MT Errata: the next steps

[DonM]

First, this is not the errata thread. This thread is to build a list of recognized problems with the MT rules that either need addenda, or are just plain confusing.

Here's my current list... but I'd like to see more, as my goal in 2008 is to seriously clean up things...

· Enhanced merchant character generation unchanged from CT Book 7 Merchant Prince (PM 63) [in progress]
· Incorporate Book 8 Robot Construction in MT?
· Should aircraft damage points NOT be multiplied by 10 like other vehicles?
· Type X Particle Accelerator spinal mount weapon missing from tables (RM 71)
· How long do the effects of Trader skill apply? (RM 54)
· Simplify hasty tasks as half time, cautious tasks as double? (RM 14)
· Prospecting buggy design missing (carried by Seeker) (IE 81)
· Should hull require control points in vehicle designs? (affects computer and crew) (RM 81)
· High Velocity Guns need to expand to allow naval guns (RM 77)
· Pirate characters receiving a “letter of marquee” in mustering out are supposed to receive a positive DM for receiving a corsair? (PM 19)
· Tac missiles in MT? MTJ #3’s tac missiles are not the answer…
· Fusion Rocket stats in COACC/Hard Times very wrong
· Existing disintegrator errata makes weapon weaker than particle accelerators

 

[sfchbryan]

Starship construction time lines
Rules for starship refits
Interface combat
Extended Character Generation for aliens (CT cascades would probably need adjusting for MT)
Rules for switching careers during character generation. (I had a company commander that did a tour with the Air Force, then a tour with the Marines & then joined the Army. At Battalion formations, he had more medals than Patton.)

Do you want suggested solutions in this thread or the errata thread?

 

[DonM]

The errata thread needs to remain for true errata. In this thread, we're identifying stuff that needs to be fixed, but it's not errata. It's replacing "X with Y" type stuff. Like the construction times.

Things people create house rules for that just don't existing in the main rules, like changing careers. :smirk:

And the Heresy thread is for things like "Psionics is cooler in T4, how can we add that to MT".

Does that help?

In this thread, I'm not looking for solutions yet. We're putting together a list, and then we'll check it twice. Then we'll see who's been naughty, and who's been nice. The nice folks get fixes, the naughty people get copies of FSoSI to fix. :rofl:

 

[sfchbryan]

Well, in that case I've already sent you a few things....

But really, sending naughty people copies of FSOSI to fix?!?

You gotta be real, real bad for that.

On the other hand, fixing FSOSI was why I started the work on fixing my copy of the Referee's Manual.

 

[jec10]

Rules for using decoys and sandcasters on atmospheric vehicles.

A coherent and convincing "agility" across different vehicle/craft/ship types - This feeds into sfchbryan's request for interface combat rules. I want to dogfight a starship with an F-14!

Better rules for indirect fire weapons that meld in with point defence rules.

 

[sfchbryan]

Fixing Ship Contstruction Times - Pg 61 of Ref's Manual

Currently, construction times are pretty much meaningless. For whatever reason, DGP didn't move several pages from TCS into MT. To start with, I recommend adding the following from TCS: (corrections from original in blue )

"Time required for construction varies by ship tonnage, according to the construction timetable. For tonnages other than Construction Time those given on the table, the referee should round to the Table nearest quantity or interpolate. Construction times are given in weeks. For simplicity, a ship is not usable for any purpose until it is completed. Construction may be sped up by a number of factors; these are expressed in terms of the extra percentage of a week's work that can be finished in one week.
For example, if rate increases totaling 30% apply, then 130% of a week's work will be done that week, counting as 1.3 weeks off the construction time. The largest possible increase is 100% or two weeks' work done in one week. There are three factors capable of speeding construction. These are: If the ship is not the first ship built in its class (i.e., it satisfies the requirements to cost only 80% of its face value): +40%. If double the ship's tonnage in yard capacity is assigned to it during the week (extra workers and equipment): +40%. For every extra 10% of the unmodified weekly construction cost (see below) that is paid: +10%. Construction is paid for every week. To find the unmodified weekly cost, divide the total ship cost by the construction time given on the table. After all time modifiers have been determined each week, multiply the weekly price by the work done; for example, if 1.3 weeks worth of construction have been done, pay 1.3 times the unmodified weekly cost. Speed-up payments (as in 3 above) are in addition to the weekly cost."

CONSTRUCTION TIME TABLE
Tonnage/Weeks
50 or less/24
80/32
100/40
200/48
400/64
600/96
800/112
1,000/120
5,000/144
10,000/160
20,000/174
50,000/192
100,000/208
200,000/224
500,000/232
1,000,000/240

Well, you do you think?

 

[Vargas]

Tac missiles in MT? MTJ #3’s tac missiles are not the answer…

Depends on the question

 

[DonM]

Well, the question really was "can we find a good set of tac missile rules that fit into MegaTraveller, and the answer is "perhaps, but MTJ #3 doesn't have them in it."

 

[sfchbryan]

Heavy High Velocity Guns - Resolved.....

High Velocity Guns were addressed in Challenge 61 - The Equalizer Project - Terrence R. McInnes extended the High Velocity Guns chart from 30cm to 50cm. He also extended the ammunition chart to 50cm.

Situation resolved for land based artillery.

New issue: Heavy High Velocity Naval Guns

Heavy High Velocity Guns were built at TL 4, not TL5. By 1919, 40cm guns were on the Nagato class BB (japan), so the ROF rate chart needs to go backwards to TL4. In addition, the ROF for High Velocity guns is suspect. Firing range is also very, very off. This is because unlike ground based artillery, Naval guns have limited elevation, which will severely limit the firing range. For example, none of the BB from the WW1 era had elevations of higher than 20 degrees. Looking at the Nassau class (Germany), the main guns (28cm) had an elevation of +20 degrees, which limited the range to 20,400 meters. Which was as far as the targeting systems of the day could work reliably. Compare that to the Indirect Fire Range listed in step 22 on page 77. By WW2, turret elevations had increased to +40 which increased the range for the same size gun (28cm) to have a range of 42,600 (Scharnhorst Class BC). This is almost to the distance to the horizon for a size 7 world.

I am looking at building a separate set of charts for naval guns to address range. The chart will show a major jump in range when going from TL 4 to TL 5 to show the adjustments based on elevation and another major jump from TL 5 to TL6 to show the introduction of radar ranging.

What does everyone else think?

 

[kaladorn]

Don't know if you handled it in the Errata...

CPR Guns is not a skill. It is not the same skill as Mortars and Howitzers (indirect fire in large part and firing sheafs in patterns). CPR guns are often tank guns targeting stationary point or vehicle targets with precise fire (and only a few shots). CPR guns should be a cascade skill of (whatever the parent of Mortars and Howitzers is). If there isn't one, call it FA guns or create a new category.

Rockets (unguided tac missiles) - are they covered? I forget.

PS - I will be very good. I don't want to even hear the name of "Shattered Ships of the Fighting Erratum".

 

[sfchbryan]

CPR guns cover everything from a Vickers light machine gun to coastal/railway artillery to Dreadnaughts. Your viewpoint may (or may not) reflect a land-based viewpoint, but at sea, CPR guns are a very very different beast.

As an example the KM Seydliz (TL 4) averaged a rate of fire of 43 seconds for the entire battle of Jutland (not just the run to the south).

I don't know why everyone obsesses over tac missiles. Just look at a M-72 Law; (yes, I just dated myself), 1 76mm shell attached to a rocket. No big deal.

Hey, I am working on fixing FSOSI. Once you have the charts fixed, it is just a matter of unscrewing the design philosophies (done that already).

This is why I have a 4th Ed Referee's manual.

 

[kaladorn]

CPR guns cover everything from a Vickers light machine gun to coastal/railway artillery to Dreadnaughts. Your viewpoint may (or may not) reflect a land-based viewpoint, but at sea, CPR guns are a very very different beast.

Not entirely true from a Traveller perspective. Or, true, but with a qualification. MGs and Autocannons are specifically covered by Heavy Weapons skill. Larger CPR guns are not.

As an example the KM Seydliz (TL 4) averaged a rate of fire of 43 seconds for the entire battle of Jutland (not just the run to the south).

I don't know why everyone obsesses over tac missiles. Just look at a M-72 Law; (yes, I just dated myself), 1 76mm shell attached to a rocket. No big deal.

Not a tac missile. An unguided rocket.

A tac missile implies guidance other than manual. They generally tend to have further ranges than unguided rockets (TOW, Dragon, Javelin/AT-4, others).