Subj: Traveller-digest V1999 #1371
Date: 11/21/99 11:50:11 AM Pacific Standard Time
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Reply-to: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Traveller-digest Sunday, November 21 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 1371
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.
The following topics are covered in this digest:
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
Re: No longer totally OT( was Re: Totally OT but ...)
Re: MTU Imperial Justice (was: IMoJ)
Re: Traveller PBEM
Re: The naming of things
Re: Droyne partial "Lexicon" on-line.
Re: The naming of things
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
Re: rocks
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
Re: dampers and reactors
Travshorts III
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 08:04:06 -0500
From: "Jory Earl"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
>But there *are* some problems. You aren't going to get nuke level
>strikes from a spinal mass driver. The impact energy is a function of
>.the mass of the projectile, and the launch velocity. The launch
>velocity is dependent on the length of the driver and the acceleration
>it can provide (I can dig up the formula). You won't get anywhere
>*near* lightspeed with a ship mounted weapon (I once did the figures
>for a 1000 km longer mass driver and it only got a few percent of c)
What if you had a huge cyclotron that accelerated the mass to near C then
expelled it?
___________________________________________________________
J-Man
ICQ# 2843475
New Hampshire - U.S.A.
Email : j-man@iname.com
Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/
___________________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:53:27 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: No longer totally OT( was Re: Totally OT but ...)
> The USPS delivers millions of pieces of mail quickly and
>safely, but once in a while they fail. It's the failures we all
>remember. Here's my USPS failure story...my Mom sent my sister's
>family their Christmas presents via USPS three years ago. The box
>never arrived, but in mid March a *piece* of the box with the
>address on it was delivered to her with a "Sorry, but this is all
>that's left" message. Since than she sends only through UPS. It
>happens with the private carriers too, but it seems to happen less
>often.
I suspect a lot of this has to do with frequency. How many of us use a
private courier company to send a letter or postcard?
My own experiences indicate that Canada Post has a far better record than
UPS. Out of thousands of letters I've sent/received, less than a dozen have
been lost or significantly delayed. OTOH, UPS has managed to lose one
parcel entirely (no record of it in their system at all), help another "in
transit" for a week (on an overnight delivery), and forced me drive 1.5
hours to their depot to pick up another only to discover that they had left
it with a neighbour (whom I didn't know) who had just gone on holiday! One
parcel was delivered on time.
Canada Post: 99.9% success.
UPS: 25% success.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 17:57:19 -0500
From: Robert Prior
Subject: Re: MTU Imperial Justice (was: IMoJ)
>> Said severing consisting of a ceremony. Nothing major, but enough that
>> saying "I quit, now b****r off." isn't enough.
>
>Actually, it should "merely" take a public (published?) formal
>declaration, complete with a notice being sent to the liege.
>
>The reason I'd go for this rather than a ceremony is that if you are
>terminating the contract because your liege has been playing fast and
>loose with the rules, it may not be *safe* to arrange for a ceremony
>that has both of you present.
Well, I haven't needed this one yet, but I figured that the ceremony would
take place either with both parties in attendance, or with one party and a
herald (who would then convey the news to the other, and return to the
first to inform them that they were free of obligation).
>With a formal declaration, you just can't (honorably) act against him
>until you are sure he's received his copy.
That's what the herald's for.
>> That's why it makes for great gaming. And if you're playing GT, that's why
>> it's a disadvantage (although a _reputation_ for being honourable would be
>> an advantage, too).
>
>And a reputation for being dishonorable is a disadvantage of a rather
>different sort. :-)
Yep. But not one either of us has to worry about, eh? :-)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:40:31 -0500
From: "Keven R. Pittsinger"
Subject: Re: Traveller PBEM
> Someone was asking about this?
>
> The site for a Traveller PBEM is at:
> http://www.ssgfx.com/traveller/
> I haven't used it so I can't recommend it, but it's
> the only one I know of.
That's for the TML-PBEM. As of a year and a half ago (last time I heard from
anybody who was involved concerning it), they weren't accepting any new
players. Doesn't look like they've posted anything in a year & a half either.
Interesting ideas in the archives, though. Can't quite figger out *what* the
symbiotic lifeform is.
Keven
- --
tc++ tm+ tn+ t4- to ru++ ge+ 3i c+ jt au st- ls pi+ ta+ he+ so- vi zh sy
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Science-Fiction Adventure
In Reavers' Deep
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:22:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Kenji Schwarz
Subject: Re: The naming of things
On Sat, 20 Nov 1999, cos 90 wrote:
> >> >ObTrav: What kind of name is Alkhalikoi anyway?
> >>
> >> Sounds Hawaiian/Polynesian
> >
> >I don't think ~/kh/ exists in the Polynesian languages, but it does in
> >some of the other Austronesian languages. It ain't Vilani.
>
> I always thought it was Sylean...
Doh! I'll bet you're right.
To ignite another canon war (with any luck at all), what are opinions on
the Syleans as an Ancient-transplanted minor race (per T4) vs. "Sylean" as
the folks descended from Ziru Sirka/Rule of Man settlers?
Kenji
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:31:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Kenji Schwarz
Subject: Re: Droyne partial "Lexicon" on-line.
Rob --
While I like the vocabulary (and the numeral system), I have to say I
really don't agree with your choice of using Mayan script for Oynprith.
It's far too recognizable (IMO), even if there's only a few Travelleristas
who can actually read glyphic Mayan.
Kenji
On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Robert Eaglestone wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Prince's University on Corlano (Foreven/Corlano 2309 C866888-9)
> has on-line its partial Oynprith Glyph Lexicon (probably a misnomer),
> which contains a partial word-list and glyph-map of Oynprith, plus some
> examples that indicate orthography.
>
> http://members.home.net/eaglestone/oynprith/Dictionary.html
>
> Corlano's root page is
>
> http://members.home.net/eaglestone/index.html
>
> "Share and enjoy".
>
> -Rob
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 10:57:21 -0600
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich"
Subject: Re: The naming of things
> To ignite another canon war (with any luck at all), what are opinions on
> the Syleans as an Ancient-transplanted minor race (per T4) vs. "Sylean" as
> the folks descended from Ziru Sirka/Rule of Man settlers?
The Ancient-transplanted Syleans were overthrown by gothic Ziru Sirka/Rule
of Man knights templar disguisd as pirates and using near-c rocks. They
captured the hearts and minds of the surviving population using battle pod
equipped infantry. All while wearing sensible shoes. Amen.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:38:40 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
From: Leonard Erickson
>I think you need to look into the actual "mechanics" involved in rock
>dropping. *Nobody* "haul[s] big rocks into orbit". It takes an unreal
>amount of power, even by Traveller standards, to shift the orbit of a
>"big rock" so that it'll hit a planet *months* later.
>
>If you want something to hit before there's time for a courier to leave
>and bring back reinforcements, the situation is rather different. You
>are talking about "small" rocks (ship sized) and it winds up being
>easier to threaten to drop a "junker" ship on them under autopilot.
I'll admit your logic is sound here, but that's why earlier on in the thread
on this top I qualified the concept by including variations on the theme.
I've never assumed that one has to *literally* drop big rocks. Any number of
"big dumb objects" will suffice.
>You need *enormous* (and expensive!) drives to shift rocks.
Fair enough.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:51:40 -0800
From: "Bruce Macintosh"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
>I'm surprised the Imperium doesn't utilize mass-driver technology on
>warships when they need to do pin-point bombardment. It CAN be done, the
>physics prove this. Besides, you don't have to mess with that nasty Pu
>(plutonium).
With Traveller starship technology there's nothing special about mass
drivers; using the ship's own engine for "deadfall" ordinance makes much
more sense for bombarding city-sized targets, and smaller targets need
guided ordinance, which might as well have its own engine.
(A typical Traveller missile has ~200 km/s of delta-V, much higher than
you could ever get out of a mass driver; and of course a starship can provide
several km/s with a few minutes burn of its engines before dropping the
rocks.)
The high performance of Traveller engines somewhat negates the advantages
of being in orbit - you can get that same 200 km/s (or something close to it)
with a missile launched from the ground on a suitable trajectory, though
of course that's easier to shoot down. Only in societies with chemical rockets
does the energy advantage of being in orbit (10 km/s) make a significant
difference. The positional advantage does remain (it's easier to protect
your own troops from orbit.)
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:54:32 -0800
From: "Bruce Macintosh"
Subject: Re: rocks
>But basicly, you have to supply *all* the energy that goes into the
>explosion, plus extra for losses in the mass driver. A nuke doesn't
>cost anywhere *near* as much energy as it releases.
Life is easier for missiles in Traveller, where thruster plates don't
conserve energy, or HEPlaR is as efficient as a nuclear bomb...
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 12:52:30 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
From: Leonard Erickson
>In this situation "big rocks" have a decided advantage. You can nudge a
>rock into a collision orbit, and anybody on world with much of a
>telescope can *see* you do it. Doesn't take but a few observations and
>a calculator to determine the new orbit. And you've got *months* to
>watch it come at you.
Ouch.
>And as long as the Imperium holds the "high ground" you can *see* it
>come at you, and not be able to do a damn thing about it. And there's a
>definite deadline as *nobody* is going to be able to stop or deflect it
>once it gets within a few days of impact.
It almost goes without saying that the Imperium can hold the high ground
when it wants to, at least when it's dealing with internal problems. *Now* I
can see why nobody leaves the Imperium under their own will. ;)
Still, it would also seem that the first thing a country wishing to rebel
*must* do if its rebellion is to have any chance of succeeding is to manage
to create one, but preferably more, deep meson cannon sites. Of course, this
will frequently have to be done in secret.
It's not so much for nailing the big rocks but for making such a scenario as
expensive as possible for the Imperium.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 09:57:54 -0800
From: "Bruce Macintosh"
Subject: Re: dampers and reactors
Some people (me among them) note that Traveller reactors seem to be
able to fuse pure H1, rather than the deuterium or tritium that more
realistic reactors require. From this I infer that Traveller reactors contain
a
nuclear damper running in reverse, as it were, to increase the fusion
probabilities for H+H=>D (note: this requires tweaking the electroweak
force too, but we'll ignore that.)
In that case, the reactors own damper might protect it from external
interference
at anything but the shortest ranges.
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 18:23:40 -0000
From: "MJ Dougherty"
Subject: Travshorts III
The door is still open for submissions to the Travshorts collection(s). Any
Canon Traveller setting, 3-7000 words. That's 3 *thousand* to 7 *thousand*
(wry chuckle. They all died indeed. Sounds like one of my scenarios)
But I digress.
Thus far we have numerous statements of interest - submission date is end of
December, so get some drafts in at least - and some acceptances. Contents
will definitely include "Skirmish" by Terry McInness, "Against the Coming of
Night" and "Absent Friends" by myself and the excellent "Treason" by Carlos
Alos-Ferrer.
There's room for more quality Traveller fiction, so query me for submission
details.
MJD
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:26:03 -0500
From: "DaveShayne"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
>From: "Chris Seamans"
>> You actually gain possession of something usefull instead of a
>>bunch of glowing craters
>
>Okay, that is if you assume that the Imperium is going to bombard a planet
>back into the stone age and erase all life on the surface of a planet. I
>made no indication that this might even be the case.
I'm sorry if I misconstrued your argument. I thought you were refering
to the Centauri treatment of the Narn. Whish as I recall was prety close
to bombing the planet back to the stoneage. And yet the Narn didn't
really give up, they just went underground.
>Let's put the scenario in another way. Say you've got worlds which don't
>want to be part of the Imperium, or who are currently part of the Imperium
>and wish to regain their independence.
>
>What's going to stop them from doing so? What's to stop them from, I don't
>know, sabotaging their own industrial capacity to the extent that they
>*can't* pay Imperial taxes?
And can't support their own people who begin to think maybe being a part of
the
Imperium, "arna sa bad afta all." The peasants revolt and prety soon the
same
shmos who wanted the imperium off their backs are begging for a marine
detachment for protection against their own people.
>What do you do then, do you drop Imperial
>Marines to force them to work at gun point? Do you drop Imperial Marine
>Engineers onto the planet, build new industrial centers, and then force the
>populace to work at gunpoint?
>At some point, if you're the Imperium, and you're as hardnosed as is
claimed
>in canon, you're going to have to deal with the pontentiality of hitting
>civilian populations to make it known that you're not going to tolerate
such
>slacking.
I supose it's posible if everybody on the planet is mortally opposed to
imperial rule this might have to be done but I don't see any planet with a
pop
greater than 2 where this could posibly be the case. And with populations
that low
any old machinegun is a weapon of mass destruction. Ie in that case "wipe em
out
who's gonna notice." In all other situations enough people will be found who
are willing to accept Imperial rule to keep things going on a more or less
reasonably profitable level.
>1.) If you want to control a city / country / planet in a traditional
sense,
>somebody's got to be there. The Imperium doesn't *want* to control cities /
>countries / planets in the traditional sense. They simply want them to pay
>taxes.
In which case they're going to choose the least damaging way of convincing
them to accept imperial rule that they can.
>2.) Yes, and how would you convince the populace not to fight? Propaganda
>campaigns might work, but they can also fail miserably. Perhaps a
sufficient
>show of force might be in order, like, I dunno, hauling in big rocks and
>dropping them on select population centers.
Or try bribing the local leaders. If a planets power structure is left
intact The
local leaders may well decide that the Imperium is, "okaybyme."
>>>How am I to be convinced that the Imperium (or other major interstellar
>>>power) won't see value in dropping big, cheap rocks on major cities in
>>>order
>>>to get their way?
>>
>>Because craters don't pay taxes.
>
>Neither does a determined populace. So, we're back at square one.
I supose. But just how determined is the populace? If the Impies come
in with a batron and a few regiments of marines, bribes in the right places,
and some cosmetic reforms (say renaming the taxes negative income
enhancements or some such) would the peasants still revolt?
In most cases I doubt it.
>>Countries go to war mostly to impose their will on others.
>
>Well, sometimes it is to do more than simply impose their will on other
>countries. It's been relatively common for a country to go to war to annex
>territory. That's not an anal distinction, it is far more than a mere
>imposition of will.
Yes I was being inelequent. Some other reasons countries go to war
are: "Glorious Leaders" huge ego needs a stroke, religious disputes (These
wars
are among the dirtiest wars), to avoid being anexed by another country.
(Yes it actually does take two countries to fight a war)
And no doubt many other reasons/justifications. Wars still boil down to a
violent dispute over who gets to call the shots.
>>Unless a countries aim is genocide less drastic measures will
>>usually suffice.
>
>It doesn't have to be genocide. Let me state again that total destruction
>does not have to follow from rock dropping.
Depends on how big the rock is.
>>Having to rebuild a conquered teritory and deal with enemies
>>seeking revenge for attrocities commited is a real drag on the
>>economy and way of life.
>
>This would be different from the situation in what way after a land war in
>what way precisely?
In general in a land war you only shoot at things that are in your imediate
way and/or shooting back. As opposed to the rock that's going to get
everybody it lands on whether their fighting back or not. Killing people
who aren't otherwise involved usually results in fence sitters joining the
foe more often than convincing your enemy to give up.
>>It's so much easier to convince your enemy that you might enhance
>>their radiant luminosity if they don't accept your reasonable offer of
>>protectorate status, and quickly get about the business of
>>import/export, than it is to actually wipe them out, wait for the ground
>>to cool, plant a fresh colony, and then start up the import/export
>>business.
>Ah, okay. So now you're saying the mere threat of rock dropping will be
>enough to bring a world around. The only problem is that from time to time
a
>world's going to say, "Hey! You're not *really* gonna whack us with rocks!"
>
>Then what happens exactly... start a land war? Or follow through on the use
>of cheap and brutal "terror weapons"?
Um yea I guess that last paragraph of mine does tend to support your thesis
more than mine. But if you nuke say a convenient uninhabited moon that
hapens to be nearby.... Well maybe convinced fanatics would doubt your
willingness but nobody can doubt your capability.
>>This is just the way I see things not holy writ or anything. But it fits
my
>>conception of the 3I (and must other empires/kingdoms/nations I've
>>experienced.)
>Where do things such as the firebombing of Dresden, the atomic bombing of
>Hiroshima and (tongue planted firmly in cheek) the God smiting of Sodom and
>Gommorah fit into those conceptions?
Dresden was more or less irellevent to the outcome of the war. In fact the
only
big contribution to the outcome of the war that strategic bombing made was
in
the interdiction of the Ploesti oilfields. Pity it took the army air corps
as long as
it did to concentarte on them.
Japan was already beaten in every sense except the actuall occupation by the
time
the bombs were dropped. The japanese knew this and were attempting to
negotiate surender terms at the time. The bomb merely pointed out that we
were
willing to kill all of them in order to get unconditional surrender.
In both cases large occupying armies were required to control the conquered
teritories and we wound up spending a large sum of money rebuilding their
destroyed infrastructure. If both of the previous were not true we would
probably
have had another world war sometime in the sixties.
David Shayne
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Old version - Build a better mousetrap and
the world will beat a path to your door.
New version - Build a better mousetrap and
some @$*% will build a better mouse.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:37:59 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Chris Seamans wrote:
> From: DaveShayne
>
>
> > You actually gain possession of something usefull instead of a
> >bunch of glowing craters. If you target the population: anybody left
> >over is probably going to be less than thrilled with you. If you target
> >only the centers of government/military: you run the risk of killing the
> >people that can agree to whatever it is you want from them. If you
> >target the whole planet: you get a glowing lifeless ball. Which is
> >perfect if your goal is to litter the galaxy with glowing lifeless balls -
> >less perfect if you actually want usefull planets to tax and stuff.
>
>
> Okay, that is if you assume that the Imperium is going to bombard a planet
> back into the stone age and erase all life on the surface of a planet. I
> made no indication that this might even be the case.
>
> Let's put the scenario in another way. Say you've got worlds which don't
> want to be part of the Imperium, or who are currently part of the Imperium
> and wish to regain their independence.
>
> What's going to stop them from doing so? What's to stop them from, I don't
> know, sabotaging their own industrial capacity to the extent that they
> *can't* pay Imperial taxes? What do you do then, do you drop Imperial
> Marines to force them to work at gun point? Do you drop Imperial Marine
> Engineers onto the planet, build new industrial centers, and then force the
> populace to work at gunpoint?
Well, if they're stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head like that,
all you do is interdict them. No problem. If they want to isolate
themselves, and live as poor dirt farmers, the Imperium isn't going to
stop 'em. Any offworld holdings they have will be attached to satisfy
external claims. But they're not getting off their world and going
anywhere.
Hell, if offworld money isn't involved, the Imperium doesn't
_care_ whether they live in caves starving to death, or large
industrialized megalopolises...once they all starve, someone willing to be
part of the Imperium will come in and rebuild, if there's anything of
value there.
> At some point, if you're the Imperium, and you're as hardnosed as is claimed
> in canon, you're going to have to deal with the pontentiality of hitting
> civilian populations to make it known that you're not going to tolerate such
> slacking.
The Imperium doesn't give a flying fig about what it is that people do on
their own planets. They control 'the space between the stars'. If you're
harboring p*rates, expect those facilities to get bombed.
If your leaders are plotting treason, they'll get whacked. If the
everybody on the planet says: "We don't wanna play Imperium anymore!
We're quitting!", the Imperium says, 'Fine', and starts charging an
Imperial duty on all goods flowing to and from the planet in question.
That will probably far more than make up for any losses in taxes.
Also, if some, ohhh, say nearby polity or Megacorp wishes to reintegrate
the planet in question back into the Imperium...who's gonna stop 'em? The
planet's on their own.
> 1.) If you want to control a city / country / planet in a traditional sense,
> somebody's got to be there. The Imperium doesn't *want* to control cities /
> countries / planets in the traditional sense. They simply want them to pay
> taxes.
Which said taxes are actually quite low, and _probably_ paid by taxing
traffic through the starports, not directly taxing the inhabitants of the
planet. I think we figured out one time that the average Imperial resident
pays something like, what, less than ten Cr. a year in Imperial taxes? At
the population level of the Imperium that's quite a few teracredits...
The Imperium isn't going to even threaten rock-tossing over mere taxes...
Finally, in the end, since the Imperial model of growth was to co-opt the
local leaders into the Imperial nobility, there are very few places that
have any incentive at all to quit the club.
If your imperium is a Star Wars type evil empire, then they'll do this
sort of thing, but as I see it, the Imperium is more like the Empire in
the Flandry stories, a distant thing that asks everyone for a few pennies
a year and that's about the extent of the Imperium's impact on the average
sophont. Who the dog catcher is in this years election cycle is far more
important.
Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group
Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:46:55 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
From: Bruce Johnson
>Well, if they're stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head like that,
>all you do is interdict them. No problem. If they want to isolate
>themselves, and live as poor dirt farmers, the Imperium isn't going to
>stop 'em. Any offworld holdings they have will be attached to satisfy
>external claims. But they're not getting off their world and going
>anywhere.
Ah, now it's all so clear to me. Perhaps this is the way that the Imperium
might play it in some other game, but remember... this is *Traveller* and
the Imperium is willing to step in when two powers wage war to the point
that their industrial capacity is threatened. Remember, this is the Imperium
that waged the Pacification Campaigns when there were significant cultural
regions who resisted integration into the Imperium.
>Hell, if offworld money isn't involved, the Imperium doesn't
>_care_ whether they live in caves starving to death, or large
>industrialized megalopolises...once they all starve, someone willing to be
>part of the Imperium will come in and rebuild, if there's anything of
>value there.
Really? One wonders if this extends to worlds like those within a few
parsecs of Capital. How about those worlds with some degree of political
importance or symbolic importance, like... Terra?
>The Imperium doesn't give a flying fig about what it is that people do on
>their own planets. They control 'the space between the stars'. If you're
>harboring p*rates, expect those facilities to get bombed.
Does anybody *really* believe that the Imperium really controls "the space
between the stars"? They may buy that line in the Imperium universe, but I
must say you're insulting my intelligence if you expect me to buy it in real
life.
This is the same Imperium that expanded by touching off surface wars on
worlds that it wished to integrate. This is the same Imperium that waged the
Pacification campaigns. This is the same Imperium that steps in when a
worlds' industrial capacity is threatened by warfare.
>If your leaders are plotting treason, they'll get whacked.
Strange behavior for an Imperium which "doesn't give a flying fig" about
what folks do on their own worlds.
>If the everybody on the planet says: "We don't wanna play Imperium
>anymore! We're quitting!", the Imperium says, 'Fine', and starts
>charging an Imperial duty on all goods flowing to and from the planet
>in question. That will probably far more than make up for any losses
>in taxes.
Ah, so the Imperium *is* interested in taxing worlds by whatever means is
necessary in the situation.
>Also, if some, ohhh, say nearby polity or Megacorp wishes to reintegrate
>the planet in question back into the Imperium...who's gonna stop 'em? The
>planet's on their own.
Oh, but wait, doesn't the Imperium have laws against multiworld polities?
There's a bit of sarcasm in my voice there. It's difficult to disentangle
what the Imperium really does from what their "spin machine" says they do.
>Which said taxes are actually quite low, and _probably_ paid by taxing
>traffic through the starports, not directly taxing the inhabitants of the
>planet. I think we figured out one time that the average Imperial resident
>pays something like, what, less than ten Cr. a year in Imperial taxes? At
>the population level of the Imperium that's quite a few teracredits...
But wait, didn't you just say that taxing traffic through the starports is a
"last resort" when a world's not willing to cooperate? Still, I thought that
there was a different figure in trillion credit squadron. I could be wrong
though, as I don't have it nearby.
>The Imperium isn't going to even threaten rock-tossing over mere taxes...
Yet taxes, are in the end, all they're really interested in... even though
they've been fully willing to do other nasty things in integrating worlds
that don't want to cooperate.
>Finally, in the end, since the Imperial model of growth was to co-opt the
>local leaders into the Imperial nobility, there are very few places that
>have any incentive at all to quit the club.
Huh? Surely this is a IYTU scenario. There is no evidence that this is the
case as individual worlds have *many* different styles of government that
are at odds with Imperial quasi-feudalism.
>If your imperium is a Star Wars type evil empire, then they'll do this
>sort of thing, but as I see it, the Imperium is more like the Empire in
>the Flandry stories, a distant thing that asks everyone for a few pennies
>a year and that's about the extent of the Imperium's impact on the average
>sophont. Who the dog catcher is in this years election cycle is far more
>important.
On the contrary, I do not think that the Imperium is "evil" nor do I think
that it's "distant". It's utterly obvious that the Imperium has a real stake
in keeping worlds under its control. After all, if the hands-off policy you
mention were to be in effect, there's no reason not to leave the Imperium.
What? The Imperium is completely willing to give our world complete self
determination? Sure, the Imperium doesn't have to worry about its core
worlds splitting, because their mineral resources have likely been depleted
after long millenia... but that's also exactly the reason why not letting
worlds leave is so damn important.
------------------------------
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1371
***********************************
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:
unsubscribe traveller-digest
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path:
Received: from rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (rly-yd01.mail.aol.com [172.18.150.1]) by air-yd02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:50:11 -0500
Received: from lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yd01.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:50:04 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id OAA25703;
Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:49:06 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:48:42 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id OAA25663
for traveller-digest-outgoing; Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:48:41 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 14:48:41 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199911211948.OAA25663@lists.imagiconline.com>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1371
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com