From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 12-JUN-1994 21:05:45.26
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7954-7964 V46#9

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDGVQSH0808WZ54E@delphi.com>; Sun,
 12 Jun 1994 21:05:40 EDT
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 21:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7954-7964 V46#9
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406130104.AA07257@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 9

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 634  7954 10-Jun-1994 "James M. Kelle  Misc. Clean?? << Hi There,
 634  7955 11-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      TNE: Ships/weapons/armor  << At last a 
 634  7957 11-Jun-1994 adrian@per.dms.  Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7949-7949 V76#7 <
 634  7959 11-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5004: Feudal Technocracy <
 634  7960 11-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Fleets and K'kree Coincidence << PBJuzy
 634  7961 11-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Re: Feudal Technocracy << David Johnson
 634  7962 11-Jun-1994 Muir Macpherson  Econ Cycles <<  In an effort to save ba
 634  7963 11-Jun-1994 BORIS ZAIDFELD   TOP LASER '94 << Hello there,
 634  7964 12-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      Re: K`kree and fighters   << >PBJuzyk <
 634  7956 11-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      TNE: Ship Lasers          << Doc 142.13
 634  7958 11-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Regency Military and Government <<

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The biweekly digest is currently
distributed each Wednesday and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7954
Subject: Misc. Clean??
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:20:48 PDT
From: "James M. Kelleher" <kelleher@holonet.net>

Hi There,

I have a longer post which I'll get to soon I really want to get some 
permissions first as some of the "NPC's" are mine and one of my player's
P.C.'s who are not really able to travell as they have duties to the 
Domain ( Tm. :-) ) so I make this post instead.
Last night Jim ( James Kundert ) and I were talking on the phone about a 
many things, Some pertaining to our campaign group, Where do we go from here
and the change over to the T:TNE rules set. 
One fo the things we discussed was the premise that you could and would see
Heplar, Fusion Rockets and thrusters in the same milue. Think for a munite.
say the technology for thrusters is a little esoteric and the method of 
manufacture requires a tech of a certain type then eariler ships or those  
built at places unable to build the ( VERY Expensive ) thrusters would use
the alternatives and the spaceports would know how to handel those ships.
"Just park it over there Yea thaat slagged down area". "I'm sorry sir but
now that your ship si docked in the upstation your engines will have to be
locked out!"
Another idea that occured to me was how do you clean a starship? Especilly 
the interior. Programmible Vacuum cleaners? ( I was reading the Roche world 
why do you ask...? :-)) nobody has designed some thing like the Christmas
bush motile for traveller.
Jim pointed out that we haave traditionally had no good rules for the design 
of robots... Don't I know I was trying to design a character she is an 
excellent pilot working for the navy and weighs in at about 400 tons the 
latest in stealth thchnology and an accidental AI.
Why they can not replicate her is a murder mistery that I may run someday.
Any way she is test flown by an ex scout pilot ( irrreverent, but then aren't 
they all ;-)) she also meets a lady who explains to her her rights as a 
thinking being and she wants to muster out after 20yrs.... boy ain't INI gonna
love it... Her name is Paulinene ( as in peirls of... [ honist I did'nt think 
of it really it's not my fault ;-)]). 
By the way on board the ship she has a holigraphic image for interacting
with humans, so unless you are pretty sharp, the casual observer might not
realize that the ship's pilot is not human...
Any way I've rambeled on far to long but if some one wants to give a shot at 
designing a cleanbot, or Christmas Bush, Please do. as for paulene go ahead 
and use her if you want to drive your sensor ops crazy.
after all the idea is to 
Have Fun
isn't it???! :-) :-)
see ya 
jim

- -- 
Remember: no matter where you go...
There you are...
B. Banzi

James M. Kelleher
kelleher@holonet.net


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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7955
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 08:46:45 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: TNE: Ships/weapons/armor 

At last a subject to sink my teeth into, if I had the time. But anyhow
this is my .02cr worth.

Impact missiles? Naaah forget it. I must agree with GDW in FF&S that the
change in rules and how the "real" world works you can't expect to get a
missile within impact range of a starship if it is armed with a laser.

Saturate the defenses? No way, if that should be pssible we must see
launchers with a ROF of at least 10 a minute, and the missile must have
more than 4Gh to spend of fuel. With the volume of the missiles and
magazine limit on the turrets and barbettes I find this unlikely.

But I can think of other types of missiles that can be of use. They
don't need to impact, but has to get real close to the target. I can
think of two types of missiles.
 - Antimatter missile
 - Black hole missile

Both missiles need small warheads compared to the missiles in TNE. One
gram of antimatter should be enough to fry a starship at a decent range.
The antimatter is held in a gravitic bottle and mixed with matter when
the missile is close enough to hurt the target.

Black hole missles can function in a similar way. When the missile is
close enough, the black hole can be released and "shot" at the target
with a gaussrifle thingie or something similar. A weapon like this will
be expensive, and thus only useable against battlecruisers or larger to
justify the cost.

I haven't given the starship design a full test to date. I'm tinkering
with a ramscope ship for one of the alien races in Gvurrdon. The race is
not able to utilize jumpships due to a phenomenom that kills them during
jump. The reason I have made them vulnerable to jumpspace is that their
world is a TL 16 world, and that would put them in a position to quickly
conquer much of Gvurrdon before thay are stopped.

Anyway I think we will meet limitations in the designs as we put on
armor, drives and weapons. A fighting ship should have a decent Gh
rating or else it will run out of fuel mighty fast. And that is the
worst limitation of them all. Even a decent merchant get problems with
fuel, and a merchant in a brawl? He's in big trouble. Ten to twenty Gh
will run out pretty soon, and much of it has been spended to reach orbit
and jump point. I find it unlikely that merchants will refuel at a gas
giant, unless the mainworld orbits a gas giant, or the 100 diameter
limit of the star is far outside the habitable zone of the system, and
that the gas giant is in a favourable position for a route from jump
point to the world.



Roger "StarWolf" Myhre
                                 

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7957
From: adrian@per.dms.csiro.au
Subject: Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7949-7949 V76#7
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 22:16:12 +0800 (WST)

Please remove me from the traveller mailing list.
Previous email on this subject seems to have been ignored.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Smith
adrian@per.dms.csiro.au

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7959
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 13:23:57 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5004: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

Steve Bonneville <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu> writes:

> Hans Ranke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> 
> >It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.
> 
> No, not really.  The Japanese *do* have anti-trust laws -- the US
> helped write some of them in the late forties.  They're run by that
> boogeyman of the US, MITI (Ministry of Int'l Trade and Industry), 
> I believe.

This is a key difference between the feudal technocracy model and 
contemporary free-market economies.  In a feudal technocracy there is
no governmental entity outside of the economic system to intervene with
anti-trust or any other sort of regulation.

Thanks again for all this material about the *keiretsu* and *zaibatsu*,
Steve.  It's been very helpful *and* interesting.

(BTW, I have a great picture of me in front of the MITI building in Tokyo.
There's a `homeless' man sitting in the background right in front of
the headquarters of this US `boogeyman'.)

> Members of a keiretsu
> aren't tied together in the way the zaibatsu were.  The part that makes
> either of these look "feudal" to Westerners has a lot to do with, among
> other things, the associated lifetime employment traditional in Japan.

What makes it look feudal to me is the `inter-relatedness' of the 
various corporate entities - something that is quite uncommon here in
the US.  There is clearly a system of agreements (explicit or implicit)
that define the roles and responsibilities of all participants.  It's
*quite* different from the autocractic corporate model.

I never meant to suggest that the *keiretsu* (I'd never heard of the
*zaibatsu* before you mentioned it, Steve) fit my idea of a feudal 
technocracy perfectly.  Rather, the *keiretsu* merely served to
introduce the economic and industrial aspects of a feudal technocracy.
I felt this was needed since many of us are already familiar with the
aristocractic aspects of medieval feudalism but have little or no
familiarity with the industrial and economic basis of a technocracy.

> "Feudal Technocracy.  Government by specific individuals for those
>  who agree to be ruled.  Relationships are based on the performance
>  of technical activities which are mutually beneficial."

I refuse to live with this miserably vague definition.  The first
sentence describes *any* representative democracy.  If we look at
`technical' in the second sentence as meaning `any specialized branch of
knowledge' then this entire definition might be used to describe a
popular theocracy in which clerical specialists perform various
religious rites for the `governed'.  Thus, this canonical definition
is virtually useless.

> This
> whole thing is a lot like the freemen --> vassal process worked in
> the middle ages.

The relationships between freedmen and serfs and the nobles in medieval
society was not feudalism at all.  Feudalism concerned the relationship
between members of the aristocracy, the ruling class.  Hence, a feudal
technocracy gives a system in which the relationships between the
members of the ruling class (the technocracy) are governed by feudal
principles.

> "The Chartered Zarathustra Company" which is
> in charge of the resources and colonization of Zarathustra.

Ah, still another Piper fan.  James, might it be possible to get another
list started: PTML - Piper Traveller Mailing List?  :-)
  
> That's the beauty of Traveller government types; they are flexible.

One person's beauty is another's bugbear!  :-)
 
> A lot of the codes in the UWP are like this.  The idea of the UWP is
> to have a system in which you can generate a sample world in ten 
> minutes and then be able to take it and develop it massively in many
> different possible directions.  Without a system in the game like 
> the UWP, we'd never be able to develop entire sectors in a way that
> was at all realistic in a reasonable amount of time.

Good point.  I hadn't thought of it this way.  I still think the government
codes could be improved though by focusing on the nature of authority (who
rules) and the source of authority (who consents).

Good work here.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7960
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:34:39 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Fleets and K'kree Coincidence

PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:
 
>>Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The
>>standard missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub
>>surface bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've
>>got firing these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will
>>be to respond.
>
>An improved method of achieving this objective, IMHO, would seem to be a
>carrier/tended equiped with a number of remotely-piloted vehicles guided
>from the mother ship.  This would allow the delivery systems to carry
>the same punch with better maneuver performance as space for crew and
>life-support would not be needed.
 
The K'kree rise again!  This, actually, is exactly the K'kree tactical
solution to fighters spelled out in Alien Module 2.  They can't have a 
lot of fighter pilots in craft since they don't like cramped spaces.
So they hit on this solution.  The Fleet Marshal of the Kirunka'rra
space wing is undoubtedly prepared for TNE!  Now if they can only fit
enough crew in their ships....
 
  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>
 

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7961
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:38:54 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracy

David Johnson <djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
>From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford <langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> writes:
 
>>     After all, given Traveller's method for 
>>     classifying governments, the same government could be classified 
>>     different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be 
>>     most apparent by the typical traveller. 
>
>Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion
>does it?
 
I suppose so.  Alistair is right, though.
 
>>     To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the 
>>     description of a Corporate Government.
>
>Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system
>there is no bond between employer and employee.  The employer may sever the
>relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will.  This is why
>corporate systems only occur at low population levels.
 
Give the gent a prize!  This gets at the difference between "feudal" and
non-"feudal" government.  (My understanding of why company/corporate rule 
is a low population feature is a bit different, but I went over that in
my last post.)
 
>we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single*
>individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others
>(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of
>of authority.  Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires
>*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function.
 
"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word *democratic* that
 I wasn't previously aware of."  :)
I get the thesis here, that power is ultimately derived from the masses.  
But I don't know that I could possibly call an oppressive authoritarian 
government "democratic".  
 
  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>


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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7962
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:26:47 -0700
From: Muir Macpherson <muirmac@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Econ Cycles

        In an effort to save bandwidth, I won't quote anyone at all.  But
I did want to weigh in on the possibility of economic cylces causing
TL fluctuations.  I do not think this is likely except under extreme
and prolonged circumstances because moving to a lower TL would require
NEW INVESTMENT.  The point has been made many times on sci.space that it
is not possible to ressurect the Saturn V because the whole TL 6 infra-
structure of suppliers would have to be recreated.  This costs money, some-
thing one doesn't have a lot of in an economic down-turn.  To use another
example, lets say this country was in a severe depression and GM wanted
to cut costs.  Since it already had an existing TL 7 production plant, it
is not immediately going to switch to TL 6, because this would involve
retooling.  However, if this depression continued long enough the might
stop replacing their robot welders, and might start using people again.
GM also might begin designing "low-tech" cars that would eliminate a lot
of the cost of a car.  But again, it wouldn't do this quickly because
it would require them to retool their factories.  Also, GM would only do
this if they thought conditions would exist long enough to make the
investment worthwhile.  This whole process depends on how long their old
plant lasts until it wears out and how much it costs to go "low-tech."
        The above situation is unlikely to come about through the normal
business cycle because there are so many "automatic stabilizers" in 
economies that keep recessions from getting too deep or lasting too long.
Feudal Technocracies are likely to have even more of these stabilizers
than we do.  Life-time employment means that people will not quickly
lose their jobs, which will buoy consumer spending, for instance.
        To recap, TL decline through economic decline will only occur
through non-economic shocks like war, Virus, etc. and even then will only
occur when people have reason to believe that the economy will remain 
depressed for some time to come.

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7963
Date:   Sat, 11 Jun 1994 20:44:15 -0400
From: BORIS ZAIDFELD <cs911408@red.ariel.cs.yorku.ca>
Subject: TOP LASER '94


Hello there,

Does anyone here knows anything about TOP LASER '94 that was advertised in
CHALLENGE 72 - 73 ?.   I have sent GDW an E-Mail message over a month ago
about this, but didn't get any response.  So if anyone has anything about
it, please reply.

Thanks and take care,

        -Shalom Zaidfeld
        -Toronto, Canada




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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7964
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 10:28:56 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: Re: K`kree and fighters  

>PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:
>>>Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The
>>>standard missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub
>>>surface bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've
>>>got firing these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will
>>>be to respond.
>>An improved method of achieving this objective, IMHO, would seem to be
>>carrier/tended equiped with a number of remotely-piloted vehicles guid
>>from the mother ship.  This would allow the delivery systems to carry
>>the same punch with better maneuver performance as space for crew and
>>life-support would not be needed.
>The K'kree rise again!  This, actually, is exactly the K'kree tactical
>solution to fighters spelled out in Alien Module 2.  They can't have a
>lot of fighter pilots in craft since they don't like cramped spaces.
>So they hit on this solution.  The Fleet Marshal of the Kirunka'rra
>space wing is undoubtedly prepared for TNE!  Now if they can only fit
>enough crew in their ships....

Actually I don't buy the idea of remote controlled fighters. Ever
thought about the time lag in communications? And what kind of
communicator do you use for control?

Laser? Naaah it will be like aiming a 30,000km straw at a target you
can't see. And it moves as well. If the communication laser loose the
drone once it is lost for ever. And there is a lot of other things that
has to work perfectly. Read Challenge 71.

Tight beam radio? Better. It sends out a cone of radio waves. Much
easier to keep the drone in control, but then we got jamming.

The comminication lag is the worst hurdle to get over. If the drone is
10 hexes away the update wil take 2 full seconds just in communication.
And then we got the reaction time with the controller. Even though we
don't got crafts that can't maneuver on a dime anymore, there will be a
lot of operations that need short response times or else the craft may
be lost. Just a mudane thing as few controls cease to work properly.


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7956
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 08:46:45 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: TNE: Ship Lasers         

Doc 142.13,  Date: January 15, 1994

                              STARSHIP LASERS

                                   by

                          Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


The starship lasers presented here is intended to use with Brilliant
Lances, and Traveller: The New Era. I have used Fire, Fusion & Steel,
GDW's book about hardware design for the Traveller universe. This
document will be updated as new lasers are being designed.



100ton Laser Bays (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt    Short        Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------
9    183Mj    5.08   260.49  1481.35   1:1/11-34    2:1/5-17     4:1/3-8     8:1/1-4
10  1245Mj   34.58   182.58  1889.69  10:1/28-88   20:1/19-60   40:1/10-30   80:1/5-15
11  1369Mj   38.03   199.28  1802.98  10:1/29-93   20:1/29-93   40:1/29-93   80:1/18-56
12  4310Mj  119.72    72.88  2470.70  10:1/52-164  20:1/62-164  40:1/62-164  80:1/49-154
13  4674Mj  129.83    77.78  2444.80  10:1/55-171  20:1/55-171  40:1/55-171  80:1/55-171
14  5120Mj  142.22    83.42  2417.12  10:1/57-179  20:1/57-179  40:1/57-179  80:1/57-179
15  5650Mj  156.94    90.28  2381.18  10:1/60-188  20:1/60-188  40:1/60-188  80:1/60-188
16  7495Mj  208.19    64.67  2517.33  10:1/69-216  20:1/69-216  40:1/69-216  80:1/69-216


50ton Laser Bays (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt    Short        Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
10   812Mj   22.56    75.89  1017.53   8:1/23-71   16:1/12-38   32:1/6-19    64:1/3-9
11   922Mj   25.61    85.13   969.73  10:1/25-75   20:1/25-75   40:1/18-57   80:1/9-28
12  2320Mj   64.44    27.30  1272.69  10:1/39-120  20:1/39-120  40:1/39-120  80:1/23-71
13  2537Mj   70.47    29.12  1263.93  10:1/40-126  20:1/40-126  40:1/40-126  80:1/34-106
14  2810Mj   78.06    31.05  1254.34  10:1/42-133  20:1/42-133  40:1/42-133  80:1/36-112
15  3148Mj   87.44    33.62  1244.07  10:1/45-140  20:1/45-140  40:1/45-140  80:1/45-140
16  4009Mj  111.36    24.02  1294.46  10:1/51-158  20:1/51-158  40:1/51-158  80:1/51-158


Un-manned Laser Barbettes (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt    Short        Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
10   143Mj    3.97     5.49   140.84   3:1/10-30    6:1/5-15    12:1/2-8    24:1/1-4
11   159Mj    4.42     6.63   131.69  10:1/10-32   20:1/5-17    40:1/3-9    80:1/1-4
12   278Mj    7.72     2.58   153.42  10:1/13-42   20:1/11-35   40:1/6-17    80:1/3-9
13   307Mj    8.53     2.67   153.03  10:1/14-44   20:1/14-44   40:1/9-27    80:1/4-13
14   361Mj   10.03     2.47   156.14  10:1/15-47   20:1/15-47   40:1/9-29    80:1/5-14
15   423Mj   11.75     2.39   157.78  10:1/16-51   20:1/16-51   40:1/16-51   80:1/16-51
16   512Mj   14.22     1.88   160.67  10:1/18-57   20:1/18-57   40:1/18-57   80:1/18-57


Un-manned Laser Turrets (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt     Short       Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
10    81Mj    2.25     2.09    74.24    1:1/7-23    2:1/7-22     4:1/4-11     8:1/2-5
11    87Mj    2.42     2.73    68.06    6:1/7-23   12:1/4-13    24:1/2-7    48:1/1-3
12   123Mj    3.42     1.56    72.75   10:1/9-28   20:1/5-15    40:1/2-7    80:1/1-4
13   136Mj    3.78     1.58    72.58   10:1/9-29   20:1/7-23    40:1/4-11    80:1/2-6
14   171Mj    4.75     1.29    76.14   10:1/10-33  20:1/8-25    40:1/4-13    80:1/2-6
15   210Mj    5.83     1.10    78.64   10:1/12-36  20:1/12-36   40:1/12-36   80:1/12-36
16   251Mj    6.97     0.93    79.58   10:1/13-40  20:1/13-40   40:1/13-40   80:1/13-40

The un-manned turrets and barbettes require MFD's if installed. These
turrets and barbettes are recomended to be installed on larger starships
(2000tons or more) to save in on the crew count. The Turrets should then
be combined into batteries, with one MFD per battery.


Manned Laser Turrets (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt     Short       Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
10    67Mj    1.86     1.75    61.82    1:1/7-20    2:1/6-20     4:1/3-10     8:1/2-5
11    69Mj    1.92     2.31    55.62    6:1/7-21   12:1/4-12    24:1/2-6    48:1/1-8
11    77Mj    2.14     2.17    57.94    3:1/7-22    6:1/7-22    12:1/4-13    24:1/2-6
12    96Mj    2.67     1.44    59.18   10:1/8-24   20:1/4-13    40:1/2-7    80:1/1-3
12   111Mj    3.08     1.10    62.88    6:1/8-26   12:1/8-24    24:1/4-12    48:1/2-6
13   106Mj    2.94     1.45    58.98   10:1/8-26   20:1/6-20    40:1/3-10    80:1/2-5
13   127Mj    3.53     1.04    63.64    5:1/9-28   10:1/9-28    20:1/7-22    40:1/4-11
14   138Mj    3.83     1.16    62.80   10:1/9-29   20:1/7-23    40:1/4-11    80:1/2-6
14   155Mj    4.31     0.87    66.18    4:1/10-31   8:1/10-31   16:1/10-30   32:1/5-15
15   172Mj    4.78     0.95    65.15   10:1/10-33  20:1/10-33   40:1/10-33   80:1/10-33
16   206Mj    5.72     0.82    66.05   10:1/11-36  20:1/11-36   40:1/11-36   80:1/11-36


Lances (Tuneable)

TL  Effect   FA    MW    MCr   Vol     Wt    Short       MediumLong       Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------
10    20Mj   2.6   0.56  0.31  10.26  18.26   1:1/4-11    2:1/2-64:1/1-3    8:0-1
10    30Mj   2.6   0.83  0.40  14.79  26.79   1:1/4-13    2:1/2-74:1/1-3    8:1/1-2
11    25Mj   2.4   0.69  0.56  12.33  19.83   3:1/4-13    6:1/2-612:1/1-3   24:1/1-2
11    35Mj   2.4   0.97  0.63  15.78  26.28   3:1/5-15    6:1/2-812:1/1-4   24:1/1-2
11    40Mj   2.4   1.11  0.67  17.51  29.51   3:1/5-16    6:1/3-812:1/1-4   24:1/1-2
12    30Mj   1.5   0.83  0.18   8.55  16.05   1:1/4-14    2:1/4-134:1/2-6    8:1/1-3
12    40Mj   1.5   1.11  0.21  11.07  21.07   1:1/5-16    2:1/5-154:1/2-7    8:1/1-4
12    40Mj   1.7   1.11  0.31  12.09  22.09   2:1/5-16    4:1/4-108:1/2-5   16:1/1-2
12    55Mj   1.7   1.53  0.35  15.87  29.62   2:1/6-19    4:1/4-118:1/2-6   16:1/1-3
13    50Mj   1.7   1.39  0.42  14.36  25.61   3:1/6-18    6:1/3-1012:1/2-5   24:1/1-3
13    70Mj   1.7   1.94  0.47  18.91  34.66   3:1/7-21    6:1/4-1212:1/2-6   24:1/1-3
13    85Mj   1.9   2.36  0.62  23.37  42.49   4:1/7-23    8:1/4-1216:1/2-6   32:1/1-3
14    70Mj   1.3   1.94  0.27  15.29  29.29   2:1/7-21    4:1/3-118:1/2-5   16:1/1-3
14    95Mj   1.3   2.64  0.32  20.33  39.33   2:1/8-24    4:1/4-128:1/2-6   16:1/1-3
14   120Mj   1.6   3.33  0.44  26.04  50.04   3:1/9-27    6:1/4-1412:1/2-7   24:1/1-4
15    95Mj   0.5   2.64  0.26  17.54  34.17   3:1/8-24    6:1/4-1212:1/4-6   12:1/1-3
15   120Mj   0.5   3.33  0.30  21.92  42.92   3:1/9-27    6:1/4-1412:1/2-7   12:1/1-3
15   140Mj   0.6   3.89  0.37  25.74  50.24   4:1/9-30    8:1/5-1616:1/3-8   32:1/1-4
16   140Mj   0.4   3.39  0.30  21.91  42.91   3:1/9-30    6:1/6-1912:1/3-9   24:1/2-5
16   160Mj   0.4   4.44  0.33  24.91  48.91   3:1/10-32   6:1/6-2012:1/3-10  24:1/2-5
16   160Mj   0.5   4.44  0.42  25.82  49.82   6:1/10-32  12:1/5-1624:1/3-8   48:1/1-4


M-; Roger Myhre, 1994

Roger "StarWolf" Myhre

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7958
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 11:13:06 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Regency Military and Government

Gentlesophonts:

Everyone seems to be getting into our TML Regency Sourcebook, *Shall Not
Perish*.  Fantastic.  Some broadly ranging comments:

Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu> writes:

> I think that the rebellion's influence is minimal compared 
> to the influence of the black war and Virus.

Does this mean you think the regular military will have a role in fighting
the Virus rather than this just being the responsibility of the Quarantine
Service?

> Dealing with this threat 
> will profoundly change the Regency.  Think of all of the computers and 
> electronic they must have.  Why to convert them to safer configurations 
> could take decades...

An interesting concept.  Does this mean *every* military asset in the
Regency must be retrofitted in some fashion?  With that sort of government
spending going on I can't see the Regency economy `straining' for decades.
(Of course, the rumored `need for economic expansion' of the Regency in
TNE has always sounded too much like rehashed Reaganomics to me.)

> The also might have a few nasty viruses in bottles to 
> unleash on opponnents.

You think so?  I would have thought that use of this sort of weapon would
have become quite inconceivable after the Viral Collapse.

> Subject: Military threats to the Regency
> 
> can anybody think of any others?

Sword Worlds :-)

A `true' heir to the Iridium Throne showing up with a Unification Fleet?
(Rebellion II).

Regency nobles upset at the `democractic' reforms taking place (Rebellion
III).

Regency `democracts' upset at the slow pace of `reforms' (Rebellion IV).


PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:

> FICT/SCEN/AHIS : Shall Not Perish - Government

> I think there would be some basis for Planetary
> Courts either in place of or in addition to these District Courts.

Again, keep in mind that the judicial function was performed directly by
the nobility under the Imperium.  How might the nobility have come to
forfeit this right/responsibility?

> At any level are jurors chosen in a manner similar to that in the
> United Sates?

At this level of court system we're not talking jury trial but rather 
courts presided over by judges - like the US Supreme Court and Circuit
Courts.

> or does the court travel to
> the different planets to hear cases?

This was the original practice of the US Circuit Courts.  (The judge
travelled around the `circuit'.)  Now, folks tavel to these courts.
I suspect the Regency model might be more akin to the early US model
(assuming the nobles have forfeited their judicial function which I'm
not sure should or could be the case).

> - - Senate term length: 10 years seems like a long term.

Not if you keep in mind the travel times involved.  A senator from
Dunmag in Deneb is going to spend a lot of time just travelling back and
forth to Mora.  This is also the speed at which communication about issues
will travel between the capital and the home district.

> - - Military: I agree that the military is not one of the branches of the
> gov't but it does have some influence in the governing of the Regency

Keep in mind that the separation of the military from the political
process is a decidedly modern, Western idea.  For most of human history
and still in many places today the military is a key player in the
political process.  This is also a part of the Imperial tradition.
Remember the Civil War and even the Rebellion.  This latter though,
might have led to some poltical efforts to *limit* the influence of
the military.  This might have been one of the ways the power of the
nobility was weakened.  Much of the power of the nobility has been
embodied in the military in the past.

> BTW does the Regency (and formerly the Imperium) have a
> separate police force or is the military, particularly the army and
> navy, given the task of enforcing laws?

Police operations *per se* were the primary responsibility of local
worlds.  The Imperial military serve in police roles with respect to
piracy and the like but most of what we consider to be `crime' (robbery,
theft, assualt, embezzlement, etc.) was handled by local authorities.

> Subject: GEN - Swold World bickering

> I'm not entirely sure I understand the feudal technocracy govt
> but suppose it allows for a large amount of 'infighting' among the
> junior levels of the technocracy on each world.

Possibly.

> Suppose every so often these small manueverings among the
> technocrats build to a particularly large crescendo that results in a
> large loss of the economic/industrial infrastructure with a
> corresponding drop in TL.

Again, possibly, but this would have to be a *major*, traumatic event.
I don't see how it could occur very often or across several different
worlds.

> Furthermore perhaps this postulated internecine rivalry may be more
> prevalent on some worlds (such as Sacnoth) than on others (Gram) which
> causes more of an introspective world-view and prevents Sacnoth from
> gaining political control of the Sword World governing body despite a
> higher level of technological achievement.

Yes, of course, but is this somehow more plausible than the mere fact of
Zhodani assistance to prop up Gram?  I don't think so.  It also doesn't
present as interesting of possibilities as the Zhodani explanation if the
role of the Zhodani changes in TNE.

> Just an idea that occurred to me while enjoying the "The Hans and David
> Show."  :)

I'm glad somebody is enjoying it.  :-)


Bryan Borich <b.borich@genie.geis.com> writes:

>     Therefore the best thing to do is maybe forget the TCS vs 5FW debate
> and start anew by testing the TNE figures givenn in the RCEs sourcebook.

This is a good point.  Since we're examining the Regency it makes since
to use the *POT* figures, doesn't it?

> The population figures are given in millions.
> Gross product is in trillion Imperial credits. (TL 15 credits.)
> All Gross Subsector Product figures are given in Imperial Credits,
> using the conversion table in Striker Book 2.
>  
> Starport ship capacity is given in millions of displacement tons.
> Shipyard Capacity formula: capacity = total pop * (GM = 1) / 1000

Les Howie <lhowie@Prograph.Com>, is this the sort of information we need?
Thanks, Bryan, for making this available.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

End of TML Biweekly
******************
