Subj:	Traveller-digest V1996 #789
Date:	96-12-25 16:06:27 EST
From:	owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM


Traveller-digest    Wednesday, December 25 1996    Volume 1996 : Number 789



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Complaints
Re: [T96#784] Why the Vilani Lost...
Melee weapons
Re: Why the Vilani Lost
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #788
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #788
Re: jtas cost
Re: Laundry in the Far Future
Merry Christmas!
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #777
Thoughts on the Far Future

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:40:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Complaints

Hi,

Someone mentioned recently that IG should put up a feedback area on their 
website so that complaints can be directed there instead of here (to the 
mailing list).  Apparently, that individual missed my recent post  
stating that just such an area would be set up on IG's web site after 
January 1 (i.e., when they return to the office).

In addition, there is always IG's email box (sweetpea10@msn.com), which is 
a good interim means of communicating with them.  If we don't tell them 
what we want and do not want, then they have no way of knowing. :)  
[Well, that's not entirely true - I try to summarize what is said here, 
and pass the main themes on to IG.  But, wouldn't you rather speak 
for yourself? =) ]

Anyway, have a good Chritmas Day.


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh      |  Atari 8-Bit User and Programmer Since 1982
ransom@iconnect.net  |  Classic Traveller Referee Since 1983
Stuck in the '80s    |  Microsoft-Free and Loving It! :)
       .....Official Reporter of Imperium Games Product Info.....

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 96 17:08:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
Subject: Re: [T96#784] Why the Vilani Lost...

eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch) hath scriven...

T::>On 12/23/96 at 11:04 AM,  "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
 ::>said:

T::>> My suggestion is that the Vilani Military was run as a commercial
 ::>> operation and that the wars that they fought were run according to strict
 ::>> economic principles ... profit was the bottom line. Just think, for
 ::>> example, how this would affect their ship design philosophy for warships!

T::>Ok, I'll buy that.  It fits with how I see the Vilani running their empire.
 ::>OTOH, what the Vilani see as "economic principles" aren't likely to be
 ::>"western free-market economic principles."  To a Vilani, it's more
 ::>important to do things the *right* way than to do things a better way.
 ::>Profit is the result of following the rules, not breaking them.  I see them
 ::>very class (even caste) oriented, very traditional, very slow to accept
 ::>*any* change.  They are like a deep still lake.

 Well, now, that may not be totally inaccurate - but I think
 I'll obfuscate the issue a little bit by pointing out that
 McDonald's works the same way - they have a System (note cap)
 that specifies The Way Things Are Done (even down to what order
 you flip the hamburgers on the grill!), and deviations from the
 System affect your profit - and the company auditors can
 generally tell where you're out of line, and how, just by
 looking at the books!

 McDonald's is also resistant to new ideas until the developer
 of the idea shows how it can be incorporated into the System,
 and proves that it's sound by taking on the job of operating
 the one McDonald's restaurant that's _not_ open to the general
 public - the one on the campus of Hamburger U., their primary
 training center.  On top of being incorporated into the System,
 it has to be profitable (i.e., the average store is expected to
 make more money with this on the menu than not).  Sounds to me
 like an interesting combination of Vilani conservatism and
 Terran entrepreneurialism...

T::>I don't think it was a Vilani plan.  I just think this is the way their
 ::>culture works:  methodical, traditional, smothering.

 That said, I will note that I _do_ like this viewpoint.  If you
 write it up as your doctoral dissertation, I'll be happy to put
 it up on the Freelance Traveller pages.

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
 þ OLXWin 1.00b þ Behaviorism is the art of pulling habits out of rats.

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 23:18:31 -0500
From: Neveron@aol.com
Subject: Melee weapons

Does anyone have any new melee weapon designs? We seem to get boarded fairly
often and I'm getting tired of paying for new wallpaper.
                                                                   shs
                                                                  (dsf)

Pete-Can we have a blaster launcher?

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:07:47 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Why the Vilani Lost

> From: Andrew Boulton <aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
> In-Reply-To: <199612230005.LAA10764@curie.dialix.com.au>
> 
> << My suggestion is that the Vilani Military was run as a commercial 
> operation and that the wars that they fought were run according to 
> strict economic principles ... profit was the bottom line. >>
> 
> Makes sense. The Vilani wouldn't consider *not* running it that way. 
> (Reminds me of _THX-1138_, where the police chase is stopped because it 
> went over-budget).
> 
> One problem: if your theory is correct, once the Ziru Sirka reached a 
> certain size (and so a long travel time to/from the frontier), the first 
> race to seriously fight back would destroy it. I suppose the Terrans 
> could have been the first to do so, but it seems unlikely.

I don't see why size should be a factor in my argument - perhaps I'm just
dense :-{

Actually, it needn't have been the Terrans - anyone with both a will to
fight, the means to do so *and* a different outlook on warfare would have
had the same effect. The Zhos, the Aslan (if they'd had J-Drives at the
time) the K'kree etc ... it was just fortuitous that it was the terrans!

phil
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:19:52 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #788

> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:41:53 -0900
> From: Peter Newman <pnewman@alaska.net>
> Subject: Re: Routine Maintenance
> 
> > From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
> > 
> > On 20 Dec 96 at 19:02, Phillip McGregor spewed:
> > 
> > > Starports and why Planetary TLs are meaningless
> 
> > > All Starships need "Routine Maintenance" once per year, right? Two
> > > weeks at any A or B class Starport, correct? The key word here is
> > > *any* A or B Class Starport - *not* "any A or B Class Starport of an
> > > equal or higher TL", but *any* such Starport.
> > >
> > > Note that, as the rules stand (TL Table on pg. 134) it is possible
> > > to score a Type A Starport on a minimum TL7 world and a Type B on a
> > > minimum of TL5 - though obviously in those cases *all* the tech must
> > > be imported!
> > >
> > > However, consider a TL9 world - just barely starfaring - with a Type
> > > A Starport. What happens when your TL12 Sylean Federation Scoutship
> > > wants an overhaul there (or your TL15 Third Imperium Scoutship, for
> > > that matter). Is there any delay? Is there any increased cost
> > > associated? *NO* to both!!!
> > 
> > Overhaul?  Let's consider the 20th century Terran equivalent:
> > automobiles.  Yes, the local garage is liable to have the oil,
> > grease, filters, plugs, etc on hand to do your overhaul, but what do
> > you do if you need to replace the block?  Does Al's garage have the
> > engine in stock?  Probably not, he's going to need to call a wrecking
> > yard, or somebody who sells rebuilt engines, or whatever...  Problem
> > is that a TL 9 world isn't likely to have the widget to fix that TL15
> > power plant on your far trader.  Especially since they don't repair 
> > all that many of them.  They'll have to send out for it.
> 
> 	The reason that this does not seem to make sense is that 
> it_does_not make sense.  The routine maintenance can be performed at any 
> type A or B starport rule is WRONG & should be changed.  The rule should 
> be Routine Maintenance may be performed at any type A or B starport of 
> equal or higher tech level.  Yes theoretically starports could be 
> importing higher tech parts & training but we have_no_evidence that they 
> are.  There is some canonical evidence that suggests that ships do need 
> to be maintained at facilities of their own Tech Level or higher, as 
> follows.
>
> 	In The MegaTraveller Journal Issue #3 (by DGP) in an article on 
> Vincennes (A899AA6-G 1122 Deneb) Charles Kalina wrote "Civilian ships 
> produced at Vincennes were of the highest performance & reliability, but 
> their high-technology actually became a marketing liability.  As 
> Vincennes' designs became more advanced, fewer & fewer starports were 
> able to service & maintain these vessels...Currently the only TL-16 
> ships in civilian use are either merchants operating soley in the 
> Vincennes area, or megacorporations for whom the advantages of TL-16 
> construction outweigh the expense of maintaining such vessels."

Is the Megatraveller Journal, striclty speaking, "canon" ... I certainly
would value Marc Miller's constant say-so in every Traveller rulebook since
Ctrav over a one off mention from a source that could well be assumed by
some to be non-canon! Even MTrav rules assumed that maintenance was
possible at any Starport, regardless of local TL!

The problem with the example is that the Starport/Starships in question are
TL16 - that is, above the average imperial level for the Third Imperium of
c. 1100. I was (and I think I did specify - if I didn't, I apologise)
talking about the *average* imperial TL. Thus, for Milieu 0 Starports
capable of maintenance can be assumed to be able to maintain ships of TL12
or less.

Your example is not relevant in the light of this. The constant statements
of Traveller rules that A/B Starports can maintain vessels, with *NO* ifs,
ands, or buts is more than enough "canon" ... or are you arguing with Marc
and not me? If you think that Marc has been wrong since CTrav, well, take
it up with *him*!!!

> 	If this ruling is made things will not only make more sense but 
> we will also have a better (partial) explanation for why all those yards 
> of less than maximum available tech level manage to stay in business; 
> that is that they sell to customers who do not want to worry about if & 
> where they can get their ship maintained.

Note that I *did* comment that the *real* reason the rule is as it is is
simply for the sake of simplicity! Makes perfect sense from that point of
view ... unfortunately, it doesn't make sense from any pov of what we can
loosely term "internal realism and consistency" *unless* you assume as I
do, and that is that local TLs are meaningless to a greater or lesser
degree!

> 	Actually for maximum realism (& to make players lives more 
> difficult) the rule should probably be: Routine Maintenance may be 
> performed at any A or B starport of the ships tech level or the next 
> higher tech level only.  I would think that if you went to a TL-15 
> shipyard looking for maintenance on your TL-9 starship this would be 
> akin to bringing your Model A car (TL 6) into a modern garage (TL 8) for 
> repairs & expected them to be able to fix it (& this is only a 2 tech 
> level differance, not 6).

It may well be that this *should* be the rule - but it isn't! CTrav, MTrav,
TNE and T4 *all* are in agreement that maintenance can be done at *any* A/B
Starport - and make no mention of TL of local starport compared to TL of
ship. Wishing it were different won't change the rock solid facts.

> 	On a further note I would not want to have the routine 
> maintenance for_my_ship done at a type B starport.  What if they 
> discoved that the Jump Drive was worn & needed replacing, a type B port 
> could not make one (by definition) & you would then have to get an 
> import at a higher cost & expense, probably prepaid.

Why would a Type B not be able to make a Jump Drive? Starport type is
independent of TL, pretty much.

> 	These rules will also help the referee keep control of the 
> campaign because if the players must go to a planet with the appropriate 
>  tech level for their maintenance the referee can insure that they will 
> go their (or risk problems & misjumps, etc).  For example if you have a 
> TL 15 ship in the Spinward Marches circa 1105 you will only have about 5 
>  planets in the whole sector who can fix it. (Glisten, Rhylanor, Mora, 
> Trin, & debatably Darrian)

Again, yes, it makes perfect sense - except for the teeny little problem
that *all* iterations of Traveller state that maintenance can be done at
*any* A/B Starport, and make no mention of TL. And, again, wishing the
rules weren't what they are won't change the facts that they *are* what
they are!

Merry Xmas

Phil

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 15:23:23 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #788

> Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:38:09 -0800 (PST)
> From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>
> Subject: Re: GG Refuelling - Economic Factors
> 
> For the standard merchant, I tend to agree with your well reasoned
dialog.
> But for the non-standard...shall we say entreprenual types that have good
> reason to stay out of Imperial starports (and away from imperial customs
> agents)?  How about people operating ship types other than the three you
> mentioned...mercenaries and the like who don't want to leave the paper
> trail that landing at a starport is bound to generate.
> 
> There are a plethora of legal, semi-legal and illegal reasons to use GG
> refueling.

Yes, but this would *have* to mean that they are either charging a *hell*
of a lot more than 1000 Cr per ton, or are *certain* of making a profit of
relatively *vast* proportions.

Regardless, the Imperium seems a pretty happy-go-lucky place for traders,
so I can't see much need for a *huge* smuggling trade. And, of course, PCs
would not *routinely* engage in smuggling :-)

Phil
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

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

Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 14:50:04 +0100 (MET)
From: Thomas Biskup <tb@saranxis.ruhr.de>
Subject: Re: jtas cost

On Mon, 23 Dec 1996 Kagehira@aol.com wrote:
>      Looking at IG's web page (which apparently has updated their site
> completely to cover the sub cost) I'm paying $5.00 per issue, plus another
> $1.95 for S&H for a 48-page magazine??????

Why are you surprised?  If someone dares to demand $20 for a tiny "93
useful pages" supplement you really shouldn't be surprised.  My personal
guess is that the pricing policy of IG will be their doom if they don't
change anything soon.   Gamers no longer spend as much money on products
as they did in former years (look at the financial problems of TSR and
Whitewolf which really do not bode well for the industry in general).  Now
if IG continues to demand such exorbitant prices they are probably dead as
soon as Courtney realizes how much money he's going to loose in months to
come.

At least the IG crew really proved, that they have no idea about business
of any kind.

Nonetheless Merry Christmas to you all!

- --
Thomas Biskup                               email to: tb@saranxis.ruhr.de
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Would you choose one life over one thousand?
 I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that."
                          -- Data and Picard, "Justice", stardate 41255.6

 

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 96 18:02 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Laundry in the Far Future

In-Reply-To: <199612231833.NAA16289@jonah.chrysalis.com>

<< Even with recycling, water for laundry and baths might weigh a lot,
it seems to me. >>

You're going to have water anyway (for drinking) - use that. You can 
keep recycling the same stuff for ages.

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 96 18:02 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Merry Christmas!

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 96 18:01 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #777

In-Reply-To: <80256409:0032D5F0.00@notesgw.solent.ac.uk>

<< Actually, having spent a year in the bush in Nigeria (possibly one of the
most Travelleresque years of my life - it was so *alien*), I would tend to
disagree.  'Stuff' wasn't available nor widely.  Unless of course you went
to a *major* town/city, say Lagos.  Even in Jos (the nearest town to me -
40 miles away, 6 of them by dirt track, fording rivers etc.), 'Stuff' was
hard to get hold of. >>

According to an old science teacher of mine (who made a habit of trying to 
get as far from civilisation as possible when he went on holiday), the *one* 
product you can guarantee on finding, even in a tiny 1-goat town in the 
middle of Africa, is Coca-Cola. Even South American Indian tribes as yet 
undiscovered by Western civilisation drink coke. If the UN could get the 
Cocoa-Cola Corp to do their transportation, they could end world hunger 
overnight!

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:00:09 -0500
From: ImpGrAdmrl@aol.com
Subject: Thoughts on the Far Future

Merry Christmas!  With some time to ponder upon things during the holidays, I
want to know if anyone has speculated what the "Far Future" milieau will be
like for T4... this is the setting beyond the time of The New Era.
   What do you all think?  Will the Imperium reemerge?  Will the Regency
reabsorb the former Imperial Core?  Will the conflict between the Reformation
Coalition (and its use of tamed viruses) and Regency lead to conflict?  What
about the wave from the Galactic Core?
    The Far Future is something to look forward to, for though there is much
to game in the past... we know the general events in the course of history
that follows.  I mean, if you were an Imperial citizen, would you want to
invest megacredits on the date 109-1116 (the day before Strephon's double is
assassinated)?
    Let me know your thoughts.... Happy Holidays!....  Charles

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #789
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.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".


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Wed Dec 25 16:05:58 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin31.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA12985; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:05:56 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA15538; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:03:51 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:01:55 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id QAA15294 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:01:53 -0500
Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 16:01:53 -0500
Message-Id: <199612252101.QAA15294@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #789
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com

