Morning PDT Jeff Zeitlin,

I have a copy of LBB CT Book 2 Starships 1e 1977 7th printing that provides the following material that does not appear to have been kept in the CT Book 2 Starships 2e 1977/1981 6th printing that is part of my copy of FFE 001 Books 0-8 The Classic Books 2000 2nd printing book.

CT Book 2 Starships 1e 1977 6th printing
Starship Construction pages 9 - 21

Page 9 "Starship Design: Most starships are constructed from standard plans and specifications which use timed-tested designs and combinations of features."

Page 9 "Construction/Construction Times: Ship construction requires a relatively long period of time based primarily on the hull size used. The rule section on hulls indicates the basic time required to construct a ship based on a certain size of hull (ranging from 10 to 36 months). Standard designs take about one month less than the stated time."

Page 10 "Hull: Construction time for any custom hull is 36 months, regardless of tonnage."

When LBB 1 - 3 2e came out I purchased a complete set and I compared with my 1e set. I may have missed the information in CT Book 2 Starships 2e on the build time so I went with the information provided by the first edition as being in months.

IIRC either CT Book 5 HG or TCS uses the construction cost to determine how many weeks are needed to construct a hull.

Tom Rux



From: "Jeff Zeitlin" <xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com>
To: "The Traveller Mailing List" <xxxxxx@simplelists.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 5, 2017 7:59:39 PM
Subject: [TML] On Building Ships: Classic, Time to build?

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but I don't see a definitive
statement either way: when figuring the construction time for a ship,
the hull has a time listed in months (which I convert to weeks at
1:4), and the CT Drive Potential table has a single column at the far
right which is headed "build time". When working out the build time
for a ship, do I use the _longer_ of the two times (which the standard
designs listed appear to do), or should I really be _adding_ the times
(which would make the standard designs listed severely underestimated
for build time)? I'm analyzing some ship designs that are slightly
house-ruled; they're severely overpowered (larger M-Drive and PP than
the rules nominally allow; the ships in question are more or less
"tugboats" for a shipyard), and the build time for the M-Drive and PP
are actually longer than the time given for laying the hull.

(Cepheus Engine gives build time in weeks, and seems consistent with
CT after the 1:4 conversion, but CE only gives hull construction
times, nothing else has a construction time.)

®Traveller is a registered trademark of
Far Future Enterprises, 1977-2017. Use of
the trademark in this notice and in the
referenced materials is not intended to
infringe or devalue the trademark.

--
Jeff Zeitlin, Editor
Freelance Traveller
    The Electronic Fan-Supported Traveller® Resource
xxxxxx@freelancetraveller.com
http://www.freelancetraveller.com

Freelance Traveller extends its thanks to the following
enterprises for hosting services:

onCloud/CyberWeb Enterprises (http://www.oncloud.io)
The Traveller Downport (http://www.downport.com)
-----
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=zZOCJCw2BI9jPrGTB4OJoibiHbbTEiok