On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 10:57 AM Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:

Morning all of Roy, WA.,

I'm still working on the MT COACC Guardian by putting together a more automated spreadsheet to check the one I did inserting the values.

While putting together the Hull tables when verifying the UCP to volume there appears to be additional errata.

A. In the Vehicle Chassis Table I found 7 entries that do not match my calculations.

1. UCP 0.007= Volume 0.10 kl versus 0.07 x 13.5 = 0.0945

Assume you just made a typo - 0.007 x 13.5 = 0.0945

Appears rounded to first digit despite the following zero.

2. UCP 0.019 = Volume 0.25 kl versus 0.019 x 13.5 = 0.2565

3. UCP 0.056 = Volume 0.75 kl versus 0.056 x 13.5 = 0.756

4. UCP 0.093 = Volume 1.25 kl versus 0.093 x 13.5 = 1.2555

5. UCP 0.130 = Volume 1.75 kl versus 0.130 x 13.5 = 1.7555

6. UCP 0.250 = Volume 3.37 kl versus 0.250 x 13.5 = 3.375

7. UCP 0.750 = Volume 10.12 kl versus 0.750 x 13.5 = 10.125

In Item 1 rounding or rounding down UCP 0.007 x 13. 5 to two decimal places the Volume should be 0.09 kl. Rounding up to two decimal places on the other hand matches the table's value.

Or rounding to one decimal place and showing 2. That would also get your result.

In Items 2 through 7 the only way to get the table's values for volume is to round down which, in my opinion, suggests that either the volume for UCP 0.007 should be corrected to 0.09 kl or that items 2 through 7 needed to be rounded up. Being a lazy lout the easiest fix is to change to change UCP 0.007.

One theory could be that you round to be slightly lesser so as never to grant more volume than would be used. There'd be a logic to that for space (you will always be under the actual amount).

One way or another, there needs to be consistency.

B. The Small Craft Hull Table has 8 entries that do not match my calculations.

1. UCP 25 = Volume 335 kl versus 25 x 13.5 = 337.5

2. UCP 35 = Volume 470 kl versus 35 x 13.5 = 472.5

3. UCP 45 = Volume 605 kl versus 45 x 13.5 = 607.5

4. UCP 55 = Volume 740 kl versus 55 x 13.5 = 742.5

5. UCP 65 = Volume 875 versus 65 x 13.5 = 877.5

6. UCP 75 = Volume 1,010 kl versus 75 x 13.5 = 1,012.5

7. UCP 85 = Volume 1,150 kl versus 85 x 13.5 = 1,147.5

8. UCP 95 = Volume 1,285 kl versus 95 x 13.5 = 1,282.5

Regardless of how rounding is done the above 8 entries are, in my opinion, in need of correction.

The common thing is to round down to the lowest 5 kl except for #7 (mysteriously rounded up). So it's broken in TWO respects (a bizarre rounding plus one that doesn't even follow the same pattern).

I think all calculations should have a set number of decimals and go no further (or less) and that any result should be rounded in a consistent (and explicitly stated) way.

C. Planetoid and Buffered Planetoid Armor

On MT Referee's Manual p. 63 under the Planetoids Hull Table is an entry stating that a "Planetoid hull has an armor value (factor) of 50. Buffered planetoid value (factor) is 56. Additional armor may be added to a planetoid; subtract the planetoid's current armor modifier (from the Armor Table) from the desired new armor value mass factor.

Q1. Since planetoids are armored naturally their armor value (factor) does not increase the craft's weight and price in Step 9, right?

Adding Superdense Armor to a planetoid hull would increase it's weight and price by the modifiers listed in the Armor Type Table. Giving the Superdense armor a value (factor) of 40 would modify the the hull's Step 9 weight and price by: Factor (value) 50 modifier 80 - Superdense Factor (value) 40 modifier 33 = modifier of 47. The modifier of 47 would be applied to the hull weight ant price.

Q2. Do I have an understanding of the process?

Your asteroid starts with 50 armour. I don't believe they intend you to *take away* the rock and reduce the armour. You don't calculate the desired *increase* by just adding another set of armour with a lower modifier value for armour. You have to look at the armour level you want (noting its modifier which for 50 was 80) and take that (what you have) from the armor modifier for the final armour value you want from the table which will be higher. You take what you want (modifier of the final armour value you want) and subtract the modifier from what you have (the lower modifier value). I do an example below.

To be explicit: The armour modifier to weight and cost goes up non-linearly.

Armour 10 (2.5 mod)

Armour 20 (5.95 mod) +3.45 by adding 10 (from 10)

Armour 30 (14.1 mod) +8.15 by adding 10 (from 20)

Armour 40 (33.0 mod) +15.9 by adding 10 (from 30)

Armour 50 (80.0 mod) +57.0 by adding 10 (from 40

So you can see that Armour 20 is NOT twice armour 10. So if I wanted to go 20 to 30 and just took Armour 20's mod and added Armour 10s (2.5 + 5.95), note that I will be FAR short of Armour 30's 14.1 mod. So that sort of 'add some new armour by looking at the value I want to add' is invalid.

You actually have to find the final armour value you want, take that value, and remove the value from what you had before (a free 50 or 56 with the planetoids). The modifier you have after removing what you had from what you want (modifier wise) is what you need to apply to the entire hull (cost and weight).

Example-ish:

We start with:

Planetoid 50 (mod 80)

Buffered Planetoid 56 (mod 135)

Let's say I want to take Planetoid up to Armour 60 (mod 190 from table 9), the difference I have to account for would be:

Mod 190 (new armour level mod) - Mod 80 (old armour level mod) = 110

Thus, you multiply hull cost and weight by that factor to get the cost of the additional armour.

(You've already - from 'free armour of factor 50' - got armour you don't have to pay for twice, so that's why there is the subtraction).

You are taking the modifier for the armour level you WANT and subtracting the modifier for the armour level you HAVE BEFORE THE UPGRADE. That gives you the difference in modifier which is then multiplied by hull weight and cost.

Note: Moving up even 5 or 10 places will *really* jump your armour modifier. It's a non-linear growth pattern (probably some sort of square or cube law thing).

Having pointed that out, the part you need is the routine:

1. Find the armour value you want, call that as modifier1

2. Find the armour value you have (50 or 56 for planetoid), call that modifier2

---- SELF CHECK: modifier1 should be larger than modifier2 (in the this instance of planetoids)

3. Subtract what you have from what you want (modifier1 - modifier2) to get what we will call modifier3

4. Multiply modifier3 by hull weight for added weight of new armour, multiply modifier3 by hull cost for added cost of new armour

That's all you need - follow those steps, you are golden.

---- EXTRA-CREDIT NOTE: Now, in vehicle designs not using free planetoid armour, you could reverse the process (find new value lower than the original and then your modifier for the new value is lower than the old value and you could thus end up with a negative modifier (reducing cost and weight). THAT you can't do with rock because the rock's intrinisic armour does not allow that to work. But it might if you took an armoured cruiser and removed a lot of the armour (for instance) to make a new variant.

TomB

Tom Rux

-----
The Traveller Mailing List
Archives at http://archives.simplelists.com/tml
Report problems to xxxxxx@simplelists.com
To unsubscribe from this list please go to
http://www.simplelists.com/confirm.php?u=RDHE7iRpfwqlHvVvWBIhpJZsbTiD5NnL