Book 5 discounted starship cost

[agorski]

I'm assuming that when you calculate the discounted cost of a starship by multiplying the construction cost by 80% that you include any carried craft at their full discounted cost and ship's vehicles without any cost reduction.

I'm having no luck figuring out the Kinunir example on page 18 of the Consolidated Errata. The discounted cost given is some wacky number!

 

[Kakistocrat]

I'm having no luck figuring out the Kinunir example on page 18 of the Consolidated Errata. The discounted cost given is some wacky number!

To me, it looks like MCr 1201.8619⁄1335.4021 represents a 10% discount rather than a 20% discount.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I would assume discounted small craft are not discounted again.

See TCS, p8.

3. All vehicles carried on, or assigned to, ships within the squadron. Big and small craft which have their own High Guard statistics and which are assigned t o the squadron should be accounted for separately.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I get fairly close to the errata. The discounted cost on p15 of the errata is obviously wrong, it is presumably 90% of the full cost (including already discounted small craft and vehicles). The same 90% is used for the Kinunir's pinnace: MCr 21 × 90% = MCr 18.9.

Note that the errata misses the cost of hangars for small craft: 52 Dt × kCr 2 = kCr 104 = MCr 0.104.

(I would not normally include the cost of the jump capsules in the ship, I would consider them consumables, like missiles.)

 

[Vargas]

A "feature" of both MegaTraveller and TNE ships were that they were not only not reproducible but that no two people would get the same numbers.

 

[atpollard]

A "feature" of both MegaTraveller and TNE ships were that they were not only not reproducible but that no two people would get the same numbers.

When I studied Computer Science (and people still used Punch Cards and Fortran IV), they taught us that all coding will always have at least 1 error per 4000 lines of coding. As you attempt to correct errors beyond that threshold, your corrections will introduce new errors and maintain the empirical limit of 'perfection'.

I think some of the Traveller design sequences have exceeded the level of complexity that permits them to be error free and the errata is simply proving that empirical threshold.

Heck, even the LBB2 design system has progression anomalies in the charts and a "scout" ship that cannot theoretically exist (It must be EXACTLY 100 dTons ... 99 dTons and it cannot jump; 101 dtons and it is only J1 ... so what happens when you remove the turret or upgrade to a triple turret?)

 

[mike wightman]

Nothing - the word turret is used to describe the weapon installation within/on the hull.
A laser would actually be a mirror array on the surface or recessed into the hull, a missile rack is internal with launch ports, as is the sandcaster.

People read the word turret and think of what they see on a tank or battleship - that image is in error. There is no external addition to the hull when you install a turret on a hardpoint. It is the fire control (sensors etc) that takes up the majority of the weapon space within the hull, the volume of the weapon system itself is a rounding error hidden within the 1t for fire control.

 

[atpollard]

Nothing - the word turret is used to describe the weapon installation within/on the hull.
A laser would actually be a mirror array on the surface or recessed into the hull, a missile rack is internal with launch ports, as is the sandcaster.

People read the word turret and think of what they see on a tank or battleship - that image is in error. There is no external addition to the hull when you install a turret on a hardpoint. It is the fire control (sensors etc) that takes up the majority of the weapon space within the hull, the volume of the weapon system itself is a rounding error hidden within the 1t for fire control.

Except in any illustration for any version of the game.

 

[Kakistocrat]

Heck, even the LBB2 design system has progression anomalies in the charts and a "scout" ship that cannot theoretically exist (It must be EXACTLY 100 dTons ... 99 dTons and it cannot jump; 101 dtons and it is only J1 ... so what happens when you remove the turret or upgrade to a triple turret?)

In the 1977 LBB2 design system, the Type S scout/courier can theoretically exist, but an erratum is needed for the listed base price of CR 32,490,000 (i.e. CR 36,100,000 before the 10% discount for a standard design). By my reckoning, its base price should be CR 27,630,000 (i.e. CR 30,700,000 before the 10% discount). It was Book 5 that made the 1977 Type S incapable of Jump-2, but that was remedied in Supplement 7 by replacing its Model/1 computer with a Model/1 bis computer, which in turn changed its base price to CR 29,430,000 (i.e. CR 32,700,000 before the 10% discount), reflecting the post-1977 price of the Model/1 bis at CR 4,000,000.

As Mike noted, nothing happens displacement-wise when its turret is removed or replaced.

 

[mike wightman]

The artists get it wrong all the time...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Nothing - the word turret is used to describe the weapon installation within/on the hull.

Doesn't really work.

The turret is a user-accessible place:

Any number of areas in the ship may be depressurized in the span of one turn (1,000 seconds). Repressurization requires one turn. In practice, the following parts of the ship may be individually pressure regulated: engineering section, ..., turrets (individually).

Gunner interact interfaces the expertise of the gunner in a specific turret to the hit probability of those lasers hitting the target.

A laser would actually be a mirror array on the surface or recessed into the hull, a missile rack is internal with launch ports, as is the sandcaster.

Turrets are generic:

Turrets and weapons may be altered or retrofitted. For example, a single turret can have its pulse laser replaced by a beam laser when it becomes available; a single turret can be replaced by a triple turret when it becomes available. Weapons for installation in turrets include pulse and beam lasers, missile racks, and sandcasters.

A laser can easily be replaced with a missile launcher, without any change to the turret.

 

[mike wightman]

The fact remains that in CT LBB2 a turret of any capacity of weapon type takes up no volume.

When designing the hull you designate hardpoints and pay for them - no adding hardpoints at a later time.

You allocate 1t of internal space to the fire control for the weapon if you want to to arm your ship. The 'turret' is just a placeholder word to represent the weapon array itself.

The 'turret' - be it single, double or triple - takes up no volume of note inside or external to the hull.

As I correctly stated - the vast majority have completely the wrong mental image of what a 'turret' represents in CT and this error is compounded by artists also getting it wrong.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The 'turret' - be it single, double or triple - takes up no volume of note inside or external to the hull.

Not quite, it takes no space inside the hull.


What we know:

1) Turrets takes no space in the hull (LBB2 p15).
2) A gunner can be in the turret (LBB2 p38).
3) Turrets can be decompressed, hence they have space for people (LBB2 p34).

The only conclusion I can make is that turrets take space, but outside the hull. Presumably 1% or so is too little to impact drive performance.


Of course, LBB5 changes all of this...

 

[mike wightman]

Not quite, it takes no space inside the hull.

Nor does it add any volume to the hull.

What we know:

1) Turrets takes no space in the hull (LBB2 p15).

Nor add volume to the hull.

2) A gunner can be in the turret (LBB2 p38).

the gunner can be in a 'turret' that is wholly within the hull

3) Turrets can be decompressed, hence they have space for people (LBB2 p34).

space/volume that is within the hull volume.

The only conclusion I can make is that turrets take space, but outside the hull. Presumably 1% or so is too little to impact drive performance.

The only conclusion I can make is that the 'turret' is not an external feature, as this would add to the hull volume.

Of course, LBB5 changes all of this...

Not really - it reinforces that weapons provide no additional tonnage for the ship, but rather have to be accounted for from hull volume.

 

[Condottiere]

Since spaceship design is mostly abstract, adding turrets after the fact should add to the total tonnage.

That tends to throw off performance, especially of the jump drives.

 

[Kakistocrat]

Since spaceship design is mostly abstract, adding turrets after the fact should add to the total tonnage.

To quote from 1977 Book 2, pp. 13–14, “Fire control equipment is also considered to be adjacent to the bridge. Each installed turret (see turrets, below) requires one ton of displacement committed for the installation of fire control equipment. Because turrets may well not be initially installed, space is often held in reserve to allow for later acquisition and installation.” As an example, the 1977 Type A free trader has two hardpoints in its 200 ton hull, with two tons of hull displacement reserved for the possible future installation of a turret in each hardpoint.

 

[mike wightman]

Since spaceship design is mostly abstract, adding turrets after the fact should add to the total tonnage.

But they don't - because what you think is a turret isn't what a LBB2 ship 'turret' is/are different things.

That tends to throw off performance, especially of the jump drives.

Yup, and since the installation of a turret at a later date doesn't affect hull volume or jump drive performance the 'turret' is within the hull, as the hardpoint rule suggests. You have to designate the hardpoint during design at a cost of 0.1MCr and set aside one ton if you want to later fit fire control and a 'turret'.

As an aside - to see how this should work you need to turn to TNE and BL/FF&S where we get a design sequence that actually considers volume, surface area and mass. When the folks at SJG tried to imagine turrets as bolt on additions to the hull they broke their Vehicle design system, despite the sensible voice from the playtest crowd pointing out that it is fixed by considering the turret volume to be taken from the hull, not added to it.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

the gunner can be in a 'turret' that is wholly within the hull

I thought we agreed that the turret does not take any space in the hull?

The only conclusion I can make is that the 'turret' is not an external feature, as this would add to the hull volume.

So, a turret takes up space, but not inside and not outside, so in some Tardis-like extra-dimensional space?

Not really - it reinforces that weapons provide no additional tonnage for the ship, but rather have to be accounted for from hull volume.

I would call it a change, when the extra Dt of fire control is removed, but the turret now takes 1-5 Dt. Hence we don't have to argue about whether a turret takes space, or where.

 

[mike wightman]

I thought we agreed that the turret does not take any space in the hull?

The 1 ton of fire control and the negligible tonnage 'turret' ar within the hull with a surface area component.

So, a turret takes up space, but not inside and not outside, so in some Tardis-like extra-dimensional space?

I really don't think what I have written means what you think it means - the fire control which includes the crew workstation and the 'turret' is what takes up internal space.

I would call it a change, when the extra Dt of fire control is removed, but the turret now takes 1-5 Dt. Hence we don't have to argue about whether a turret takes space, or where.

Exactly - they take up hull space, they don't add to hull volume.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I really don't think what I have written means what you think it means - the fire control which includes the crew workstation and the 'turret' is what takes up internal space.

OK, sorry. So when the rules say "in the turret", you take that to mean "in the fire control"?

Exactly - they take up hull space, they don't add to hull volume.

Quite, and turrets taking space is a clear change from LBB2?