TRAVELLER Digest 582

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) TNE/VS CT by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  2) THE new TRAVELLER by 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
  3) Re: SF Construction Workers by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
  4) T4 Wish List by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
  5) Re: USL Hull landings by anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  6) Re: Task Systems by anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  7) FF&S Light by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  8) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various... by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  9) Re: Task Systems by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
 10) Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT) by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
 11) Re: T4 Wish List by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
 12) Zhodani and the Empress Wave by Antti Lahtinen <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
 13) Re: TRAVELLER digest 581 by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 16:29:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE/VS CT
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960205162504.4467A-100000@linda.teleport.com>

--
The rules set?  From what I can tell from MM's comments is whatever we get
will be compatible with CT.  While the combat system, the task system, and
other things will most likely be entirely different, if vehicals and
characters and equipment are somewhat standard with the CT rules, then the
$1000 of stuff I have collected can still be used and I will only be out
about $150 of TNE stuff. I guess thats what ticked me off the most about TNE
was the change in character creation.  Suddenly none of my NPCs were valid,
none of my Characters worked without a concerted effort to convert them, and
even then, my CT Pilot-4 had different probablilites than my TNE Pilot-4.
So to me any retreat to the rules of CT that allows me to use that JTAS #5
that I paid $30 for is a good thing.
--
 So your saying that you with the money you invested must be caterd too,
while te $250odd I spent on TNE will be up a creek without a paddle?
 Sounds a bit IDdish to me.
 Quite frankley, I can't afford to invest the money to buy all the stuff
I already have again. As it is, I am serousley pondering weather I will
even buy YARS.

bri <bri@teleport.com>


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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:00:57 -0500
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: THE new TRAVELLER
Message-ID: <199602060300.WAA23291@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

    I don't think anyone has "lost" or "won" because the next version of
Traveller will be based from the original. I'm not so sure "House Systems"
are a good idea anyway. I could see 2300 AD and T2K being based on the same
system; they take place in the same universe. But when GDW decided to ditch
the Traveller game system, they didn't provide enough solid info on porting
over things from the old game. (The conversion system given in SURVIVAL
MARGIN bites.) With the new game (IF a good conversion system is provided to
bring TNE characters into the game), older campaigns can adapt quickly. It
was probably a mistake changing to the GDW House System. I liked it IN
COMPARISON TO Classic Traveller because of the greater control players had
over their characters and
expanded skills, but that could have been done in a more Traveller-like system.
I really hadn't had much experience with MT. I have now gone back and read
it, and am surprised at how clean a system it actually is! I'm porting over
some theings from TNE, such as background skills and the Initiative system
(I hate Interrupts), but all-in-all I like it. And the characters we create
WILL be adaptible to the new game when it appears with a minimum of fuss.
What I don't want to lose from TNE the most is the BACKGROUND, which has
always been my favorite part of Traveller anyway.
(Some of you old-timers might be able to tell me; was there a level of
Resistance to the Rebellion concept among long-time Traveller fans when it
first appeared?)


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

Date: 05 Feb 1996 23:28:29 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: SF Construction Workers
Message-ID: <758579166.55267568@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca>

Actually, the civilian careers I crated for MT were one of the most popular
items (measured by request) when I was running a Traveller information
service.  Construction workers, mechanics, farmers, skimmers (gas giant
miners), computer techs... a lot of people wanted the career tables.

I've noticed that my students tend to go for the careers with the most
skills.  One of the things I like about TNE is that all the careers are
basically equal in 'rewards'.  Another is that skills weren't random, so
players could create just the character they had in mind.

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

Date: 05 Feb 1996 23:42:50 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: T4 Wish List
Message-ID: <3444699.55268166@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca>

Although I _prefer_ the TNE rules, and even like the RC setting (and I've been
playing since Traveller was first published - pre-JTAS days!), my wish-list
includes:

- Good design rules (ie. FF&S, although I like the scale efficiencies in MT),
with either modular designs or lots of published designs for non-designers.
Nothing wrong with detailed design sequences if there are enough predesigned
items out there.  (In Space 1889, which has a simple sequence, people are
always tinkering with the rules to add some variety.)

- Limits on robot skills.  In MT you could easily get robots with really high
skill levels to run a ship - much cheaper than a live crew.  The Virus (for
all its faults) at least provided a reason for using human skills rather than
robots.  (My MT solution was to impose significant reaction penalties for
emergency situations.)

- Good world-gen rules.  World Builders Handbook, with the colonization stuff
from World Tamers, integrated into an expanded CT trade goods ruleset.

- Good task system, integrated into the combat rules.  Either MT or TNE would
do me.

- Nice starship combat sequence.  I actually like Brilliant Lances best, once
I figured the rules out.  Filling in the ship forms was harder than playing
the game!  Still, it felt more like a space battle than any of the other
sequences.  Same with Battle Rider.  However, there should be a simpler
abstract system for groups that don't like gaming out space battles.
(Something like the old abstract system from CT Mercenary, maybe.)

- Possibly the best solution for combat is to provide some simple systems in
the basic game with add-on games for more detail (rather like BL, BR, and
Striker II did for TNE - although the personal combat was more detailed than
strictly necessary, I thought).  Similarly, the basic ruleset could include
the modular design sequence, with the detailed sequence being a separate
product.  (I suspect this will basically be an economic decision - how best
to package the system for maximum market penetration).

- A variety of adventures, _quickly_.  I think TNE suffered from an early
concentration on covert ops/military adventures.  (So did Traveller, at
first.)  I'll admit they are easier to write, but I think a nice selection -
some military, some merchant, some exploration, some colonization, some
scientific... - will help the new Traveller gain a broader following.

>From a practical standpoint, I think the best thing we fans can do (other
than buy the game), is to start writing adventure material.  If everyong on
this list was to put together their favourite game (from any setting) as an
Amber-Zone-length adventure then when T4 comes out there will be a reasonable
supply of adventure material.  One of the reasons that D&D is so popular in
high schools is not the rules, it's all the adventures TSR cranks out.  The
kids can play D&D every lunchtime and never run out of published adventures -
and they keep TSR in business!

By the way, could someone repost Marc's address?  (And Clay Bush's address?)
My system deleted all my old mailfiles (including my backup archives) in a
disk partion crash last week.

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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:40:24 -0900
From: anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: USL Hull landings
Message-ID: <v01530500ad3cc54ee068@[137.229.100.57]>

Phil's comments about landing Unstreamlined vessels are essentially correct.

In CT and MT, the rules had gravitic based thruster plates; Delta-V was
free of reaction mass (you used the whole stellar system) and limited to
power supply durations (also much different under TNE.

Under CT/MT the rationale for streamlining is to allow for maneuvering in
atmosphere, gas giant refueling, and bracing the hull for "power-off"
situations. Since any USL design is set up and braced so as to push the
rest of the thing forward, not keep it from sagging sideways (one of the
effects of sitting in a gravity well, especially in an atmosphere).
Somewhere there is a reference to it in a published cannonical or
semi-cannonical (TD or a DGP adventure) source, it IS possible to do it,
but way to risky for the average pilot to accomplish, and way to risky for
routine useage.

Under TNE, where Delta-V is expensive, CG is separate, efficient, and easy,
USL designs should be allowed to land. A small 0.1G constant thrust when
you are effectively in micro-gravity (courtesy of CG) will get you to orbit
in no time at all. In atmosphere maneuver becomes limited to parking,
military ops, and eccentrics. Also, CG takes minimal power by comparison,
and you can keep it powered for upwards of 6 months, as TNE uses a 1 year
PP Fuel baseline, as compared to CT/MT's 1 month.

This change has had several fundamental changes in how players (and NPC's)
must operate in the game universe.

1: Frontier refuelling is now often several WEEKS of travel by thruster,
most of which is now coasting time. It used to be constant thrust, and it
dook mere days to get from a mainworld to a GG. For example, in the
Terra/Sol system, a 2G craft could get to jupiter in about 4-6 days travel
from earth; under TNE it takes upwards of 2 weeks due to fuel limits.

2: Frontier refuelling is now more hazardous. Most ships trying it are low
on reaction mass anyway. Having the limited fuel is a double pain, as if
you fail now, there is no "burn up and try again"; it has become do or die.

3: In system trade needs J-1 drives to be practical for any but the most
desperate systems; the time-related costs (LS, Food, Crew Pay, mortgage
payments, taxes) overwhelm the value of trade in system.

4: Mining of Planetoid/Asteroid belts is now far less practical; travel
times within the belt now point towards using J-drives more for in system
travel, and belts require lots of it. As miners have always been portrayed
as being on a boom-bust cycle, minersa now cannot afford the thrust that
they had free under CT/MT; their loiter time is greater, but their ability
to maneuver is severly cut. And thus so are their profits.

5: travel to jump and in from jump is now somewhat longer, thus longer
turn-around times.

6: With CG, Streamlining is no longer needed at all; the Zepplin effect,
while it slows the thing down, is quite doable, and much more practical
than atmospheric powered flight for space vessels.


-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ANWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html



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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 00:40:33 -0900
From: anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Task Systems
Message-ID: <v01530501ad3ccd0bb1cf@[137.229.100.57]>

>1. Starship Combat : Brilliant Lances and Battle Riders are vastly
>superior to anything in the CT/MT eras. Whatever system we get, can we
>please keep BL/BR. Obviously they aren't perfect, but don't throw the
>baby out with the bath water.
>2. Skills and Tasks : Megatraveller's task rules were written to be
>incomprehensible. Could we have the Digest Group CT/MT task system
>(where simple means simple, routine routine, et cetera, rather than the
>completely random TTNE task system) written in plain english (or even in
>plain murkin). However, there ought to be a thorough clean up. MT had
>too many skills - perhaps the TTNE cascade idea could be profitably
>introduced. The substitution of one skill for another (e.g. Liaison for
>Streetwise) should be cleaned up or removed as in TTNE.

Having just done a quick look-through of the DGP Task System for CT, it IS
the MT task system. No significant differences. (Page 2 of Grand Census) MT
had it spread out more, but it was the same system.

And it was always easy enough to just drop the time increment bit
completely, thus streamlining tasks quite a bit.

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ANWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html



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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 03:12:28 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, gdw-beta@qrc.com
Subject: FF&S Light
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960206101228.00689d20@lynx.csn.net>

        I've posted on my Web Page a beginning of what I'd like to see Fire,
Fusion and Steel Light looking like. I've only gotten the first part
completed: pick a hull, add armor, pick a maneuver drive, pick a jump drive,
and pick an electronics package. Please check it out, critique it and let me
know what you think. Especially those who are yearning for a more simplified
design system -- this one keeps full compatibility with FF&S so you can use
any design.

        http:/www.whip.com/~goldendj/traveller/Admiralty/FFSLight/FFSLight.html

Thanks!
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

  "Faith is not belief without knowledge.
   Faith is trust without reservation." -- unknown


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 03:19:11 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <01I0VL3C2UZM95T6Z9@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  4-FEB-1996 13:19:56.76
To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 14:55:02 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

In Reply to Your Message of Sun, 04 Feb 1996 13: 50:34 EST
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 14:54:40 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Well I don't see any reason to pretend that support well be there for TNE
: when I don't believe it will.
: Do you really think MM has the resources to put out 3 quality sourcebooks
: plus the new rules set, all at once? I don't.

 But you have never said that you don't think TNE will not be
 supproted.  You have said that you don't want TNE to be supported.
 Please don't go back on your original argument now.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Spare me. It's typical that you would want things to stay frozen.
I've already stated that, to me, putting the TNE setting lower in
priority than the CT ot MT one is equivalent to no support so please
try to pay closer attention.
=================

 As for MM's resources, we don't know what resources he has available.
 The argument isn't one about viability, it's about your attitude to do
 to other players what GDW did to you.  Pardon me if I tend to find
 that hypocritical.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well the feeling is quite mutual. If the TNE setting was viable then
GDW would still be around. But it failed & it's time to get back to
what was successful. Your impractical, "let's support *everything*
with limited resources", strike me as somewhat hyposcritical inasmuchas
*that* would be the fastest way to put Traveller under for good. That
doesn't sound like "supporting traveller" to me.
===============================================

: I believe I said Traveller should get back to where it was successful.
: Funny how that seems to have agitated you so much. But, ok, if it'll
: make you happy, then I'll change it to; Traveller should get back to
: the CT background where it had so much success. If there are enough
: resources to spare, which I don't believe for one second, then MT &
: lastly TNE could be supported.

No, I believe that you said that TNE should be axed completely.  I
believe you said that there were a ton of reasons that you prefered CT
over TNE and that's what made you judgement okay.  If I thought you
were making a logical argument originally, do think I would keep
flooding people's mailboxes with our trite?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 Now. Now. How in the world could have missed so much of what I posted?
 Do you seriously mean to say that you never saw any text from me con-
 cerning getting back to what worked? Really?

: Really pisses you off to see someone stand up for CT doesn't it?
: You'd have MM support all three even if it risks putting Traveller
: under for good. Either that or you must think MM is independently
: wealthy or has loads of venture capital beating down his door.
: Fragmenting the initial effort will ensure a disaster. GDW made
: their decisions based upon financial constraints the same constraints
: MM faces. Problem was, they screwed up royal whne they decided what to
: produce, squandered their limited capital & went under. I don't want to
: see the same thing happen again. Forget about initially trying to support
: everyone/everything. That can come later, although I don't believe that
: Traveller will ever get that strong again, if it ever was.

 No, it doesn't bother me to see someone stand up for CT.  I truly
 believe that people should play and stand by whatever version they
 like the best.  What bother's me is your poor attitude.  You would
 rather have Traveller pander to you and leave others in the cold
 rather than even think of making as broad an audience as possible
 happy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So I'm standing by CT. And you're upset. I also find it strange that
I didn't see you jumping up in protest when all those "if you want support
than provide it itself" msgs came out when myself or anyone else expressed
a desire to see more than TNE stuff before GDW went under. Maybe time for
the 'H' word again?

So you can't accept that there won't be enough money to support everything.
Fine. Just don't expect me to buy into it.
======================

 You want to talk about resources and capital.  That's real easy.  If
 Traveller comes out in any form reminicent of ANY previous release, it
 will be dead with the initial rulebook.  Why?  There is one hell of a
 stigmata that hangs over the Traveller line.  Shops are weary to carry
 it and players don't think that it compares to today's games.  Look at
 the top selling sci-fi games of today.  Star Wars, Battlelords of the
 23rd Century and Battletech.  Traveller has nothing in common with any
 of them while they all have that space opera feel to them.  Go to a
 gaming shop and ask people why they would rather spend their money on
 these products than anything that ever carried the Traveller moniker.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If it's not "reminescent" of earlier versions then it won't be "Traveller"
any more than '2300AD' was. Which means in name only. This is what you
call a desire to support Traveller? The stigmata that Trav carries is
carried by the name. Stores will be reluctant to carry it no matter what.
Your strategy will just repeat GDW's previous mistakes. They've already
tried it, twice, & it failed both times. I said I wanted "Traveller",
not something "that has nothing in common" with it but the name. It may
as well just be dead it that case.
==================================

 The fact is that your version of Traveller will only appease those of
 us (and yes, I am part of that us) that GDW angered and left high and
 dry.  We are not enough of a market to support Traveller.  Players
 today are looking for different things in their games.  Look at AD&D
 with it's multiple game worlds and settings.  Look at all the
 "Universal Systems" out there.  Gamers nowadays don't want to be
 locked in to anything in specific.  They want generality.  They want a
 sourcebook a month.  They want variability.  Plain and simple.  Your
 vision of Traveller does not give them that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You statement about "not enough of a market", is just speculation.
All we know for sure is that CT had enough of a market while MT had
less & TNE didn't for sure. Which one sounds to you like it has the best
chance of reviving Trav? "A sourcebook a month"! That's never going
to happen. You must think MM is independently wealthy or somesuch.
Forget it. It's never going to happen. We'll be lucky to see one era
supported adequately & that doesn't mean a sourcebook a month. Maybe
every 6 months. Maybe.
======================

You want financial logistics.  Fine here goes.  MM needs to create the
games and find a publisher for them.  He will not be producing them
himself.  At least that's what he's said.  So, whoever is going to
publish them is going to have to be willing to support them.  All the
material for the new version does not need to come from MM.  Remember
the heyday of Traveller when great companies made great supplements
for the game?  That's a very viable solution to this problem.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
With the "stigmata", as you put it, that Trav carries I don't see this
happening except on a limited shoestring basis. Too much risk. Remember
what DGP said about producing license work before they dumped MT? It
was a mistake all right but such reasoning isn't uncommon. And then you
still have the "trashy license productions" syndrome that has been re-
cently been posted in this thread. That's yet another stigmata.
===============================================================

You shouldn't be so worried about which version of Traveller all of us
here have panned and all of us have raved about.  You should be
worried about the new markets that need to be tapped that won't be if
we create yet another closed version of a game where all of the good
source material that is necessary to the story-line is over 15 years
out of print.  No one new will buy into that version of Traveller.

       --Jerry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You need to drop your grandiose dreams of a resurgent Traveller that
will exceed even it's own Golden Years. It's not gonna' happen. The
time for that is long past. GDW tried your "new markets" scheme twice
& it failed, twice. This strategy will only bury it for good. Traveller
needs to go back to what worked for it previosly & then build from there.
Otherwise it may just as well be, "Traveller - AD&D", "Traveller - The
Clans", or something else that wouldn't be Traveller at all.

Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 08:09:05 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Task Systems
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960206130905.00714964@TanSoft.com>

At 04:35 AM 2/6/96 -0500, Wil Hostman wrote after someone else wrote:
>>1. Starship Combat : Brilliant Lances and Battle Riders are vastly
>>superior to anything in the CT/MT eras. Whatever system we get, can we
>>please keep BL/BR. Obviously they aren't perfect, but don't throw the
>>baby out with the bath water.

Its good to have a BL/BR type space combat system, but there needs to be a
simple combat resolution that doesn't get into forms.  I would like to be
able to resolve a A2 Far Trader vs. Corsair combat in less than 5 minutes
from the start of the event until the finish.

>>2. Skills and Tasks : Megatraveller's task rules were written to be
>>incomprehensible. Could we have the Digest Group CT/MT task system
>
>Having just done a quick look-through of the DGP Task System for CT, it IS
>the MT task system. No significant differences. (Page 2 of Grand Census) MT
>had it spread out more, but it was the same system.

I felt the MT task system was quite easy to work with:
   3+ for an Easy Task
   7+ for an Average Task
  11+ for a Difficult Task
  15+ for a Formidable Task
  19+ for an Impossible Task (on 2d6 + DMs)

There was simple addition and a dice roll.  Compaired to TNE's Task System:

     (Skill + Stat + DMs) {*/} difficulty. on a D20 and then
       Compare the roll to the task value and to +- 10 for critical
       success or failure.

While Multiplication and Division are simple math functions they still are
more time consuming.  Don't get me wrong, the TNE task system is a workable
system, but it is more time demanding than the MT task system.  I didn't
care for the MT concept of Skill/5 as an additional DM on the roll as it
started to induce unnecessary math (as you stats started dropping due to
injury you had to recompute your DMs)

Rob
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 08:13:20 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960206131320.006fa0d0@TanSoft.com>

At 04:54 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Merrick wrote:
>Rob wrote:
>> I think that a FF&S type book would be great to have as long as it meets
>> three key criteria:
>>
>>     a) I don't have to use it and an alternate simple system is in place to
>>        create vehicals and ships.
>
>The first point is already true of FFS, you don't _have_ to use it :-)
>The second point is quite true.

Please point me to the TNE rules that lets me build or modify a starship
without using FF&S.  You are the second to say that I don't have to use
FF&S, but I don't see a way around it.  I can find no design squences for
vehicals except those in FF&S.

I hope I missed something.

Rob
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 08:49:54 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: T4 Wish List
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960206134954.0070fa80@TanSoft.com>

At 12:39 AM 2/6/96 -0500, Rob Prior wrote:
>- Possibly the best solution for combat is to provide some simple systems in
>the basic game with add-on games for more detail (rather like BL, BR, and
>Striker II did for TNE - although the personal combat was more detailed than
>strictly necessary, I thought).  Similarly, the basic ruleset could include
>the modular design sequence, with the detailed sequence being a separate
>product.  (I suspect this will basically be an economic decision - how best
>to package the system for maximum market penetration).

Hear! Hear!  That was the beauty of CT.  The core system was simple.  If you
were into resolving detailed combat, there was Stiker.  If you wanted to
resolve Fleet Actions there was High Guard (as well as an advanced design
sequence).  A given Ref could pick and choose which complexities to add to
his game without being forced into any one by itself.  This is something I
really want to see in the next version.  I don't want anyone to not have the
detail they want.  You want to have space combat with realistic movement, go
for it, just provide a way to do it in a simple "Bang! your dead" fashion as
well.

>>From a practical standpoint, I think the best thing we fans can do (other
>than buy the game), is to start writing adventure material.  If everyong on
>this list was to put together their favourite game (from any setting) as an
>Amber-Zone-length adventure then when T4 comes out there will be a reasonable
>supply of adventure material.  One of the reasons that D&D is so popular in
>high schools is not the rules, it's all the adventures TSR cranks out.  The
>kids can play D&D every lunchtime and never run out of published adventures -
>and they keep TSR in business!

We have over 500 unique addresses on the two lists.  If 10% were to produce
one Amber Zone, and another 10% were to produce a minor alien or other life
form, think of the detail we would add to the game.  But lets not stop
there.  The RICE papers were execellent, but only a few people contributed
them.  If everyone one the list just did one planet, we would completely
describe the Spinward Marches (or any other selected sector).

But why stop there?  Submit events from your game in a Traveller's News
Service style article.  Then every GM on this list would have little
tid-bits to fill out their game, and their tid-bits would fill out your
game.  Its called collabrative gaming.  We have the tools and the
Technology, but we don't use it.
Would it help to have a third list that was not for disucussion, but simply
for fan generated stuff (it certanly would make archiving it to ftp.mpgn.com
easier).

Hmmmmm.....
Rob
--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 17:10:50 +0200
From: Antti Lahtinen <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Zhodani and the Empress Wave
Message-ID: <199602061510.RAA16996@cs.tut.fi>

> The Rebel leader recovers an Ancient psi-amp device (or Grandfather
> drops it in her path), and fires off a psionic blast in the direction
> of incoming ships. A blast which continues to propagate rimward.......
>
> What does the wave do? Kill psions? Rob them of their powers? Who knows?

        In my core expedition campaign, Core Wars ends when the last
        remaining Khelda warlord hooks up an recovered Primordial psi
        amplifier to anti-matter battery, in desperate attempt to stop
        Zhodani retribution strike.

        The psi-amp is overloaded by AM-battery, and when it explodes it
        sends an energy wave that has similar effects as the Primordial
        psi-amp found in Shimmering City (See Knightfall, Shimmering City
        area 16, Nugget 5). The immediate effects of psi-amp is that the
        target's latent psionic powers will be temporarily awakened, and
        his psionic strength is permanently raised to 12.

        As in Knightfall, the target of psi-amp has strong psionic
        powers with no skill to control them. This means that he may
        accidentally kill other people or himself with random thought
        patterns. A strong psion with uncontrollable pyrokinetic powers
        can be extremely dangerous.

        The Empress Wave is likely to lose power as it travels towards
        rim, but its effects on Zhodani society will be devastating.
        As the Zhodani social status depends on psionic strength, and
        everyone (including nobles and proles) who survives the wave
        will have PSI-12, the whole basis of society will collapse.

        Of course, this effect will last only for one generation, but
        during this time, there will not be any real difference between
        nobles, intendants and proles.
---

        Antti Lahtinen    :     Justice is Only a Wish of a Weak
        al76188@cs.tut.fi :


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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 00:59:14 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 581
Message-ID: <199602061359.AAA28977@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

Subject: Re: Why Streamline Spaceships -it's not needed!

> Phillip McGregor writes:
>
> >Just an idea that came to me recently -why is there a requirement for
> >space-ships to be streamlined in all versions of Traveller if they wish to
> >make a planetary landing on a world with an atmosphere?
> >
> >Or, to be more accurate, as seems to be the case in all versions of
> >Traveller *except* TNE.
>
>    Wrong Phil.  Unstreamlined ships may not enter a planetary
> atmosphere greater than very thin even with contragrav.  In fact
> installing contragrav on your unstreamlined ship is a bit like installing
> screen doors on your submarine.  This is according to the rules (FF&S
> and Brilliant Lances) and not just well considered opinion.

Well, yes, on page #10 of FF&S, column #2, second paragraph it *does* say that
"unstreamlined hulls may do neither" ... i.e. neither skim gas giants as
streamlined hulls nor land on planets with an atmosphere as aerofoil hulls.

But my point is, *so what*?! There is information elsewhere that makes that
statement a nonsense. The two key points -

* F&S, pg. #16, Section #8: Atmospheric Speed = notes that spacecraft with
contragrav lifters (or Thruster Plates, which were canon for more than twice
as long as cg lifters) "may fly NOE" and that safe NOE speeds are limited by
avionics and their safe maximum speed ... but that even craft with no NOE
avionics may fly NOE at 40 kph.

Assuming that you accept this as canon - and, gee, Chadwick and Nilsen have
said it in FF&S, the "holy book", haven't they?! - then it makes it quite plain
that craft with Thruster Plates (CT/MTrav) and contragrav lifters (TNE) have
a "stall speed" of less than 40 kph!

Ergo, they do not need to be streamlined. There is *no* connection in FF&S
between streamlined/aerofoil hullforms and contragrav lifters/thruster plates.
Perhaps there *should* have been ... perhaps *you* will insist *non-canonical*
changes that make such a link. Fine. OK. I can live with it. But on purely
logical grounds, *based on what is actually SAID in FF&S*, the statement that
USL hulls cannot enter an atmosphere is obviously untenable. *Completely*
untenable.

Even the smart alec argument of the last digest to the effect that, so it was
implied, I was an idiot and had not even read FF&S, because it was obvious
that the lack of control a USL ship would have over thrust even on cg-lifters
would be enough to bring disaster is not valid *at all*. If a ship *with no
avionics at all* can do 40 kph in NOE, there seems no obvious (or possible)
justification for saying that a USL ship with cg lifters would lack such
control!!! This may be against everything that the designers intended, and it
seems fairly obvious that it is, but so what? *They* left the loophole, *I'm*
just pointing it out.

(NB - This is a perfect example of my comment that it is a *bad thing* to do
what FF&S and MTrav did with Starship design {or *anything* design} - and use
real world values and attempt logical explanations. We are not talking about
"real worlcd" science in Traveller, so attempting to give real world type
explanations of how it works is going to inevitably lead to just these sorts
of problems. It's simpler to say simply that, cg lifters or thruster plates,
USL ships simply can't re-enter atmospheres. I could buy that. But give the
detail MTrav and FF&S does, and I'll rip the guts out of any inconsistency.

2) FF&S, pg. #75, Chapter #10: Lifters / Contra Grav = It is noted here that
CG lifters are the standard for the TNE "Imperial Space" campaign, and thus,
it is implied, not relevant to USL craft. However, note that it points that
they are used by grav vehicles! And, right from way back, air rafts (forex)
have always been listed as being capable of making orbit! And they are not all
aerofoils!

It also notes how CG lifters work - and there is no indication that they have
any stability problems. There is, in fact, a note that they can allow vessels
to float in dense atmsopheres! Even with what I regard as non-canon newcomers
in the way of HePlaR drive, there is (when noting the information re NOE speed
above) no way that you can *not* allow USL craft to re-enter at low speeds
quite safely.

3) As for the "hard science" justification of all this, well I commend to you
the quite reasonable "Torch of Honor" by Roger Macbride Allen (reprinted in
"Allies and Enemies", Baen PB, June 95) where he explains how such a thing
could be achieved with even "harder" science than Traveller.

As a final note ... I may have weird ideas, but never assume that I don't
know the rules that I'm talking about. I really object to people who obviously
haven't bothered to read everything that I said commenting on it and talking
down to me as if I am their idiot brother when it is obvious that *they* have
not read fully what the rules actually say. Not what they *wish* they would
say, or what they would *like* them to say, but what they *actually* say. In
this case, it's obvious that *logically*, *based on what we are told in FF&S*
there is *NO REASON* why USL ships cannot have cg lifters and why they cannot
re-enter atmospheres.

>    As an exercise in logic, truly unstreamlined ships are built in orbit,
> and take advantage of the airless, near zero-G environment to build
> structures that would otherwise not be possible planetside.  Determining
> whether or not your particular unstreamlined ship could *actually* hold up
> to the stresses involved in making a soft landing would required the use
> of a *really* good calculator, a knowledge of Physics and Engineering
> that most Traveller players do not possess, and a series of formulas
> that will cause the Liberal Arts majors among us to have math anxiety
> seizures.  Not to tell you your business, but don't you have better things
> to do?  I know I have.  But what the hell, knock yourself out.  In the
> meantime, the rule is still the rule.

As an exercise in logic, consider this. We have a USL vessel, built in orbit,
with 6G Maneuver drives. Are you seriously telling me that it is going to be
less structurally sound than one built on a planetary surface? The forces
acting on it when it makes those 6G burns (if using HePlaR) in space are going
to be the same! We are not talking about stupid ion drive ships where such a
factor is important. We are talking about *real spaceships* here.

Even a ship capable of only 1G burns has to be constructed to higher tolerances
because under some circumstances to vector changes (say in a slingshot around
a planet or gas giant - or even the sun) may be greater than 1G. Tidal stresses
also need to be taken into account in some areas, I suspect.

You might also note, if you bothered to read FF&S, that all hulls are (to start
with) constructed from 1cm thick hull plates (yep, see pg. #12, Hull Form &
Configuration, under MVM note ... "volume of 1cm thick hull plating for a hull
of corresponding mass and configuration"). You might also note that this table
points out *quite* specifically that an airframe hull types increase the hull
*shell* material volume for a given hull type, but *not* the *INTERNAL
STRUCTURE*. Also note that the MVM note specifically states that the volume
indicated is to determine a hull internal structure stressed to 1G! Get your
facts right.

Seriously, if the USL ship can make 6G then it can certainly land at low speeds
on a 1G standard imperial sort of planet. *That's* an "exercise in logic". And,
yes, I *had* thought through all of your objections ... better than you have,
so it seems. I would suggest that if you're going to be a smart alec that you
at least get some semblance of logic working for you.

> As for the rest of your analysis, mildly interesting, but irrelevant.

As for your comments, it would have been nice if you'd actually *read* the
relevant sections of FF&S before putting pen to paper, or foot in mouth. (I
apologise to some degree here, the guy with the smart alec comments yesterday
really annoyed me and you're getting his share of the blast as well).

Look, believe anything you want ... discount what it says in FF&S if it is
contradictory to what you want. Doesn't worry me! But do *not* assume that
I have written some ill thought through garbage ... the facts are there, and
they support my position, not yours! Sorry.

Phil McGregor


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 582
***************************
