. 4-5. However from the context I think the definition is: Any manned or unmanned vehicle designed to travel in space either between planetary bodies or star systems.

CRB 2e p. 142
The term spacecraft covers any interplanetary or interstellar vehicle – anything that can travel through space under its own power.

 

[DivineWrath]

I'm going a little off topic for a moment. I'm having some trouble figuring out the trade section in the core rulebook.

First, before you do anything, I assume you have to declare where you are going? I think people won't be paying for passage or transport without knowing where the ship is going. It doesn't appear to be declared anywhere but I think it is a sensible assumption to make of how things work. A passenger might pay to go to Alpha Centari, so they would be upset if you jumped in the opposite direction.

I think I understand how passengers work. You roll 2d6, add in skill and other modifiers, then you take the result and compare it to the passenger traffic table. So if you got a result of 10 when rolling for low passengers, you would roll 3d6 to determine how many low passengers you got. So if you were making a jump-2 travel and you got 8 low passengers, they would pay 1300 Cr each.

However, I'm having trouble figuring out how I get paid with freight. Everything seems to be good up until after I determine quantity of freight and size. How exactly are you paid? Are you paid per ton of room a freight lot takes up? Or are you paid for every freight lot you transport (so transporting 2 minor lots is worth more than 1 major lot)?

I have a small problem with mail. How do you determine freight traffic DM? Is it the same number you got for Minor Freight - effect DM? The rest seems clear after that. Freight DM of 10 or more will give +2 DM on mail, armed ship +2, etc, etc. If you get a result of 12 or more, you get 1D containers, each sized 5 tons and get paid 25,000 Cr for each container delivered?

I think I have speculative trade figured out. Find a trader. A trader on an industrial world will have all common goods (such as common electronics), advanced electronics because its an industrial world (and other industrial world goods), and maybe biochemicals (depending on how the dice rolls). Buying and selling seem strait forward, hope for high results on the modified price tables (hope for more than a 10). Multiply base price by modified price, and that'll be the price you use when buying or selling per ton of those goods.

Does anyone have a rotated copy of the tables on pages 212-213? I currently need to rotate my PDF to see them clearly and I rather not do that.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

However, I'm having trouble figuring out how I get paid with freight. Everything seems to be good up until after I determine quantity of freight and size. How exactly are you paid? Are you paid per ton of room a freight lot takes up? Or are you paid for every freight lot you transport (so transporting 2 minor lots is worth more than 1 major lot)?

You are paid per ton, according to the Passage and Freight Costs table on p207.

 

[DivineWrath]

I was hoping for feedback on my last bit of questions. I still need a walk through with determining the likely hood of me being allowed to deliver mail.

 

[DivineWrath]

I did more work stat checking the ships. Here are the results for the next 10.

EXPRESS BOAT
No errors detected.

SCOUT/COURIER
Double Turret should be Double Turret (empty).
Shows fuel scoop even though it is streamlined.
Final price wrong. Should be 36.941 MCr.

SEEKER MINING SHIP
Double Turret should be Double Turret (empty).
Shows fuel scoop even though it is streamlined.
Final price wrong. Should be 33.836 MCr.

SCOUT
No problems detected.

FAR TRADER Empress Marava-class
Turrets. Is there supposed to be 1 pulse laser per double turret? 2 double turrets like that?
I would have mounted another laser each. Or downgraded them to single turrets.

FAR TRADER
Software should be Jump-2. Why have a Jump-2 drive without the appropiate software?
Mentions fuel scoop even though it is not needed.
Final price wrong. Should be 52.421 MCr.

FREE TRADER
Mentions fuel scoop even though it is not needed.
Final price is wrong. Should be 46.332 MCr (90% of 51.480 MCr).

SAFARI SHIP
Double Turret should be Double Turret (empty).
8 tons over tonnage limit. Might be because Multi-Environment Space is used twice.
Final price is wrong. Should be 64.3554 MCr (90% of 71.506 MCr).

SYSTEM DEFENCE BOAT
0.75 units too much tonnage.
Price for bulkhead sensors is wrong. Should be 0.1 MCr, not 0.01 MCr.
Final price is wrong. Should be 130.554 MCr.

YACHT
Final price is wrong. Should be 60.662 MCr (90% of 67.402 MCr).
Of course, the Yatch might be unique so the 10% discount for being a standard design might not apply.

 

[AndrewW]

FAR TRADER Empress Marava-class
Turrets. Is there supposed to be 1 pulse laser per double turret? 2 double turrets like that?
I would have mounted another laser each. Or downgraded them to single turrets.

It is two per turret, price is correct for this. It's two double turrets each mounting two beam lasers).

Note fuel scoops are still included with streamled, so as long as there isn't a cost for it this is still correct.

 

[DivineWrath]

It is two per turret, price is correct for this. It's two double turrets each mounting two beam lasers).

You're right. My bad.

Note fuel scoops are still included with streamled, so as long as there isn't a cost for it this is still correct.

OK. I thought it was an unneeded redundancy so I kept reporting it. I'll adjust my ship stat checking.

 

[DivineWrath]

Its been a while. I've analyzed more ships.

ASTEROID SHIP
J-Drive should be 12.5 tons, not 13.
No fusion P-Plant ratings given. Assuming TL 12, output 120. (It fits).
Software and Staterooms got mixed into the same group.
I would prefer it if the ship mentions what kind of docking space is used. Next line, what kind of ship fits in it.
Price is 61.956 MCr, not 61.96. I appears that it got rounded to 2 decimal places.

CLOSE ESCORT-Gazelle-class
Problem with turrets. Should say "Triple Turret (3 Beam Laser) x2".

FLEET COURIER
You can select reduced tonnage 3 times?
Cost for bridge is wrong. Should be 1 MCr, not 1.5 MCr.
Software Fire Control/3 is priced wrong. It should be 6 MCr not 8. (or should be Fire Control/4 which is 8 MCr).
Final price should be 209.34 MCr. Number includes 10% discount.

LABORATORY SHIP
The price for the Pinnace is wrong. It should be 8.732 MCr (book number) or 8.712 (my number).
Final price is wrong. It should be 136.39230 MCr (includes 10% discount). This uses my numbers.

PATROL CORVETTE
Turrets should mention the number of weapons in each turret.
Not sure if number of turrets should be before or after entry. For example: two triple... or ...turret (3 missile racks) x2.
Final price is wrong. It should be 177.383 MCr (includes 10% discount).
I'm unsure if should apply the 10% discount to the ships and vehicles carried by the ship. It should have been applied once already.
I got a different final price for the ship's boat, so you might want to edit it.
If you factor in the different price for the ship's boat, the final price comes to 176.735 MCr
The stats for the GCarrier appear to be wrong.
Its 15 tons, not 8, and costs 11.58 MCr. Its also TL 15. See core rulebook p. 140. This might affect the final TL of the ship.

SUBSIDISED MERCHANT
The price of the Launch is wrong. It should be 2.367 MCr.
Final price is wrong. It should be 78.3423 MCr (includes 10% discount).

SURVEY SCOUT
No data provided for fuel (jump distance and operation time).
Systems doesn't say how much fuel it can process per day.
The price for full hanger + Modular Cutter is 30.287, not 30.242
Having hangers and docking space combined with the vehicle is uses makes something of a mess.
Also, it doesn't seem to save any space. Entries are long enough to take up multiple lines.
No price was given for the extra module.
Final price is wrong. It should be 152.358 MCr (includes 10% discount).

SYSTEM DEFENCE BOAT
Weapons totaled wrong. Price shown is for only 1 turret. Tonnage is fine.
Turrets should show how many weapons used.
Total tonnage does not total up to 400.
Tonnage given to cargo is weird. There is no reason for the .42 tonnage.
Final price is wrong. It should be 179.179 MCr (includes 10% discount).
From what I've seen, increased size is not very effective at reducing costs.

ANNIC NOVA
It says that the ship is a 520 hull. However, it is repeatedly treated as though it were a 600.
The jump drive numbers don't add up. Do they have size mods?
Are they supposed to jump with 2 pinnace attached via docking clamps? Some hint would have been nice.
Why multiple bridges and jump drives? Are they supposed to be redundant systems?
The total tonnage used adds up to 603.6
I'm a bit too confused to finish this.

SUBSIDISED LINER
Price of Launch is wrong. My number is 2.367 MCr.
Final price is wrong. It should be 158.316 MCr (includes 10% discount).