From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"    1-JUN-1994 21:06 *  1-JUN-1994 21:06:00.00
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7816-7833 V45#17

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HD1ILMJ97K9201VP@delphi.com>; Wed, 1 Jun 1994 21:05:51 EDT
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 1994 21:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7816-7833 V45#17
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406020102.AA03656@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun  1 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed Jun  1 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 45 : Issue 17

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 623  7816 28-May-1994 J Roberson       TechnoEconomics << >I *get* the *econom
 623  7817 29-May-1994 James Kundert    MISC: Arguments & Cards << Hmmm,
 623  7818 30-May-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Vargr and Junidy << One quick comment:
 623  7819 30-May-1994 Steven M Bonnev  FFS: K'kree Lose Starflight << More tro
 623  7820 30-May-1994 "Upton, Django"  Mass Driver Range << A while back someo
 623  7821 30-May-1994 Edward Swatsche  re: Battle of the Fleets << Grant Sincl
 623  7822 30-May-1994 "Les Howie"      The Fleet Size Thing << The recent clai
 623  7823 30-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re:A few infantry weapons << Below are 
 623  7824 30-May-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  Sword World bickering :) << >  you star
 624  7825 30-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re:TW 2000 : TNE << In Reply to John Ba
 624  7826 31-May-1994 langsl@cbr.hhcs  Definitions... <<                   I N
 624  7827 30-May-1994 john.bogan@asb.  REGINA TL << Hans writes:
 624  7828 28-May-1994 David Johnson    TNE: More Regency Political Blocs << Ge
 624  7829 31-May-1994 Arthur Green     Re: FFS: K'kree Lose Starflight << > Bu
 624  7830 30-May-1994 Stewart Eyres    Gvurrdon << Hi there
 624  7831 31-May-1994 L.T.Bryant       Twilight to TNE <<  
 624  7832 31-May-1994 L.T.Bryant       2300 to TNE <<  After  a  hard  week  e
 624  7833 31-May-1994 "KMCCARTHY"      FFS Excel Slug Weapon Sprea <<         

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

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

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

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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7816
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 23:00:51 -0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: TechnoEconomics

>I *get* the *economic* fluctuation, what I don't get is how *technological*
>ability gets tied to it!

Try this: The knowledge exists, but is still very expensive. An example
might be our very own space program. How many projects have been cancelled
or postponed because of budget constraints? (With the number of NASA people
on the list I'm sure I'll get an answer ;)

Money funds research. Research advances Technology. Therefore, economic
fluctuations will affect the development of technology.

As has been pointed out, in a severe economic slump, technology can decline
(We can by 10 TL10 ships for the price of 2 TL11 ships? Let's go retro!)
because of reduced demand. WHile only a severe catastrophe can reduce a
world's TL significantly, it can be stalled and degenerated by economics.

A final note: If you've  played Sid Meier's Civilization game, or games
similar toit, you know that economics plays a big part in your
technological advancement. Sure, you may know how to build the Hoover Dam,
but how long will it take to save enough money to build it? To be sure,
Civilation isn't the most precise model of population advancement, but it
is based on principles that hold through today and tomorrow.


Creativity over Originality.
Consistency is a Flaw.
J Roberson      RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu        Priss@io.com





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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7817
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 21:49:48 PDT
From: James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
Subject: MISC: Arguments & Cards

Hmmm,
  Looks like the "Economic/Technologic Cycles" argument has replaced
its parent topic ("What about the Sword Worlds?") which IN TURN
replaced "Shall Not Perish."  It has also somehow spilled over into
the Fleet Size argument.  It is now a "permanent floating argument,"
and has come close to choking out the TMLs Nightly Bundle size
limit with A SINGLE MESSAGE!
  All I ask is that the participants start editing in a more
ruthless fashion, so that the Nightly doesn't spill into two
Bundles _just_ for the argument's sake.

 That said, I'll move on...

 I saw an advertisement last week for the newest line
of artist trading cards.  This particular set is of Wayne Barlowe's
work.  He did "Barlowe's Guide to Extraterrestrials", "Expedition"
and a number of other things.
  I see this set as being great for props and visual aids ("The
alien coming toward you looks like _this_.").  I've found isolated
cards from other sets that serve as well (like a card of the cover
of Hightower's "Alien Blues", and the Star Wars card with a really
early AT-AT concept drawing), but the Barlowe set looks to have a
higher occurence of useful pictures.  I'll post a further report when
I actually get hold of some.

James Kundert <j.kundert@genie.geis.com>
              <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was much faster, much faster than Light.
She departed one day in a relative way,
And returned on the previous Night.
   --Albert & the Heart of Gold

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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7818
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 01:27:54 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Vargr and Junidy


One quick comment:

Most of the Rebellion-era discussion I've heard about the improbability
of Regency losses has been focused on Glisten and the Aorlakht.  But
according to David Johnson's list from a few days back, an equally
silly example is the Vargr conquest of Junidy.  It may be nominally
only tech-9, but it has 28 billion people and an Imperial Naval base
and IISS Way Station, and a Vargr trading station.  The only possible
excuse would be for the native Llellwyloly to go over whole heartedly
to the Vargr, and somehow this seems unlikely....

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

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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7819
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 01:29:18 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: FFS: K'kree Lose Starflight

More troubles on the FF&S/BL front:

Lately I decided to try to check out the boundaries of the starship design
rules by building a K'kree Xeekr'kir! (Imperial designation "Merchant").
Obviously, FF&S/BL is meant for Imperial ships only.  However, the only
main differences were in accommodations, airlocks, and a few other details
of ship design which were easily converted from CT rules.  (The changes
can roughly be summed up that the K'kree require twelve times the space
Humans do for movement and living.)

The trouble came when I started calculating crew sizes.  K'kree usually 
travel in herds -- besides working crew, accommodations need to be set aside
for wives, bodyguards, advisors, and so on.  Between this and their space
requirements, they needed 5000+ ton ships in CT.  This allowed, in CT, a
primary crew of ten or so, and about sixty or seventy family members, some
of whom also had shipboard duties of various types.  The ship I designed
had jump-2, one gee drives.

But crew requirements have exploded in TNE.  This 6000 ton ship required 
some 4 engineers for the drives in CT/MT.  In TNE, my preliminary and now
abandoned calculations indicate a requirement of some 64 engineers.  This 
effectively closes out K'kree star travel on this size class of ship.  My
quick estimates suggest that the K'kree may now require starships in the
battleship size class under TNE rules (100,000+ tons).

It looks like this rule change effectively closes out the K'kree as a 
starfaring power.  It is now extremely difficult for K'kree herds to 
move about at all like they did in CT.

Now, I don't know what the justification for the increases in crew size are
in TNE.  If it's a reaction to the *#@$ virus, they neither say so anywhere
nor provide alternative crew calculations for non-Virus campaigns.  Any
input or comments on this business?

Furthermore, this sort of thing sharply limits the size of the ships that
human adventuring crews can run with the party.  And warships of significant
size will have truly stupendous crew requirements.

Somebody asked recently why so many old-time "classic" Traveller players
are complaining about the rules changes, because they'd never seen AD&D
players react like this when AD&D Second Edition came out.  Well, my friend,
that's because TSR didn't do something that at times I could describe with a 
pungent four-letter Anglo-Saxon word to the rules.  Right now is one of those
times, but I'm restraining myself.  AD&D 2nd Ed. *is* AD&D.  TNE isn't quite 
old Traveller.  So some of us who played for a long time with the old rules
get upset sometimes when things we think had better work don't, again.  It 
doesn't happen so much over there, I hear.

  Frustrated Starship Architect,

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


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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7820
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
Subject: Mass Driver Range
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 17:34:00 EST


A while back someone wanted a better direct fire range formula for mass 
drivers.
The following is one I worked out:
                      r          (  3.858*10^-6*Muzzle Vel     )
Short range (m) =------------- ln( ------------------------ +1 )
                  1.286*10^-5    (            r                )
r is in cm, muzzle vel is in m/s.
Send me a message if you want to know how I derived it!
Or if you don't want to use the natural log button on your calculator (or 
spreadsheet) a very rough fix is to use 0.25 instead of 0.015 in GDW's 
formula.

For indirect fire use 0.01 instead of GDW's 0.004.

I've noticed a lot of High Guard designs appearing recently so hear goes 
with one of my favorites:

Empire class battle carrier

CB-V7414J4-000700-70005-T  MCr 213552.2  655250tons
Batteries         1   1                       TL=15
Batteries bearing 1   1                   Crew=3049
Marines=655 Fuel=288310 EP=26210 Agility=1
Carries 27 Vanguard class battleriders

Vanguard class battlerider

BR-K106KJ3-E49909-452N9-0  MCr 9886.6  10600tons
Batteries   6   1 62216                    TL=15
Batteries B.6   1 62216                 Crew=148
Marines=11 Low=74 Fuel=2014 EP=2014 Agility=6
Scoops & Purification, Frozen Watch
Backups: Meson Screen-9, Nuclear Damper-9,Computer-9fib

The first 2 Empire class carrying the first 54 Vanguards constituted a true 
"Trillion Credit Squadron".

About the ongoing TCS v's FFW debate, the thing to remember is that the TCS 
budget is based on the taxes paid by the average Imperial citizen that is 
devoted to the upkeep of the Imperial navy. Just what the average citizen of 
the Imperium actually is can only be determined by adding up the 
population*TL of every world and dividing by the population of the Imperium. 
I'm not going to do that but I think that the average citizen probably lives 
on a TL 10-11 world with a class C starport. Thus by the time the money gets 
spent building and maintaining ships on TL14-15 worlds with class A 
starports its only worth half as much. Once you take into account the amount 
of money diverted to run the bureaucracy and R&D,( to keep ahead of the 
Zho's etc. Just think of the amounts of money spent by the likes of Lockheed 
to not build aircraft :-)), you have probably Halved the money again! Then 
take out the money required for expendables ( try adding up the cost of all 
those nukes) and your not left with all that much to buy ships with!

Stay tuned for "The Compleat FF&S Errata" or "Why didn't they get someone to 
proofread the bloody thing"

 -Django

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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7821
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 03:09:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: Battle of the Fleets
From: Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca (Edward Swatschek)

Grant Sinclair <grant@cleese.apana.org.au> wrote:

> To further explain the apparent inconsistency, there is the maintenance
> overhead aspect of the TCS rules (10% for operational ships and 1% for
> ships in ordinary). Both the economics of shipbuilding and published
> sources surely show that there would be many ships in ordinary.  I have
> not seen this taken into account in some of the discussions.
> (Incidentally, does anyone know why these are so high? Operational
> civilian ships only need 0.1%).

   The 0.1% for civilian ships is just for annual maintenance.  The TCS 10%
is supposed to cover everything - personnel, bases, supplies etc.  Today,
the initial cost of the hardware is one of the smaller parts of of the
budget.


> Anyway, if you take Glisten as an example, it has an annual military
> budget of about TCr4.  Even if it had the biggest yards in the galaxy, it
> could still only build TCr40 worth of operational ships, as maintenance
> of these would soak up the entire military budget.  In Fighting Ships of
> the Shattered Imperium (which I know is not the best source of designs in
> the world, but it is official), TCr40 doesn't buy all that many _big_
> ships; Battleships and Dreadnoughts are commonly TCr1 or more.

   Ships cost about 1 MCr per ton.  If you spend half the budget on 200 000
ton ships, you get about 100 with that TCr40.

   Ignore FSotSI - many of them break the rules regarding maximum armour,
which inflates the ship cost dramatically.  For example, the BH-15 (armour
120G) masses over 30 tonnes per kL.  Not too shabby considering superdense
is only 15 t/kL.  Almost all its TCr17 is based on that impossible hull.


- --
               Edjs                    _
              ------                _ //  CI$  : 76427,662
   Edward_Swatschek@mindlink.bc.ca  \X/   GEnie: E.SWATSCHEK


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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7822
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 09:25:13 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: The Fleet Size Thing

The recent claim that TCS-based fleet construction capabilities are
irreconcilable with 5FW based imperial forces ignores two factors:

1. The imperium may simply choose not to spend as much as it could upon
   military forces, choosing to apply its budget to other priorities.  
   Having constructed a fleet adequate to defend the imperium from its
   enemies, the imperium follows other priorities (social progarms?  Graft 
   and corrumption?  reallt great parties?).

2. The frontier war happens in a small corner of a huge empire.  Larger forces
   may deployed against greater threats, or as a part of core imperial
   politics.

just my 2ccr.  

Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7823
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 18:48:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re:A few infantry weapons

Below are a couple of weapons in use in my campaign subsector.  The 
operational TL is about 11 and that is reflected in the types of weapons 
in use.  There are also other considerations mainly reflected by each 
weapon.  Before the listings however I should point out that I reduce 
weapon wt by 2% for every TL above 6.  It makes sense that weapons should 
get lighter right?  If you dont like this then increase the listed mass 
by 2% for every TL above 6.

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
UP Marines  TL 9-Ellat 9mm Assault Rifle

The Ellat is designed to provide forces with a high lethality relatively 
compact weapon of significant stopping power.  It fires caseless ammo and 
is NOT ETC for reliability purposes.  It is on the lower end of the tech 
spread for UP forces and is in the process of being replaced by the 7mm 
Advanced Rifle.  However it is still found in some units and is a 
favorite of militias and mercanaries despite its poor range.

Round:  9mm Caseless Necked
Dia 9mm         17.8 g/rd 
Lcc 28mm        0.35 cr/rd (ball)
Lan 46mm        0.70 cr/rd (heap)
Ea=3705 J

Weapon:
Bla=45.7cm      Bl=40 cm  Mass=0.8 kg           Price   160 Cr
Rcvr Lt,Sel     Rl=27 cm  Mass=3.7 kg           Price   926 Cr
Bullpup Stock   Sl=5 cm   Mass=0.1 kg           Price    10 Cr
SA Stock                  Mass=0.2 kg           Price    75 Cr
                                                Total   1171 Cr

Muzzle Energy = 3705 * (0.94) = 3483 J
Range Calculation
Base Sr=

Magazine(20rd)  Empty     Mass=0.25 kg          Price    2.5 Cr
                Loaded    Mass=0.60 kg

Weapon Loaded Mass 5.4 kg * (0.94) = 5.08 kg = 5.1kg
Overall Length  72 cm Bulk=4

9mm Assault Rifle
                                          Recoil
Round           ROF     Dam     Pen     SS      Burst   Range
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
9mm (Ball)     SA/5      4     2-3-N    3        7       60
9mm (DS)       SA/5      4     1-2-3-N  3        7       72
9mm (Heap)     SA/5      5     2-2-2    3        7       45
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================================

Accurized 9mm Sniper Rifle TL 10
The only thing that this rifle has in common with the 9mm Assault rifle 
is that is uses the same round.  It has a different reciever, a different 
stock and barrell.  In addition it is accurized and optically sighted.  
It has a good range that should prove favorable to those sharpshooting PCs.

Round  9mm csls necked
Dia     9mm     17.8 g/rd
Lcc     28mm    0.35 cr/rd
Lan     46mm    0.70 cr/rd DS or Heap
Ea= 3705 J

Weapon
Bla=45.7 cm     Bl=65 cm        Mass=1.3 kg     Price 260 Cr
Rcvr Lt,Sel     Rl=24 cm        Mass=3.7 kg     Price 926 Cr
Stock Plastic   Sl=25 cm        Mass 0.5 kg     Price  30 Cr
Sa Stock                        Mass 0.2 kg     Price  75 Cr
Accurization                                    Price 300 Cr
Optics                          Mass 0.1 Kg     Price 150 Cr
Totals                          Mass 5.8 kg     Price 1741 Cr

Muzzle Energy = 3705 * ( 1.21) = 4490 J

Range Calculation
Base SR= 67 m * 1.3 * 1.32(BLM) = 115 m + 15m(Accurization) = 130m
With Optics  = 150 m

Magazine 10rd Box    0.1 kg Empty       0.284 Kg loaded

Weapon Loaded Mass 6.08 kg * (0.92) = 5.6 kg loaded                             
Overall Length 114 Cm  Bulk 7

9mm Accurized Sniper Rifle

Round           ROF     Dam     Pen     SS      Burst   Range
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
9mm (Ball)      SA/3     4      2-3-N    3       5      (130)150
9mm (DS)        SA/3     4     1-2-3-N   3       5      (156)180
9mm (Heap)      SA/3     5     2-2-2     3       5      (98) 112
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
The three round burst is an aimed 3-rd burst.  Roll D3 for number of hits 
after shot is resolved.  (Only slug rifle skill-3 or above)
Shorter range in parentheses is without optical sights.


As you can see this is a pretty good sniper rifle, I think that some of 
the things I have done are justified.  Any comments are welcome.

===========================================================================

Brack Stinger Machinepistol 5.6mm
The Brack Stinger is a small caliber TL 11 ETC pistol capable of fully 
automatic fire.  It is more a mini sub machine gun more than a pistol.  
However the ETC round still packs a punch.  It is manufactured by Brack 
on Arizona Dawn primarily for military personnel.  It is a favorite of 
the various investigative branches of the Unified Sphere Government.

Round  ETC Straight
Dia     5.6mm   4.18 g/rd
Lcc     22mm    0.17 cr/rd (ball)
Las     27.6mm  0.35 cr/rd Spclty
Ea=564 J

Weapon
Bla=10cm        Bl=12.5 cm      Mass=0.25 Kg    Price 50 Cr
Rcvr Lt,Sel     Rl=9.5 cm       Mass=0.582 Kg   Price 146 Cr
Holl Pist Grp                   Mass=0.1 Kg     Price 25 Cr

Totals                          Mass0.932 Kg    Price 221 Cr

Muzzle Energy = 564 * 1.13 = 637 J
Range: Base Sr = 25m * 0.4 * 1.19 = 12m

Magazine Pistol Grip with battery  21 rds Empty 0.325 Kg Loaded 0.414 kg
Weapon Loaded Mass= 0.932 + 0.414 = 1.35 kg   Clip Price 105 Cr

Optional Belt Battery Adaptor w/cable 150 Cr Good for 100 shots on each charge
Allows use of 25 Rd magazine.  
Overall Length = 22 cm  Bulk = 1

Brack 5.6mm "Stinger" ETC machinepistol  TL 11
Mass Loaded 1.35 Kg     Price 221 Cr    Bulk=1
                        Mag Price 105 Cr
Round           ROF     Dam     Pen     SS      Burst   Range   Mag
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
5.6mm ETC (b)   3       2       1-Nil    1       2       12      21
5.6mm ETC (ds)  3       2       1-2-N    1       2       14      21
5.6mm ETC(heap) 3       3       2-2-2    1       2        9      21
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Belt Battery Adaptor Gives Mag capacity of 25 rounds
Note this weapon cannot be legally owned by a civilian within the 
jurisdiction of the Unified Sphere.

==============================================================================

Well thats it for today from me

Tariq
Adio

"A strange man sire, he dwells in the past..or rather in a glorified 
perception of what the past was.  Such men in themselves are harmless, 
however he could prove extremely dangerous as the fool of someone else."



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

Bundle: 623
Archive-Message-Number: 7824
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 20:30:28 EDT
Subject: Sword World bickering :)

>  you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of
> the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful.

> Since then I've tried to defend the notion that the economic cycles
> are possible.

> I believe I've accepted that these cycles *might* exist and that if
> they do they would explain Gram's leadership of the Confederation.  My
> concern has been that I can't see what *causes* these techno-economic
> cycles (since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel) and
> that I don't see how they explain the tech level disparities.


Perhaps the fluctuations in the SWs TLs are due to a variety of internal
causes.  I'm not entirely sure I understand the feudal technocracy govt
but suppose it allows for a large amount of 'infighting' among the
junior levels of the technocracy on each world.

This may only take the form of buying out each other's economic assets
on up to sabotage of various forms and possibly assassination and
warfare.  Suppose every so often these small manueverings among the
technocrats build to a particularly large crescendo that results in a
large loss of the economic/industrial infrastructure with a
corresponding drop in TL.

Furthermore perhaps this postulated internecine rivalry may be more
prevalent on some worlds (such as Sacnoth) than on others (Gram) which
causes more of an introspective world-view and prevents Sacnoth from
gaining political control of the Sword World governing body despite a
higher level of technological achievement.  In fact it isn't all that
difficult to imagine, given such a scenario, that Gram may very well
sponsor various acts of espionage and intrigue just to ensure their
position and also to see that Sacnoth doesn't come to power.

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



PBJuzyk                             | 'Most plans don't even survive
Reading, PA                         |  contact with Reality'
Terra/Solomani Rim (1827 G867975-8) |   -Hammer Lanthrop, *Smash & Grab*


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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7825
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 21:12:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Reply-To: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re:TW 2000 : TNE

In Reply to John Banagan, yes TW 2000 weapons are compatible to TNE but 
not strictly.  However the divergence is small.  For one the Bulk ratings 
in TW 2000 are lower than they would be in TNE. Also beware that you have 
the corrected weapons stats from the TNE book.  Most weapons in the first 
TNE book are significantly underated.  There is an Errata booklet.  Some 
TW 2000 weapons are actually TL 8 (HK G11, FN-FAL).  The idea about the 
TL 12? force invading the TL 7 worlds is an interesting one.  Thats a 
pretty big TL spread but perhaps the fact that the higher TL force has to 
bring its stuff with it will provide some balance.  There are plenty of 
TL 7 weapons that could take out a TL 12 Grav tank.  

While Im on the subject..does anyone have any knowledge of or experience 
with a platoon level traveller combat scenario.  I have considered trying 
to adapt some traveller weapons to the Last Battle system(Sands of War) 
but the speed of grav tanks turns them into helicopter!  

Oops!  I would like to apologize for revealing my war gaming roots up 
there.  Im curious.. how would your PCs be involved in this invasion.  
Getting caught in the middle somehow?  Well  I guess Ive answered your 
question.  Ill just leave you with this

TL 8  120 mm Smoothbore 50 Caliber Gun  APFSDSDU will give a Pen rating 
about 160-170

TL 11 120 mm Smoothbore ETC Gun  APFSDSCI Pen Rating over 250

It should be an interesting invasion...Id like to keep this discussion 
going.. Lets call this the premise

The PCs are on this TL 7 world and presently 2000+ km from their ship 
(which is in contested territory anyway) and they are racing someone to 
get something and get back to the ship (if it hasnt been captured or 
destroyed)  This works best if the PCs had little or no warning about the 
invasion.  Hell...maybe us TMLers (or whats left of us) can write a 
module for me to use next time Im Refereeing.  Oh well.


Tariq, 
Adio

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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7826
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 09:56:09 +1000
From: langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Subject: Definitions...


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                      Date:  Sent on: 31-May-1994 09:57am
                                      From:  Alistair Langsford
                                             LANGSFORD ALISTAIR
                                      Dept:  Information Services
                                      Tel No:289 7870

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _traveller@engrg.uwo.ca )


Subject: Definitions...

    MY 2 CENTS ON FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY & THE SWORD WORLDS
    ---------------------------------------------------
    
         Reading Hans' and David's discussions on Sword Worlds government 
         prompted me to do some research. Here are my results.
    
    TECHNOCRACY:
    ------------
     n.  Organisation  and management of a county's industrial resources by 
         technical experts for the good of the whole community; Hence 
         technocrat, advocate of this.
    
         (from the Concise Oxford Dictionary)
    
    FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY:
    -------------------
    
         Government by specific individuals for those who agree to be 
         ruled. Relationships are based on the performance of technical 
         activities which are mutually beneficial.
    
         (from TNE, p188).
    
         This could be lots of things. However, it sounds like the feudal 
         system we all know from history/hollywood/fantasy role playing 
         could fit in with this. 
    
    CONCLUSION (IMO, of course 8-))
    ----------
    
         One possible interpretation of a Feudal technocracy comes from 
         combining what we understand by the terms Feudal and Technocracy. 
         
         The Feudal bit is in fact just like the Feudal system we know from 
         history, with for example a King and his vassal Nobles (Dukes, 
         Marquis, Counts, Barons, Knights) each of which has his/her own 
         vassals who comprise the remainder of the population (e.g. 
         Upperclass, Middleclass, and Lowerclass). And of course Nobles may 
         also have lesser ranking Nobles as vassals, depending on your 
         version of the Feudal system.
    
         Each Noble (including the King) has a staff (e.g. a council of 
         advisors supported by a  'civil service' or 'public service') to 
         assist in the administration of his domains. When it comes to 
         managing the industry within a noble's domain, the staff are 
         technical experts in that relevant technologies. This last is the 
         'technocracy' bit. The ruling classes believe in this method of 
         managing industry, which makes them technocrats. By analogy, the 
         practice would probably extend to the management of fields other 
         than those traditionally thought of as comprising 'industry'.
    
         To me the above description seems to fit the term 'Feudal 
         Technocracy' better than David Johnsons *kieretsu* (sp?) model. 
         I don't know enough about *kieretsu* to say whether or not they 
         also fit the description. To me they sound like a better model for 
         Corporate governments.
    
    So, what do people think? Comments welcome.
    
    --
    Alistair Langsford,
    langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au


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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7827
From: john.bogan@asb.com
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 09:50:02 
Subject: REGINA TL


Hans writes:

>So the question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in
> EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades? 

Well, we all know the REAL reason for that is that Regina was made out to be such
an important world in the Marches' affairs that having such a relatively low tech level
as 10 seemed a bit peculiar.  Even more, it's forward location and Tech-10 defenses
made it rather vulnerable to Zhodani attack, as 5FW players may know.

The solution was to tweak the TL upward slightly during the shift to MT.

I tend to regard the lower tech level as one of those "early Traveller inconsistencies",
like the major warship status of the Kinunir, and retroactively give it the
higher tech.

Otherwise, attribute the increase to the 5FW.  As a solution it has its problems,
but its the closest thing to a reasonable rationalization available.


John Bogan

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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7828
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 16:41:16 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: More Regency Political Blocs

Gentlesophonts:

Here's some additional material for *Shall Not Perish*, our TML Regency
sourcebook.

We've already identified the following political blocs for the Regency:

Isolationists want to maintain the Quarantine.
 -Led by the Duke/Duchess of Trin's Veil?
Expansionists want to move out into the Wilds.
 -Enjoys Instellarms backing.
Democrats seek to expand `democratic' values.
 -Led by the Duke/Duchess of Gazulin?
Aristocrats want to maintain the noble aristocracy.
 -Led by Duchess Elane of Mora
 -Possibly known as Muudashirists?
 -Enjoy much support among the House of Nobles
Tolerants favor a relaxation of psi prejudices.
 -Discretely supported by SuSAG.
Santanocheevists oppose any moves toward accommodation with the Zhodani.
 -Led by the Duke/Duchess of Rhylanor?
 -Enjoys Instellarms backing.
Imperialists still hope to one day resurrect the Old Imperium.
 -Led by the Duke/Duchess of Deneb?
 -Enjoys support from Tukera Lines.
Autnomists favor independence and a complete break from the Imperial past.

I'd like to propose two additional blocs:

Interventionists want the Regency to play a stronger role in the affairs
  of individual worlds.
 -Enjoys support among most megacorps.
Sovereigntists oppose efforts to limit the sovereignty of individual worlds.

Here's an updated `alliance' template:

     Iso  Exp  Dem  Ari  Tol  San  Imp  Aut  Int   Sov
Iso   -    x    ?    ?    ?    o    x    o    ?     ?
Exp   x    -    ?    ?    ?    o    o    o    ?     ?
Dem   ?    ?    -    x    o    ?    x    ?    ?     ?
Ari   ?    ?    x    -    ?    ?    o    ?    x     o
Tol   ?    ?    o    ?    -    x    x    ?    x     o
San   o    o    ?    ?    x    -    o    ?    ?     ?
Imp   x    o    x    o    x    o    -    x    x     o
Aut   o    o    ?    ?    ?    ?    x    -    ?     ?
Int   ?    ?    ?    x    x    ?    x    ?    -     x
Sov   ?    ?    ?    o    o    ?    o    ?    x     -

codes: o = favorable, x = opposed

Comments?  Other candidates?

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7829
From: Arthur Green <ARTHUR@cclana.ucd.ie>
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 09:29:53 +0100
Subject: Re: FFS: K'kree Lose Starflight

> Bundle: 623
> Archive-Message-Number: 7819
> Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 01:29:18 -0500
> From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
> Subject: FFS: K'kree Lose Starflight
> 
> More troubles on the FF&S/BL front:
> 
> Lately I decided to try to check out the boundaries of the starship design
> rules by building a K'kree Xeekr'kir! (Imperial designation "Merchant").
> Obviously, FF&S/BL is meant for Imperial ships only.  However, the only
> main differences were in accommodations, airlocks, and a few other details
> of ship design which were easily converted from CT rules.  (The changes
> can roughly be summed up that the K'kree require twelve times the space
> Humans do for movement and living.)
> 
> The trouble came when I started calculating crew sizes.  K'kree usually 
> travel in herds -- besides working crew, accommodations need to be set aside
> for wives, bodyguards, advisors, and so on.  Between this and their space
> requirements, they needed 5000+ ton ships in CT.  This allowed, in CT, a
> primary crew of ten or so, and about sixty or seventy family members, some
> of whom also had shipboard duties of various types.  The ship I designed
> had jump-2, one gee drives.
> 
> But crew requirements have exploded in TNE.  This 6000 ton ship required 
> some 4 engineers for the drives in CT/MT.  In TNE, my preliminary and now
> abandoned calculations indicate a requirement of some 64 engineers.  This 
> effectively closes out K'kree star travel on this size class of ship.  My
> quick estimates suggest that the K'kree may now require starships in the
> battleship size class under TNE rules (100,000+ tons).
> 
> Now, I don't know what the justification for the increases in crew size are
> in TNE.  If it's a reaction to the *#@$ virus, they neither say so anywhere
> nor provide alternative crew calculations for non-Virus campaigns.  Any
> input or comments on this business?
> 
From what I recall of TNE's spiel on starships, you now have lots of 
crew because you can't trust your computers any more (or maybe that's 
the inference I drew). It makes things kind of difficult for 
retro-designing old rules starships -- I bought FFS over the weekend 
and tried to redesign the Fiery class GE using FFS. I *think* I'm 
doing the design right but I still end up with a fast escort with less 
armour than the Gazelle and a measly 17 G-turns of thrust.

I think some tweaking of the engineering/maintenance numbers for crew 
sizes are in order. What I plan to do is compare the engineering crew
requirements in CT, TCS and MT and see how they look compared to 
TNE/FFS. If anyone's interested, I'll report back to the list. 

> Furthermore, this sort of thing sharply limits the size of the ships that
> human adventuring crews can run with the party.  And warships of significant
> size will have truly stupendous crew requirements.
> 
> Somebody asked recently why so many old-time "classic" Traveller players
> are complaining about the rules changes, because they'd never seen AD&D
> players react like this when AD&D Second Edition came out.  Well, my friend,
> that's because TSR didn't do something that at times I could describe with a 
> pungent four-letter Anglo-Saxon word to the rules.  Right now is one of those
> times, but I'm restraining myself.  AD&D 2nd Ed. *is* AD&D.  TNE isn't quite 
> old Traveller.  So some of us who played for a long time with the old rules
> get upset sometimes when things we think had better work don't, again.  It 
> doesn't happen so much over there, I hear.
> 
You said it. I've been playing Traveller since 1983 or so and I don't 
like the idea of using TNE rules for the Imperium. That said, I think 
the new rules are failry good (except for the personal damage rules, 
but I'm working on that :-). As a result, I'm working on a 
non-Imperial background at the moment which has been stalled somewhat 
due to getting FFS and discovering all those variant technologies ...

>   Frustrated Starship Architect,
> 
>   Steve Bonneville
>   <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>
> 

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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7830
Date: Mon, 30 May 1994 15:20:00 +0100 (BST)
From: Stewart Eyres <spe@jb.man.ac.uk>
Subject: Gvurrdon

Hi there

To whom ever was posting Gvurrdon Sector data on Sunbane:  Where did it go?!?

:-)

_____________________________________________________________________________
"Traveller Done Wrong 
        - Let's get the Fiction back into Science Fiction Roleplaying"

Stewart                                                         N.R.A.L.
                                                                Jodrell Bank
                                                                Macclesfield
spe@jb.man.ac.uk                                                Cheshire
                                                                SK11 9DL
____________________________________________________________________________


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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7831
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: Twilight to TNE
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 13:00:43 +0100 (BST)

 
>       In   reply   to  john`s  question   abought   transfering
> traveller  and twilight guns and equipment, I can see no  problem
> with  doing this as ive look through and they apper to  be  bouth
> the  same,  There is one small problem in that the costs  of  the
> items will need to be sorted but thats no problem.
>       Hope this helps,
>       Sincerly
> L Byant
> -- 
> oh rose thou art sick
>                the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL
> 
> 


- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7832
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: 2300 to TNE
Date: Tue, 31 May 1994 13:02:57 +0100 (BST)

 After  a  hard  week  end ive finished most  of  the  gauss  and
firearms from 2300 to TNE if any one wants them let me know so  i
can get them dumped to you. 
Bye again
L Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 624
Archive-Message-Number: 7833
Date: 31 May 1994 08:54:32 U
From: "KMCCARTHY" <KMCCARTHY@qmgate.osc.hq.nasa.gov>
Subject: FFS Excel Slug Weapon Sprea

                       Subject:                               Time:8:50 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          FFS Excel Slug Weapon Spreadsheet      Date:5/31/94
Pete,

I tried out you FFS Excel template for <2cm slug waepons.  While I liked it
ALOT there is one major error.  In the Design Evaluation Box the Burst Recoil
Calculation is not correct.  It only gives the Burst size not the recoil
calculation for a burst, which is what should be displayed there.

Please make the correction and email the TML and me when it is complete.

Thanks,

Kevin

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

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