On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:15 PM Thomas RUX <xxxxxx@comcast.net> wrote:
Hello kaladorn,
On 09/02/2020 12:28 PM xxxxxx@gmail.com wrote:

Tim R,
The web gremlins have struck again and maybe taking on Tim R will help in keeping the confusion down. On second thought I'll stick with either Tom Rux or Tom R.

Argh! Indefensible, my sins are. In mitigation, your Honour, stands the fact that male humans with stubby fingers were never intended to operate touch-screen phones designed for those of the fairer sex, children, and UI designers with freakishly long, tiny fingers. Me, phone virtual keyboards, typos... a true inevitability.

Mea culpa, sorry, Tom R.

What are  the modifiers for the other starports from B to E or X if given?
My apologies for not including the list.

Traffic DM by Starport type A: +4; B +2; C 0; D -1; E -2. Spaceport Type F: 0, ; G -1; H -2.

Hmm, C to B is +2, I can see A being another +2 because it is a much more capable port generally (in that the presence of shipyards that can do work on starships is presumed in the rules).

 
It could be the +4 makes sense for a class A and 150% ought to be 160%.

Rationales/Cases:
- trade growth suddenly
- nearby main or key route unavailable
- refugees
- pilgrimage
- no funding to build out
- discovery in system that requires or offers good reason for more merchie traffic
- real airports often require long pattern waits vs immediate landing
- one efficiency for highport : require docking/unloading)undock within 6 hour window, ships undock, deal by comms, dockagain for pickup... Means each pad/bay has 4 slots per day
The text states 0% to 150% is the percentage of berths filled. The instructions indicate that anything of 100% is in orbit and on a waiting list to land at the port. The waiting time in hours is determined by rolling ((2D6-2) x the percentage)/10 rounding fractions up.

Sure, but it could be 0% and 160% with the +2. I think that's the better fix. I think the +2 is more reasonable and I think the 150% needs amended, not the starport modifier being reduced.

They basically said what I kind of pointed out in the list above - like modern airports, when there is no landing pad/dock/whatever, then you are effectively stuck in orbit. That's like an airport holding pattern. And the 100% could be at a high port, could be at both high and low ports combined, or just for a low port if no high port is extant. Regardless of the port architecture (low only, high only, high and low), the 100% would be at the port (however that port is physically distributed). Everyone else is waiting their turn.

Also, looking at your comment on the math:

With a 160% load (and only a 100% capacity...), you have +60% over capacity. So I guess then I roll 2D6-2 (call it average 5) x 60%/10 = 30 hours. So that would be your average hold in the orbital traffic pattern at the major type A port at full 160% capacity. The minimum would be 0 x 60%/10 = 0 hours (meaning you can't land I guess, but you are next up in less than one hour) and the maximum would be 10 x 60%/10 = 60 hours (aka 2.5 days).

I know in some commercial ports (and other sorts too, but we're talking about merchant traffic) on our seas, you can have a wait if the port capacity is reached (same for lock/canal passages) and one aspect of that follows with one TMLer's definition of pilot as 'harbour pilot' basically... if you don't have enough harbour pilots to help bring in the bigger vessels (and ships crew MUST be supervised by a harbour pilot, then that's another reason the port can seem at capacity (same effect, you can just treat this as one of the cases of 'port beyond capacity').

So I think the correct fix for the broken math is change the range from "0% to 150%" to "0% to 160%" and maintain the A starport modifier of +4.

Most of the time, when you get a minor overage (+10%), your average wait will be 5 hours, at 20% 10 hours. Those aren't gross in commercial shipping terms.

Something to think about:
One kind of assumes better/more advanced/more feature rich ports --> more capacity in traffic handling.
The math tells us though that A & B class ports are fairly likely to have minor delays (meaning that 'more traffic' EVEN RELATIVE TO the greater traffic handling capacity of the larger ports).
So, an A type Starport will be pulling in *way* more traffic (in gross terms and in terms of its high level of traffic handling).

I'd equate this to flying into Dulles, O'Hare, or La Guardia (Starport A) vs. some other large city ports that don't do the same volume (call these the B level ports). Then C ports could be (for purpose of thinking of traffic levels) be equated to small cities or very large towns local airports. D ports might be medium sized towns. E becomes small town landing strips.

When you fly into a major airport like the above 3 airports I named, if you are from a small airport normally, your head has to be on a swivel (eyes open), you have to keep to the possibly complex approaches, and you have to be also thoroughly tuned in to the comms chatter and be spotting the things they names in the busy airspace around you. Also, if you are not where you need to be or aren't following ATC's direction with alacrity, you can bet you'll be called out ASAP and in very stern terms to do as you are directed. I have had several friends who are ATCs or who work on automated approaches/automated landing systems and they always get irked by the small aircraft pilots that come to the big centers and are 'deer in the headlights' and need stern direction and handholding to avoid causing a hazardous situation.

So, for folks like Tim (the real Tim, not a Tom in disguise) and Alex, who love to mine 'colour' or 'adventure material', the waits in the traffic pattern can become an adventure friction point if the group has a time sensitive cargo (there may be priority queues at some ports too that might let some types of traffic jump the normal traffic patterns). Also it could be 'We have a couple of days in an orbit before we can get a berth to unload... what will we do with that?'. And the stress of flying into large, busy traffic patterns around unfamiliar ports might prompt some ideas of 'events/encounters' in the traffic pattern and some more scary rolls for their pilot, Captain, comms officer, etc. and some fun exchanges with tart ATCs.

To recite an humorous (may have been entirely made up) 'tart ATC' story:

Allegedly the German air controllers at Frankfurt Airport are renowned as a short-tempered lot. They, it is alleged, not only expect one to know one’s gate parking location, but how to get there without any assistance from them. So it was with some amusement that we (a Pan Am 747) listened to the following exchange between Frankfurt ground control and a British Airways 747, call sign Speedbird 206.
Speedbird 206: “Frankfurt, Speedbird 206 clear of active runway.”
Ground: “Speedbird 206. Taxi to gate Alpha One-Seven.” The BA 747 pulled onto the main taxiway and slowed to a stop.
Ground: “Speedbird, do you not know where you are going?”
Speedbird 206: “Stand by, Ground, I’m looking up our gate location now.”
Ground (with quite arrogant impatience): “Speedbird 206, have you not been to Frankfurt before?”
Speedbird 206 (coolly): “Yes, twice in 1944, but it was dark,… and I didn’t land.”

For some possible reasons ATC may not respond quickly that could be Travellerized:
https://www.boldmethod.com/blog/lists/2019/04/no-answer-from-atc-this-is-why/

And some humour:
https://aviationhumor.net/atc-quotes/

Systems on Starships and Spaceships are all built w same construction systems. Only difference is Jump Drive. So Starship yard can repair Spaceships.
I agree that the difference is the Jump Drive and associated components. One article indicates that a starship's hull plating has a wire grid that distributes energy around the ship. Another thought is the hull plates have plumbing that distributes L-Hyd around the hull.

Spaceship hulls do not need special hull plating to operate.

When you build the ship in any build system I've seen, you purchase hull. There's no particular type of hull and one would think a hull with the grid and the paths for gases would be more expensive, but it is not. Therefore, I assume a) they are the same (based on build system) or b) they aren't, but some amount of variance is papered over (and thus probably would be for repair too).
 

What you clipped says Spaceship yards have  don't automatically get to repair jump drives, but rather there is a test based on a (not reproduced here) table. I believe that aligns with what you understood.

TomB
Yippee, I've got two feed backs that suggest I'm on the right track.

Tom Rux

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020, 12:19 Alex Goodwin, < xxxxxx@multitel.com.au> wrote:

On 3/9/20 1:59 am, Thomas RUX wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working my way through J. Andrew Keith's Complete Starport
> Supplementary Material for MT published in Far & Away No. 1 April 1990
> pp. 20-25.
>
> I am putting together a spreadsheet to automate the process and I have
> gotten to the Repairs and Maintenance. During the build I've found one
> possible bit of errata and I need some help figuring out part of
> Repairs and Maintenance instructions.
>
> Errata:
> Traffic: "Traffic at a given starport is found by making a 2D6 die
> roll, applying a modifier given for the port type in question,and
> multiplying the result by 10. The result is a percentage of the berths
> at the port (from 0% to 150%) currently filled by available traffic.
>
> On the Starport Contents Table a Port Type A has a Traffic DM of +4.
> If the 2D6 roll is 12 and the Port type is A DM is +4 then the
> percentage of berths filled is 16 x 10 = 160%. The DM for a Port Type
> A should be 3 versus 4 which will then  agree with the (from 0% to 150%).

Da Famous Tom R,

I see your argument for the +3 DM on consistency grounds.  On upside,
that port _must_ be busy to fill more than 100% of its berths.

>
> Instructions:
> "Repairs and Maintenance: ...A port which can provide Starship
> Construction is automatically able to provide any type of repairs for
> any shipboard system. If a port is able to provide Spaceship
> Construction, all systems except Jump Drive are automatically
> repairable at any level; use the table to determine if Jump Drive
> repairs are possible..."
>
> Can a port with a Starship Construction facility provide repairs to
> spaceships?
>
> My feeling is that a Starship Construction facility can repair all
> spaceship shipboard systems.
>
> Can a Spaceship Construction facility provided repair to the jump
> drive provided it can pass the required target number from the
> Starport Contents Table on 2D6?
>
> Tom Rux
>
From what you've quoted, a starshipyard can repair _any_ shipboard
system, _without qualification_ as to whether it's installed aboard a
starship or spaceship (or small craft for that matter) - so yes,
starshipyards can fix spaceships.  Whether a given starshipyard takes
the work itself or palms the vessel off to a spaceshipyard in system
would be a matter for the GM.

Again from what you've quoted, I'd say yes - making the roll means the
spaceshipyard in question can role-play as a starshipyard for the
duration of the repair job.  The question is then begged - why isn't the
yard in question officially a starshipyard?

Alex

-----
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://archives.simplelists.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://archives.simplelists.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=RDHE7iRpfwqlHvVvWBIhpJZsbTiD5NnL