			    TRAVELLER Digest 69

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Library World Gen Program	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  2) Talk Adventure!	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  3) Pros/Cons of TNE; Colony philosophies...	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  4) RE: Battle Rider Question	by "Mary E. Poynter" <3I4KQ7X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
  5) Armour factors	by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
  6) GDW Lives!	by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  7) "Cyber-Lucan"	by Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu>
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 68	by Caffein Achiever! <fok@chaph.usc.edu>
  9) Particle Weapons and the Hedgehog	by michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
 10) Nest of Fools and GDW's Demise	by michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
 11) Re: PAWS, and some ship design questions	by Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
 12) Re< StutterWarp (TD68)	by "KMCCARTHY" <KMCCARTHY@qmgate.osc.hq.nasa.gov>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 19:15:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Library World Gen Program
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9410121949.A19663-9100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


I was looking through some old bundles, and I noted that there is a way to
tweak that Library program.  Is there a way, excluding Norton Utilities & co.?
(I'm thinking of a text editor, maybe hopefully please please) 


Alvin Plummer
"Oh, look, Roger!  Nerds! ..And some little nerdlings!"
                                    - The Far Side

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 19:50:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Talk Adventure!
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9410121900.A20069-c101000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

--0-413975479-782005843:#20069
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

--0-413975479-782005843:#20069
Content-Type: APPLICATION/octet-stream; name=bun554
Content-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9410121943.B20069@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
Content-Description: 

------------------------------

Bundle: 554
Archive-Message-Number: 6975
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 1994 03:26:48 -0800
From: rodge@cyberspace.com (Roger Sanger)
Subject: Roleplaying, adventuring, gaming.

[A total rip-off from a Rodge Sanger post ... I liked the graphics;}~ ]

<snip> 
 
To me, the word "Traveller" evokes thoughts and feelings of...
 
    DANGER!                 FACING THE ENEMY!
        ACTION!                DEATH DEFYING FEATS!
            ADVENTURE!             LARGER-THAN-LIFE HEROES!
                 EXCITMENT!             LIFE-THREATENING SITUATIONS!
 
 
    MYSTERY                    INTRIGUE              EVENTS
        COMBAT                    REVENGE                ENCOUNTERS
            SEARCH & RESCUE           GREED                  SCENARIOS
                CAT & MOUSE               GLORY                  SITUATIONS
 
 
     GOOD GUYS
         BAD GUYS
             UGLY GUYS
                 BEAUTIFUL WOMEN IN SKIMPY OUTFITS!  [The Captain Kirk 
                     (just kidding)                   in all of us...
                                                      female company
                                                      excepted]   
 
In a word, "roleplaying."
 
 
                          Answer the call to
                                                                         !!
     A      DDD   V       V EEEE  N   N  TTTTTTT U    U  RRRR   EEEE    !!!!
    A A     D  D   V     V  E     NN  N     T    U    U  R   R  E       !!!!
   A   A    D   D   V   V   EEE   N N N     T    U    U  R R R  EEE      !!
  AA A AA   D  D     V V    E     N  NN     T    U    U  R  R   E
 A       A  DDD       V     EEEE  N   N     T     UUUU   R   R  EEEE     !!
 
 
What adventures have you run lately?
 
Any cool stories to tell?

[And twisted, obscure plotlines would be appricated, also...]
[And timelines too - alternate and brand-new...
 I'm using an alternate _universe_ myself...]  

How did your players wriggle free from the grasp of death?  Or
did they die wimpering on the end of a spit?
 
I for one would like to hear your ongoing storyline, or any portion of
it you would like to tell.
 
And, if you are interested, I'll look through my game log for a juicy
adventure or two to tell.  That is, if you like to talk about these
kinds of things here (playing the game).  I run a Traveller game
session (almost) every weekend, so I've got quite a few scenarios
piled up.
 
                             o o
                            \___/
 
                      Roger, Over and Out
 
                      Roger Sanger
                      rodge@cyberspace.com
                      (206) 363-1094
                      POBox 75472, Seattle, WA  98125
 
 
P.S.:  Kudos on the newspaper idea awhile back.  Makes good encounters.

------------------------------

 Alvin Plummer - Die-Hard Imperialist.
 In the ninth year of Emperor Varian's reign, 1138. 

--0-413975479-782005843:#20069--


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 20:18:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Pros/Cons of TNE; Colony philosophies...
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9410122017.A20548-d101000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

--0-2013633765-782007664:#20548
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


Old news, but still good articles....

Alvin Plummer
"Returning from vacation, Roy and Barbara find their house, their
neighbourhood, their friends - in fact, all of Atlantis - just plain gone."
                              - The Far Side
--0-2013633765-782007664:#20548
Content-Type: APPLICATION/octet-stream; name=bun558
Content-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9410122004.B20548@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
Content-Description: 

------------------------------

Bundle: 558
Archive-Message-Number: 7009
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 94 04:11:53 EST
From: rdawson@business.carleton.ca (Ron Dawson)
Subject: TNE vs MT/CT round 2 1/2

<big, BIG snip> 
 
On the plus side, I would say TNE offers:
(1) Less certainty for the players because old imperial space is less stable
(2) The chance to develop very different societies as a result of distrust of
technology
(3) The chance for the players to engage in empire building/civilization at a
much more personal level.  Their actions can have more of an effect because
of
the smaller scale of the situations they are likely to be in
(4) Greater freedom within imperial space to develop worlds, cultures,
empires.
(5) The chance to do some fun things with the virus gimmick as others have
said
 
On the downside:
(1) Trade outside of the spinward marches is a very different animal.  I was
always a big fan of the old long trade oriented far trader campaigns.
Although
the current setup could still see trade, but it would be on a barter type of
system, and one would have to be very careful of losing ones ship to the
"natives"
(2) The virus has a lot of problems, both in terms of planning and
plausibility.
(3) There is a danger of creating a D&D dungeon-crawl type of setting with
the
Star Vikings as they plunder technology in their snatch 'n grabs.  
(4) TNE is an attempt at a darker setting.  GDW is jumping on the darker
setting
trend in games.  It remains to be seen if the supplements offer something for
those who prefer a more stable and optimistic future.
 
Lots more pros and cons, I'm sure.  I'm just two tired to think of any right
now, and this letter is already too long.  
 
Overall, I think that the TNE does offer greater alternatives to the referee
than it destroyed.  The regency still does exist for those who want greater
stability.  The wilds exist for those who like that type of campaign.  Within
the pocket empires, hiver's sphere, regency, etc the referee is of course the
final determinant as to what their campaign will be like. 
 
<snip>
 
- - Ron Dawson
 
rdawson@business.carleton.ca


------------------------------

Archive-Message-Number: 7015
From: b.woods6@genie.geis.com
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 15:12:00 BST
Subject: Re: TNE vs MT/CT round 2 1/2

 
 In Archive-Message-Number 7009, rdawson@business.carleton.ca (Ron
 Dawson) writes:
 >
 >I'm not sure I follow how having high technology everywhere is
 >consistent.  If we look at the real world we live in, it certainly is
 >not consistent.  It is not consistent even within a single nation.
 
     It's *deliberately* consistent.  My created area is far outside the
(still thriving, mind) Third Imperium, and they do things a little bit
differently.  For example, how do you start a colony?  Do you dump a
bunch of people and some supplies on a planet and more-or-less leave the
new colonists to fend for themselves (Third Imperium model), or do you
send in a crew of professional construction and infrastructure engineers
who build everything that is needed for colonization in advance
(automated production facilities, housing, amenities, etc.) so that the
colonists can just move from their old world to their new one and pick
up their lives where they left off (my model).  Basically, the people in
my world *work* at making their technology as uniform and consistent as
possible from world to world.  That way, you can go from world to world
within the area and *depend* on being able to get expert and correct
repairs for your starship, no matter what port you come to (like, even
before the colonists arrive, there's at *least* a B class starport in
place, waiting for their landing).  You don't *ever* have to get your
hands dirty with low tech.
 
<snip>
 
- --
     Brent Woods
 
     INTERNET:  b.woods6@genie.geis.com (preferred) and
                ioc!bwoods@attmail.com
     USNAIL:    4419 Myrtle Grove Dr.  /  Indianapolis IN  46236
     MABELL:    +1 (317) 895-8690
 

------------------------------

--0-2013633765-782007664:#20548--


------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 12 Oct 94 20:19:42 EDT
From: "Mary E. Poynter" <3I4KQ7X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Battle Rider Question
Message-ID:   <941012.201942.EDT.3I4KQ7X@CMUVM>

  The question I asked GDW was about the numbers given for damage on the
BATTLE RIDER counters, as to whether they represented the combined damage of
all the weapons in that location, or just one weapon of that group.To tell the
truth, I already knew the answer; I just thought it would be better to call up
with a question (however inane) than to say "So, I heard you guys had folded!"
I figured if they answered my question, they were probably still a going
concern.
    Shifting subjects, I have noticed that not many places hereabouts are
willing to carry GDW games on the shelves. They keep saying "We'll order it,
but we don't want to carry it; their stuff doesn't sell very well." This seems
directed mainly at Traveller related materials, and seems to be based on what
these retailers consider the poor performance of the MegaTraveller materials.
I have to go 80 miles to get my TNE stuff, and getting Challenge isn't a sure
thing at all. (I'm probably going to subscribe). Admitedly, this isn't a very
scientific survey (three stores), but from what others have said, it sounds
like it's going on in other places. If this is at all accurate, it sounds
like
MT is the root of the problem, not TNE. (Nothing is meant by that; I own and
enjoy MT. Just an observation.)
   Allen Shock
   operating under a new alias...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 94 21:59:40 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Armour factors
Message-ID: <9410130059.AA12434@Prograph.Com>

Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> wrote
> This is true.  Surface features are nailed by Damage Value, which can
> be much higher for a PAWS than for a laser.  The problem is that I can
> design a laser that will get _through_ your armor and get at the 
> internals of your ship.  Your Active EMS Antenna (on the surface)
> isn't going to do you any good if I've shot out the actual sensor
> control unit.  Also, at range, bay mounted PAWS will usually have
> less _Damage_ value than barbette lasers, but will cost more, take
> up more space, weigh more, and consume more power.
> 

I agree completely, Derek. I have been designing my ships with batteries of 
extreamly high power lasers as a result.

> Now, a ship design PHILOSOPHY question.  What levels of Armor to
> people tend to put on WARSHIPS that they design, and why?
> 
> I envision 3 sort of "plateaus" in Armor level, and these give
> Armor Values of 310, 602, and 1975.
> 
> Here's why:
> 
> 1)  310 is EXACTLY the Penetration Value of the standard TL 15
> turret laser.
> 
> 2)  602 is EXACTLY the Penetration Value of the standard TL 14-15
> barbette laser.
> 
> 3)  1975 is EXACTLY the Penetration Value of the lasers on the
> high yield detonation pumped X-ray laser.
>

I think this is very scientific -- although I am NOT using standard lasers in
my
own design; in a campaign, new plateaus would arise in a similar form.

BR uses a penetration rule in which one critical hit is lost per 10 (round
down)
armour units.

This sets plateaus in increments of 10 BATTLE RIDER DV points - the scale in 
non-linear, and the key points are:

BR                      BL/TNE
10                        500
20                      4,000
27                     10,000 

The chart does not to thiry, although I would guess that's equal to about 13,000
TNE armour points.

Anyway, 500 and 4,000 are the critical points in my designs.



Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 17:23:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: GDW Lives!
Message-ID: <89B9413.01000359B2.uuout@execnet.com>


  The information in this post is valid as of 11 October 1994
  (284-1201).

  After hearing about the rumors of the demise of GDW, I took the 
  opportunity to check them out, in the best way I know.  I called 
  GDW.  They flatly denied that there was any truth involved in 
  those rumors.  I then asked about certain upcoming publications:

  The All-Traveller issue of CHALLENGE will be going to subscribers 
  within the next two weeks; shipments to distributors will be 
  leaving GDW during the first week in November.

  The Vampire Fleets sourcebook is being delayed until some time 
  1Q95, so that GDW can release the Regency Sourcebook.  Once 
  released, VF will support both Regency and RC campaigns.

  The Regency Sourcebook (with just that title - foo, I _did_ like 
  "Shall Not Perish"... Oh well, nothing is stopping us from 
  continuing that project...) is also looking at a 1Q95 release, 
  but earlier in that frame than VF.
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
 þ QMPro 1.53 þ Chief Archivist, Regency Institute for Cultural Education

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 1994 22:37:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: "Cyber-Lucan"
Message-ID: <Pine.3.89.9410122256.A16036-0100000@hardy.u.washington.edu>


According to FGMP-16 the thrid imperium is alive and well behind the 
black curtain.  It is ruled by some sort of dead yet alive through the 
magic of Virus.


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Oct 94 23:03:00 PDT
From: Caffein Achiever! <fok@chaph.usc.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 68
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.782028180.fok@phakt.usc.edu>

>From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
[stuff on PAWS vs LASER tossed]
>
>Now, a ship design PHILOSOPHY question.  What levels of Armor to
>people tend to put on WARSHIPS that they design, and why?
>
>I envision 3 sort of "plateaus" in Armor level, and these give
>Armor Values of 310, 602, and 1975.
>
>Here's why:
>
>1)  310 is EXACTLY the Penetration Value of the standard TL 15
>turret laser.
>
>2)  602 is EXACTLY the Penetration Value of the standard TL 14-15
>barbette laser.
>
>3)  1975 is EXACTLY the Penetration Value of the lasers on the
>high yield detonation pumped X-ray laser.
>
>Other weapons are pretty much customized, so I envision warships
>being armored to one of these levels, based on practicality.
>1975 may be an impractical armor value for anything but the biggest
>Battleships/Riders.  602 Might be practical for Cruisers.  I don't
>know.  What do people think?  Do you put higher armor levels on, just
>in case you run into someone who's _higher_ tech level than you?
>(On a lark, I designed a TL 20 barbette laser for the standard
>barbette socket.  It's ghastly.  PR:DV = (1/31):97 at all ranges.
>That's a penetration value of 3007...  Discharge Energy = 1500 Mj)
>
>Please, please, PLEASE, PUH-LEEEZE share your thoughts on the
>Armoring doctrine, the TNE Critical hit table, &c...

I see two possible outcome if these plateau's are formalized:

1. The standard weapons will suddenly become obsolete and replaced
a "new and improved" standard that'll defeat these armor.  Result:
classic case of weapon designer vs armor designer.

2. Depending on the available resources of both sides and the 
relative cost in percentage of available resouce to produce these
behemoths.  It is quit possible that armoring at these level will
greatly reduce the number of available platforms.  Then it becomes
a strategy of hitting where you're not with more numerous and less
well protected platforms.  In which case there are at lease three
outcomes (this is just off the top of my head, comments are greatly
welcomed)
-	The big ship fleet ignores the smaller platforms and strike
straight at the heart of the enemy.  While at the same time the 
smaller platform fleets penetrates a less then perfectly defended
frontier and do the same thing.
-	Big ship fleet attempts to engage the small ship fleet. Small
ship fleet stays dispersed and slowly wear down the BSF's logistic net.
-	BSF stay to provide point defense of strategic targets.  No
threat to small ship fleet.

>From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
>Glenn Myers asks:
>
>>2) After reading the book "What If The Moon Didn't Exist?" I've
>>realized that the effects of a nova I had used to trigger a
>>collapse would be more devastating than I thought.
>
>>(I know it is a blatant plot device, but I set it 1000 years
>>in the past to add background. The civilizations are now exploring
>>this region again)
>
>>I'd like to downgrade that stellar event to something which would
>>permit partial recovery within 3-4 hundred years. Would stellar
>>flares be applicable? What might cause them? Any other suggestions?
>
>There are solar flares everyday.  During periods of above-average solar
>flare activity, broadcast signals can be degraded or even interrupted.
>If such flare activity was more intense, this could develop into
>permanent damge for relay equipment, and even damage to power
>distriution systems.  All you need to do is posit a REALLY BIG flare or
>period of flare activity.


SuperNove would most likely wipe out a lot more then the area you're 
interested in.  If it put's out enought radiation for us to see one going
off in the SMG, it'll roast quit a bit within a 5-10 parsec area.

But think about this:  What about a temporary wormhole?  This is complete
hypothetical and I don't claim to know anymore then rudimentry cosmology!
What if a black hole dies in a burst of EM & gravitation radiation.  One of
the by product is a wormhole else where in the universe.  The wormhole 
exist only long enought to aide in the release of the store energy of the
black hole.  This can be just as violent as a supernova but smaller in 
scale.

>product, so this attitude really surprised me.  Is this a common
>attitude out there, or did I just happen upon a nest of fools?

..not just any nest.  But the QUEEN FOOL!  Obvious not of the well learned
gamer sect!

Cheers-
Ed 

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 08:20:52 -0500
From: michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Particle Weapons and the Hedgehog
Message-ID: <9410131121.AA12835@Prograph.Com>

"Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au> wrote:

>>Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> writes:
>>
>>3)  Done any of the above work and NOT come to the conclusion
>>(in the specific case of Particle Accelerators)  that EVEN SPINAL
>>MOUNTED PAWS are a waste of space...??? (And Mass, and Energy, and
>>Money, and TIME...)
> --------------------
>
>I agree that PAWS appear to be a complete waste of time against warships.
>A PAWS will produce more damage in a target with armour less then half the 
>value of the PAWS's penetration than a laser of equal output energy. The 
>laser will however be much more useful against a more heavily armoured 
>target.
  
  I would disagree about your first statement.  Lasers are the fall-back
weapon.  Every ship carries them, and almost no one carries sufficient
defense against them.  Due to the way the armor tables work, you only need
to be able to score two points on your outter range band to break your
target in BR.
  However, at closer ranges there is a good arguement for using PAWs and
MSGs as range-band:1 or 2 weapons.  Smaller hulls require getting down to
"point-blank" ranges to fight effectively unless they are all power-plant. 
In either case, they don't have alot of room to pack screens and armor
into.  This is where PAWs and MSGs come in;  you can't let a 400 ton PCru
get into firing range for missles and his laser, or he *will* break you. 
So, set your MSG's to "Slow Simmer" and fry him.  Leave the lasers for
picking off missles and dealing with the capital ships that *do* have too
much armor and screens to be effectively hassled by PAWs and MSGs.
  I think a better assesment would be to say that PAWs and MSGs are
generally ineffective against *larger* warships.  Of course, when you take
his screens down through laser fire....
--
    -+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=-
 Michel Vaillancourt            Written from, not for:          
 "Live, Love, Learn"            Prograph International      
 MetroCity 2.0.2.0 BBS          2745 Dutch Village Rd,         
    902.835.9766                     Halifax, NS                
1:251/17@fidonet.org            "Watch your language!"          


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 1994 08:30:57 -0500
From: michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Nest of Fools and GDW's Demise
Message-ID: <9410131131.AA12846@Prograph.Com>

Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc writes:
>Re: Reports of GDW's demise:
>After sending my message about the GDW rumors, I called GDW and got
>an answer (as I expected).  I took this info (and a copy of yesterday's
>GDW posting) to my local shop, and encountered the same assistant
>flunky.  I told him that I did verify GDW was still around, and offered to
>show him the posting.  His response was that he honestly could not
>care less, that GDW produced shoddy product that never sold, and
>went back to his ongoing Magic game.  All of this was started when I
>foolishly asked him if he knew what the release date for Vampire Fleets
>was.  This whole situation reminded me of the Challenge 74 editorial, 
>and has definitely prompted me to not return to this store.  This is too
>bad, as the store in question was a relatively new store, that I started
>patronizing in hopes of encouraging a second game store in this city
>(Tucson).  Even during the DGP Heresy, I have always enjoyed GDW's
>product, so this attitude really surprised me.  Is this a common
>attitude out there, or did I just happen upon a nest of fools?
>
>scharlto@avalon.com


   You just happened upon a nest of fools.  One of the local stores here in
Halifax is providing prizes at the gaming/ fantasy Con in November, only
for those tournaments using GDW systems.  Traveller/ Twilight 2000/ etc.,
is *easy* to find here in Halifax.  Very popular, according to the store
owners.
   Of course, I will agree that GDW *has got* to fire their proof readers
and QA team.  *Way* too much product goes out the door with mistakes in it.
 That *is not* helping the repuation of GDW or its product line.
--
    -+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=-
 Michel Vaillancourt            Written from, not for:          
 "Live, Love, Learn"            Prograph International      
 MetroCity 2.0.2.0 BBS          2745 Dutch Village Rd,         
    902.835.9766                     Halifax, NS                
1:251/17@fidonet.org            "Watch your language!"          
                                                           
                                                                           
                 
                                           


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 94 04:56:22 -0800
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: PAWS, and some ship design questions
Message-ID: <m0qvOrG-0003ZmC@rsoft.rsoft.bc.ca>


Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> wrote

> 3)  Done any of the above work and NOT come to the conclusion (in the
> specific case of Particle Accelerators)  that EVEN SPINAL MOUNTED PAWS are
> a waste of space...??? (And Mass, and Energy, and Money, and TIME...)


Les Howie <lhowie @ cpx.Prograph.Com> responded:

> Since I play battle rider, I am inclined to agree - but I would think that
> the paws would be very effective for surface feature degredation:
> destruction of sensors, antennas and the like.


Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> replied:

> This is true.  Surface features are nailed by Damage Value, which can be
> much higher for a PAWS than for a laser.  The problem is that I can design
> a laser that will get _through_ your armor and get at the internals of your
> ship.  Your Active EMS Antenna (on the surface) isn't going to do you any
> good if I've shot out the actual sensor control unit.  Also, at range, bay
> mounted PAWS will usually have less _Damage_ value than barbette lasers,
> but will cost more, take up more space, weigh more, and consume more power.

   I agree that bay mounted PAWS (and MGs) are usually useless, but the short
range is what I disliked.  Spinal mounts, however, are useful if you want a
lot of damage from a single weapon.  There are limits to how far you can
scale up lasers, especially if you don't like focal arrays being thicker than
they are wide.


> Now, at _lower_ tech levels, PAWS effectiveness approaches that of lasers
> (because the PAWS has an Input Energy to Discharge Energy ratio of 5:1 at
> all Tech Levels, whereas Laser IE to DE ratio improves with tech level.)...

   Note that with gravitic focusing, lasers have the same input to output
energy ratio as PAWs, at all TLs.  Without the gravitic focusing, pre-xray
lasers are a non-issue in space combat (a 100 ton bay laser, focal array
diameter of 9.5 m, wavelength of FUV, has an _extreme_ range of 7600 km).


> No one has answered my question about the Critical Hit table in the TNE
> rule book.  IS having _Penetration_ Value across the top a mistake?  IS
> replacing _Penetration_ Value with _Damage_ Value the propere correction?

   The Brilliant Lances rule book says damage value; the table says remaining
penetration value.  Take your pick. :)  (I'd use damage.)


A few TL 15 designs:

Spinal Mounts

TL  Description    BoreD BoreA  Power     Vol     Mass  Length  Crew  Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
15  57 600 Mj  PAW   3.6   10   64 000   14 219  21 965   240     8    509
15  25 600 Mj  MG   18    256    7 111   69 376  47 386   250   128   6445
15   8 100 Mj  PAW   3.6   10    2 250    2 328   3 513    90     1    232
15   6 400 Mj  MG    9     64    1 778   17 347  11 850   250    32   1612


TL   Description     Short      Medium     Long       Extreme    ROF
--------------------------------------------------------------------
15  57 600 Mj  PAW   10:1200    20:1200    40:1200    80:1200    800
15  25 600 Mj  MG    10: 800    20: 400    40: 200    80: 100    100
15   8 100 Mj  PAW   10: 450    20: 450    40: 450    80: 450    100
15   6 400 Mj  MG    10: 400    20: 200    40: 100    80:  50    100

   Crew sizes for MGs is something I'll modify for my own use (I have a hard
time imagining what all those 128 MGunners are doing :).


Lasers

TL  Description      Wavelength  MW     Vol    Mass   Crew  MCr      ROF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
15  6 400 Mj  bay    tunable    1778    1 400  2 490   1   161.582   100


TL  Descript   Wvlngth  Short         Medium        Long          Extreme

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15  6 400 Mj   100 EUV  10: 1/64-200  20: 1/64-200  40: 1/64-200  80:1/64-200


   Note that the laser's focal array is 6.4 m thick and masses close to 1000
tonnes.  I'm considering limiting the focal array's thickness to 20% of its
diameter (haven't decided on the effects of high ROFs).  The above laser
would thus be limited to 1900 Mj (a mere 1/35-109 at all ranges).  Any
thoughts?



--
               Edjs                    _
              ------                _ //  CIS  : 76427,662
   Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca  \X/   GEnie: E.SWATSCHEK
        a3162@mindlink.bc.ca              Other: a03162@giant.rsoft.bc.ca


------------------------------

Date: 13 Oct 1994 10:56:17 U
From: "KMCCARTHY" <KMCCARTHY@qmgate.osc.hq.nasa.gov>
To: "New TML Broadcast" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re< StutterWarp (TD68)
Message-ID: <199410131457.KAA14567@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

                       Subject:                               Time:10:33 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          Re< StutterWarp (TD68)                 Date:10/13/94
"Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au> wrote in TD 68 regarding my
proposed StutterWarp fixes for FFS:
>Yes an almost perfect fix!
>Also try:
> - Use actual mass instead of "10D" in the efficiency formula.

Actual mass was used in 2300AD formulas.  While I mentioned the greatest
difference between FFS and 2300AD Stutterwarp was Parsecs vs. LY for
efficiency, the mass, cost, crew sizes and volume requirements are VERY
different.  For example, 2300AD powerplants were much more massive than
comparable FFS powerplants.  Unless GDW releases a 2300AD Sourcebook, and FFS
supplement to support it, I suggest using all FFS mass, cost (one Cr. = 1.5Lv),
crew sizes and volume requirements be used for simplicity.  2300AD ships would
have to be backward engineered to retain appropriate charactoristics.

> - Charge build up range limitation= TL^(1/3) parsecs (= 7.665 ly @ TL 13 )

Interesting idea for a non 2300AD Campaign but in 2300AD the range limitation
was a fixed value.  StutterWarp discharge was required after 7.7LY to prevent
explosive radiation release i.e., death to humans.  If I recall correctly one
more  LY could be squezed out by an Impossible engineering task. Anyway the
near Earth 3D stellar geography requires a 7.6(?) LY leg to explore portions
the French Arm that occured at TL 10.  Therefore, this proposed fix would only
work in non 2300AD campaigns.

Kevin



------------------------------

End of TRAVELLER Digest 69
**************************
