Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-11-2009, 06:07 PM   #11
thtraveller
 
thtraveller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzeentch
Checking vehicle designs has always been the red-headed stepchild of playtesting. The only times I recall it being the subject of intense scrutiny was during GURPS Traveller Starships playtest (where it was probably the most rigorous vetting of modules I've yet seen)
I still have the mental scars. The thought of checking another cockpit/bridge module still makes me shudder. And it was why bridges were the only thing I couldn't face checking during Interstellar Wars.

Quote:
Honestly, I love deconstructing designs so I don't mind doing the checks, but I'm somewhat unusual in that.
You and me both, though as I stopped being a pyramid subscriber after they pulled the automatic playtest entry (which is why I originally signed up), it is academic.

I will (re)check the SS3 designs in due course.
__________________
Always challenge the assumptions
thtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 04:34 AM   #12
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Admiral class battleship has another problem, it seems.

The crew complement includes "20 missile operators", which presumably correspond to 20 missile tubes but don't appear to have any job to do as the missiles are controlled by the missile gunner on the bridge. Also, 43 turret gunners are provided for 13 turrets.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 07:45 AM   #13
jacobmuller
 
jacobmuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth
Admiral class battleship has another problem, it seems.
I thought so too but then realised that's what's meant to be in the missing section... it's a ditto for central hull section 4. The bridge crewman - maybe a fire coordinator?
__________________
"Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek
PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/
It's all in the reflexes
jacobmuller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 08:04 AM   #14
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobmuller
I thought so too but then realised that's what's meant to be in the missing section... it's a ditto for central hull section 4. The bridge crewman - maybe a fire coordinator?
The missiles in central system 4 are fixed mounts. They're all fired as a single attack by the man on the bridge. They don't have local controls or need individual operators.

Note that the only other place in the entire PDF that 'missile operator' is found is the Deimos class frigate (p16-17). And it's a mistake there too, because the Deimos has no missiles. Presumably he's actually the gunner for the forward laser.

I don't know what goes in the Admiral's lost system, but I'd be a bit surprised if it's a battery. The ship already has 4 high-power weapon systems and a stardrive. Unless it's all missile launchers, it would make power problematic in combat.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 02:41 PM   #15
jacobmuller
 
jacobmuller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Not in your time zone:D
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Yeah, just re-reading that - 20 fixed tubes and 20 missile operators but 43 turret gunners. Central-5 could be a tertiary battery of 30 turrets.
Power management: don't get surrounded:0 The antimatter provides 4!, the front and central weapons use 4!. Hold fire if you want to use star drive.

Maybe the control bod + missile gunners allows more options - single salvo or multiple launches. If control is gone they can still launch?
__________________
"Sanity is a bourgeois meme." Exegeek
PS sorry I'm a Parthian shootist: shiftwork + out of country = not here when you are:/
It's all in the reflexes
jacobmuller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 03:23 PM   #16
David L Pulver
AlienAbductee
 
David L Pulver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: In the UFO
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacobmuller
Yeah, just re-reading that - 20 fixed tubes and 20 missile operators but 43 turret gunners. Central-5 could be a tertiary battery of 30 turrets.
Power management: don't get surrounded:0 The antimatter provides 4!, the front and central weapons use 4!. Hold fire if you want to use star drive.

Maybe the control bod + missile gunners allows more options - single salvo or multiple launches. If control is gone they can still launch?
On the Admiral: I think it's supposed to say "13 turret gunners" rather than "laser gunners" and that the central hull is supposed to have 20 missile turrets rather than fixed mount missiles. System 5 may well be a fuel tank with 15 mps delta-v.
__________________
Is love like the bittersweet taste of marmalade on burnt toast?
David L Pulver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 05:00 PM   #17
Tzeentch
 
Tzeentch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

* Based on David's comments and collected issues on the Admiral :)
- The missing component does seem to be a Fuel Tank. Price matches exactly with that added.

Admiral-Class Battleship (p. 9)
- Add Central Hull [5] Fuel Tank (holds 1,500 tons hydrogen and provides 15 mps delta-V).
- Change Central Hull 4 to: [4!] Tertiary Battery (20 turrets with 32cm missile launchers, 10 turrets with 300 MJ particle beams).*
- Change Move to 1G/45 mps
- Change piloting skill to Piloting/TL10 High-Performance Spacecraft
- Change crew to read: The battleship’s typical crew are 15 bridge operators (including the captain, executive officer, pilot, engineering officer, navigator, sensor operator, communication officer, and tactical officer), 33 turret gunners, 30 technicians, and one medic. Multiple crew shifts are usually carried, plus a squad of marines or security guards.
Tzeentch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-12-2009, 06:43 PM   #18
RyanW
 
RyanW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by David L Pulver
On the Admiral: I think it's supposed to say "13 turret gunners" rather than "laser gunners" and that the central hull is supposed to have 20 missile turrets rather than fixed mount missiles. System 5 may well be a fuel tank with 15 mps delta-v.
There doesn't really seem to be any reason to put missiles in turrets any more.
__________________
RyanW
- Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats.
RyanW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2009, 04:18 PM   #19
Tzeentch
 
Tzeentch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

First and second post updated. The Version 1.1 of the PDF appears to incorporate all the errata that has been discovered thus far.
Tzeentch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2009, 12:20 AM   #20
gkzhukov
 
gkzhukov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 40º 35' 47" N / 3º 42' 27.30" W
Default Re: [Spaceships] Spaceships 3 Errata

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzeentch
First and second post updated. The Version 1.1 of the PDF appears to incorporate all the errata that has been discovered thus far.
Thanks!

However, I do think the list of changes should be incorporated into the download for customers owning the earlier version of the book. ;)
__________________
Starburnt
gkzhukov is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
spaceships


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.