			    TRAVELLER Digest 209

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re:  Mush or Moo	by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
  2) Re: Traveller's Aid Society	by "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
  3) Re: Mush or Moo	by "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
  4) Second Solomani Rim War	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
  5) HIWG server?	by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  6) Re: Censorship	by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
  7) Apologies to List Members	by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 207	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  9) Armour value of WHAT ?	by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 95 18:04:43 -0500
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re:  Mush or Moo
Message-ID: <9502282304.AA25121@qrc.com>

Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com> wrote in TD#208:
> [Somebody asked:]
> >Querry, why has no one tried to set up a traveller-based mush or moo?
> >Other than copyright restrictions (which have been worked around in
> >the case of novels) and lack of a site that is. 
> 
> Mush sounds like something my mother used to spoon-feed me when I was
> a baby, and moo?  Well, I thought that "moo" was the sound a cow made.
> So, I'm a grown boy now and I feel that this gives me the right
> to say that I don't know what the hell you're talking about.
> 
> Could someone enlighten me?

MUSH == Multi-User Shared Hallucination
MOO == MUD, Object-Oriented

Members of a family of online interactive games which includes MUDs,
MUCKs, and many more-or-less related things.  Basically, a way of doing
real-time roleplaying in an online, interactive and user-extensible
setting.  The experience can be _very_ good (equal or better than
'classic' tabletop roleplaying) under the right conditions.  In any event
they can absorb a frankly unbelievable amount of your free time.

MUD == Multi-User Dungeon
MUCK == Multi-User Carnal Knowledge     ;-) 

They're online, multi-user interactive role-playing environments.  If you've
never played one, they're hard to describe, but vaguely similar in concept 
to the old Zork or adventure games, but with multiple players (who can
interact with each other and with the game) online at once.  Certain players
can extend the game database and/or programming logic, as well.

There are a large number of such games based on White Wolf's Storyteller
game; as I understand it, each player in these games maintains a character
sheet for their character, and uses this in conjunction with the programming
of the game.  Other games exist which revolve around science-fiction and
fantasy themes, ranging from Star Trek through Albedo-esque 'critters' (the
[in?]famous FurryMUCK) to classic swords and sorcery.

A Traveller MUSH or MOO (or even MUD or MUCK) would require GDW's
permission (Traveller is a trademark, and you also would require their
permission to use portions of their copyrighted background material and game
rules).  At least in _theory_, such a game could be successful in generating
additional interest in Traveller for GDW (particularly if the online game is
written in such a way that a copy of the Traveller rules is very useful to
players).  Considering the sheer number of Storyteller-based online games,
White Wolf must be seeing some benefit from this form of marketing.

Without proper permission from GDW, such a game is flatly impossible, and
should not be attempted.  Even with permission, a considerable amout of
Traveller-specific set-up and programming would have to be done, in order
to support things like space travel, interstellar travel, and other game
aspects specific to Traveller.  This would be a good deal of work for a
talented database builder or programmer.

wildstar@qrc.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Shoot Them!  A lot!  --- Don
Karnage

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:19:18 -0800
From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca
Subject: Re: Traveller's Aid Society
Message-ID: <199503010019.QAA14173@PEAK.ORG>


pmm118@email.psu.edu posted some of his ideas for the TAS as it exists in
the New Era; Alvin Plummer responded by reminding everyone of the TAS as
it was during the Classic period (and maybe still is, in the Regency).

Alvin, I think the part that you missed was "mentioned in the TNE rule-
book."  The TAS of old, like so many other Third Imperial institutions,
ceased to be during the chaos of Rebellion and Collapse.  Some fragments
survive in 1200, and in many pocket empires new organizations with
the same purpose (though nowhere near the resources) have started using
the name. 

Until the day comes when people regularly travel across sectors again,
the size and benefits of anything calling itself the TAS will probably
be limited to the sort described in Fireplug's posting.

Just another reminder: this isn't the Traveller you remember.


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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 16:47:59 -0800
From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Cc: Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com
Subject: Re: Mush or Moo
Message-ID: <199503010047.QAA17205@PEAK.ORG>


MUSH and MOO are both (somewhat contrived) acronyms, derived by example
  from MUD (Multi-User Dungeon).  MUDs in general are server programs
  that people connect to, using clients or plain Telnet; they resemble
  the old text-only adventure games, in which the players move around 
  in a virtual environment of rooms, objects, and sometimes monsters.

The MUD concept has gone in two directions.  One has refined the 'game'
  programming; these are almost all based on the same 'kill-the-monster-
  get-the-treasure-go-up-levels' D&D model, while the technical side
  becomes more and more sophisticated.  This type is referred to as
  "combat MUDs" or just "MUDs", as they tend to be literally multi-user
  dungeons.  The other type has turned away from the competitive 
  aspect, using the virtual environment for socializing and/or role-
  playing.  MUSHes and MOOs are currently the two most popular server
  programs of this type.

MOOs tend to be more social these days, while MUSH is the platform 
  used for roleplaying worlds.  In the early days of MUSH, games based
  on the Pern series by Anne MacCaffery (and run with her permission)
  were the dominant type; now the balance has shifted to the World of
  Darkness setting of White Wolf's supernatural games.  (Something
  about a dark, brooding, tragic, misunderstood character that can
  rip out the throat of anyone he doesn't like seems to appeal to 
  today's teenaged gamers.)  There are also several BattleTech MUSHes
  with code for mech combat, a ShadowRun MUSH, assorted Star Trek
  games set in various periods, and so on.  Some MUSHes have a more
  general theme without being based on any one fictional universe.

For more information, check out the newsgroups in the rec.games.mud.*
  section:  .announce, .misc, .tiny (most relevant to MUSH/MOO and
  the 'social' type), and .lp or .diku (flavors of combat MUD).  The
  FAQ is posted frequently there.

---------------------------
Kelly St.Clair
kstclair@kira.peak.org

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

Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 20:44:03 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Second Solomani Rim War
Message-ID: <sf538aba.032@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

Alvin Plummer asks:

>Does anyone here know why the Solomani didn't conquer much more
>than  'border regions'?  Apparently, GDW consider's them to be military 
>incompetents - after all, due to tech level's and population alone, they 
>should have never lost the Solomani Rim in the Rim War.

   You are referring to the Second Solomani Rim War, I take it.  The
Solomani had a tough time due to several factors:

1)  Dissention within their armed forces.  Remember, the bulk of the
personnel in Solomani Navy comes  its member-states.  From the Central
Command level on down, there were disagreements about war aims.
After the fall of Terra in 1117, many Confederation commanders 
believed that the war should be ended (Terra had been the ultimate
objective after all).  Stiffer than expected Imperial resistance on all
fronts added additional commanders to the list of those who wanted an
immediate seize-fire.  By 1125, the Solomani were forced into serious
seize-fire negotiations (probably whole fleets were refusing orders to go
on the offensive by then).  It is also entirely possible that some
personnel were abandoning  their starships, or conducted mutinies in
an effort to return home (contemporary Solomani accounts about
this would have undoubtedly been suppressed by SolSec).

2)  Lack of support for the war on the homefront.  After the initial easy
victories, large casualties lists started to filter back from the front.
Everyone had expected a short war (don't they always) and when
that didn't happen, support for the war plummeted.  By 1125, there was
a large anti-war movement, this despite SolSec attempts to squelch it.

3)  Untimely defeats.  Had the Solomani won the Battle of Dingir in 1117,
they continue to advance on the Vegan homeworld, and given the
confused state of the Imperial forces, would have likely captured
Muan Gwi, Depot, and ended Imperial resistance in the Rim.  They
entered Dingir system overconfident, and ran into an Imperial force
that whose motivation basically amounted to desperation.  The defeat
the Solomani suffered at Dingir permanently stalled their
offensive into the Rim's heart--and ultimately caused a major
redeployment of forces, as the Solomani attempted to flank the Imperial
position.  Later defeats in Daibei and the Old Expanses (at the hands of
Margaret and her allies) had a similar effect--and left the Solomani
in the unenviable position of fighting what amounted a two front war
on exterior lines.

   I hope that explains things better.  Everyone is free to comment
should they so desire.

Harold





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

Date: Wed, 01 Mar 1995 11:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HIWG server?
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950301114034.17549A-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


As a very recently inducted member of HIWG, I tried to access the officel 
server, but failed.  Has it changed? Are there any other online HIWG 
resources that I should be aware of?

Please reply via Email, if privacy is an issue.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer
"I refuse to join any club that would have me."

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

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


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

Date: 01 Mar 1995 12:54:41 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: xboat@MPGN.COM, traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Censorship
Message-ID: <81902.72229254@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca>

I live in Canada.  You forgot to list my Senator :-)

Seriously, when posting country-specific information, try to put that fact in
the header of your message.  Remember that the Internet is international and
people here live under many different legal and political systems.  

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

Date:  1 Mar 95 14:03:33 EDT
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: amber <amber@hagar.ph.utexas.edu>, traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>,
Subject: Apologies to List Members
Message-ID: <9503011859.AA01274@internet1.lotus.com>

Apologies offerred for the [very] long ACLU posts of yesterday.

Especially to those outside the US.  I hadn't considered that.

For those within the US, I thought people would want to see it,
even if it wasn't "official" list material, because of the potential
effect that the bill in question would have on Internet Mailing
Lists if it becomes Law.


A) To those who expressed support, and there were many, thank you.

B) To those who were annoyed (especially if it cost you extra money),
   I'm sorry.

C) To those who took the time (and extra money) to flame me for it,
   I'll make a deal with you:

        1) When they come for your Right to Free Speech, or whatever
        passes for it where you live, I promise not to lift a finger
        to help you.

        In exchange for that:

        2) You may no longer email me personally.  Such a thing is
        an unwanted contact and, as of this post, is AUTOMATICALLY
        defined as harrassment.

D) To those who responded with intelligent thought (like that it 
   will probably be struck down by the Supreme Court), thanks.  
   It's good to see that some people are on their toes.  I
   prefer not to take my chances [just] with the Court, though.
   It's too bad that this, and group A) were the smallest categories.


At any rate, regarding posts of yesterday's kind, I won't do it 
again.

I hope that lays the dead to rest.


--Derek

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

Date: Wed, 1 Mar 95 19:00 GMT
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 207
Message-ID: <memo.776284@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199502281444.JAA24852@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca> To:
  > [Does anyone here know why the Solomani didn't conquer much mopre than
  > 'border regions'?  
  
Firstly, the war took them by surprise - rather that having a year or more
to prepare, suddenly *wham!* the opportunity is there, and either they take
it or lose the chance. Secondly, they had to integrate the captured worlds
into the Confederation, and/or passify/garrisson them, which takes time.
Thirdly, they didn't want to extend the supply lines/communication times
too far. The 2nd Imperium shows the problem of grabbing too much, too
quickly.

  > Apparently, GDW consider's them to be military
  > incompetents - after all, due to tech level's and population alone,
  > they should have never lost the Solomani Rim in the Rim War.] 

I always considered them to have a pretty good military.

  > Standard Imperial Doctrine calls for jump-6, maneuver-4 ships as a
  > minimum. Fighter's NEED maneuver-6.  Battleship's and dreadnaughts
  > are occasionally built with less maneuver, down to maneuver-2. 

Sounds reasonable to me.

  > > how long should a ship design to work with a fleet take to purify
  > > it fuel? 
  >  
  > No offical doctrine here, but I recomment keeping the number below
  > five hours: three may be idea. 

T*THREE HOURS?* How much space are you devoting to purifiers?! I'd say 6-12
rs would be better.

  > From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com> To:
  >  
  > > So you blow up the  occasional ship whose transponder isn't  working.
  > > No difference. I always thought the transponder  bit was pretty
  > > feeble, m'self. 
  >  
  > Hope I don't have to fly through your airspace anytime soon.... 
  >  
  > Perhaps that's why many air forces use them to keep from shooting down
  > their own aircraft.  IFF interrogators (which is what they use) are
  > essentially transponders that tell friendlys on the ground and in
  > the air that you're one of the good guys. 
  
One of the ways Israel was "persuaded" not to get involved in the Gulf War
was by the Coalition refusing to give them the correct IFF codes, therefore
their planes would have been marked as hostile.

  > > It shouldn't.  Fleet Tankers and Fuelers should be designed to handle
  > > scooping/slurping fuel and refining it.  A warship shouldn't have
  > > the extra clutter of a fuel refinery and scoops, unless it has a
  > > heck of a lot of spare space available. 
  >  
  > We are in complete disagreement here, for reasons I stated in my
  > previous post.  In large scale actions, the first things that people
  > tend to shoot at are the support ships (battletenders, etc.).  No
  > refueling capability is even deadlier to a ship than no MFD, IMHO,
  > since a ship without a MFD can still shoot but a ship without fuel
  > is a drifting target. 
  
Depends on your deployment strategy. If the fleet is always going to be
used as a single force, then it's reasonable to have dedicated tankers and
no purification gear on the warships; there should be enough escorts to
protect them from enemy attack. 

  > From: "fireplug" <pmm118@email.psu.edu> 
  >  
  > I've decided to play around with the concept of the Traveller's Aid
  > Society, which is mentioned in the "The New Era" rule book. First
  > of all, finding a Traveller's Aid Society is a test of Streetwise
  > * 1/2, unless a character has a Soc of A of above. Then finding one
  > will be a test of Streetwise * 1. 
  
Why hide it in the first place? 

  > Second of all, there's the cost.
  >  
  > Lifetime Member: cr 55,000 
  > Yearlong Member: cr 20,000 
  > One-Month Member: cr 1,700 

**** that's cheap! In TC it was MCr1 for lifetime membership, (assuming
they'll let you in in the first place).


---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: 01 Mar 95 14:43:18 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Armour value of WHAT ?
Message-ID: <950301194317_100326.446_BHG71-1@CompuServe.COM>

>> Sir, there are quite a number of ship's our there with 
armour of 1700, last time I heard! <<

There you are, you see. The system which creates designs 
like this is not compatible with previous designs. Fixing 
rules is OK. This is a completely different game! TNE IS 
NOT TRAVELLER!



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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 209
***************************
