Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Traveller 5 (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   5.10 Errata Thread? (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=40180)

whulorigan July 8th, 2019 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stuartsmith183 (Post 603906)
Inconsistent ship share

Book 1 Pg 80 Merchant; Ship Shares ... a typical merchant ship is 10 to 20 shares
Book 1 Pg 90 Ship Shares; Shares are all less than 10

Instead of 50 tons per share, 10 tons per share? Then a Free Trader would be 20 shares.

And a question of clarification on purchase vs. loan. Why would getting a Ship on Loan cost as much in shares as purchasing a ship? Leasing a car is a bit cheaper than buying it outright.

In T5.09, it was 25 tons per share, not 50 per share. However, it seems that the shares given out in CharGen have not been altered to reflect the change.

I already brought this up to Marc in an e-mail that I sent to him along with other potential errata or clarification issues (which was unfortunately after the documents were sent to the printers :( ). Note that Book 1, p.80 says that the average Merchant Ship is 10-20 shares. At 25 tons/share this is 250-500 tons; at 50 tons/share, that is 500-1000 tons.

Wol July 9th, 2019 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ackehece (Post 603909)
Testing:

Ton is defined as 13500 ltrs
A cyard is defined as = to one yard = .05 ton = 765 ltrs.

If you take 765 x 18 you end up with 13770ltrs... so very close to the defined value for a displacement ton.

13500 18 is 750 rather than 765 but still close
~765 is the actual conversion of imperial cubic yards to metric liters...

Now let's test .05ton = cyard
13500 x .05 is 675... so drastically different.

The .05 ton is the wrong part.
I see where that value comes from.
.05 imperial ton is ~ 50kg which and a metric ton is 1000kg.
501000 gives .05 ton.
But we are using displacement tonnage not mass tonnage.

So let's flag .05ton as wrong and .057 does sound better.

Thanks for the errata . This had snuck through many generations of Traveller, not the least is T4, T5.0 , T5.9

Because the conversion is wrong and actually converts to the wrong type of ton is it textual or mechanic?

Given 20cwt to the ton that explanation would fit.

Probably more mechanc as it might result in some distortion in dimensions.

regards

Wol July 9th, 2019 06:15 AM

book 1 p.31 charts o5 clarification.

No MD is effective around a dwarf star (inside orbit 0).

BOTE , from Book 6 scouts, a dwarf is about .01 Diameter Sun (+/-), and 1000D is thus about 8 million miles or 13 million km. Orbit 0 is .2 Au or 29 million km. So you can jump into such a system, just outside the 100 D distance from a planet in orbit 0, use the MD within 1000D of the planet and that is about it, intra system travel will need to be by jump or another method.

regards

Wol July 9th, 2019 08:44 AM

Book 1 p27 bottom example textual
Terra is Orbit O= 3; Jupiter is Orbit O= 5. They are about 4.2 AU apart at their closest; or 6.2 AU apart at their greatest separation. They are, in either case, in the same Range Band S= 12. A ship capable of 2G (Table 8b) can make the journey in about 3 hours.

Jupiter is in orbit 6 not 5, at S=13, and Terra is in S=11. Band for travel is indeed S12. Table 8b is speed not time - which are 9a&b. Start stop time is 3 days not hours according to table 9a, so hope they brought more than a packed lunch.

AnotherDilbert July 9th, 2019 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ackehece (Post 603878)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartan159 (Post 603875)
Book 3 Page 126, Armor Stage Effects - Are the values for Improved and Modified correct? The Ar through Se numbers seem to be swapped.

Improved and Modified are closely linked but have different results. Modified is not necessarily better (see weapons where modified only weighs less but has more bulk than the improved model)
So we can provisionally mark it errata but I suspect it might be correct.

Looks like an error (list from T5.09, p236):
Code:

STAGE          TL    Mass    Ar  Ca  Fl  Ra  So  Ps  In  Se      Cr
Basic          0    1.3    -5  -5  -5  -5  -5    0  -5  -5    0.7
(blank)        0    1.0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1.0
Standard        1    1.0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1.0
Alternate      1    1.1    5    5    5    5    5    0  15    5    1.1
Enhanced        1    2.0    3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    4.0
Improved        1    1.0    6    6    6    6    6    0  18    6    1.1
Modified        2    0.9    3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    1.2
Advanced        3    0.8    10  10  10  10  10    3  20  10    2.0
Obsolete        4    0.7    3    3    3    3    3    0    9    9    0.5

Why would anyone ever want to use Enhanced or Modified?

Ackehece July 9th, 2019 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnotherDilbert (Post 603961)
Looks like an error (list from T5.09, p236):
Code:

STAGE          TL    Mass    Ar  Ca  Fl  Ra  So  Ps  In  Se      Cr
Basic          0    1.3    -5  -5  -5  -5  -5    0  -5  -5    0.7
(blank)        0    1.0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1.0
Standard        1    1.0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1.0
Alternate      1    1.1    5    5    5    5    5    0  15    5    1.1
Enhanced        1    2.0    3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    4.0
Improved        1    1.0    6    6    6    6    6    0  18    6    1.1
Modified        2    0.9    3    3    3    3    3    0    9    3    1.2
Advanced        3    0.8    10  10  10  10  10    3  20  10    2.0
Obsolete        4    0.7    3    3    3    3    3    0    9    9    0.5

Why would anyone ever want to use Enhanced or Modified?

I am sure your right... just surprised that it wasn't flagged before as being to weak (or too strong depending on which is incorrect)
It does seem that inverting Ar to Ps would resolve the TL difference.

whulorigan July 10th, 2019 02:05 PM

ERRATA - T5.10 - Book 1 (1st of 2 Posts)
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 603916)
... I already brought this up to Marc in an e-mail that I sent to him along with other potential errata or clarification issues (which was unfortunately after the documents were sent to the printers :( ). ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ackehece (Post 603985)
I'll type up a errata doc tomorrow with what has been found so far.

Attached are the errata documents for Book 1 that I sent to Marc AFTER T5.10 went to print. I may have made some mistakes myself, if I misinterpreted something.

Take a look over them and see if you concur.

whulorigan July 10th, 2019 02:05 PM

ERRATA - T5.10 - Book 2 (2nd of 2 Posts)
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by whulorigan (Post 603916)
... I already brought this up to Marc in an e-mail that I sent to him along with other potential errata or clarification issues (which was unfortunately after the documents were sent to the printers :( ). ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ackehece (Post 603985)
I'll type up a errata doc tomorrow with what has been found so far.

Attached are the errata documents for Book 2 that I sent to Marc AFTER T5.10 went to print. I may have made some mistakes myself, if I misinterpreted something.

Take a look over them and see if you concur.

TWTP July 10th, 2019 04:19 PM

you have obviously misunderstood what I meant.
Mapping the gas giants surface. not placing the gas giant in the system.
How do you place the Gas Giant terrain symbols found on page 73 of book 3. IE "G31 Vortex".




Quote:

Originally Posted by Ackehece (Post 603869)
Book 3 page 29 is used for determining planetary orbits. This is where you will find how to place gas giants.


Starting page 56 to page 73 world building is planetary surfaces and not related to the design of the star system on a orbital level.

Page 74 refers designing space habitats not habital zones.

The placement of that chart is ok but your understanding of the section is a bit wrong. Pg 73 is informational to generating the map on pg 72 of your gas giant if you so desire to map the gas giant,
it is not referencing the orbits at all but the planetary "surface".

If you want the orbits for gas giants please see Book 3 page 29


Ackehece July 10th, 2019 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWTP (Post 604005)
you have obviously misunderstood what I meant.
Mapping the gas giants surface. not placing the gas giant in the system.
How do you place the Gas Giant terrain symbols found on page 73 of book 3. IE "G31 Vortex".

Ah yes then I did misinterpret. This is why I explain back. I'll look at it again and make sure i understand it then.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.