			    TRAVELLER Digest 448

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!  Ahem.
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  2) "The Long Night"
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  3) Re: Commissioning Starship Designs
	by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  4) Transponders
	by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
  5) Re: TRAVELLER digest 446
	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  6) Re: Various/New Ship Design Request
	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
  7) Regency book
	by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  8) Re: Various/New Ship Design Request
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 21:11:10 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!  Ahem.
Message-ID: <9510130311.AA16053@Rt66.com>


Hey terrans,

My previous comment about doing an 8 ton fighter was premature.  It's
impossible to make it 6g.  Check out their Rampart design! It doesn't
work!  Look at the masses, and the thrust.  The Rampart given to us in
BL can do just less than 3g when it's empty.  The Armed Gig can't do
better than 0.8g *unloaded*.  Of the GDW designs I've checked *none*
actually work.  What the hell is the deal?  I mean, hell, the masses are
in the top group of general info on every design they published!  Didn't
anyone bother to do the simple division required?

Ahem.  Sorry, the lack of any testing or the fact that they find an
editor an unneeded expense is beginning to bug me.

I take it that canon designs don't actually have to have anything to do
with the rules posted in FFS.  The idea of FFS isn't just that we can
create our own stuff, it's that if we do we can share it and it'll be
consistent... and it will be for all of us, just not anything GDW
publishes.  Yeesh.

The starships are closer (like 3.57g instead of 4, etc.), but but it's
still annoying.  On the big ones we can get ships to come within the
tons*15 mass requirement, but it is *impossible* on smaller ships at
more than about 3gs acceleration.

I like the mass requirements because if you look at the weapons you find
that lasers are most dense, then PAWs, and MGs have the best mass to
volume ratio of the lot... a reason to use them when the designs are
tight.  It just never occurred to me to check their designs for that kind
of glaring error, even if they didn't design ships that made any sense
as FFS designs.  What slop.  *sigh*

So, any ideas on what to do for a fighter design? (using "canon" FFS)

Comments from GDW?  Help even?

Sorry for the rant, but I've had a frustrating time with this crap.

-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 22:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: "The Long Night"
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951012220729.3582B-100000@kelly.teleport.com>


	According to the published Imperial timelines, there was a period 
from -1526 to 0 wich was called the "Long Night".
 I was wondering if anyone out there had any information they'd be 
willing to share? I think this would make for a very interesting campaing 
enviorment. Ala "New Age" but without Virus and more primitive.
 Specificley, what areas were settled, TL for the major races, et all.
 Thanks.

bri


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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 17:29:36 -0500
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Commissioning Starship Designs
Message-ID: <199510140028.RAA05423@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

In digest 447, Michael said:
>>      Why don't we make this a regular thing...

Alvin replied:
>       I have no problem with this: however, it should be limited to one 
>       request every week or so.

The first request for a design was made over a week ago, and the designs
are still coming in. In order to space out the designs, allow people enough
time to peruse each design, and prevent designers from getting burnt-out,
I would recommend reducing commissions to once a month. This is still 12
commissions * multiple designs (NOT counting ad-hocs) per year!!!

This also allows folks time to play their campaigns ;-) and think up new,
interesting design needs (the standard stuff can be found in the sourcebooks).

The idea of a moderator (a central point to send commission requests to,
and who then decides what commission to ask for) is not a bad idea, BUT
this could limit the commissions to those that the person wants for
*their* campaign. Perhaps a moderator can gather the requests and post them
in a standard format. The designers can vote on the "Commission of the Month",
and go and build the thing.

- Hyphen
  (David Jaques-Watson)


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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 12:29:00 PDT
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: TML <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Transponders
Message-ID: <307EBE6C@pc136>



A question. What is the status of transponder use in TNE?  Are the same 
chips and that still used, but completely isolated from the rest of the 
ship-net?

This came up in a discussion between Liam McCauley and myself. I've always 
assumed that `normal' transponder units were sealed units which transmitted 
a message on a loop. The unit had two settings - on and off. I also recall 
programmable transponders (from the Traveller Adventure I think, but it's 
been a while since I read it).

Liam seems to be of the opinion that the transponders were always hooked 
into the internal ships net (and now he comes to mention it, I think I've 
seen mention somewhere in TNE of Virus passing from ship to ship via 
transponders).

Anyone?

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick

dave.elrick@ps.co.uk

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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 18:03 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 446
Message-ID: <memo.626942@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199510121540.LAA26760@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
  > To: traveller@MPGN.COM 
  > Subject: Tender Requests / SDB 
  >  
  > Perhaps we should issue one RFT per week, or perhaps per fortnight
  > (there are other things going on in our lives besides Traveller!)
  >  Have a different person issue a RFT each time 'round - it gives each
  > of us a chance to air our 'problem areas'. 
  >  
  > Variety is the keyword here...don't just restrict yourself to standard
  > TL15 Imperial designs.  One of the things that I've always liked about
  > Traveller was it's diversity. 

Is this limited to starships, or are other vehicles or weapons okay?

I'd like to see one of Niven's flashlight lasers (TL G?). I tried it once,
but working things out for about a dozen wavelengths (I made it tunable)
nearly made my calculator spontaneously combust...
 

---===---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:50:26 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Various/New Ship Design Request
Message-ID: <103@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

Christopher Griffen wrote :

> 
> Responding to Michael Bailey:

> Why don't we make this a regular thing...every so often, someone issues a
> 'Request for Tender'.  It doesn't have to be a competition, just a way of
> showcasing different approaches to starship (and other vehicle) design.
> 
> Any takers?<<

I'm interested. I might not be able to take up every design brief, but this 
could work. 

> 
> Also, what sort of special features might a mercenary cruiser have that 
> hasn't been added in the past? 

-Ludicrously large non grav focussed laser batteries :-) 
-Some large mass drivers for planetary bombardment
-A proper fighter squadron. I'm just guessing, but with a single non grav 
focussed laser lance, you could probably build some very small but effective 
fighters by TL16. An 800ton ship could probably carry four or five without too 
much compromise.

-- 
Brendan


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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 16:11:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Regency book
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951013160800.26995A-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>



As I didn't really believe that GDW would ever actually -finish- the 
Regency book, I didn't preorder it.  Bad mistake.  I contacted GDW via 
email for the book, but have yet to get a price + shipping.

If anyone here is willing to buy a copy and mail it to me, I'd be 
thankful.  Please email me to make arrangements.

(as is self-evident, I want it BADDDD!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer
"Preserve what we created, Norris, and remember what we stood for."
                               - Strephon, 179-1126

Reply to: alvin.plummer@SHERIDANC.ON.CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 14:49:48 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Various/New Ship Design Request
Message-ID: <9510132049.AA20707@Rt66.com>

Namaste,
 
> > Also, what sort of special features might a mercenary cruiser have that 
> > hasn't been added in the past? 
> 
> -Ludicrously large non grav focussed laser batteries :-) 

I made a "standard" zhodani turret at 4 tons last night that is made up
of 2 focal arrays sharing an HPG.  The tunable is grav focused and has a
DE of 186MJ, with a Reff of 1 (beefed up for ROF:800) and the other is
an xray laser with no grav focusing---700MJ, ROF:100.  Pretty mean and
still within TL*50.  I think that mixed grav and non grav focused
arrays in the same turret will make it possible to have decent lower TL
turrets that fit in the standard size socket.

It brought up a question, however:

Why are any of the published lasers actually used?  Any ship could have
a nasty laser, and the only problem might be power.  What does anyone
think of the idea that all lasers (er, well designed ones) can critical
a size S ship?  I actually don't mind.  I'll do the TL15 150MJ laser up
as a good design and post it.  It can be dropped in instead of the
crappy one used. It'll make that first shot nasty enough to be worth
worrying about (anyone who's played a bunch of BL is familiar with just
how nasty those first bizillion fuel hits can be ;-)

> -Some large mass drivers for planetary bombardment

I'd think TAC missiles would be better since it seems like you'd want
smart projectiles anyway, and you have gravity on your side :-)

> -A proper fighter squadron. I'm just guessing, but with a single non grav 
> focused laser lance, you could probably build some very small but effective 
> fighters by TL16. An 800ton ship could probably carry four or five without too
> much compromise.

They'll be limited in gs.  I got my 8ton up to 5 gs with a lot of work.
It gets nasty once mass is a factor...  BTW, the RC Clippers can do
about 0.8 gs (yes, I did take into account tons*15 (as slop for tons*10)
by multiplying by 15/14).  I always hated those garbage scows.  In order
to get 5 gs out of my fighter it has a HEPlaR drive that would produce
15 gs without the mass correction.  6 gs can't be done for a fighter
that small, I'll see what the size cutoff is (I *like* this fact, BTW,
but I hate the fact that the Rampart and Gig cheat (and not a little)).

I think the Rampart is possible at TL15, but the laser might get smaller
(or go non-grav focused).
 
-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 448
***************************
