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 08-17-2015, 10:26 AM   #1
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default GURPS Starships line errata (and some observations)

A lot of the ships in the starships line of PDFs have bugs and since the errata process has not worked for a while, I am posting them here for comment and/or use for others.

They are all collected at: http://gsuc.roto.nu/doku.php?id=errata.

A couple of the entries are not really errata, but commentary on something about them. I will try to mark such clearly. Overall they are based on my notes and comments to myself that I started to collect.

Please see if I made some mistakes and/or post other errata in them that I have missed. Also note that the later volumes have had a lot less use than the earlier so have not gone through them as carefully so I expect them to have more issues that I have not discovered.

I also hope that these help someone who might be confused by something in them.

Spaceships

Airlocks: The table on p.42 and the Free equipment box on p.10 have different sizes for airlocks for SM 6-15 ships.

Star flower
seems to have wrong listed load of 301 as it has 6 cargo for 300 tons, 43.5 cargo in the tertiary battery and 20 people. The correct load should be: 345.5

Also the price seems to be wrong:
number module Total price
3 metal laminate armor 3
1 control 2
2 stardrive 20
2 standard reactionless 2
1 tertiary battery 1/30 0.2
1 enhanced sensor 2
1 engine room 0.3
1 fusion reactor 10
6 cargo 0
2 habitat 2
artificial gravity 1

Is only 42.5 million with the listed price of 44.5 million.

Spaceships 2
Pioneer-Class
Is listed as TL 9^ but does not seem to have any super science systems.

Anthem-Class
Is listed as both TL 10(table) and 11(top) but the single reactionless engine is listed as 2G that is a TL 11 feature, so likely should be TL11^

Dark Horse-Class
Lists two items for rear slot 6: its third stardrive, and an Engine room. The stat-line also reflects both: It has range x3, and an HT of 13.

The force screen is not listed in the table DR field.

Betelgeuse-Class
Not an errata, but if using half systems then installing half size power plant would allow 3000 ton more cargo and installing a much smaller habitat and the remaining in cargo would allow bit more cargo as well totally.

Regulus-class
Is listed as having:
Hot Reactionless Engine (50G acceleration) and Move 50G/c

But Hot Reactionless engine only has 2G/c acceleration. So the engine is Super Reactionless not Hot Reactionless.

Has seven 500 ton Cargo Holds, 200 tons cargo in the Secondary Battery, 200 tons cargo in Habitat, a 300 ton Hangar Bay and 28 people for a total load of 4202.8 tons not the listed 3,142.8 tons.

Empress-Class
Not an errata, but if using half systems then installing half size power plant would allow more space for other things.

Xanadu-Class
Has only two stardrives and the power to drive only two high power systems and yet the range is listed as 3x, should thus be 2x

The single drive is rated 100g/c, should be 50g/c

Rear hull section has a habitat with five luxury cabins, 180 cabins and a 20-bed sickbay. That is total of 210 cabin units of the 200 possible.

Maltese Falcon-Class
The load and occupation ratings are wrong. Like they front hull "Habitats (two luxury cabins, 10 tons cargo" is only counted once in the table as it dies not have "each" in the description so the table values are missing 10 tons of cargo and 4 people. Thus the occ should be 20 and load 82.

The table is missing ^ in TL field as the 10^ is the correct TL

Taj Mahal-Class
Is listed as SM +9 craft with 100 dST/HP in the vehicle entry, but is really SM +8 and 70 dST/HP.

Ulysses
is listed as 8ASV despite having a calculated: 4 staterooms(=8) and a cage(=4) 12 total.

Zeta Reticuli-Class
Listed as having 3+3 luxury staterooms and 4 staterooms but only Occ 14ASV when the total should be 20ASV.

The price is obviously wrong, just the cloaking device is 30 million and the two teleport projectors are 20 million each so more than the total of 65.7 million.

# Modules Mcr
3 armor $15.00
1 array $20.00
4 habitat $4.00
1 battery $6.00
1 hangar $0.10
1 control $2.00
1 force screen $15.00
1 engine room $0.30
1 powerplant $60.00
1 drive $10.00
3 stardrive $30.00
1 cloaking $30.00
1 cargo
Module total $192.40

Special staterooms Mcr
minifac $2.00
science lab $1.00
teleport projectors $40.00
automed sickbay $0.20
Total $43.20
Grand total $235.60


Baikonur
Baikonur Third Stage STV is listed as TL 8, but has control room computer and sensors calculated as TL7 and has no other components that are above TL 7, so should likely be TL 7.

Not really an errata as such more an observation. In the end the first stage is thus controlled by a control room 2 sizes too small for it. Should this not cause a penalty?

The third stage is an inefficient design with the 3 armor systems, so it could carry more without them.

Also the question of needing armor for streamlining, the whole stack does not fill that need.

Conestoga-Class
The total delta-v value is wrong, it uses 13 tanks of HEDM that would have a d-v of 0.5*1.6=0.8/tank for a total of 10.4 mps.

Definitely not an errata, but an observation: This is a very inefficient design with way too many armor systems, a huge control room when compared to as example the Bainokur stack and way too much fuel for the most likely mission of lifting things to low earth orbit as high earth orbit and escape velocity are more likely better served by something with lower thrust and higher impulse.

A modified version could carry 300 tons to low earth orbit easily. (-2 armor, -1 hangar, -2 fuel, +5 cargo), 7.7 mps and if using a smaller control station and dropping 1-2 more fuel tanks up to something like 430 tons at the upper end.

Prospero-class
Has 1 module with 80 hibernation chambers and yet lists "Plus 200 in suspended animation", should be " Plus 80 in suspended animation"

It has a listed load of 172.6 but has a cargo module at 150 tons, two 100 ton hangar bays, 10 ton steerage cargo and 206 total people for load: 380.6 tons.

Condor Spaceplane
Has listed airspeed of 2450mph, but at 3 modules of 0.5g each it should be 3100mph

Definitely not an errata, but an observation: This design is also inefficient due to too much armor.

A variant with -2 armor could lift 25 tons and a cargo version without passenger seats could carry 30 tons.

Thunderbird
Definitely not an errata, but an observation: This design is also inefficient due to too much armor.

Alpha Shuttlecraft
Is missing one module, it only has 19 total as it only has one core module.

Has as module 6 in front hull: Hangar Bay (three tons capacity). A SM +5 single module hangar bay is 1 ton.

The total load is also wrong 8 cargo*1.5 tons=12, add 1 ton bay and 0.6 from passengers and you get 13.6 tons, but adding the last module as extra cargo +1.5 tons gives a total of 15.1 tons.

Dart-Class
The load is wrong it has 2 cargo holds*50 tons, 45 tons in the battery and 5 tons in habitat for a total load of 150.8 tons.

The force screen is not listed in the table DR field.

Dark Horse
Lists two items for rear slot 6: its third stardrive, and an Engine room. The stat-line also reflects both: It has range x3, and an HT of 13.

Ricardo
Lists load as 201.8 tons, but has 300 ton hangar, 200 tons in the habitat and 18 people as load thus total should be 501.8 tons.

Spaceships 3
Collision formula on page 32 seems to produce too high values. Collisions according to the formula do about 3.6 times the value they should do. Just use the Spaceships p.64 formula to fix.

Admiral-class
Is missing module 5 in central hull.

Has 2 Fuel tanks with 15mps listed delta-V each but the table says 1G/15 mps. It should be 1G/30 mps or if the missing module is fuel tank 1G/45 mps.

Sword-Class
Sword-Class Heavy Cruiser in SS3 page 14. The stat-line is listed as having a DR of 100/100/50, but the design has 140/140/70 (which seems to fit the actual stats for streamlined diamonoid)

Also, it has 10 fixed rear-mounted missile launchers. Does it expect to be running away often?

Trinity-class

Has a single Fission Reactor providing one Power Point, but two high energy systems (Major Battery and Secondary Battery), so it should have a note saying it cannot operate both at same time. Alternatively upgrading the fission reactor to a Fusion reactor would solve the problem.

Azrael-class
The price is obviously wrong. A quick calculation would indicate 1,901.5 million could be the right ballpark instead of the listed 1,901.5 billion.
------
Since the total post hit the 10000 character limit, the remaining Starships books errata can be found few posts down.
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu

Last edited by weby; 03-04-2020 at 10:27 AM.
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2015, 11:38 AM   #2
Krinberry
 
Krinberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

There's one on p. 22 of GURPS Spaceships under Reaction Engine, Fission that has been driving me nuts every time I flip past it...

Quote:
Each fuel tank of hydrogen gives a delta-V of 0.3 mps (TL7-8) or 0.45 mps (TL8).
I assume that it's supposed to be '0.3 mps (TL7-8) or 0.45 mps (TL9)' but I've never seen any errata about it so I wasn't sure that it wasn't intentional.

For reference, I use the PDF off of Warehouse23, not a hardcopy.

Last edited by Krinberry; 08-19-2015 at 11:40 AM. Reason: Adding clarification to which version of SS
Krinberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2015, 11:53 AM   #3
ericbsmith
 
ericbsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY, USA. Near the river Styx in the 5th Circle.
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

The original print copy, as well as older PDF copy, state:

Quote:
Originally Posted by page22
0.3 mps (TL7-8) or 0.45 mps (TL9+).
This appears to be a case of them accidentally editing something.
__________________
Eric B. Smith GURPS Data File Coordinator
GURPSLand
The future keeps telling us what the past was about. You make the past mean different things by what you do with the time that comes after.
ericbsmith is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2015, 11:58 AM   #4
Krinberry
 
Krinberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Canada
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Aha! Thanks Eric. :) I know it's a pretty minor thing but it's a bit like picking at a hangnail.
Krinberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2015, 11:43 PM   #5
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Continuation of the collection list in the first post.

Spaceships 4
Samson-Class Grappler Ship
Has only one core system. Fixed by adding an extra Fuel Tank

Spaceships 5
Star Seed
Has only one Solar Panel Array. So needs the note "Cannot use Mining and Nanofactory modules at the same time"

Note: Swapping one of the Science Arrays(There is really no need for more than one) to a second Solar Panel Array would allow both to be operated at the same time.

Helldiver-Class Armored Lander
Emergency Ejection System not allowed in Core Control Room.

Komarov-class
The ATR rocket is listed as giving 0.2g/module for a total of 0.6g. But the basic ATR at TL 10 give 0.2 with hydrogen and using water instead you get 0.6g/module for a total of 1.8g.

It is also noted as "This is a compact, single-stage-to-orbit vehicle using anti-
matter rocket engines to achieve high performance. This permits landing and takeoff from high-G worlds. It is designed to glide in for a landing from orbit, but it can operate from a vertical position"

But its ability to operate in high-G worlds is severely limited by the low D-v.

The d-V is just enough to reach low orbit of 1g planet with a minimal reserve for docking maneuvers,de-orbiting and similar, so it could not operate from larger planets. So no "high-G" world capability and earth size world support requires an atmosphere for landing or orbital refueling.

Star Hunter
Says that: "Personnel include four control crew, six scientists, and one technician." and yet it has life support only for max 6 people.

Simple solution is to swap out the three cabins with total life support with something giving more such. Just using 6 cabins allows for that to be carried but maximally one more person. Three cabins and three bunk rooms would allow it to carry the normal crew of 11 and have extra space for maximally 7 others.

Spaceships 6
Class III Spaceport
Is listed as TL 8 in the title and TL 9 in the table. Given the C6 (10 base -4 for tl 8) of the computer in the control room and no components requiring TL 9 it seems like TL 8 is the correct one.

Nugget-class
Has one FTL drive but listed range of "-" The range should be "1x"

Vredefort-Class Asteroid Mine Station
Station requires 60 technicians; need to increase accomodations to facilitate them.

Aquarius-Class Interstellar Supertanker
Occ is 14ASV but the crew breakdown lists 19 crew. The easiest fix is to add 4 more cabins, reducing Steerage Cargo to 9,880 tons.

Spaceships 8
Von Braun-class
Has 3 factory modules total each requiring a power point, but only 2 power points produced: Solar Panel Array (one Power Point) and Fusion Reactor (de-rated; one Power Point).

The simple fix would be to replace the de-rated Fusion Reactor with a full version. At minimum it would require a note that only 2 of the factory modules can be operated at the same time.

Lewis-Class HSTV
Can't have Weapon Battery in [Core]. Easiest fix is to swap the [Core] Smaller SM System with one of the Fuel Tanks. Alternatively replace the Weapon Battery with a Fuel Tank and add a Smaller SM System in the hull with one Weapon Battery and two Smaller SM Fuel Tanks.

Steptoe-Class Debris Recovery Vehicle
Fusion Rocket require SM+9 at TL9. Ship must be TL10.
Rear Smaller SM Light Alloy Armor has only dDR 2.
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu

Last edited by weby; 05-08-2017 at 08:06 AM.
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 01:56 AM   #6
Mailanka
 
Mailanka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Thanks, Weby. The more I mess with the Spaceships line, the more it seems to me that the forum likes to talk about Spaceships than actually use them, and the result is that a lot of this stuff slips past the hivemind.
__________________
My Blog: Mailanka's Musing. Currently Playing: Psi-Wars, a step-by-step exploration of building your own Space Opera setting, inspired by Star Wars.
Mailanka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 03:12 AM   #7
scc
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericbsmith View Post
The original print copy, as well as older PDF copy, state:



This appears to be a case of them accidentally editing something.
Wasn't there a discussion on this a while back? I've got the odd feeling it's only TL 7 that gets the lower number
scc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 09:23 AM   #8
Fred Brackin
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
Thanks, Weby. The more I mess with the Spaceships line, the more it seems to me that the forum likes to talk about Spaceships than actually use them, and the result is that a lot of this stuff slips past the hivemind.
My personal guess is that the market for spaceship combat boardgames isn't what David wishes it would be. Spaceships is at least his third try at doing one that overlaps with rpgs and none have been all that successful as boardgames.

There might be a bigger market that doesn't overlap wit rpgs much but there Spaceships is handicapped by a lack of mini and a default setting.

So the playtesters for Spaceships came heavily from the rpg side and had little use for the example ships. Making your own ships is too easy in Spaceships for somebody else's to be worth much to you.
__________________
Fred Brackin
Fred Brackin is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 11:10 AM   #9
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mailanka View Post
Thanks, Weby. The more I mess with the Spaceships line, the more it seems to me that the forum likes to talk about Spaceships than actually use them, and the result is that a lot of this stuff slips past the hivemind.
I have not used a lot of the ships yet, but I am basically reworking many of them to work in a single setting, so doing things like keeping most of the ship but modifying the drive system and similar.
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2015, 11:12 AM   #10
weby
 
weby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Default Re: Gurps Starships line errata(and some observations)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Brackin View Post
Making your own ships is too easy in Spaceships for somebody else's to be worth much to you.
I have found the space ships live very much worth the price. The total number of different ships you get with them is really nice in fleshing out a setting.
__________________
--
weby's gaming stuff: http://weby.roto.nu
weby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
spaceships

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 10:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.