To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #631: Msgs 7923-7929 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 22:00:03 EDT 1994
Reply-To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #631: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 631  7923 09-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Feudal technocracies << David John
 631  7924 09-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Jackie Fisher and Death Stars. << James
 631  7925 09-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       2300-TNE guns pt2 << Hi again all .
 631  7926 09-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       help << Would  some one please help me 
 631  7927 09-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Regency Naval Policy << djohnson@geds01
 631  7928 09-Jun-1994 "Ralph Ferneyho  FFS Miscellany << Right, I've been play
 631  7929 09-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Regency Military Thoughts << > From: dj

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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7923
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Feudal technocracies
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:13:55 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>Wait a minute!  This is the same `reasoning' UFO-nuts use to make claims
>about ET visitors.  It is the burden of any claimant to provide evidence
>of their claim.  Merely suggesting that your argument can't be disproved 
>does not make your point!

It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You asked for an explanation of
how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I 
suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are. Not 
necessarily likely (although I think they are, but then, as I've stated 
before, economics are mostly SF to me), but at least possible. Obviously, if 
I could come up with just one example, I would prove my point outright. But 
just because I can't dosen't mean it isn't possible. Now, if I were to claim 
that the lack of evidence to the contrary _proved_ anything, then I would be 
making a UFO-nutter type claim. But I'm only saying that the lack dosen't 
disprove anything. 

>>Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite
>>incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries
>>is not slow, it's moribund.
> 
>Okay, but who's feelings are competing with the factual record now?

What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
_Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3 (Before you decide
to dispute that, check the data. Despite the changes in alliegiance noted
in IE and MJ3 there are no changes in world population level or multiplier
(this based on a spot check of 40+ of the planets, including all the Vargr-
occupied ones in Aramis Subsector)). How can you establish any sort of
projection on that? So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and
steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the
centuries. We just can't tell from the record.

>>Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. 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?
> 
>I don't know but nothing about this slow rate of advancement calls out for
>your mysterious techno-economic cycles.  

The _discovery_ tech level of the Imperium have been one TL per three or
four centuries, hasen't it (I forget exactly; the discovery times of
Jump-4, -5, and -6 was mentioned somewhere once. I think it worked out 
at one per three centuries)? But we're talking about _developement_ TLs.
I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's
economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries
by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I
can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the 
centuries much more readily.

Hmmm. Perhaps I can restate my argument in a clearer way than I have done
before:

Assumtion: The only reason why an Imperial planet in 1105 is not TL 15 is
that it can't afford to be (I'm ignoring those few planets where there 
are legal, moral, or philosophical objections to advanced technology).
(This is the crucial assumption.)

A planet with TL A therefor has an economic condition we will call
Economic Level A. Should the planet advance from EL A, its technological
level will advance too (To, say, TL B). If the planet at any future date
becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its 
technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously 
cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had 
TL B in under EL A in the first place). Since economies do seem to have a 
tendency to fluctuate (vide the world as we know it), it seems plausible 
that it will do so in the Spinward Marches too.

>>Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological
>>advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra.
> 
>Not true.  Gorram Shipyards was an industrial fief, not a land fief.  There
>was also banking fief.  

It would be nice to have a few quotes. I skimmed _Space Viking_ last night
without findng any reference to either Gorram or Lothar Ffayle being barons,
but I did notice that while Traskon is a farming and ranching barony (hence
a land barony) Sesar Karvall is, indeed, baron of Karvallsmills, not of
Karvall. And there is a reference to the 'financial and industrial barons
of Wardshaven'. So, yes, Gram does have industrial fiefs.

>A feudal technocracy works similar to the feudal
>aristocracy we are more familiar with.  

That's the assumption I'm working from.

>The difference is that the medieval feudal arstocracy was tied to land 
>fiefs as you describe while a feudal technocracy is tied to industrial 
>and service fiefs that exist in `modern' society.

I agree completely.

>We all know these obligations were often ignored and `legitmacy' often
>fell to the most charismatic or otherwise powerful liege lord.  This is
>the whole basis of the Arturian legend.  Uther Pendragon lost his kingship
>as his vassals rebelled or refused to support him.  Arthur regained that
>kingship by uniting those vassals in the Fellowship of the Round Table.

I don't really think that a retelling of the doings of 5th century tribal
chiefs is all that useful as a basis of comparison. Though I suppose that
they do reflect how Mallory thought things worked.

>No.  A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
>industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity
>or `protection'.  

Then its not analogous to a feudal society. Let's get a few definitions
straight:

From "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (1974):

_feudal_: of the method of holding land (by giving services to the owner)
during the Middle Ages in Europe.

_fief_: land held from a feudal lord.

_vassal_: (in feudal times) person who held land in return for which he
wowed to give military service to the owner of the land.

And from "Funk&Wagnall's Standard Dictionary":

_feudalism_ The medieval European system of land tenure on condition of
military aid and other services.

_feudal system_: A politico-economic system [...] founded on the tenure
of feuds, or fiefs, given as compensation for military services rendered 
by chiefs and by them sublet by allotments to their subordinates and vassals.

_feud[2]_: Land held of a superior on condition of rendering service; a fief.

>in a feudal technocracy like the *kieritsu*, the owners of industrial
>production pledge their economic support (i.e. cooperation) to a central
>authority which cooridinates the efforts of various industrial and service
>sectors towards the perceived common good, namely profits.  This is a 
>voluntary arrangement where the individual corporate entities may or may not
>choose to continue to cooperate.  Just as feudal barons might choose to
>no longer support their liege and often did just that when they perceived
>an advantage for themselves.

The feudal baron held his lands on condition that he supported his liege
lord. Many broke their oaths on occasion, but that was in defiance of the
law. (The only valid excuse was winning).

>>Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal
>>technocracy? What's the difference?
> 
>In a corporate government there are a single group of shareholders as
>represented by the corporate board of directors.  This board acts in essence
>as a single entity.  

And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel
and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the
board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord?
And all the shareholders are always in accord too?

>In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
>and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
>as *separate* and distinct entities.

Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in
a corporation?

>I don't think it's appropriate at all to discuss a corporate model
>here.  A corporate government is a specialized form of an autocracy.  

I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of
a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief.

>In a corporate model there is, in theory at least, no imput at all from those
>participating in the system.  You just do what the boss says or you're fired.

And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.

>>Traditional feudal society	Corporation		Feudal technocracy
>> 
>>King				     -			King
> 
>*ditto*                             *CEO*               *ditto*

If a corporate government, yes. Not if the corporation is a FT fief.

>>The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for
>>support from his vassals.
> 
>This isn't correct.  In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
>land. 

Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the
biggest lord around. He became king when he conquered the other lords
around him (in which case he came to own their land) or when the other 
independent lords decided to back him, in which case he did not own their
land... yet. But when he became strong enough, he made those formerly 
independent lords do homage for their own lands, thereby actually laying 
claim to it. Or he made war against a recalcitrant lord, acquired the land 
by conquest, and made the former owner or somebody else do homage for it. 
Check a history of medieval Europe for more detail.

>Rather the king supplies `coordinated services' (i.e. joint military
>protection) in return for `cooperation' from his vassals (i.e. local military
>forces and tax revenue).

Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back 
him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs.

>No, the king is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
>The Chairman provides `coordinated activites', i.e. `running the company'
>in return for the financial support of the shareholders, i.e. `cooperation'.

Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. In theory
they make up one person, the owner of the corporation. The Chairman works
for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?

>A true feudal technocracy is much more complicated than this because it
>concerns *all* of the shareholders of *all* of the industrial and service
>entities acting in the entire marketplace.  

A fief has _one_ owner. A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make
the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, 
but these bits then become parts of other fiefs). And if a company is the 
equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.
You're getting mixed up because so many of the companies we know of today 
are incorporated. In fact, I realize that I've been using 'corporation' and
company interchangably. That was wrong. Please read 'company' whenever I've
used 'corporation' in connection with a feudal technocracy. There can be no
shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.

>In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the 
>entire economic sytem.  This is why US industry fears the Japanese 
>*kieritsu* so much.  They are concerned that their coordinated activity 
>gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage.

It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.

>>  Fief			Corporation		Corporation

This should read:

    Fief			Corporation		Company
 
>>The vassal manages the fief for the king.
> 
>No, the vassal agrees to put the resources of the fief at the disposal of
>the king in exchange for centrally-coordinated joint services.

See definition.

>>Feudal service			Dividend	Feudal service
> 
>*ditto*                       again not applicable      *cash* (in exchange
>                                                         for `shares' of the
>                                                         profits)

Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.

>>In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with
>>money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money.
> 
>No, the dividends received by shareholders in a feudal technocracy are
>equivalent to the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal
>aristocracy.

The feudal technocrcy equivalent of the military protection received by 
fiefholders in a feudal aristocracy is military protection.

>No, *shareholders* are the equivalent of *fiefholders*.  Each block of 
>shareholders, represented by their boards of directors, is equivalent to
>the fiefholders of a feudal aristocracy.  Each block of shares is a fief.

I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself.
But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the
title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the
Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-)

>>Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron Trask owns all of Traskon. 
>>Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas Trask pledges Traskon in 
>>return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not just a share of it.
> 
>There's no conflict here!  Trask could have sold only a portion of Traskon.

That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in
its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar-
Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron.

>He owned that entire block of shares of the total economic sector of Gram.

He owned a barony. I'll sonceede that the fact that it was a land barony
is irrelevant, and that it could just as well have been a computer firm.
But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony
(ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must
remain relatively intact).

>Remember, it was partially because of the greater economic power he gained
>from the acquisition of Traskon that *Duke* Angus eventually became *King*
>Angus.  Traskon Barony increased Angus's share of the total economic output
>(GPP?) of Gram and thereby led to him becoming king by virtue of his control
>of the largest portion of the entire economy.

Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more
fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to
gain the support of some of the other big dukes. And, as someone says on 
page 124, "He's King as long as the great lords like Count Lionel and Joris 
of Bigglersport and Alan of Northport want him to be" (Obviously Angus 
hasn't reached the point where he can annex the big counties and dukedoms 
for himself, but then, he's only a first-generation king).

>> If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization.
> 
>Right.  And in a feudal technocracy, `dukes' are merely those who control
>large blocks of industrial production - shareholders.

No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the
industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the
ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for
king.

>>The pension fund managers dosen't
>>perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even
>>pay him money).
>
>*Au contraire*!  The pension funds and other shareholders provide *cash*
>to the chairman just as aristocratic vassals provided military forces and
>tax revenue to the king.

Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and
place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin  lot of pull in electing 
the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund 
belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it?

>>In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for 
>>the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power.
> 
>We're saying the same thing. If the technocratic baron chooses to place
>his support in the hands of a different lord he transfers not only economic
>power but political power as well.

We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land 
from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath. 
If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early 
state of the formation of the kingdom. 

>>If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them.
> 
>He doesn't own them just as an aristocratic king didn't own his vassals'
>fiefs.  

But a feudal king did own the fiefs, at the very least formally.

>If Uther Pendragon had `owned' the fief of Cornwall he could have
>just `removed' the Duke and taken his wife Igrayne.  

Oh no he couldn't. The feudal contract was binding on the overlord too.
He had promised to protect his vassal's rights. Uther couldn't remove
the Duke without cause. (Also, of course, the whole episode takes place
long before the feudal system evolved).

>>Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief.
> 
>No, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the aristocratic king
>or profits from the technocratic king.

A fief is held in tenancy from the owner. Fail in your obligations and you
forfeit the fief.

>>>My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest 
>>>economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.  
>> 
>>1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory.
> 
>It is in a feudal technocracy.  Again, it's why US industry fears the 
>Japanese.

You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But
a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if 
they are vulnerable. By this I mean that if Gram has all the raw material
they need then they can impose trade restrictions that leaves Sacnoth's
greater economic strength whistling at the door. The reason US Industry 
fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram
be vulnerable just because the US is?

>>2) He isn't that much stronger.
> 
>He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage.  

Not according to the Traveller rules.

>(Of course, you must give up your `cycles' to accept this point.)

No, the cycles has nothing to do with that argument. They just provide one
explanation (out of several) of how Gram can have homebuilt TL 12 ships if 
we decide that a military parity is necessary to explain anything.

>>   King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making 
>>   Harald a puppet of his.
> 
>Yes, he might except that the TL 12 vassals on Sacnoth might choose to
>no longer support Anders. 

If Anders _owns_ fiefs on Sacnoth then it's actually equivalent to the
England/Calais situation. So I don't think that's likely, since that
would make Sacnoth balkanized. Still, the Scouts might have misunderstood
the situation when they compiled their survey. But those vassals could 
only get out of supporting Anders by breaking their oaths and turning to
Harald for protection. Then he would be their overlord. Nohow would they
become kings themselves.

>>If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of 
>>it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy.
> 
>No, if Anders of placing people in control then they enjoy their control
>*at his whim*. 

Subject to King Anders' oaths to his vassals. The feudal oath is a two-way
one.

>This is not a feudal arrangement at all. It is autocracy
>*and* similar *then* to the corporate model.

No. _If_ Anders could appoint and remove governors of his holdings at will
then he would be an autocrat. If he gives the holding in fief he cannot
revoke it except for cause. That _is_ the feudal system

>>Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram
>>militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price.
> 
>No, I'm just assuming that a little military action might make the economic
>conquest of Gram a little simpler.  Think of Japan with a full tech level
>advantage, a nuclear arsenal and the ability to project global military force.
>There'd be no `voluntary' import restrictions on Japanese autos in the US in
>that scenario!

Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
about economic superiority? I've always postulated that Gram had access to
TL 12 ships of its own. And I postulate that neither Harald nor Anders
wants to duel with submachineguns at 5 paces.

William White writes a whole heap of good stuff:
>     It may be helpful, at this point, to elaborate upon what a
>feudal technocracy is.  In a discussion of the concept of
>feudalism, a historian named Morris Bishop said that it is "one
>of those words that have taken on so many extended and figurative
>meanings that the original [one] has been obscured." 

Sure. I've never said 'feudal technocracy' couldn't actually be non-feudal.
I've merely postulated that it was and argued from that assumption.

>     If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a
>government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application
>of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign
>UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria.  
>     First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of individuals 
>must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic status (thus, "feudal").

The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
for tenancy with services instead of money.

>     Second, an elite class which controls some critical technology must 
>make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo, "technocracy").

The rest of your arguments are all very nicely thought out. But I suggest
that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
the feudal fief. Thus the fiefholder might render technological service
instead of or in addition to military service.

Otherwise your posting is most impressive.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7924
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 08:52:06 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Jackie Fisher and Death Stars.

James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> wrote
>  >This is a good analysis.  To tell you the truth, I like the feel of being
>  >able to armour my dreadnaughts in proper Fisher fashion.
> 
>  I'm afraid I don't get the Fisher reference.

Admiral Jackie Fisher was First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty at the turn 
of the century, and he invented the all-big-gun battleship -- called the
1st one Deadnaught.  (More or less invented, I know about the Italian and
US developments at the time, by it was Dreadnaught that set the standard)

[Now there is a set of titles for Regency fleet command types - First Star Lord]

>  But your own paragraph on tactics indicates part of their role:
> Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The standard
> missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub surface
> bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've got firing
> these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will be to
> respond.

Agreed.  Also, I notice that Meson screens and Nuclear Dampers have antennas
in their designs.  If I destroy those antennas, do I get a prize?

>  The levels of armor described in Steven M Bonneville's
> (bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu) post almost, BUT NOT QUITE, return
> us to the days of MT, when anything without a meson gun was harmless
> above a certain level.  In TNE, with all of a ship's surface features,
> it is quite possible to get a mission kill without penetrating the
> armor.  Nothing is completely invulnerable.
> 
Actually, my problem with MT was the same as my problem with HG -- the use of 
weapons as damage absorbers.  It was like covering the Iowa with 50-cal MG's
and then saying you had to knock them all out before you could take out a
big gun.  The new rules suit me a lot better.

I don't think 2000 is going to turn out to be that much armour once we get going
at ship design.  We probably need some sort of structure to compare apples and
apples, like TCS provided for high guard.  Perhaps we should be working on
designs in a TCS environment  -- say TL14, unlimitted pilots.
 

>  >3c Cross Sectional Area    2.25e22 (a diameter of 8e7 km !!)
>  ...
> 
>  Even the Ringworld Meteor Defense System is only twice this diameter,
> and that's only if you consider the Ringworld itself as the barrel...
> 
Its only about 260 light seconds!  (Maybe I could just hit the planet
upside the head with it :-) ).
  
and bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville) wrote
>
[snip] 
> Well, as I mentioned there might be a possibility of using them in very
> large numbers as nuclear missile launchers, and try for a direct hit on
> the battleship.  Somehow, I doubt even factor 2000 armor would take well
> to having a nuke go off next to it.  Of course, the target solution is
> fairly simple once the missiles get that close, so you'd have to fire 
> a *lot* of them and concentrate your fire on one enemy target.
>
I like the idea of a contact nuke, but I guess our friends at GDW don't.  I
have not done the calculations for the energy in the wave-front of an H bomb
and I really must -- I am not sure that you would have to get all that close.
 
[snip]
> power requirements of such an anti-missile laser would be.  Arming the
> little fleet escorts with "pea-shooter" meson weapons would probably be 
> a better bet if you're trying for serious internal damage.

Agreed. 


Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7925
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: 2300-TNE guns pt2
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:40:47 +0100 (BST)

Hi again all .
	here come some more of the guns as promiced.

Heads .... INCOMING

Type 81 storm gun  20*31 mm APHE ETC Tl 12 gun

round lenght 51mm
	lcc=31
round weight  77.9g
Ea	= 10128.5 J
round price  11.7 Cr

average Barrel length 12.66 cm
Lb	= 29.12 cm
barrel weight  0.88 Kg
barrel cost  349.4 Cr

muzzle energy = 16712 J
damage  9d-1 ( ball)  12d ( HEAP )
pen     2-3-4          2-2-2

Reciver heavy self loader
ROF  = SA
reciver length  40.3 cm
reciver weight= 10.43 Kg
reciver cost = 2285.7 Cr

plastic stock  25 cm  0.5Kg  30 Cr
range 332M Ball/ 249M HEAP

feed   box magazine 10 round
empty weight  0.76Kg
full weight  1.54 Kg

Bipod  weight 8.3 Kg   133 Cr    SHORT RANGE NOW 432M/324M

TL9  long muzzle break  8cm  0.4 kg  200 cr
Tl9 SA stock     0.2 Kg        75 Cr

Recoil 2
Mass  22. 25 Kg 	Length 102.4 cm		 bulk  7 	
 cost 3073.6 Cr

Notes :   this is tricky and after trying the CPR rules  i  found
that  the  smallarms system works better not the  recoil  its  no
where  as feirce as is predicted but the barrel is  also  nowhere
as long as in 2300.




FTE-10  Tl12 Gauss sniper Rifle

10 mm round
round mass  3.142 g
round price  0.063Cr each

Barrel length  60 cm
muzzle velocity  6000M/s
barrel mass   1.8 Kg
barrel cost   1080 Cr

Muzzle energy 56556 J
required energy  113112 J

dam 16
pen 2-2-2

reciver single shot
ROF  SS
reciver weight   11.31 Kg
reciver length   106 cm
reciver cost     1131 Cr

rifle stock   5cm  0.5 Kg  30 Cr

range 381 M

Feed 2 seperate magazines

battry magazine weight  20 Kg
battry magazine cost   40 Cr
ammo mag Empty  0.026 Kg
ammo mag full 0.058 Kg
ammo mag cost 1 Cr

optical sight   Range now 438M  0.1 kg  150Cr
Bipod  28Kg  cost 332Cr   Range Now 569 M

recoil  7   Bipod 3
cost  2723 Cr    length 171cm     bulk 11     mass 61.8Kg

Notes:  as close as i can get this dam thing , my one  suggestion
with  the weight is the probabliity of a 2 or 3 man  sniper  team
after  all  with bipod and scope the extream range is  Just  over
4.5 Km and this should cause spotting problems.


All for now.
L. Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7926
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: help
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:54:12 +0100 (BST)

Would  some one please help me , i had message  groups  7753-7753
to  7823-7836 on disk unfortunatly the disk failed and i can  not
rcover the messages, wuold some one pleas be good enough to  send
me them  .
Thank you all in advance.
L Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7927
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 10:38:34 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Regency Naval Policy

djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson) wrote:
> 
> How are Regency naval and army forces organized at the subsector and sector
> level?

I would suggest that, given a strong memory of the rebellion, Regency forces
would be controlled at a far more cetralized level.  Fleets would still be
deployed to subsectors, but ship, squadron and command staff rotations would 
frequent to avoid forming local alliances.  I would suspect that jump capable
"provincial" forces would also be banned, and local defence command would 
be assigned by central command.

The pay-off in return would be a greater scope in Regency-wide affairs than 
would have been possible under the Imperium.  
    
> What is the overall composition of Regency military forces?
>
 
Has enough data been posted to permit development of a TCS (or alternative,
take your pick) budget for the fleet?  The regency and its enemies could form 
a good focus for our ship design and tactics discussion.

> What is the compostion of a `typical' Regency naval squadron and a `typical'
> army battalion/regiment/division/corps/whatever-you-think-the-`basic'-unit-
> ought-to-be?
> 

working...

I rather liked H. Beam Pipers term from the Terran Federation period -- The
"Fleet-Army Force."  It identifies the tie-in between the two components
very clearly.

> I don't either.  I'd really rather see folks suggestion *alternatives* to
> any point *anyone* makes rather than merely trying to rip holes in a position
> they disagree with.  The latter course is neither interesting *nor* useful.
> 
I'll be happy to work from pretty much any formula for budget, etc.  TCS does
give a number, however.  (On the other hand, maybe its the wrong number.
The very fact that a TCS campaign is a straight wargame means that you start
the whole exercise in an arms race.  What are the big-time threats to the 
Regency right now?  Is there an active arms race on with any of them?  I think
these factors are more important than the budget numbers.  Then there is the
question of the proportion of fleet resourses going to anti-virus defence...)

Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7928
From: "Ralph Ferneyhough"  <phd99@cc.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: FFS Miscellany
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 14:44:17 +0100 (BST)


Right, I've been playing around with FFS for a while now, designing
this and mulling over that - the general thing, and I've got some
ideas/questions that maybe other people have worked on:

Please note that I haven't got the book with me at work, so I'll just
have to guess most of the figures, but I hope they are almost
correct.

1) Homopolar Generators. These seem to be the major restriction on the
size of most devices, especially weaponry, within FFS. However, I got
wondering about whether batteries could be used in their place. One
quick calculation later, and I come up with the following:

For a laser, I assumed each pulse lasts about 0.1 seconds, therefore
we need the 0.036 sec discharge rate battery type (or we could
extrapolate). This has an output of x3125 at 3MW (?) at TL15. This
comes to (3125X3X0.036)=337.5Mj per cumet. HPGs are 0.04 cumet per Mj
(?) which is only 25Mj per cumet. This gets even wider a discrepancy
at lower discharge times, so a meson gun at 100 shots/turn would only
really need the 3.6 second battery which works out at about 1350Mj per
cumet.

This creates a slight technology gap... I am of course assuming
batteries can be recharged at that speed, which I would have thought
was possible, as they can discharge that fast!

I also cannot believe that a spinning wheel (which is what HPGs are at
TL 8+(?) ) can give up all x000Mj of energy in a short a space as
0.036 seconds. Has anyone tried working out the friction or even the
speed the wheel would need to be spinning at to store so much energy?
I can believe large power capacitors, so why this rotational K.E.
system?

2) What is there to prevent the same HPG being used for more than one
weapon? The rules state that the HPG is capable of keeping up with any
rate of fire (again I don't believe that), so if it can manage 800
shots/turn, why can't it drive four different focal arrays at 200
shots/turn? All that would be needed is the extra focal arrays, an
extra beam pointer for each FA, and some extra control (this could be
an MFD to drive the FAs or maybe install three extra workstations). I
first though of this idea for a Janus mount, where the two identical
spinal weapons were synched to fire alternately from the same HPG.

3) Black Globes used as solar arrays seem to absorb one heck of a lot
of energy. In the habitable zone, a gigantic size globe will absorb
1/10 (1200^2) = 144,000MW!! Over one single turn, this will be
1800x144,000 = 259 million Mj - try absorbing that lot into a HPG
without overload.

Even a smaller screen will absorb 1/10 (40^2) = 160MW which is 288,000
Mj per turn - has this lot got to be taken into account when designing
the HPGs for absorbing incoming fire?

Maybe we can drag a small ship behind the main craft carrying a black
globe generator and use that as the power supply for my craft....

4) Why does anyone bother with tunable lasers at TL13+ when x-ray
lasers become available? The range modification of any atmosphere
condition is never worse than ten times smaller than the visible laser
modifier, so an x-ray laser with a range multiplier of 100,000 is
always better than the tunable one.

5) Why did GDW have to go and make fusion weapons non-viable as space
weaponry anymore? Grumble moan grumble. Have to make my OWN rules now.
*sigh*

6) When designing bay PAWs, would it be possible to have the tunnel
along the greatest diagonal of the bay? As far as I can remember, the
100 ton bay has dimension of 15.65 x 9.5 x 9.5 thus restricting tunnel
length to 15.65m.

But the greatest diagonal is 20.6m, thus effecting an increase of
tunnel length of 33% or so. Much better....

Same effect applies with turrets and barbettes if you fancy generating
PAW turrets or even close range Meson barbettes.

Personally, I just ignore the standard socket designs myself, and just
design the weapons into the body of the ship - no waste of space and
free to choose my own dimensions.

Which brings me to...

7) How do I calculate the maximum dimensions in the other two
directions on a ship? I know the length - but what about width and
height? At the moment, I am assuming that it can be derived from the
average cross-sectional area: i.e.

Volume/Length = avg cross-sectional area.

The width and height can then be derived from them. A cylinder or
needle config would just be sqrt(area), and other configs can have
widths and heights of any reasonable figures which multiply together
to the area. This are the main body figures. Thus, I know roughly how
large my sideways facing meson guns can be....

Anyone any other ideas? Perhaps a table of W and H multipliers might
be a good idea.

8) Where are the design rules for the bulk of space missiles? I have
found the warhead and propellant rules, but what about guidance design
etc? Have I just missed them?

Oh well, thats enough for now. Otherwise, it's a wonderful book. I
just hope we'll get to see FFS 2 or something similar, with computer
programs, robots, ships, submersibles etc etc.

Aha! Just remembered - in the TNE rule book, it lists an expanded
version of the battery list for higher TLs, and tells you how to
design them for any piece of equipment. Just one small question - no
piece of equipment actually has a power requirment listed with it! So
how do we work it out then? Anyone done a table?

Ralph.

         _             _           _           "To err is human; to screw-up  
 ___  __| |/\       __| |    ____ | \   _         needs the root password."   
 \__\ \_   _ \     /  | |   |  _ \| |  | |                                    
        | / \ \ /\/   | |   | | \ \ |  | |           O     
    __  | |_/ / \  /| | |   | |_/ / |__| |  __         O               _ _
   |__| |    /  /  \| | |   |  __/|  __  | |__|          o  |\__/|  .~    ~.
        | |\ \ / /\   | |___| |   | |  | |                  /  o `./      .'
        |_| \ \\/  \  |_____| |   |_|  | |                 {o__,   \    {
             \ \    \_|     | | ____   \_|         ____      / .  . )    \
              \_\           \_| \___\ aka Asmodeus \___\     `-` '-' \    }
   _______________                       ______________     .(   _(   )_.'
  /______________/ phd99@cc.keele.ac.uk /_____________/    '---.~_ _ _|

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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7929
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 11:24:46 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Regency Military Thoughts

> From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
> Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Military Forces
> What is the compostion of a `typical' Regency naval squadron and a `typical'
> army battalion/regiment/division/corps/whatever-you-think-the-`basic'-unit-
> ought-to-be?

Here's one crack at it...

Regency Military Forces -- Basic Structure.

The basic organizational unit of the Regency armed forces is 
the Regiment.  Paradoxically, the Regiment is a unit which 
will never be encountered on the battlefield.

Instead, the Regiment is composed of two or more battalions.  
The base battalion remains fixed to a recruiting territory -- 
a fixed area of a given world.  It is responsible for 
administration, recruiting and basic training of individuals 
who will then serve with the Regiment's 1-2 active service 
battalions.  In addition, the battalion may maintain one or 
more reserve battalions -- part time soldiers and veterans 
using out-of-date equipment.

All Battalions of a Regiment are of the same troop type.  
Thus the Battalion is the building block of other formations.  
Regiments are recruited based on the society and capabilities 
of the home world -- for instance, low tech worlds produce 
light infantry regiment, while armored troops are recruited 
on worlds where advanced technology is more familiar.  In 
particular, space EVA units are be recruited as much as 
possible in asteroid belts.

Special Service Regiments (SAS, Drop Troops, whatever) are a 
detached assignment of the best troops from line regiments.  
Members retain their regimental assignments, and return to 
their regiments (probably to a promotion) on the completion 
of their tour.

Higher level formations are built up of Brigades, a formation 
made up of 2-4 Battalions.  Although Brigades have no 
"permanent" structure, the value of established team 
relationships is recognized, and long term partnerships 
between complementary battalions (say, lift infantry and grav 
tank) is commonplace.

In a combat situation, Battalion and Company combat teams 
will be formed by the brigade commander as required for the 
mission at hand out of the component companies of his 
brigade.

Officers also remain members of their regiment for their 
whole careers, but may be detached to various staff commands 
for extended periods.  Above field grades, regimental 
membership has more to do with club membership than command 
structure.

I hope this is helpful.  It is, of course, the British / 
Commonwealth regimental system;  but I think that it is an 
approach with real virtues in military terms, and good 
adventuring flavor.

I will put some thought into higher formations, to troop 
types, and "how large should a battalion be, anyway?"


Les Howie
Prograph International


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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #632: Msgs 7930-7944 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 22:00:03 EDT 1994
Reply-To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #632: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 632  7930 09-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Zaibatsu and Feudal Tech << I've been s
 632  7931 09-Jun-1994 tom@csvax1.ucc.  Re: Feudalism << Hi all,
 632  7932 09-Jun-1994 "Bruce Johnson"  TML: Feudal Technocracies << Bill,
 632  7933 09-Jun-1994 Steve Charlton/  Battleships, Frigates and Escorts << St
 632  7934 09-Jun-1994 George Herbert   Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7923-7929 V76#4  
 632  7935 10-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Coyns << James Kundert writes:
 632  7936 09-Jun-1994 Steven Gott      Regency force structures << I think tha
 632  7937 09-Jun-1994 Steven Gott      Military threats to the Regency << Off 
 632  7938 10-Jun-1994 Roger Sanger     FOR SALE:  Judges Guild, etc. << Dear E
 632  7939 10-Jun-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  FICT/SCEN/AHIS : Shall Not Peris << FIC
 632  7940 10-Jun-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  TNE, DES << TNE, DES
 632  7941 10-Jun-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  GEN - Swold World bickering << I think 
 632  7942 10-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Lasers and other weapons << John Bogan 
 632  7943 10-Jun-1994 b.borich@genie.  ECONOMIC SURVEY DATA/SHIP SIZE <<     T
 632  7944 10-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       TNE-RCES equipment << HI  again  all , 

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7930
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:31:52 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Zaibatsu and Feudal Tech

I've been seeing the terms "zaibatsu" and "keiretsu" tossed about
rather freely in the discussion on what "feudal technocracy" really
means in Traveller.  Just in case the only understanding of these
terms is coming from bad cyberpunk, here's a fairly lengthy except
from _The Japanese Today_ which hopefully explains some of this.
Incidentally, I highly recommend that book if you are interested 
in Japan and need a place to start, especially since I had to hack
up this essay a bit to hit the high points.

I also think that I should take a moment to point out that DGP's
WBH allows representative authority of a feudal technocracy to
range from a single ruler, through various types of councils, to
rule by the *demos*, so there should be a wide range of types of
feudal technocracies.  Be flexible!


from: _Traveller: The New Era_, 1993, p.188.

"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: Reischauer, Edwin O.  _The Japanese Today_, 1988, p.305-7.

"In prewar times, the distinctive Japanese economic institution that
 most caught the attention of the outside world was the so-called
 *zaibatsu* system.  The term *zaibatsu* is perjorative, meaning 
 "financial clique".  It is specifically applied to certain giant 
 financial, commercial, and industrial combines but is loosely used for
 prewar Japanese big business in general.  [...]
 
"The zaibatsu came to control a very large part of the upper level of
 the Japanese economy [...] ...before long the government became 
 suspicious of the growing influence of big business... [...]
 
"It is ironic that after the war the American occupation in turn 
 attacked the zaibatsu for being the root cause of Japanese imperialism
 and on these grounds singled them out for destruction.  Their ownership
 was removed from the controlling families virtually without compensation,
 and the great combines were broken up into their component parts.  
 Before they could be further atomized in a traditional American "trust-
 busting" operation, the occupation's reform program was halted, leaving
 the larger corporate subunits of the original zaibatsu intact.  Since
 the occupation, these have gradually reassumed their old names [...] 
 and have drawn together in loose, informal associations, now known in
 Japan as *keiretsu*.
 
"Because of the existence of these keiretsu groupings, many observers
 have asserted that the zaibatsu system has been restored, but this is
 not correct.  The keiretsu form something like clubs, whose members
 may look first to each other for aid and cooperation before trying
 other sources. [...]  But these relations are by no means exclusive,
 and there is no central ownership and none of the rigid controls once
 excersised within a zaibatsu organization. [...]
 
" ...zaibatsu were typically under the control of a central holding
 company, largely owned by the original family.  The holding company
 controlled several major affiliates and these in turn a series of
 minor affiliates.  This sort of pyramiding of control is common enough
 in the West, but what made the Japanese case unique was the fact that
 the controlling company often lacked majority ownership....  Control,
 however, was exercised through other means.  The affiliate would
 probably be completely dependent on the banking, shipping, and trading
 facilities of the combine; interlocking directors were common; 
 executives were switched around among the component firms as though
 they were members of a unified bureaucracy; the advantages and prestige
 of belonging to a large zaibatsu combine were great; and a strong sense
 of personal loyalty to the combine permeated the leadership, much as in
 a pre-modern feudal domain.  Young executives joined a zaibatsu 
 enterprise for a lifetime career.
 
"A typical zaibatsu organization was not like the contemporary American
 conglomerates, which bring together entirely unrelated corporations
 under the same ownership.  Instead, they were rational outgrowths of
 evolving economic activity and therefore are better described as 
 combines.  They tended to cluster around a central bank that financed
 the various activities of the combine.  These functions often stood in
 a vertical relationship.  For example, a series of seperate companies
 might mine a certain ore, fashion it into manufactured products, 
 transport those abroad on the combine's shipping line, and sell them 
 abroad and purchase the needed raw materials for the whole process
 through the combines "general trading company" [...], while all of
 these different stages of the operation would be financed by the 
 combine's bank."
 
I hope this helps out a bit!  

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

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7931
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 16:45:34 BST
From: tom@csvax1.ucc.ie
Subject: Re: Feudalism

Hi all,
	in the recent discussion of feudalism and feudal technocracy it seems
there has been some talking at cross-purposes.

	Some relevant powers of a feudal king which have not been mentioned
are the powers to grant new titles and existing unheld titles and the
administration of disputes between vassals( and hence law). This power is
significant when it comes to the sharing-out of newly obtained resources,
whether from conquest, purchase or legal skulduggery. 

The feudal system is inherently unstable, especially in times of transition 
when there may be no clear heir or successor. (this sounds familiar...oops
:-) ). It involves a continual struggle for power between the king and the
vassals and between the vassals, as the king attempts to safeguard his
position by centralising power, and the vassals attempt to strengthen
their positions, and reduce the king's power (consciously or otherwise).

	David Johnson has been alluding to the "strong barons" version of
feudalism where the vassals are in a position to pick and choose their
king(IMHO). Hans Rancke has written about a "strong king" version of
feudalism where the vassals are due to circumstances stuck with the
current king, like it or not. Both these versions are historically 
recorded examples of the feudal system in action.
 
	In the first version the king's power is limited to what the vassals 
will accept. This may even go so far as to the king being relegated to a 
figurehead. The vassals are most definitely the owners of their feifs and will
strenuously resist interference in them by the king( or anyone else for that
matter). Here the vassals may form a united block behind a figurehead king
(oligarchy-like) or may squabble disastrously as an ineffectual king's calls
for peace and unity are ignored. In the latter case the king may fall and
total balkanisation may ensue if no resolution is reached.

In the second version the king is most definitely boss, with overwhelming
support from the majority of his vassals. In this position the king is 
very powerful, and effectively does control 'everything'. He can introduce
laws strengthening his rule, declare rebellious vassals to be outlaws and 
strip them of their holding,(to be awarded to loyal followers), and pretty much
do as he likes. If this continues for long enough the government may change
to another type, such as a dictatorship. (In this version of feudalism all
land WAS ultimately ruled by the king, and doled out to his loyal vassals).

The normal feudal position is between these two extremes. The king is 
powerful and has significant latitude of action, but must listen to his
vassals and be careful not to upset the majority of them too much. 
The vassals wish stability and will follow the king unless he becomes
too unreasonable or overbearing in his rulings.

David wishes to prove that Sacnoth should rule the Sword Worlds by virtue of
its TL advantage over the official ruling planet, Gram. While is certainly
possible for this change to occur, it is by no means automatic. There are
many other relevant factors which are not specified and which would affect
the outcome. It is possible to set up a campaign to justify almost any 
prejudice a referee has. Maybe Sacnoth has a policy of appeasement so they 
are not the ones bombed by an attacking force. Maybe there is something in
the atmosphere or soil of Sacnoth that makes the inhabitants less aggressive,
or conversely the inhabitants of Gram are more aggressive. Maybe the Zhodani
are mind-controlling the Sacnothians into acquiescence etc, etc. Anything can
be justified, nothing is automatic.

Hope my contribution to this thread makes sense,
						Tom

  Tom O'Neill  |   Tom@CSVAX1.UCC.IE        SCCS6085@IRUCCVAX.UCC.IE 
- ---------------!--------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fact is stranger than fiction

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7932
From: "Bruce Johnson" <JOHNSON@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu>
Date:         Thu, 9 Jun 1994 09:38:24 MST
Subject:      TML: Feudal Technocracies

Bill,

	And only a few weeks ago people were arguing that TML was 
moribund!   Excellent post!

	A few nits to pick, though.  Many of the examples you give of 
feaudalism, such as corporate feudalism, are already present in the 
government type structure, such as the corporate state.  I think the 
critical difference is the lack of or highly limited societal mobility.  A 
common thread throughout all your examples is the codification of 
position as hereditary...I think that this could serve as the sole 
definition of a feudal state, and the basis of that segregation, military, 
contract, medical or whatever is less important.  

	Indeed many of your examples are not precisely feudal in 
nature, but more like technocracies, ie: the technical or scientific elite 
holding power.

	A feudal society was as marked by the responsibilities of the 
higher classes to the lower as by their rights...all power derived from 
the bottom, in reality...just look at the restoration of the Meijii 
emperor over the Shogunate in 19th century Japan.  That change was 
spearheaded by some rather small, rural provinces.

	Since, whether GDW based the Sword Worlds entire or only part 
on Piper's book, I re-read Space Viking the other day.  In it the 
protagonist (Prince Trask) expresses surprise that an outsider 
declared his (very classic land and production based) feudal society as 
a tyranny.  Trask than explains that no one has any power that is not 
explicitly granted by the people below, and all that has to be done to 
eliminate a tyranny is withhold the support necessary.  In fact, this is 
very much like European 'classical' feudalism...The king theoretically 
wielded great power, but only as long as he held the support of the 
lesser nobles, who only wielded their power with the support of those 
below, etc. because the true power...armies, were not standing, but 
composed of all those lower knights and barons, who quite freely 
looked out for their own hides.  The pledged fealty to the king, but that 
oath was binding both ways...the king had to act to their benefit, or he 
had no power.

	This is really only possible in lower populations, where the 
lowest tiers of the society still wields enough political power to 
make a difference.  This argues forcefully against large population 
feudal states.  The Japanese example I had mentioned before was not 
the best.  By the time of the Meijii restoration, the Shogunate had 
evolved from a true military-based feudal state to a giant 
bureauocracy, hereditarily determined, to be sure, but still a 
bureauocracy.

Bruce Johnson
The University of Arizona
johnson@tonic.pharm.arizona.edu (work :-(
bej@gas.uug.arizona.edu (play :-)

My opinions, All Mine! 

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7933
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
Date:  9 Jun 94  9:31:46 
Subject: Battleships, Frigates and Escorts

Steve Bonneville (bonnevil@mermaid,micro.umn.edu) has an interesting
 idea in his rapid-fire anti-missile laser.  He suggested that this weapon
system would be an ideal system to mount on a Battleship to defaeat huge
clouds of missiles launched by escorts.

About a week ago, there was a small TML furor over what role (if any) a
frigate class ship would have in an Imperial Fleet.  In the US Navy, a
Frigate is a screening vessel, used for anti-missile, anti-air and anti-sub
defense.  Perhaps Frigates would play a similar role in an Imperial Fleet.
A Frigate would be a small (5,000 to 10,000 tons displacement) ship,
equipped with long-range sensors and defensive laser batteries.  To aid
in its anti-missile role, it would also be equipped with the anti-missile
lasers.  It would also carry a large number of EMS jamming suites, either
on the ship or in the form of remote drones. 

In this configuration, a Frigate would also make an admirable space
minesweeper.  Its small size might allow it to avoid sensor lock from the
mines, and its weapons would already be configured for targeting and
destroying large numbers of missiles/mines quickly.

(Of course, this assumes everybody else enjoys laying fields of independent
ship's missiles as mines, like I do to my PCs from time to time).

This still leaves the question about what escorts do in a fleet.  I think
anything smaller than a destroyer is going to be of very limited usefulness
in a fleet action.  I think the 'scrubbing' of surface features would be
a fighter mission, not a escort mission.  Escorts could launch clouds of
missiles, but I think this would be better served with a purpose-built
design (something like the Brilliant Lances Missile Corvette, but with
more launchers).  

In reality, destroyer escorts would certainly be of use in small
ship actions and actions against civilian or paramilitary ships, but in actual
fleet actions escorts would be relegated to acting as security elements on
the edges of fleet formations, and acting as sensor platforms and 
communications links.  They would still be very useful for chasing nosy
PCs away from fleet formations.

This does not reflect the views of my employers.  They are so heavily
armored as to be impenetrable to all but the Death Star main gun.


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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7934
Subject: Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7923-7929 V76#4 
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 1994 22:04:28 -0700
From: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>


Ralph writes:
>Black Globes used as solar arrays seem to absorb one heck of a lot
>of energy. In the habitable zone, a gigantic size globe will absorb
>1/10 (1200^2) = 144,000MW!! Over one single turn, this will be
>1800x144,000 = 259 million Mj - try absorbing that lot into a HPG
>without overload.

If they weren't so expensive, I can just see this tiny little missile
with a BG generator and capacitor and HEPLAR drive and guidance...
no powerplant, it uses the BG and caps/HPG/whatever and then does
little bursts of accelleration... and then rams.

>5) Why did GDW have to go and make fusion weapons non-viable as space
>weaponry anymore? Grumble moan grumble. Have to make my OWN rules now.
>*sigh*

They're perfectly viable, once they get big enough... and with some
minor rules bends, you can do some really nifty-neato things with them.

- -george william herbert
gwh@crl.com  

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7935
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Coyns
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 07:51:47 +0100 (METDST)

James Kundert writes:
>Perhaps an irregular dirt clod or a symbolic plant growing from the
>ground for Soil.  

I did think about this, but I like my notion that these six represent the
Droyne concept of elements. If they do then Soil is more representative
of all kinds of ground surfaces than of argricultural land only.

>The few Coyn faces we've seen suggest an extremely
>symbolic style, IMHO.  

Some of them, like the flame, the sigma wave, and the ice crystal, yes.
But the 'full-body representation of a human' seem pretty direct. That's
one reason why I decided that the six small pictures of the Droyne castes
could concievably be on the coyns.

>Since the major races eventually replaced these, they may also represent
>specific forms of danger, or specific concerns that the Droyne must
>watch for.  Grandfather replaced the original Coyns with new ones that
>had different pictures but meant much the same things.  

Interesting idea. I'll see if I can make something of it.

Steven M Bonneville writes:
>The concept for an Ancient-era coyn for Eskayloyt is interesting, but
>it should probably be expressed as "Homeworld", since presumably at
>that point it had not yet been lost. 

Oh sure. But then, the Phoenix presumably wasn't caled Phoenix either. 
This is just a translation. Eskaoyt is what a human archeologist would
cal it if he ever figured it out.

>Also, the Ancient period lasted long enough that it's possible that the 
>"Human" and "Vargr" coyns were added before the Final War; humans, at 
>least, were fairly well integrated into quite a number of Ancient societies 

Agreed. I don't think the Vargr would make it  -  at that time they were just
one of a number of projects, confined to one world (In my Traveler universe,
at least, the Ancients tried other animals as subject for uplifting, but most
of them failed and none apart from the Vargr achieved major status (there's
one planet in my Foreven Sector with a race uplifted from otters)). But the
humans could have. However, I decided on the assumption that the coyns were
less important to the Ancients  -  more important than just cards, but not
as important as when the very continuation of your species depend on them.
So I've assumed that they were not modified in Ancient times. Entirely a
matter of choice, of course.

>>3) Grandfather modified the coyns on later visits and introduced the Aslan,
>>   Hiver and K'kree coyns (at least). [_Secret of The Ancients_ p 32].
> 
>Note that all six species represented on the coyns are important powers.
>Yaskoydray didn't accidentally pick a "minor" race that didn't make it.
>And of those six, five developed hyperdrive independently.  It makes one
>wonder if he didn't use something like the Zhodani core artifact to peer
>into the future.  

For my part I abhor the causality violation implicit in precognition 
(unless the precognition is merely really good extrapolation ability).
So I assume that the Aslan coyn didn't get introduced until the Aslans
were already into space in a big way. As far as I'm concerned Grand-
daddy (or, in my universe, the mysterious beings behind the Grandfather 
Legend) made one of his every-10,000-year visits to our universe around
- -1000 and updated the coyns at the time.

>Or tamper with _TRS Pathfinder_ so that the Aslan got 
>jump drive just before they could blow themselves into oblivion.  

That is another possibility that I've considered, but why would Gramps
bother?

>>Voyages         A sailing ship.
> 
>Or a STL starship -- the pre-Ancient Droyne did have tech-10 without jump
>drive for thousands of years before the Ancient period; they even had a
>couple of interstellar colonies.  

True. But if the six lost coins really was hunting animals then the other
coyns were propably made up at a time when hunting was still important to
the Droyne. 
 
>Also, note some interesting coyn relationships from the table:
> 
>Genesis | Aspiration | Sacrifice | Defeat | Death | Achievement
>   The life cycle.  Observe the droyne lesson; one is born, dreams,
>   makes sacrifices (for the common good?), meets eventual defeat,
>   then death, but *then* attains true achievement.  Defeat and death
>   are not the victor.  Is this droyne philosophy peeking out?  Or
>   even a droyne concept of the after-life?  Interesting.

A very interesting idea! However, that would mean that Sacrifice couldn't
depict a krinaytsui ceremony. What could it be instead?

> Darkness | Cold | Noise | Signal | Heat | Light
>   A progressively more positive line of "energy" or "positive entropy".
>   Note how the pairs work.  The "Void--Fire" series also may work like
>   this.

Interesting. 

> Beast | Mercenary | Voyages | Justice | Chance | Phoenix
>   Think of this like the "energy" sextet.  It would then pair from
>   closest to most extreme as:  Voyages/Justice, Merc/Chance, Beast/Phoenix.

This one seems a bit strained. But an interesting idea, nonetheless.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir


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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7936
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 23:36:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Regency force structures

I think that the rebellion will have an impact on regency force 
structures but I think that the rebellion's influence is minimal compared 
to the influence of the black war and Virus.

Imagine if you will that some common item in your life was discovered to 
be deadly.  Take light bulbs for example, suppose tommorrow morning you 
discover that having a common ordinary screw in light bulb turned on in 
your presence WILL KILL YOU!!!  Naturally people wouldn't use them 
anymore.  In time another method of illumination would be discovered that 
would not be hazardous.  Converting over to this new illumination method 
will be very expensive though.  Imagine getting rid of all of the light 
bulbs.  It's just too big to really do...

Now put yourself in the Regency.  Virus has made every piece of 
electronics potentially dangerous.  Maybe it will get infected and try to 
wipe you out.  Maybe it will just hold an egg to infect something 
bigger.  The threat Virus poses is very real.  Dealing with this threat 
will profoundly change the Regency.  Think of all of the computers and 
electronic they must have.  Why to convert them to safer configurations 
could take decades...

Any formation of Regency Military Forces must have an Electronic Warfare 
Unit.  This unit would provide Virus protection in addition to more 
traditional EW functions.  I imagine it would also have to have some 
electronic fabrication assets as well to repair dammaged electronic 
devices and to create "on the fly" new virus resistant electronic 
configurations.  The also might have a few nasty viruses in bottles to 
unleash on opponnents.

food for thought,
Steven Gott
Seattle, WA

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7937
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 23:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Military threats to the Regency

Off the cuff I can only think of the following

Vargar
Aslan
Zhodani
Virus

can anybody think of any others?

Steven Gott
Seattle, WA

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7938
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 01:15:32 -0700
From: rodge@cyberspace.com (Roger Sanger)
Subject: FOR SALE:  Judges Guild, etc.



Dear Everyone,

I've come across some more spares:

Tancred (CT adventure from Judges Guild)
Darthanon Queen (CT adventure from Judges Guild)
Supplement 13 - Veterans (GDW)
Adventure 9 - Nomads of the World Ocean (GDW)
Adventure 11 - Murder on Arcturus Station (GDW)
Double Adventure 4 - Marooned / Marooned Alone (GDW)
Double Adventure 5 - Chamax Plague / Horde (GDW)

All of the above were written for Classic Traveller.

Let me know if you are interested.

Rodge.

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7939
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 07:33:07 EDT
Subject: FICT/SCEN/AHIS : Shall Not Peris

FICT/SCEN/AHIS : Shall Not Perish - Government

 Wes Esser <wesley.esser@hd62.haledorr.com> posted a massive undertaking in
the
form of his vision of the Rgency government.  The majority of his
masterpiece is quite well thought out.  In particular the idea of a
planetary leaning in the one legislative arm and a population-based
slant in the other, the short take on the executive branch is sensible
and to the point, and the placement of the Regent in the scheme of
things.  Some points follow that I do wish to take issue with:

- - District courts: while matching the lowest level courts with the
Senatorial Districts I think there would be some basis for Planetary
Courts either in place of or in addition to these District Courts.
This would keep much of the local agenda from being decided by those
from different worlds.  This also would save on transportation costs.
At any level are jurors chosen in a manner similar to that in the
United Sates?  If so it is far less costly to move people about on a
single world (or system) than it would be to transport them one or
more parsecs, not to mention the time involved.  Think also of cost in
travel incurred by legal representation that need to travel to a
different system to participate in cases - or does the court travel to
the different planets to hear cases?  Obviously this applies to those
districts encompassing multiple systems.

- - Senate term length: 10 years seems like a long term.  Personally I'd
favor four or five year terms.  I guess I'm just a product of my
environment :) (check the trailer to see where)

- - Military: I agree that the military is not one of the branches of the
gov't but it does have some influence in the governing of the Regency
- - especially considering the quarantine and rapproachment with the
Zhos.  BTW does the Regency (and formerly the Imperium) have a
separate police force or is the military, particularly the army and
navy, given the task of enforcing laws?  Also shouldn't that be C-in-C
of the REGENCY Navy and Supreme Marshal of the REGENCY Army?



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


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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7940
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 07:35:33 EDT
Subject: TNE, DES

TNE, DES

James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> &
"Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
write about heavily armored ships.


I also don't get the 'Fisher' reference.

>Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The
>standard missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub
>surface bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've
>got firing these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will
>be to respond.

An improved method of achieving this objective, IMHO, would seem to be a
carrier/tended equiped with a number of remotely-piloted vehicles guided
from the mother ship.  This would allow the delivery systems to carry
the same punch with better maneuver performance as space for crew and
life-support would not be needed.

Regarding the ship classifications I like the proposed scheme that
battleships carry the heaviest weapons available at a given tech level
but modified to include armor in sufficient quantity to prevent turret
(& possibly bay) weapon penetration.  Cruisers would be armed similar to
battleships but without the full armor.  Lighter ships (destroyers,
frigates) would probably suffice with bay weapons and escorts and
cutters might only be expected to carry turreted weapons.

To add my Cr2's worth to the SDB argument - ships are tough to come by,
and they are expensive.  TNE pirate ships typically are modified
merchants and warships valued around MCr200-225.  As such one SDB coming
to the aid of a merchant harassed by one or two pirates is a definite
threat.  Also in the post re. protection of shipping lanes while the SDB
must maneuver to the location of the pirate the victim should be running
to the SDB and unless grappled and thrust applied in a different
direction will continue to do so thus decreasing the time until the
cavalry arrives on the scene.



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


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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7941
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 07:38:49 EDT
Subject: GEN - Swold World bickering

I think this post might be one of the missing posts, if not 
please excuse me for wasting the bandwidth.


>  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: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7942
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 09:08:41 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Lasers and other weapons

John Bogan (john.bogan@asb.com) writes
> Lasers should be limited to about 50 Mj/tech-level, which is an arbitrary
> limit,
> but is needed for game balance.  Joule for joule, lasers are more versatile
> than
> PA's or MG's and have a superior ability to deliver damage to the target.
> Allow them to compete directly, and there rapidly becomes no point to 
> building
> PA's and MG's.  Putting a limit on them keeps them at the low end of the
> weapons
> spectrum, where they have traditionally been in Traveller.

Perhaps, but lasers provide a solution to the question of how to arm a small
ship to have some impact against large ships.  You are right on the effect on
Traveller "tradition" however -- traditionally, HG fighters are so much 
twaddle.

The X-ray laser bothers me, however.  Unless my spreadsheet in completly wrong
(and it works for the book example) with an X-Ray laser I can punch full
power out to 80 hexes with a nominal (1 meter) focal array.  I would sooner
see some meaningful range depreciation.  On the other hand, if you make a 
set of technological assumptions, you should live the consequences.

For the lasers I am designing (6-8 Gj input energy) some limitation on power
transmission might make some sense.  As it is the light SDB I am designing
right now will look like a capaciter with an attitude -- mostly HPG's.

Because I do intend to design to the rules as written, pushing the envelope 
where needed.  If we all do that, we may find the tradeoffs between armour,
punch, and speed that the new rules impose.  If there are truely none, if 
there turn out to be no limitting factors, then we can talk about fixes.

In the meantime, do you have a sheet of factor 2000 armour you would like a 1m 
hole in? :-).

Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7943
From: b.borich@genie.geis.com
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 12:41:00 UTC
Subject: ECONOMIC SURVEY DATA/SHIP SIZE

    This a section of an HIWG document created a couple of years ago. The
fomulas used are based on TCS formulas. However rumour has it that TCS
figures don't necessarily apply to the Imperium (or necessarily anything
else in the traveller universe).
    Therefore the best thing to do is maybe forget the TCS vs 5FW debate
and start anew by testing the TNE figures givenn in the RCEs sourcebook.
But that's my opinion.....
 
HIWG doc HD 44.01                            DATE: 3-May-90
by Tim Koors
 
ABSTRACT
        Economic statistics derived from the sector UWP listings in the
        GEnie library. Note that Traveller and MegaTraveller are trademarks
        owned by GDW. The sector listings are also owned.
 
NOTES:
An asterisk before a Sector name signifies there is system information missing
in that sector file.
 
'Urb' identifies 'urban systems' that are high population, high technology.
The population figures are given in millions.
Gross product is in trillion Imperial credits. (TL 15 credits.)
All Gross Subsector Product figures are given in Imperial Credits,
using the conversion table in Striker Book 2.
 
Starport ship capacity is given in millions of displacement tons.
Shipyard Capacity formula: capacity = total pop * (GM = 1) / 1000
 
Spinward Marches Sector                            Early     Average     High
Subsector      Systems  Urb      Pop  Gross Prod   A   B     A    B     A    B
CRONOR              24    1     9878      126.16    0   0     9    0     0    0
JEWELL              23    1    47540      198.77    0   1     7    0     0    0
REGINA              32    1    75865      229.40    0   0     9    1     0    0
ARAMIS              26    0    38347      123.84    0  35     0    0     0    0
QUERION             21    1    84644      600.58    0   0     0    0     0    0
VILIS               26    1    19094       90.54    9   1     0    0     0    0
LANTH               27    0     1210        3.44    0   0     0    0     0    0
RHYLANOR            32    4    43652      445.53    0   0    25    0     9    0
DARRIAN             29    3    21596      209.92    0   0    15    0     3    0
SWORD WORLDS        28    3    41311      399.54    0  26     7    9     0    0
LUNION              25    2    21261      378.09    0   1    19    0     0    0
MORA                26    3    51914      834.66    0   0    25    0    19    0
FIVE SISTERS        27    0     1048        5.25    0   1     0    0     0    0
DISTRICT 268        32    2    11688       77.87    0   1     0    3     0    0
GLISTEN             29    2    24643      286.97    0   3     1    1     9    0
TRIN'S VEIL         32    1    20779      473.23    0   0     1    0    15    0
Total              439   25   514470     4483.79    9  69   118   14    55    0
 
 
Deneb Sector                                       Early     Average     High
Subsector      Systems  Urb      Pop  Gross Prod   A   B     A    B     A    B
PRETORIA            31    2    13082       57.22    2   8     0    0     0    0
LAMAS               31    0    76375      151.87    0   0     0    0     0    0
ANTRA               25    0     3167       10.40    0   0     0    0     1    0
MILLION             22    1     3872       24.98    1   0     0    0     0    0
SABINE              27    2    15276      261.06    0   0     0    4     9    0
INAR                36    4    86631      893.35    0   0     0   14     0    7
DUNMAG              28    1    17047      124.94    0   0     0    0     0    0
ATSAH               24    2     8154      105.82    0   0     0    6     0    3
STAR LANE           30    1    95759     1064.57    0   0     0    0     0    0
VINCENNES           32    2    46393     1112.93    0   0     0    0    15    0
USANI               30    1    67542      680.30    0   1     0   65     0    0
GENIISHIR            4    0      755       10.13    0   0     0    1     0    0
GUF                 23    1   102580      863.59    0   1     0    0     0    0
ZENG                36    2   155707     2602.09    0   0     1   65     0    0
KAMLAR               6    0        1        0.00    0   0     0    0     0    0
VAST HEAVENS         2    0      515        0.00    0   0     0    0     0    0
Total              387   19   692856     7963.25    3  10     1  155    25   10
 
 
Corridor Sector                                    Early     Average     High
Subsector      Systems  Urb      Pop  Gross Prod   A   B     A    B     A    B
KHOUTH              29    2    71189     1117.45    0   0     5    1     0    0
KHUKISH             37    5    62390     1509.48    0   0     1    9    27   25
LEMISH              32    0     2561       15.64    0   0     0    2     0    0
THE NARROWS         30    1    16300      162.38    0   0     0    0     0    9
IAN                 23    0    97035       43.95    0   0     0    0     1    0
STRAND              20    1    18617       46.18    0   1     0    0     1    0
NAADI               11    0        9        0.01    0   0     0    0     0    0
UANTI                3    0      559        1.95    0   1     0    0     0    0
SHUSH                1    0        0        0.00    0   0     0    0     0    0
THE EMPTY VOID       1    0        0        0.00    0   0     0    0     0    0
ATU'L                2    0        7        0.00    0   0     0    0     0    0
KIVU                 6    0       93        0.83    0   0     0    0     0    0
TWO WORLDS           2    0      250        2.24    0   0     0    0     0    0
ASHISHINIPAR         4    0     4575       22.05    0   5     0    0     0    0
SINTA               21    1     5613       90.72    0   0     0    4     0    0
SASHRAKUSHA         45    1    11081      122.76    0   0     0    0     0    0
Total              267   11   290279     3135.64    0   7     6   16    29   34
 
========================================================================
 
    Insofar as ship sizes are concerned (for the figuring of ship
classifications). CT made large vessels likely and probable given the combat
and design rules. MT made warships top out at about 50k tons or less because
of the combat rules (Meson guns made larger vessels impratical except for
maybe showing the flag.... otherwise they appeared to be to fragile in
combat). With the advent of TNE maybe the balance has gone back to CT sizes
(or has it). So far this last is unknown till some designs get generated
and combat done.
    Plus RCEs and Regency ship classifications will differ because of the
big buiding gap. (Which also brings up building capacity... looking
at Oriflamme[?] as an example of sorts might be wortwhile).

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

Bundle: 632
Archive-Message-Number: 7944
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: TNE-RCES equipment
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 14:17:40 +0100 (BST)

HI  again  all , this will be the first of several today  and  im
going to lead with a question.

Has anyone got the RCES equipment manual and some time ?
	If you have would you please calculate up the damage  for
the  shot guns as by my calculations they dont work at  all ,  id
be  much  graetful  for this as im  now  having  serios  thoughts
abought  the  reliablity of the entire TNE supplements  that  are
out so far.

Thanks very much in advance. 
L Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #633: Msgs 7945-7953 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 22:00:03 EDT 1994
Reply-To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #633: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 633  7945 10-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       more TNE/2300 guns << Hi again again
 633  7946 10-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       TNE/2300 yet more guns << more guns aga
 633  7947 10-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Re: Feudal Technocracy <<   FEUDAL TECH
 633  7948 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5001: Feudal Technocracy <
 633  7949 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Militar
 633  7950 10-Jun-1994 George Herbert   Re: 7949 << >> The very fact that a TCS
 633  7951 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5002: Feudal Technocracy <
 633  7952 10-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5003: Kudos << Gentlesopho
 633  7953 10-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Regency Blockade (Specifics) <<   A DIS

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7945
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: more TNE/2300 guns
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 14:42:53 +0100 (BST)

Hi again again
	here  come  the guns again falling from my  head  like  a
memory  ( with apoliges to the eurithmics)

M-2 assult rifle Tl12  9*44mm APHE

9mm round
ammo length = 62 mm
	Lcc = 44 mm
	weight = 27.9g
EA	= 5822 J
round price = 0.558 Cr (ball)  1.67Cr HEAP

weapon
	barrel
Bla = 71 cm
lb = 43.5 cm
barrel type = heavy
	weigt = 1.3 Kg
	price = 522 Cr

Actual muzzle energy = 4694.5 J
dam = 5d-1
pen = 2-4-nill (ball)  2-2-2 (HEAP)

reciver = light
ROF = 5
reciver length = 30.5 cm
	weight = 5.8  Kg
	cost = 1455.5 Cr

stock bullpup   5cm  0.5 Kg   10 Cr
range  43M ( ball)  33M (HEAP)

feed magazine 30 round
	empty = 0.57 Kg
	Full = 1.4 Kg

Tl9 optic sight 0.1 Kg 150Cr short ranges now 50m  Bal 38MHEAP

Recoil  3/8
bulk 5  weight 8.6 Kg  length 79 cm
cost  2137.5 Cr
  

NOTES :   Like all the firearms to follow the barrel  length  was
calculated   after the reciver to give the same length as in  the
2300  rules , any deviance is due to the barrel not fitting  into
the useable peramiters in FFS



Wu-Beijing  Type 49 assult rifle Tl12  7.5*35mm ball

7.5mm round
ammo length (necked)  = 50mm
		lcc= 35 mm
ammo weight = 15g
Ea = 3216.2 J
ammo price/ round= 0.3 Cr

weapon
barrel
bla = 57.17 cm
lb = 30.3 cm
barrel type = light
	weight = 0.606 Kg
	cost = 121.2 Cr

actual muzzle energy = 2460 J
DAM = 4d-1
Pen = 2-3-nill

reciver = light
ROF = 3
reciver length = 22.7 cm
	weight = 3.216 Kg
	price = 804 Cr

stock Folding  5/25 cm  0.5 Kg  50 Cr

range = 28 M

feed = magazine 28 rounds
empty wt = 0.261 Kg
full wt = 0.636 Kg

Tl 9 optic sight 0.1 Kg 150 Cr  short range now  32M

recoil 3/5

bulk 4/5  weight 5.1 Kg  length 58/78 cm
cost 1125.2 Cr
 
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7946
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: TNE/2300 yet more guns
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 15:09:21 +0100 (BST)

more guns again
 
	and  remember  if at first you dont sucseed bye  the  GMs
pizza

SG-77  Tl12  bullpup 5.5*51mm assult rifle

round
ammo length ( necked) = 51mm
	lcc = 40mm
Ea = 1976.7 J
round price  0.19Cr

Weapon
Barrel
Bla = 65.32 cm
bl = 51 cm
barrel type = light
	weight = 1.02 Kg
	price = 204 Cr

actual muzzle energy = 1759 J 
D = 3d-1
pen = 1-nill

reciver = light
ROF = 5
reciver length = 17.78 cm Extended to 20.1cm for magazine
	weight = 1.976 Kg "	    " 2,23 Kg"   	"
	price = 558.4 Cr

stock bullpup 5cm  0.1 Kg 10 Cr

range = 39M

Feed magazine 40 rounds
empty wt = .25 Kg
full wt = 0.63 Kg
 
Bayonet lug presant

recoil = 3/7
bulk 5  length 76 cm   weight 3.88 Kg
cost 772.4 Cr



BF - 1 assult rifle 7.5*1mm Tl12 ETC

7.5 mm round ETC
ammo length  18.5 mm
	lcc = 11mm
ammo weight =  3.88g
average muzzle energy = 505 J
ammo price = 0.155 Cr

barrel
Bla = 35.9 cm
lb = 59 cm
barrel type = light
	weight = 1.18 kg
	price = 236 Cr

E = 667.5 J
D = 2d-1
pen = 1-nill

reciver = light self loader
ROF = 3
reciver length = (8.9cm) 17 cm
	weight = 1.1Kg
	price = 464 Cr

stock bullpup   5cm  0.1 Kg  10 Cr

range 45 M
feed = magazine 40 rounds
empty Wt = .54 Kg
full wt = 0.69 Kg

Tl9 optical sight 0.1 Kg 150 Cr  short now  52M

recoil 1/2
mass 3.17Kg    length  81 cm    bulk 5
cost  860 Cr
	

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


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7947
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 17:32:13 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracy


  FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY AND JAPANESE TERMS (and firms!)


Hans Ranke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

[David Johnson, I think...]
>>In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the 
>>entire economic sytem.  This is why US industry fears the Japanese 
>>*kieritsu* so much.  They are concerned that their coordinated activity 
>>gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage.

As for US industry, part of the problem is the Japanese are much better
about long-term planning than we have been.  US companies seem to think
of next-quarter's profits.  Japanese firms try to think of next decade's.
Then, there's other cultural barriers...but that's off on a tangent.

>It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.

No, not really.  The Japanese *do* have anti-trust laws -- the US
helped write some of them in the late forties.  They're run by that
boogeyman of the US, MITI (Ministry of Int'l Trade and Industry), 
I believe.  And please be careful about the differences between 
keiretsu and zaibatsu -- they are like apples and oranges (to use a 
cliche).  They're both fruit.  They're both more-or-less round.  They
are not the same thing.  

Let me try explaining the difference again in a *very* rough and at
least partly inaccurate way.  Zaibatsu were focused, vaguely feudal
cartels which, while not monopolies, occasionally were able to form
oligopolies in certain fields.  Keiretsu are loose, informal associations
which are in a sense networks of informal corporate "connections" 
that can work together to overcome problems.  Members of a keiretsu
aren't tied together in the way the zaibatsu were.  The part that makes
either of these look "feudal" to Westerners has a lot to do with, among
other things, the associated lifetime employment traditional in Japan.

Let's look at the Traveller terms again:

"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."
 
The first sentence is the "feudal" part.  The second sentence is the
"technocracy" part.  (Roughly.)
 
Note both what this says and doesn't say.  Government "for those who
agree to be ruled".  The zaibatsu concept works for this; you can
choose who you work for. Maybe they aren't interested in what you
can offer.  Maybe you aren't interested in what they offer.  So then
you both pick someone else.  Once you choose, it's expected that you 
have chosen for life.  In return, you have a place for life. 
The organization won't desert you, and you won't desert it.  This
whole thing is a lot like the freemen --> vassal process worked in
the middle ages.  Those relationships were based on mutual
protection, so the equivalence isn't quite total.  Whether or not
these relationships are hereditary isn't specified.  Neither is
societal inflexibility.  Such a system might be constructed in which
it is possible to start at the bottom and be gradually promoted into
a position of power, perhaps even one of the "specific individuals"
that help to run the whole system, by being at the top of their
particular feudal chain.

Another quote on early zaibatsu, same source as yesterday (p. 297):

"The ownership of large family enterprises remained in the hands of
 the original family, but management was gradually transferred to
 head clerks, who stayed with the company for life.  In fact, the
 whole business firm was a sort of extended family, with a strong
 sense of mutual loyalty between employees and employers...."
 
Kind of a cross between the two.  And more extreme systems either
way can easily be imagined.  And companies don't even need to be
part of it -- that isn't specified either!  There are many ways
to develop a government by specific individuals by those who
agree to be ruled, based on whatever.


  ASLAN AND FEUDALISM

Another system to look at in Traveller while considering this is
the Aslan Hierate's clan system, which culminates in the Tlaukhu,
the council of the Twenty-Nine.  While not a feudal technocracy, it
is a fairly feudal system.  The fteirle have no king.  But one is
properly respectful to the Yerlyaruiwoko!  Some clans are considered 
"more important" than others in stature, but there is no true central 
authority.  There's other cultural stuff going on here too, so 
be careful.  But you don't even *need* a single leader over everyone,
if you have another stable solution -- like a lot of little leaders
that don't go for each other's throats.

  OTHER RELATED GOVERNMENT TYPES

"Company/Corporation.  Government by a company managerial elite;
 citizens are company employees."
 
Note that this seems to imply one company in control.  Which makes
sense -- this government type is most often seen with small population
codes, so it works well for isolated mines, facilites, and so forth.
This covers everything from a SuSAG psi-drug facility on an otherwise
uninhabited world, to "The Chartered Zarathustra Company" which is
in charge of the resources and colonization of Zarathustra.  

Now, if you have a collection of companies which own or control bits
of the planet, perhaps a better code would be:

"Balkanization.  No central ruling authority exists; rival governments
 compete for control."

And in fact, most of the government types can be twisted in a way
that allow companies to be used, if you twist the company enough too.
That's the beauty of Traveller government types; they are flexible. 
A lot of the codes in the UWP are like this.  The idea of the UWP is
to have a system in which you can generate a sample world in ten 
minutes and then be able to take it and develop it massively in many
different possible directions.  Without a system in the game like 
the UWP, we'd never be able to develop entire sectors in a way that
was at all realistic in a reasonable amount of time.


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

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7948
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 18:36:33 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5001: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

We seem to have sparked a great deal of interest with the feudal technocracy
discussion.  It's generated a lot of useful information, IMHO.

From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford <langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> writes:

>     Perhaps if I say that the technical managers are also vassals of 
>     the noble they serve this helps?

I guess I was looking for an explanation of the nature of the vassal
relationship.  In a medieval feudal aristocracy the lord received military
services and local resources from the vassal and in return provided 
coordinated security.  In a situation in which the technical vassals
`manage' activities for the lord I don't see what they're getting in
return that is equivalent to the security provided by the medieval lord.
If all the `technocrats' get is pay you really only have a corporate
system.

>     I was not, 
>     by the way, proposing that the system I posted was the ONE TRUE 
>     DEFINITION OF FEUDAL TECHNOCRACY. Just that it describes -a- 
>     system that fits the term.

Okay, I was trying to focus on the specifics that distinguish a feudal 
technocracy from other forms like a corporate model or aristocractic
oligarchy.

>     After all, given Traveller's method for 
>     classifying governments, the same government could be classified 
>     different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be 
>     most apparent by the typical traveller. 

Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion
does it?

>     Obviously I could have been 
>     clearer by describing the importance of the mutual obligations 
>     between vassals and his/her liege lord.

Yes, this is key regardless of what terms are used to describe the
participants.

>     <In a feudal technocracy the technocracy `buzz-word' shifts the 
>     <focus from military affairs to industrial activities
>     
>     I agree it can do. I don't agree it automatically does. The 'buzz 
>     word' as it has been termed describes an approach to managing 
>     industrial resources (see the definition I posted earlier).

I think technocracy speaks of more than mere `management' of technical
activities.  I beleive technocracy calls for *rule* of the society by
those with technical knowledge and skills.  I see `technical' as being
much broader than just engineering and science - it is the entire network
of infrastructure that permits technical activities to occur - industry.

>     I think you can still have a high tech militarily centred Feudal 
>     system which is technocratic in nature.

Certainly, but as I've suggested elsewhere, I believe such a `specialized'
feudal technocracy will be the exception rather than the rule, just as
representative democracies with a very narrowly defined demos will be the
exception.

>     To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the 
>     description of a Corporate Government.

Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system
there is no bond between employer and employee.  The employer may sever the
relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will.  This is why
corporate systems only occur at low population levels.

>     Given Traveller's way of 
>     classifying governments, there is no reason why it can't be both.

Again, yes, but this sort of dampens the discussion.  I find it useful and
interesting to focus on those aspects which *do* distinguish one form from
another.

>     And since we have gotten on to discussing government types, does 
>     anyone else have an example of how they have interpreted a 
>     Traveller government type they'd like to post?

As I'm always one to stir the pot, how about this idea?  If we look at all
government types in terms on two key points: the nature of ruling authority
(who rules) and the source of that authority (who consents to that rule)
we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single*
individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others
(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of
of authority.  Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires
*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7949
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 19:14:44 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Military

Gentlesophonts:

Les Howie <lhowie@Prograph.Com> writes:

> I would suggest that, given a strong memory of the rebellion, Regency forces
> would be controlled at a far more cetralized level.

Welcome to the *Shall Not Perish* effort, Les!

> I rather liked H. Beam Pipers term from the Terran Federation period -- The
> "Fleet-Army Force."

Ah, another Piper fan.  Always glad to meet one.

> The very fact that a TCS campaign is a straight wargame means that you start
> the whole exercise in an arms race.

Good point.  Hope some TCS-ites are paying attention.

> Then there is the
> question of the proportion of fleet resourses going to anti-virus defence...)

This seems to be a point of some disagreement.  It seems to me it has been
suggested that anti-Viral activities will be the focus of the Quarantine
Service while more `traditional' military activities would be handled by
the conventional military services.  I also seem to remember other suggestions
that there would not be such a distinction.  [WARNING! : I don't have TNE!]
What's the New Era literature have to say in this area?

> The base battalion remains fixed to a recruiting territory -- 
> a fixed area of a given world.

What's the distinction here between `indigineous' defense battalions
(those forces that remain on a particular world) and `mobile' forces
(the `regular' Army)?

> Regiments are recruited based on the society and capabilities 
> of the home world

Does this include aerospace and nautical forces?  I'd like to see work
for the Regency that focuses on the entire Army rather than one limited
to only the Ground Force Command as was the case previously in the Imperium.

> I will put some thought into higher formations, to troop 
> types

Yes, I'd prefer a `strategic' (dare I use that word again?) focus in
addition to a `tactical' focus.  It seems to me it should be simple to start
at the `General Staff' and `Admiralty' level and work down just as it is
beneficial to start at the combat unit level and work up.

Let's get busy!

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7950
Subject: Re: 7949
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:21:26 -0700
From: George Herbert <gwh@crl.com>


>> The very fact that a TCS campaign is a straight wargame means that you start
>> the whole exercise in an arms race.
>
>Good point.  Hope some TCS-ites are paying attention.

We had a whole lot of politics going down in all the TCS games
I've played in... *shrug* 8-)


I think the final analysis of what fleet strengths should be lies
with each individual gamer's view of the universe.  You can argue
this source or that source forever, getting nowhere.  That's pointless,
though it's a common hobby among gamers ;-)  

Work it out yourself for your world.  Me?  When I work it out from
first principles based on how I think things work, I get numbers that
look like the TCS numbers, and I shrug and use the TCS numbers
to be consistent with everyone else.  I'm sure others can assume
less military spending or different breakdowns of where it goes
and get an order or so less in magnitude in spending.

This _does_ require some imagination, people.  It's a Game 8-)

- -george


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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7951
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:25:46 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5002: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

First, some final stirrings of the `techno-economic cycles' debate.

Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> You asked for an explanation of
> how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I 
> suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
> Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
> that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are.

I'm worried we're getting a little acrimonious here.  Let me state that I
*accept* that the techno-economic cycles are *possible*.  I find them very
*unlikely* based upon my understanding of economics *and* technology.  I
also find the idea of Zhodani support to be a more credible (and therefore
more likely) explanation for Gram's domination of the Sword Worlds.  I also
prefer this explantion from a *gaming* standpoint because it provides for
some interesting ramifications in the Sword Worlds should the nature of
Zhodani support for Gram change in the New Era.

> What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
> world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
> Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
> _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3

I accept this.  And it *is* a factual record.  From *Supplement 3: The
Spinward Marches* to *MegaTraveller Journal* #3 we have a period of about
fifteen years of elapsed time.  Clearly there were some changes in this
data (you've mentined the allegiance codes) so the fact that UWP changes
weren't made *must* be assumed to be intentional.  (Although I *suspect*
there *was* no intention, as in much of what's appeared over the years.)

Now [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] it's my understanding that there were some
significant UWP changes for the the Regina subsector material presented in
*TNE*.  Clearly, this is intentional as well.  Whether it is *reconcilable*
with any of the pre-TNE material is another matter.

> So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and
> steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the
> centuries. We just can't tell from the record.

I don't think it's that certain.  Yes, there may have been cycles but as
it stands the records show fifteen years of stagnation and *no* evidence of
any down turn.

> I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's
> economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries
> by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I
> can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the 
> centuries much more readily.

Let's remember all this is occurring in a 2D universe!  How's that for a
suspension of disbelief?  Seriously, I, too, find the rate of technological
advancement inscrutably slow but can rationalize it as a legacy of Vilani
culture.  These `techno-economic cycles' seem to add one more layer of
required suspension of disbelief for me, especially in the absence of any
evidence to support them.  You must also realize by now that we're you to come
up now with just *one* example of a down turn, I'd explain it away as a mere
typo?  :-)

> If the planet at any future date
> becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its 
> technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously 
> cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had 
> TL B in under EL A in the first place).

This is what grates with my economic and technological sensibilities.  You,
yourself, have maintained that *maintenance* of a particular level of
technology is easier than *advancing* into a new level.  Technological
capability may be tied to economic capability but it is not directly so.
Economies fluctuate all the time.  Technological fluctuation occurs much
less frequently and is a much more *serious* event.  I maintain that a
*severe* economic downturn would be required to produce a significant (in
terms of a tech level change) technological downturn.  Recall that our only
modern example where this sort of event *might* have happened is during the
Great Depression.

So, in conclusion Hans, I agree that these `techno-economic cycles' are
quite *possible*, but based upon my understanding of economics and technology
they are, IMHO, very *unlikely* and virtually impossible on a wide-scale
basis such as an entire subsector, much less across an entire sector or
more.

Now on to the question of feudal technocracy.

> >No.  A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
> >industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity
> >or `protection'.  
> 
> Then its not analogous to a feudal society.

Why not?  What if I had said `*holders* of industrial production'?

> Let's get a few definitions
> straight:

What I get from your emphasis on these defintions is a focus on *land*.
Is that where our disagreement lies?  I grant the `ownership of land' by
the lord but don't see it as being very important despite what the venerable
Oxford tome has to say.  The key part of the lord's end of the feudal
agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some
tenuous grant of land possession.

> And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel
> and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the
> board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord?
> And all the shareholders are always in accord too?

Of course there is dissent among the various shareholders, just as there
was often dissent among the vassals of a particular lord.  I don't see
your point here.  What is there about this that suggests it isn't feudal?

> >In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
> >and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
> >as *separate* and distinct entities.
> 
> Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in
> a corporation?

The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
to the Chairman of *that* company.  This is akin to a medieval situation in
which a single individual had risen to the top of the feudal structure,
a king.  Maybe the difference here is that you're looking at, say, Gram,
as medieval Germany, while I'm at looking the entire Sword Worlds as all of
medieval Europe?

> I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of
> a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief.

I'm confused.  You wrote:

> >>Traditional feudal society	Corporation		Feudal technocracy

Which suggested a three-way comparison to me: feudal aristocracy, corporate
system *and* feudal technocracy.  I guess I misunderstood you.

> And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.

In theory, yes.  In practice, not very often, unless the system had travelled
well down the road toward autocracy.  A corporate model is *always* auto-
cratic.

> >This isn't correct.  In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
> >land. 
> 
> Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the
> biggest lord around.

Etc.

Okay, I stand corrected.  I maintain though that this `ownership' was not
the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal
agreement.  Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services
that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement.

> Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back 
> him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs.

Okay, I stand corrected again,  You're talking about the *philosophy* of
feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its
practical implementation).  I think my focus is more useful in trying to
understand the translation of the medeival feudal aristocracy to the 
feudal technocracy of Traveller.

> Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner.

No.  The shareholders are a morass of different interests just like the
various vassals of a medieval lord.

> In theory
> they make up one person, the owner of the corporation.

Again, I don't think talking about theory is particularly useful.

> The Chairman works
> for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?

In practice there is *no* difference.  In *practice* the medieval king
`works' for the vassals in provinding coordinated security services just
as the technocratic king works for the shareholders in providing 
coordinated profit services.  The medieval vassals provided military
service *and* taxes and the technocratic vassal provides financial
capital.  The two situations are *very* analogous, IMHO.

> A fief has _one_ owner.

Just as any single bloc of shares has *one* owner.

> A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make
> the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, 
> but these bits then become parts of other fiefs).

Exactly.  Just as purchasers of shares gain title to their own new fief!

> And if a company is the 
> equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.

No.  A private company, without public shareholders (there may *still* be
several *private* shareholders), is akin to a `barony' on an island in
the middle of an ocean somewhere.  It's not part of a feudal system either.

> There can be no
> shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.

The group of shares held in common by any single shareholder (this may be
a group of individuals but with respect to their stock they are acting in
concert) *is* a fief!

> It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.

I think that is a *great* definition of feudal technocracy!  See, because
it considers the entire economy (i.e., `capitalism') it is much more 
complicated than any single corporate system.  (BTW, the reason there
*aren't* any anti-trust laws in a feudal technocracy is because political
power is tied directly to economic power - there is no `government' to 
control the economic barons.  In a sense, the civil war on Joyeuse can
be seen as an `anti-trust' action!)

> Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.

Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*.
Medieval vassals paid taxes to their lords.

> I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself.
> But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the
> title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the
> Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-)

It seems to me you're still focused on a single company.  A feudal
technocracy has to involve the *entire* economy.  To use the *Space Viking*
model, there were probably `veterinary service' fiefs under Traskon and
`geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills, just as Traskon and 
Karvallmills were held in fealty to Duke Angus.  Remember that Trask
and Karvall were Angus's *vassals* but Trask later *sold* Traskon to
Angus. Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
Worlds.  Profit generation was.

> That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in
> its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar-
> Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron.

Trask sold the entire barony because he needed it for the ship, *not* because
he couldn't sell it in parts!  (He was also anxious to get away from Gram.)

> But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony
> (ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must
> remain relatively intact).

Why?  This happens all the time, now.  Through a series of mergers and
acquisitions International Telephone and Telegraph (IT&T) no longer has
any telecommunications businesses as it's `core'.

> Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more
> fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to
> gain the support of some of the other big dukes.

Okay, so he did just like I've suggested Sacnoth ought to do with Gram.
He used his greater economic strength to acquire military force that
permitted him to quicken the process of economic hegemony and eventual
monopoly.  He convinced other Gram nobles to support him just like I
suggested Sacnoth might find supporters among the other Sword Worlds for
a move against Gram.  Are you arguing my case now?  :-)

> No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the
> industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the
> ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for
> king.

Doesn't `glommed onto' here mean the same thing as `controlling large blocks
of industrial production'?  What difference does it make how they came into
possession?

> Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and
> place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin  lot of pull in electing 
> the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund 
> belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it?

No, I'm not talking about the *company's* pension fund.  It's pension funds
for, say, teachers.  The teachers' union has a pension fund for its members.
These funds can run to billions of dollars.  The manager of this pension
fund, hired by the teachers' union, is responsible for gaining the best
return for the fund (or she get's fired - a corporate arrangement).  The
pension fund manager chooses to buy shares in, say, IBM.  The teachers'
union becomes a shareholder of IBM, a `technocratic vassal'.  If the fund
has purchased a large enough share of IBM it enjoys a great deal of influence
on the IBM board.  If IBM isn't profitable it's shares lose value and the
pension fund loses money.  This makes the teachers mad and the next thing 
you know, CEO Akers (the technocratic lord) is out and CEO Gerstner in now
running IBM.

It's actually much more complicated because the teachers' union pension fund
is invested in General Motors and Exxon and Mitsubishi Industries, etc. as
well.  And then you have the railroad union, and the government employees
union, and Ross Perot, all the other investing shareholders in the market
place, including the corporations themselves which all own shares in each
other.  It's as complicated as medieval Germany.

> We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land 
> from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath.

Again, you're focused on theory and legal underpinnings.  Do you suppose
Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded Glaspyth?
The teachers' union has no legal `right' to replace the CEO but it happens
when they're displeased nonetheless.
 
> If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early 
> state of the formation of the kingdom. 

Tom O'Neill has already identified our respective focuses upon opposite
ends of the feudal spectrum.  (Although I don't see myself as *being* on
the other end - it's just easier to illustrate the workings of the
system from there.)

> You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But
> a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if 
> they are vulnerable.

No.  In a feudal *technocracy*, economic power is tied directly to political
power.  (Just as political power was tied to land and military power in the
medieval feudal system.)

> The reason US Industry 
> fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram
> be vulnerable just because the US is?

Because the Sword Worlds do not have the political stucutures outside of
the economic stucture that contemporary free-market governments do.  In
actuality, Gram is *more* vulnerable than the US.

> >>2) He isn't that much stronger.
> > 
> >He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage.  
> 
> Not according to the Traveller rules.

Okay.  You argue this one with former-TMLer and flame-prone Mr. Higginbotham.

> Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
> about economic superiority?

I was simply pointing out, as Duke Angus of Wardshaven recognized, that 
military action would speed up the process of economic domination.  It
makes domination happen quicker but it will happen regardless.

> William White writes a whole heap of good stuff:

Yes, he did.  Very good.  I've already responded on some points.

> The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
> for tenancy with services instead of money.

Try to get away from theoretical definitions an instead think about how
it is implemented in *practice*.

> But I suggest
> that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
> the feudal fief.

No.  It's based upon *possession*, of a land fief or a stock fief.  It is
manifest in the nature of the *obligations* (coordinated services on the
part of the lord, local services and resources on the part of the vassal)
arising from the feudal agreement.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7952
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:54:20 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5003: Kudos

Gentlesophonts:

Just a quick bit of recognition to those of you who joined in the feudal
technocracy debate.  Thanks to Bill White, Steve Bonneville, Tom O'Neill,
Bruce Johnson, Pete Juzyk and, of course, my sparring partner, Hans Ranke,
for your participation and contributions.  This has been the sort of
inclusive discussion I've always known the TML was capable of.

BTW, have you noticed the paltry level of particpation over on XTML so
far?  I told you all those gigabytes of pre-PIE (Post Imperial Era) in the
sky posts were mostly hot air.  :-)

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 633
Archive-Message-Number: 7953
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 22:26:09 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Regency Blockade (Specifics)

  A DISCUSSION OF THE DENEBIAN BLOCKADE
  
I know this has been hashed out once, but I thought another close
look at it couldn't hurt.

The maps of the Frontier-Wilds line in _Survival Margin_ and TNE 
don't quite jibe.  SM suggests that some vargr states in Gvurrdon
are still holding out.  (Look *above* the legend box near the Zho
border.)  TNE shows everything outside Regency/Consulate space to
be Wilds.  If you take all wilds to be virus-infested, then there
are no uninfected surviving vargr states.  So the Regency is 
forced to defend the entire coreward border at full force.

In Deneb, some subsectors are totally lost: Million, Atsah, and
Antra beyond the xboat line, and a world or two in Lamas.  Except
for some loss in Antra, these were mainly worlds *already* lost
to the vargr or the client states near Atadl.  The worlds in the
Great Rift, although shown otherwise, are isolated out far enough
to be safe.  The naval blockade at Catacomb (2234) is actually
*outside* the frontier line drawn.  No bases were at Catacomb as
of 1120.

In Reft, the Rift Republic is a Frontier.  However, so is the RC.
It belongs to neither side of the Rift -- it's jump-7 either way.
However, the link to the Denebians at Tonnurad was threatened by
the New Lords expansion in the 1120s.  The Republic's defense is
assured since the only virus approaches are through the Old Islands
worlds -- and we all know about how strong the local military is.
Otherwise, the Reft worlds on the Denebian side are fairly safe.
All have class-B starports, and there is a former Imperial Navy
base at Arnorac (2509) that had seen a sharp increase in traffic
since 1116, and which the RQS could use.

In Troy, the defensive line seems to exclude two important worlds
(the *only* two worlds) in the Binary subsector.  Both should be
safe.  First, they belong to the Denebian side of the Rift.  One,
Sarage (2938), was the site of an Imperial research station and
naval base.  The other, Auitawry, is a weird one.  An interdicted
droyne world at tech-15, with a class-A port, droyne naval base,
known Ancient site, and 500 million residents.  It might *own* the
other by now!  So even if virus could get there, it would have
a few troubles once the worlds had warning.

I wonder how Virus and the Ancient ship in Komesh would get along?

In Riftspan, the New Lords have it right.  The main jump-5 route
that runs through the mid-rift cluster has been cut just short
of it, at Aoki (1816).  Afatre (2219) on in is outside the line.
There is a *second* jump-5 route across the rift that branches
off at Esui, but it is also cut in the best place, at Waikhta
(1420).  The cuts are in just the right places to deny the virus
access to any worlds accessible on the Denebian side of the Rift.
From Waikhta, you can reach two worlds, and shortly the mid-Rift
cluster is accessible.  I fully expect that both systems look like
Aslan naval depots by now.

In fact, the Aslan line is far more defensible than the Regency's
position.  A better place for the Regency line would be Corridor/B
Windhorn/N, and the best would have been Corridor/D, Windhorn/P.
However, these were vargr held regions.  I suppose that the vargr
fought a valiant rear-guard action in Corridor and Windhorn to
try to save themselves and the states further to spinward (a success
would have brought "mongo charisma" <grin>) but undoubtedly it was
impossible for them to organize enough to form a tight barrier in
time.  It probably held long enough for Deneb to get organized, 
though.

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

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

End of TML Bundle
******************
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #634: Msgs 7954-7964 
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 22:00:03 EDT 1994
Reply-To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Precedence: bulk

TML bundles come from the archives maintained by
traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin).

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

Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 22:00:05 EDT
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML bundle #634: Table of Contents

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 634  7954 10-Jun-1994 "James M. Kelle  Misc. Clean?? << Hi There,
 634  7955 11-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      TNE: Ships/weapons/armor  << At last a 
 634  7956 11-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      TNE: Ship Lasers          << Doc 142.13
 634  7957 11-Jun-1994 adrian@per.dms.  Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7949-7949 V76#7 <
 634  7958 11-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Regency Military and Government <<
 634  7959 11-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5004: Feudal Technocracy <
 634  7960 11-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Fleets and K'kree Coincidence << PBJuzy
 634  7961 11-Jun-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Re: Feudal Technocracy << David Johnson
 634  7962 11-Jun-1994 Muir Macpherson  Econ Cycles <<  In an effort to save ba
 634  7963 11-Jun-1994 BORIS ZAIDFELD   TOP LASER '94 << Hello there,
 634  7964 12-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      Re: K`kree and fighters   << >PBJuzyk <

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7954
Subject: Misc. Clean??
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 94 21:20:48 PDT
From: "James M. Kelleher" <kelleher@holonet.net>

Hi There,

I have a longer post which I'll get to soon I really want to get some 
permissions first as some of the "NPC's" are mine and one of my player's
P.C.'s who are not really able to travell as they have duties to the 
Domain ( Tm. :-) ) so I make this post instead.
Last night Jim ( James Kundert ) and I were talking on the phone about a 
many things, Some pertaining to our campaign group, Where do we go from here
and the change over to the T:TNE rules set. 
One fo the things we discussed was the premise that you could and would see
Heplar, Fusion Rockets and thrusters in the same milue. Think for a munite.
say the technology for thrusters is a little esoteric and the method of 
manufacture requires a tech of a certain type then eariler ships or those  
built at places unable to build the ( VERY Expensive ) thrusters would use
the alternatives and the spaceports would know how to handel those ships.
"Just park it over there Yea thaat slagged down area". "I'm sorry sir but
now that your ship si docked in the upstation your engines will have to be
locked out!"
Another idea that occured to me was how do you clean a starship? Especilly 
the interior. Programmible Vacuum cleaners? ( I was reading the Roche world 
why do you ask...? :-)) nobody has designed some thing like the Christmas
bush motile for traveller.
Jim pointed out that we haave traditionally had no good rules for the design 
of robots... Don't I know I was trying to design a character she is an 
excellent pilot working for the navy and weighs in at about 400 tons the 
latest in stealth thchnology and an accidental AI.
Why they can not replicate her is a murder mistery that I may run someday.
Any way she is test flown by an ex scout pilot ( irrreverent, but then aren't 
they all ;-)) she also meets a lady who explains to her her rights as a 
thinking being and she wants to muster out after 20yrs.... boy ain't INI gonna
love it... Her name is Paulinene ( as in peirls of... [ honist I did'nt think 
of it really it's not my fault ;-)]). 
By the way on board the ship she has a holigraphic image for interacting
with humans, so unless you are pretty sharp, the casual observer might not
realize that the ship's pilot is not human...
Any way I've rambeled on far to long but if some one wants to give a shot at 
designing a cleanbot, or Christmas Bush, Please do. as for paulene go ahead 
and use her if you want to drive your sensor ops crazy.
after all the idea is to 
Have Fun
isn't it???! :-) :-)
see ya 
jim

- -- 
Remember: no matter where you go...
There you are...
B. Banzi

James M. Kelleher
kelleher@holonet.net


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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7955
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 08:46:45 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: TNE: Ships/weapons/armor 

At last a subject to sink my teeth into, if I had the time. But anyhow
this is my .02cr worth.

Impact missiles? Naaah forget it. I must agree with GDW in FF&S that the
change in rules and how the "real" world works you can't expect to get a
missile within impact range of a starship if it is armed with a laser.

Saturate the defenses? No way, if that should be pssible we must see
launchers with a ROF of at least 10 a minute, and the missile must have
more than 4Gh to spend of fuel. With the volume of the missiles and
magazine limit on the turrets and barbettes I find this unlikely.

But I can think of other types of missiles that can be of use. They
don't need to impact, but has to get real close to the target. I can
think of two types of missiles.
 - Antimatter missile
 - Black hole missile

Both missiles need small warheads compared to the missiles in TNE. One
gram of antimatter should be enough to fry a starship at a decent range.
The antimatter is held in a gravitic bottle and mixed with matter when
the missile is close enough to hurt the target.

Black hole missles can function in a similar way. When the missile is
close enough, the black hole can be released and "shot" at the target
with a gaussrifle thingie or something similar. A weapon like this will
be expensive, and thus only useable against battlecruisers or larger to
justify the cost.

I haven't given the starship design a full test to date. I'm tinkering
with a ramscope ship for one of the alien races in Gvurrdon. The race is
not able to utilize jumpships due to a phenomenom that kills them during
jump. The reason I have made them vulnerable to jumpspace is that their
world is a TL 16 world, and that would put them in a position to quickly
conquer much of Gvurrdon before thay are stopped.

Anyway I think we will meet limitations in the designs as we put on
armor, drives and weapons. A fighting ship should have a decent Gh
rating or else it will run out of fuel mighty fast. And that is the
worst limitation of them all. Even a decent merchant get problems with
fuel, and a merchant in a brawl? He's in big trouble. Ten to twenty Gh
will run out pretty soon, and much of it has been spended to reach orbit
and jump point. I find it unlikely that merchants will refuel at a gas
giant, unless the mainworld orbits a gas giant, or the 100 diameter
limit of the star is far outside the habitable zone of the system, and
that the gas giant is in a favourable position for a route from jump
point to the world.



Roger "StarWolf" Myhre
                                 

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7956
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 08:46:45 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: TNE: Ship Lasers         

Doc 142.13,  Date: January 15, 1994

                              STARSHIP LASERS

                                   by

                          Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


The starship lasers presented here is intended to use with Brilliant
Lances, and Traveller: The New Era. I have used Fire, Fusion & Steel,
GDW's book about hardware design for the Traveller universe. This
document will be updated as new lasers are being designed.



100ton Laser Bays (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt    Short        Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----------------
9    183Mj    5.08   260.49  1481.35   1:1/11-34    2:1/5-17     4:1/3-8
     8:1/1-4
10  1245Mj   34.58   182.58  1889.69  10:1/28-88   20:1/19-60   40:1/10-
30   80:1/5-15
11  1369Mj   38.03   199.28  1802.98  10:1/29-93   20:1/29-93   40:1/29-
93   80:1/18-56
12  4310Mj  119.72    72.88  2470.70  10:1/52-164  20:1/62-164  40:1/62-
164  80:1/49-154
13  4674Mj  129.83    77.78  2444.80  10:1/55-171  20:1/55-171  40:1/55-
171  80:1/55-171
14  5120Mj  142.22    83.42  2417.12  10:1/57-179  20:1/57-179  40:1/57-
179  80:1/57-179
15  5650Mj  156.94    90.28  2381.18  10:1/60-188  20:1/60-188  40:1/60-
188  80:1/60-188
16  7495Mj  208.19    64.67  2517.33  10:1/69-216  20:1/69-216  40:1/69-
216  80:1/69-216


50ton Laser Bays (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt    Short        Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------
10   812Mj   22.56    75.89  1017.53   8:1/23-71   16:1/12-38   32:1/6-
19    64:1/3-9
11   922Mj   25.61    85.13   969.73  10:1/25-75   20:1/25-75   40:1/18-
57   80:1/9-28
12  2320Mj   64.44    27.30  1272.69  10:1/39-120  20:1/39-120  40:1/39-
120  80:1/23-71
13  2537Mj   70.47    29.12  1263.93  10:1/40-126  20:1/40-126  40:1/40-
126  80:1/34-106
14  2810Mj   78.06    31.05  1254.34  10:1/42-133  20:1/42-133  40:1/42-
133  80:1/36-112
15  3148Mj   87.44    33.62  1244.07  10:1/45-140  20:1/45-140  40:1/45-
140  80:1/45-140
16  4009Mj  111.36    24.02  1294.46  10:1/51-158  20:1/51-158  40:1/51-
158  80:1/51-158


Un-manned Laser Barbettes (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt    Short        Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------
10   143Mj    3.97     5.49   140.84   3:1/10-30    6:1/5-15    12:1/2-8
    24:1/1-4
11   159Mj    4.42     6.63   131.69  10:1/10-32   20:1/5-17    40:1/3-9
    80:1/1-4
12   278Mj    7.72     2.58   153.42  10:1/13-42   20:1/11-35   40:1/6-
17    80:1/3-9
13   307Mj    8.53     2.67   153.03  10:1/14-44   20:1/14-44   40:1/9-
27    80:1/4-13
14   361Mj   10.03     2.47   156.14  10:1/15-47   20:1/15-47   40:1/9-
29    80:1/5-14
15   423Mj   11.75     2.39   157.78  10:1/16-51   20:1/16-51   40:1/16-
51   80:1/16-51
16   512Mj   14.22     1.88   160.67  10:1/18-57   20:1/18-57   40:1/18-
57   80:1/18-57


Un-manned Laser Turrets (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt     Short       Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------
10    81Mj    2.25     2.09    74.24    1:1/7-23    2:1/7-22     4:1/4-
11     8:1/2-5
11    87Mj    2.42     2.73    68.06    6:1/7-23   12:1/4-13    24:1/2-7
    48:1/1-3
12   123Mj    3.42     1.56    72.75   10:1/9-28   20:1/5-15    40:1/2-7
    80:1/1-4
13   136Mj    3.78     1.58    72.58   10:1/9-29   20:1/7-23    40:1/4-
11    80:1/2-6
14   171Mj    4.75     1.29    76.14   10:1/10-33  20:1/8-25    40:1/4-
13    80:1/2-6
15   210Mj    5.83     1.10    78.64   10:1/12-36  20:1/12-36   40:1/12-
36   80:1/12-36
16   251Mj    6.97     0.93    79.58   10:1/13-40  20:1/13-40   40:1/13-
40   80:1/13-40

The un-manned turrets and barbettes require MFD's if installed. These
turrets and barbettes are recomended to be installed on larger starships
(2000tons or more) to save in on the crew count. The Turrets should then
be combined into batteries, with one MFD per battery.


Manned Laser Turrets (Tuneable)

TL  Effect    MW       MCr      Wt     Short       Medium       Long
    Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------
10    67Mj    1.86     1.75    61.82    1:1/7-20    2:1/6-20     4:1/3-
10     8:1/2-5
11    69Mj    1.92     2.31    55.62    6:1/7-21   12:1/4-12    24:1/2-6
    48:1/1-8
11    77Mj    2.14     2.17    57.94    3:1/7-22    6:1/7-22    12:1/4-
13    24:1/2-6
12    96Mj    2.67     1.44    59.18   10:1/8-24   20:1/4-13    40:1/2-7
    80:1/1-3
12   111Mj    3.08     1.10    62.88    6:1/8-26   12:1/8-24    24:1/4-
12    48:1/2-6
13   106Mj    2.94     1.45    58.98   10:1/8-26   20:1/6-20    40:1/3-
10    80:1/2-5
13   127Mj    3.53     1.04    63.64    5:1/9-28   10:1/9-28    20:1/7-
22    40:1/4-11
14   138Mj    3.83     1.16    62.80   10:1/9-29   20:1/7-23    40:1/4-
11    80:1/2-6
14   155Mj    4.31     0.87    66.18    4:1/10-31   8:1/10-31   16:1/10-
30   32:1/5-15
15   172Mj    4.78     0.95    65.15   10:1/10-33  20:1/10-33   40:1/10-
33   80:1/10-33
16   206Mj    5.72     0.82    66.05   10:1/11-36  20:1/11-36   40:1/11-
36   80:1/11-36


Lances (Tuneable)

TL  Effect   FA    MW    MCr   Vol     Wt    Short       Medium
Long       Extreme
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------
10    20Mj   2.6   0.56  0.31  10.26  18.26   1:1/4-11    2:1/2-6
4:1/1-3    8:0-1
10    30Mj   2.6   0.83  0.40  14.79  26.79   1:1/4-13    2:1/2-7
4:1/1-3    8:1/1-2
11    25Mj   2.4   0.69  0.56  12.33  19.83   3:1/4-13    6:1/2-6
12:1/1-3   24:1/1-2
11    35Mj   2.4   0.97  0.63  15.78  26.28   3:1/5-15    6:1/2-8
12:1/1-4   24:1/1-2
11    40Mj   2.4   1.11  0.67  17.51  29.51   3:1/5-16    6:1/3-8
12:1/1-4   24:1/1-2
12    30Mj   1.5   0.83  0.18   8.55  16.05   1:1/4-14    2:1/4-13
4:1/2-6    8:1/1-3
12    40Mj   1.5   1.11  0.21  11.07  21.07   1:1/5-16    2:1/5-15
4:1/2-7    8:1/1-4
12    40Mj   1.7   1.11  0.31  12.09  22.09   2:1/5-16    4:1/4-10
8:1/2-5   16:1/1-2
12    55Mj   1.7   1.53  0.35  15.87  29.62   2:1/6-19    4:1/4-11
8:1/2-6   16:1/1-3
13    50Mj   1.7   1.39  0.42  14.36  25.61   3:1/6-18    6:1/3-10
12:1/2-5   24:1/1-3
13    70Mj   1.7   1.94  0.47  18.91  34.66   3:1/7-21    6:1/4-12
12:1/2-6   24:1/1-3
13    85Mj   1.9   2.36  0.62  23.37  42.49   4:1/7-23    8:1/4-12
16:1/2-6   32:1/1-3
14    70Mj   1.3   1.94  0.27  15.29  29.29   2:1/7-21    4:1/3-11
8:1/2-5   16:1/1-3
14    95Mj   1.3   2.64  0.32  20.33  39.33   2:1/8-24    4:1/4-12
8:1/2-6   16:1/1-3
14   120Mj   1.6   3.33  0.44  26.04  50.04   3:1/9-27    6:1/4-14
12:1/2-7   24:1/1-4
15    95Mj   0.5   2.64  0.26  17.54  34.17   3:1/8-24    6:1/4-12
12:1/4-6   12:1/1-3
15   120Mj   0.5   3.33  0.30  21.92  42.92   3:1/9-27    6:1/4-14
12:1/2-7   12:1/1-3
15   140Mj   0.6   3.89  0.37  25.74  50.24   4:1/9-30    8:1/5-16
16:1/3-8   32:1/1-4
16   140Mj   0.4   3.39  0.30  21.91  42.91   3:1/9-30    6:1/6-19
12:1/3-9   24:1/2-5
16   160Mj   0.4   4.44  0.33  24.91  48.91   3:1/10-32   6:1/6-20
12:1/3-10  24:1/2-5
16   160Mj   0.5   4.44  0.42  25.82  49.82   6:1/10-32  12:1/5-16
24:1/3-8   48:1/1-4



M-; Roger Myhre, 1994


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre
                                                                                                          

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7957
From: adrian@per.dms.csiro.au
Subject: Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7949-7949 V76#7
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 22:16:12 +0800 (WST)

Please remove me from the traveller mailing list.
Previous email on this subject seems to have been ignored.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Smith
adrian@per.dms.csiro.au

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7958
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 11:13:06 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Regency Military and Government

Gentlesophonts:

Everyone seems to be getting into our TML Regency Sourcebook, *Shall Not
Perish*.  Fantastic.  Some broadly ranging comments:

Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu> writes:

> I think that the rebellion's influence is minimal compared 
> to the influence of the black war and Virus.

Does this mean you think the regular military will have a role in fighting
the Virus rather than this just being the responsibility of the Quarantine
Service?

> Dealing with this threat 
> will profoundly change the Regency.  Think of all of the computers and 
> electronic they must have.  Why to convert them to safer configurations 
> could take decades...

An interesting concept.  Does this mean *every* military asset in the
Regency must be retrofitted in some fashion?  With that sort of government
spending going on I can't see the Regency economy `straining' for decades.
(Of course, the rumored `need for economic expansion' of the Regency in
TNE has always sounded too much like rehashed Reaganomics to me.)

> The also might have a few nasty viruses in bottles to 
> unleash on opponnents.

You think so?  I would have thought that use of this sort of weapon would
have become quite inconceivable after the Viral Collapse.

> Subject: Military threats to the Regency
> 
> can anybody think of any others?

Sword Worlds :-)

A `true' heir to the Iridium Throne showing up with a Unification Fleet?
(Rebellion II).

Regency nobles upset at the `democractic' reforms taking place (Rebellion
III).

Regency `democracts' upset at the slow pace of `reforms' (Rebellion IV).


PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:

> FICT/SCEN/AHIS : Shall Not Perish - Government

> I think there would be some basis for Planetary
> Courts either in place of or in addition to these District Courts.

Again, keep in mind that the judicial function was performed directly by
the nobility under the Imperium.  How might the nobility have come to
forfeit this right/responsibility?

> At any level are jurors chosen in a manner similar to that in the
> United Sates?

At this level of court system we're not talking jury trial but rather 
courts presided over by judges - like the US Supreme Court and Circuit
Courts.

> or does the court travel to
> the different planets to hear cases?

This was the original practice of the US Circuit Courts.  (The judge
travelled around the `circuit'.)  Now, folks tavel to these courts.
I suspect the Regency model might be more akin to the early US model
(assuming the nobles have forfeited their judicial function which I'm
not sure should or could be the case).

> - - Senate term length: 10 years seems like a long term.

Not if you keep in mind the travel times involved.  A senator from
Dunmag in Deneb is going to spend a lot of time just travelling back and
forth to Mora.  This is also the speed at which communication about issues
will travel between the capital and the home district.

> - - Military: I agree that the military is not one of the branches of the
> gov't but it does have some influence in the governing of the Regency

Keep in mind that the separation of the military from the political
process is a decidedly modern, Western idea.  For most of human history
and still in many places today the military is a key player in the
political process.  This is also a part of the Imperial tradition.
Remember the Civil War and even the Rebellion.  This latter though,
might have led to some poltical efforts to *limit* the influence of
the military.  This might have been one of the ways the power of the
nobility was weakened.  Much of the power of the nobility has been
embodied in the military in the past.

> BTW does the Regency (and formerly the Imperium) have a
> separate police force or is the military, particularly the army and
> navy, given the task of enforcing laws?

Police operations *per se* were the primary responsibility of local
worlds.  The Imperial military serve in police roles with respect to
piracy and the like but most of what we consider to be `crime' (robbery,
theft, assualt, embezzlement, etc.) was handled by local authorities.

> Subject: GEN - Swold World bickering

> 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.

Possibly.

> 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.

Again, possibly, but this would have to be a *major*, traumatic event.
I don't see how it could occur very often or across several different
worlds.

> 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.

Yes, of course, but is this somehow more plausible than the mere fact of
Zhodani assistance to prop up Gram?  I don't think so.  It also doesn't
present as interesting of possibilities as the Zhodani explanation if the
role of the Zhodani changes in TNE.

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

I'm glad somebody is enjoying it.  :-)


Bryan Borich <b.borich@genie.geis.com> writes:

>     Therefore the best thing to do is maybe forget the TCS vs 5FW debate
> and start anew by testing the TNE figures givenn in the RCEs sourcebook.

This is a good point.  Since we're examining the Regency it makes since
to use the *POT* figures, doesn't it?

> The population figures are given in millions.
> Gross product is in trillion Imperial credits. (TL 15 credits.)
> All Gross Subsector Product figures are given in Imperial Credits,
> using the conversion table in Striker Book 2.
>  
> Starport ship capacity is given in millions of displacement tons.
> Shipyard Capacity formula: capacity = total pop * (GM = 1) / 1000

Les Howie <lhowie@Prograph.Com>, is this the sort of information we need?
Thanks, Bryan, for making this available.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7959
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 94 13:23:57 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5004: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

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

> Hans Ranke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> 
> >It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.
> 
> No, not really.  The Japanese *do* have anti-trust laws -- the US
> helped write some of them in the late forties.  They're run by that
> boogeyman of the US, MITI (Ministry of Int'l Trade and Industry), 
> I believe.

This is a key difference between the feudal technocracy model and 
contemporary free-market economies.  In a feudal technocracy there is
no governmental entity outside of the economic system to intervene with
anti-trust or any other sort of regulation.

Thanks again for all this material about the *keiretsu* and *zaibatsu*,
Steve.  It's been very helpful *and* interesting.

(BTW, I have a great picture of me in front of the MITI building in Tokyo.
There's a `homeless' man sitting in the background right in front of
the headquarters of this US `boogeyman'.)

> Members of a keiretsu
> aren't tied together in the way the zaibatsu were.  The part that makes
> either of these look "feudal" to Westerners has a lot to do with, among
> other things, the associated lifetime employment traditional in Japan.

What makes it look feudal to me is the `inter-relatedness' of the 
various corporate entities - something that is quite uncommon here in
the US.  There is clearly a system of agreements (explicit or implicit)
that define the roles and responsibilities of all participants.  It's
*quite* different from the autocractic corporate model.

I never meant to suggest that the *keiretsu* (I'd never heard of the
*zaibatsu* before you mentioned it, Steve) fit my idea of a feudal 
technocracy perfectly.  Rather, the *keiretsu* merely served to
introduce the economic and industrial aspects of a feudal technocracy.
I felt this was needed since many of us are already familiar with the
aristocractic aspects of medieval feudalism but have little or no
familiarity with the industrial and economic basis of a technocracy.

> "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."

I refuse to live with this miserably vague definition.  The first
sentence describes *any* representative democracy.  If we look at
`technical' in the second sentence as meaning `any specialized branch of
knowledge' then this entire definition might be used to describe a
popular theocracy in which clerical specialists perform various
religious rites for the `governed'.  Thus, this canonical definition
is virtually useless.

> This
> whole thing is a lot like the freemen --> vassal process worked in
> the middle ages.

The relationships between freedmen and serfs and the nobles in medieval
society was not feudalism at all.  Feudalism concerned the relationship
between members of the aristocracy, the ruling class.  Hence, a feudal
technocracy gives a system in which the relationships between the
members of the ruling class (the technocracy) are governed by feudal
principles.

> "The Chartered Zarathustra Company" which is
> in charge of the resources and colonization of Zarathustra.

Ah, still another Piper fan.  James, might it be possible to get another
list started: PTML - Piper Traveller Mailing List?  :-)
  
> That's the beauty of Traveller government types; they are flexible.

One person's beauty is another's bugbear!  :-)
 
> A lot of the codes in the UWP are like this.  The idea of the UWP is
> to have a system in which you can generate a sample world in ten 
> minutes and then be able to take it and develop it massively in many
> different possible directions.  Without a system in the game like 
> the UWP, we'd never be able to develop entire sectors in a way that
> was at all realistic in a reasonable amount of time.

Good point.  I hadn't thought of it this way.  I still think the government
codes could be improved though by focusing on the nature of authority (who
rules) and the source of authority (who consents).

Good work here.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7960
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:34:39 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Fleets and K'kree Coincidence

PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:
 
>>Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The
>>standard missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub
>>surface bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've
>>got firing these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will
>>be to respond.
>
>An improved method of achieving this objective, IMHO, would seem to be a
>carrier/tended equiped with a number of remotely-piloted vehicles guided
>from the mother ship.  This would allow the delivery systems to carry
>the same punch with better maneuver performance as space for crew and
>life-support would not be needed.
 
The K'kree rise again!  This, actually, is exactly the K'kree tactical
solution to fighters spelled out in Alien Module 2.  They can't have a 
lot of fighter pilots in craft since they don't like cramped spaces.
So they hit on this solution.  The Fleet Marshal of the Kirunka'rra
space wing is undoubtedly prepared for TNE!  Now if they can only fit
enough crew in their ships....
 
  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>
  

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7961
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 15:38:54 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracy

David Johnson <djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
 
>From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford <langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> writes:
 
>>     After all, given Traveller's method for 
>>     classifying governments, the same government could be classified 
>>     different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be 
>>     most apparent by the typical traveller. 
>
>Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion
>does it?
 
I suppose so.  Alistair is right, though.
 
>>     To me your kieretsu description seems like it -also- fits the 
>>     description of a Corporate Government.
>
>Maybe except the key difference as I see it is that in a corporate system
>there is no bond between employer and employee.  The employer may sever the
>relationship (in effect remove your `citizenship') at will.  This is why
>corporate systems only occur at low population levels.
 
Give the gent a prize!  This gets at the difference between "feudal" and
non-"feudal" government.  (My understanding of why company/corporate rule 
is a low population feature is a bit different, but I went over that in
my last post.)
 
>we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single*
>individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others
>(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of
>of authority.  Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires
>*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function.
 
"Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word *democratic* that
 I wasn't previously aware of."  :)
I get the thesis here, that power is ultimately derived from the masses.  
But I don't know that I could possibly call an oppressive authoritarian 
government "democratic".  
 
  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>


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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7962
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 17:26:47 -0700
From: Muir Macpherson <muirmac@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Econ Cycles

	In an effort to save bandwidth, I won't quote anyone at all.  But
I did want to weigh in on the possibility of economic cylces causing
TL fluctuations.  I do not think this is likely except under extreme
and prolonged circumstances because moving to a lower TL would require
NEW INVESTMENT.  The point has been made many times on sci.space that it
is not possible to ressurect the Saturn V because the whole TL 6 infra-
structure of suppliers would have to be recreated.  This costs money, some-
thing one doesn't have a lot of in an economic down-turn.  To use another
example, lets say this country was in a severe depression and GM wanted
to cut costs.  Since it already had an existing TL 7 production plant, it
is not immediately going to switch to TL 6, because this would involve
retooling.  However, if this depression continued long enough the might
stop replacing their robot welders, and might start using people again.
GM also might begin designing "low-tech" cars that would eliminate a lot
of the cost of a car.  But again, it wouldn't do this quickly because
it would require them to retool their factories.  Also, GM would only do
this if they thought conditions would exist long enough to make the
investment worthwhile.  This whole process depends on how long their old
plant lasts until it wears out and how much it costs to go "low-tech."
	The above situation is unlikely to come about through the normal
business cycle because there are so many "automatic stabilizers" in 
economies that keep recessions from getting too deep or lasting too long.
Feudal Technocracies are likely to have even more of these stabilizers
than we do.  Life-time employment means that people will not quickly
lose their jobs, which will buoy consumer spending, for instance.
	To recap, TL decline through economic decline will only occur
through non-economic shocks like war, Virus, etc. and even then will only
occur when people have reason to believe that the economy will remain 
depressed for some time to come.

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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7963
Date: 	Sat, 11 Jun 1994 20:44:15 -0400
From: BORIS ZAIDFELD <cs911408@red.ariel.cs.yorku.ca>
Subject: TOP LASER '94


Hello there,

Does anyone here knows anything about TOP LASER '94 that was advertised in
CHALLENGE 72 - 73 ?.   I have sent GDW an E-Mail message over a month ago
about this, but didn't get any response.  So if anyone has anything about
it, please reply.

Thanks and take care,

	-Shalom Zaidfeld
	-Toronto, Canada




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

Bundle: 634
Archive-Message-Number: 7964
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 10:28:56 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: Re: K`kree and fighters  

>PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:
>>>Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The
>>>standard missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub
>>>surface bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've
>>>got firing these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will
>>>be to respond.
>>An improved method of achieving this objective, IMHO, would seem to be
>>carrier/tended equiped with aBUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 635  7965 12-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      TNE: Gvurrdon Lib Data    << HD 6F05
 635  7966 12-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      Gvurrdon politics         << Doc 6F0B

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

Bundle: 635
Archive-Message-Number: 7965
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 10:28:58 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: TNE: Gvurrdon Lib Data

HD 6F05^B

Gvurrdon sector library data.

by

Roger Myhre


Aek Elakfough (black cauldron): (Gvurrdon 0439). This system have
experienced an booming belting industry. In 1112 large amounts of
Titanium and Yttrium (latter which are used in the superconductive coils
of the grav vehicle modules). Both of the belts in the system have
proven to be rich on both substances. The number of inhabitants have
exploded since the news got publicly known. This forced the system
owners to build a fairly large spacehabitat. It is a wheel that revolves
to create gravity. It is known under the name of Aek Wheel. The
beltprofiles are: Orbit 1     100m,  n-20 m-70 c-10,  1AU
4       5Km, n-20 m-60 c-20,  0.5AU

Alloulloukde Tosoekh: One of the biggest ship warfs in the Gvurrdon
sector. It is based at Aengvoung (1726). It is reputed for its contact
net for connecting potential buyers to patrons for financing of crafts.
It boast that many of the crafts the Kforuzeng corsair band uses are
bought from them.

Ankhir (Gvurrdon 1728) C6869BB-7  Hi: This system have probably gone
through more hardship than most other systems in Gvurrdon. The
population lives under ground in tunnels. When the system was first
settled for 800 years ago it boasted with an advanced TL 11 technology.
Then the disaster struck. The small government did not succeed in
controlling the masses and civil war broke out. Following this war the
world got splintered between several powerblocks.  With more than 600
years of war and other minor conflicts the TL started to decline when
the harsh environment took its toll on the equipment. The fact is that
the surface temperature of this planet can sink down to - 237M-0C. The
following wars was then the matter of survival for the powerblocks.
About 50 years ago this system did get help from outside by request from
some minor factions. Firstly the helpers was met with resistance, but
later when the other factions had expended their stock of fighting
materiel they had to succumb for outside pressure. From this point the
planet got united under one central government. This planets largest
export articles are a strange sort of algae that lives in the oceans of
this planet. Orrkong, a shrimp like creature is also an export article.


Church of the Chosen One: This is a religious sect which has their base
at Aegadh (Gvurrdon 1317). They are the world rulers there. The sect
believes that the Ancients made the Vargr to populate this part of the
galaxy. The church does not worship the ancients, but just asks the
devotees to be faithful and to trust the church. The church do not have
any holy book as most other churches, but it boast an Ancient artifact
that the church claims to be a two way communicator with the Ancients.
This has not been proven when the artifact is looked up on as holy, and
no one has been allowed to inspect it scientifically. The powerbase of
the church has been waning since it were founded about 300 years ago.
The number of devotees was quite steady during the Rebellion. They did
note a slightly increase in 1125 to 1127, but frorm there the number
dropped steadily. So now they have turned inward, and redirecting their
resources to prove once and for all that the Vargr is the heir to the
Universe.


Denner (expr): Common name for Vargr from Freedom League, or more
commonly named Corsairs' Den.


Dzen Aeng Kho: (Society of Equals.) This allegiance despite its name are
soldier based. To prove that you can be equal, you have to manage to go
through a dangerous test that could severely cripple those who are
unlucky. All non soldier professions are looked upon as under rated
beings. Medical profession is an exception to this when medics are
important to save the life of a wounded soldier. Anyone can try to
become an equal no matter what his or hers background is. Those who fail
the test is denied access to any soldier career. Even the cubs from an
equal have to prove itself as an equal before a soldier career are open
for the candidate. Equals and non equals are not permitted mate with
each other. The test can be taken anytime during the life, but it is
wise to take it early when young and old have to go through the same
test. The central body of the government are mainly built up by former
military career personnel that have retired active duty. Only equals can
vote in the parliament or run for some sort of governmental office.

REFEREE: For characters that are born in Dzen Aeng Kho, they have to
roll this task before they choose one of the following careers:  Any
military Officer, Leader, Aristocrat and Law enforcer.
Difficult, Willpower
Referee: On a Catastrophic Failure roll 1D+1 and subtract STR, AGL and
CON of the indicated amount. Example: The PC rolls a 4. He must subtract
2 from STR and one from both AGL and CON. For those who manage this task
give a CHA+1. If the parents of the character is rated equal give a -1
on the above task. The parents are rated equal on a roll of 15+ on 1D20


Edge, The (Expr): A terminlogy used of the political state between Thirz
Empire, and Society of Equals. Their "Cold War" status has everyone on
their toes. If a break in the quarantine line it will most likely be in
Society of Equals. They are zealously watching what Thirz Empire do,
rather than watching their border against the Virus. Their oppinions in
The Spinward Assembly are also a conflict. It looks like that they
oppose each others ideas, suggestions just for the spite of it. More
than one time Zhodani representatives had had to cool down the Thirz
Empire representatives. However as there is no-one is holding Society of
Equals in leash they seem to do and say whatever they will. However
everyone are starting to get a bit tired of them. And regency has
started to put on some pressure, but it hasn't taken any action, as a
war will surely open the quarantine line for the advance of the Virus.


Extends line contract: A contract between the Oberlindes Lines and the
government on Ougzdaelzoerrgh, Gvurrdon (2040). The contract gives
Oberlindes lines allowance to use the starport on Ougzdaelzoerrgh for
trading and supplying post for starships that are going into the
extends. This contract where vital for the Oberlindes to get when the
recent hostilities between Vargr forces and the DoD forces started in
1117. Oberlindes met much resistance in the Empire when they first took
initiative in mid 1119 to reopen their routes into Gvurrdon, when it got
closed by the hostilities. The line into Gvurrdon sector starts at
Dentus, Spinward Marches (2201).  During the war against the Kedzudh and
Kforuzeng alliance, the Imperial Navy had undercover agents working on
this base. Starport at Ougzdaelzoerrgh got upgraded to type A after
signing a contract with Oberlindes Lines. Oberlindes have a 47% share in
the starport.


Fair Witness: A new type of careers that has appeared in Thoengling
Empire. It all started with a proposition from the Thoengling cemtral
government to train certain high intellect Vargr to mediate in conflicts
and stay in as fair and correct witnesses. After a few years several
corporations started to use fair Witnesses in contract negotiations.
Today anyone can hire a fair witness if they can pay the price. A Fair
Witness will report anything he experiences, without giving his own
oppinion on what did transpire at a given event. Thus sometimes hiring a
fair witness can backfire, because many believe that the fair witness
will give testimony in the customers favor. AM-;Fair witness cost from
2000cr hour to the astronomical millions.


FEKI: An institute that have specialized on educating sophonts that do
not have the capability or money to spend to go to a normal college or
university. FEKI is short for Fo Engragvaegkfu Kuerrgars Ingaez. Which
can be translated to The School of Many Worlds. Costumers are usually
from low populated worlds and/or belts. They support a wide array of
courses that can be taken. From simple courses like drawing to more
demanding things like medical or engineering courses that takes a year
or two to run. The appliances are collected by mail, and a course
package are then sent to the pupil. What the course package contains
depends on the course taken. From just a few books to computer software
or computers specially made for the course taken. Homebase is on Ouse
Faeg/Ksits Uathu Odzuetarug (1724).  During the Virus craze FEKI almost
got bankrupted. All the more advanced courses was not selling when they
relied on computers. However as the fear from the Virus dropped the
costumers came back, and the more advanced courses started to sell
again.


Gnoerrgh Rukh Lloell: (Anti-Rukh coalition). This is a coalition of
worlds that did not rally behind the Great Leader Rukh in 972. Rukh's
Charisma forced billions to to his cause. However many worlds rimward of
Saell which had secured economic ties with worlds around Saell, would
not rally to Rukh, so they established Gnoerrgh Rukh Lloell. In the
beginning they did not manage to do much damage to the Rukh Aegz, but in
the latest 10 years several worlds spinward of Saell have pulled out of
the Aegz, when it proved unable to protect the worlds against terrorist
acts and other anti-Rukh operations.  It disappeared as a political
entity in 1123 when Rukh attacked. The war was over in matter of months,
but the mopping up took more than a year. Anti-Rukh managed to deal some
heavy blows to Rukh even when they was outnumbered 15 to one. The reason
for this was the deep undercover groups inside Rukh.


Kfan Uzangou: A periodical newsletter which are distributed through out
the Gvurrdon sector. The newsletter released its first issue in 864
(Imperial). The newsletter fresh and boasting reports soon got popular
in other systems, so that the print had to be increased. In 987 the
format changed from paper to cheap microchip format, which then could be
accessed by most computers. The paper format have not disappeared
totally, but the print is just 4% of total distribution. Kfan Uzangou
(White Fangs) has its main office at Gvurrdon (0821).  In 1127 the
magazine started to distribute to Spinward Marches. However as the treat
from the Virus became apparent, Regency put down a blockade. KU couldn't
change to paper format, when this would sky rocket the distribution
cost. KU took then contact with one of the small media distributors of
Spinward Marches, called Spinward Media Expression (SME). They would get
the text on optical readable microfilm, while the interior art and
pictures would be put on ordinary dias. SME would then put the magazine
on holocrystals, or in paper print. In Regency the magazine is
distributed on the Galanglic name White Fangs.


Oulaekho Arms: A weapon producer with its main office and production
plant on Saell. It sells weapons to most worlds in Gvurrdon. The Firm do
also have several subsidaries  around the Spinward part of Gvurrdon.
Gvaeknoks do also have a share in their weapon production plant on
Ghenkerongolu (Gvurrdon 1528). This plant is called Dokhoullae.


Pandrin: (Gvurrdon 2240). This system were the former Oberlindes trading
center for the Gvurrdon sector. But when the Kedzudh invaded the world
in late 1118 Oberlindes had to close down the center and move it to
somewhere else.  Oberlindes has made it clear that they are looking into
reopening their old base here. Local investors are apparently doing
their part to ensure that Oberlindes comes back.


Sibiatl: A minor psionic institute in Gvurrdon. It does not have any
fixed base, when it changes location time to time. The Sibiatl are a
cooperation between the Zhodani and Vargr psionics to broaden the
knowledge of psionics among Vargr in the in the spinward part of
Gvurrdon sector. In addition to teach psionics it gives classes on just
general information.

REFEREE: The Sibiatl are well reputed among the Vargr in the Thirz
Empire. The psionic training courses cost approximate 240,000Cr. and
takes about 5 months. Initial testing cost 12000 credits. An information
course cost 2000 credits, and is held 5 days with 2 hours a day.


Soungadano (Gvurrdon 2414) B671363-A  Lo Ni: Soungadano is a former
prison planet for Thoengling Empire. Some still view it as a prison
planet when some criminals have the choice between selecting a ordinary
sentence or try to re-install their charisma on this planet by working
for a living. The climate is harsh with temperatures above 300M-0C. In the
winter the temperature may sink below -46M-0C. These severe swings in
temperature makes it a dangerous place to live. There is frequently
storms that can easily kill an unwary traveller. The main exports s
compounds and crystals. Animals both dead and alive is also an export
article, buut not a very popular one. The world has been isolated since
the Virus struck. So how the conditions is on the planet at present is
unknown.


Spinward Assembly, The: A crisis council which was established by the
initiative of Archduke Norris in 1132 to coordinate knowledge and
operations in how to fight the Virus. Its presence (The Assembly) has
been quite visible in Gvurrdon, as the Vargr has proven unable to dam up
against the Virus effectively. only in the few latter 20 years that the
Vargr has managed to get on top of the situation by quarantine
restrictions. The assembly got the following members: Regency, Zhodani
Consulate, Aslan Hierate, Thirz Empire, Society of Equals, Thoengling
Empire. In addition several smaller states has observer status in this
assembly. If and when a thrust into the infected areas are going to take
place, this assembly will surely have a hand in the game.


Taknarkag: (Gvurrdon 0630 B370467-A Ni De). This is a single city
planet, which by influence from Goerrg Rukh Lloell (Anti-Rukh
coalition), left the Rukh Aegz alliance. The entire population resides
in a city built only over the last 185 years, by the design of the
famous Vargr architect Voronol. Taknarkag was reputed in the Rukh Aegz
for it brilliant architectural design. Even Humans have copied this city
to an extent. Humans will find the Trading Post bar and nightclub
inviting, when this is designed specially for humans in mind. More
daring humans, or humans which have experience with Vargr clientele and
behavior may use the Kornak Lounge. The navy base are now staffed by the
local militia with a few jump capable ships.


TeeBee (Toothless Bastard [expr, org: re]): An curse originally from
Regency. It was first used against those Vargr that worked as crew on
infected starships. Those Vargr are generally of low Charisma, thus not
very desireable by other Vargr as followers. Used against other Vargr
will certainly spell trouble. The Virus has by itself no Charsima, and
thus no appeal to the common Vargr, but those who are in their employ
voluntarily or not.


The Equality War: This war were fought between the Society of Equals and
Thirz Empire. The war raged from 1111 to 1116. In this war Society of
Equals lost much territory. Society of Equals did also lose their
capitol system, Dzuerongvae (1413), but the rulers managed to escape.
This forced the Society of equals to move the capitol. The new capitol
is now at Taeksoudhanou (1623).


The Glass bond: The alliance between Kedzudh Aeng and Kforuzeng corsair
band were called the Glass Bond, when it appeared fragile when the
allegiance first were signed. However the success the allegiance have
earned in the invasion of The Spinward Marches have apparently
strengthened this allegiance. Imperial analysts speculate that the
allegiance may fall apart now that the forces to Norris have been able
to stop the constant advance of the Vargr. The Glass Bond broke up in
1129, when Kedzudh declared that the campaign in Spinward Marches was a
success, and that further action was not desirable.


Therrg's First Reasoning: Therrg is one of the representatives of "The
Spinward Assembly", and represents Thirz Empire. He do also have
connections with Church of the Chosen One. He had a reasoning that has
been quoted to the lenght that it has become a cliche. "If the Virus is
intelligent, why do we then curse It for Its acts that every intelligent
lifeforms has shown a inclination for? Of course because we all bash our
friends head in every now and then does not make Its (Virus) acts more
tolerable. It only explains the entropy of the universe."
Therrg's Second Reasoning: "That day the computer talks to me I'll throw
it out of the window."
Cptn L. A. Slastinger's addition: "Has anyone told him that his office
is underground?"


Thirz Empire: The second largest interstellar state in Gvurrdon. It got
close bonds with Zhodani,and the presence of psi capable vargr here is
large. About 12% off all inhabitants here have been tested and/or
trained. The entire state are viewed as a large client state of Zhodani
by others in Gvurrdon. Zhodani have a large contigent of both military
and economical advisors in this state. The reason to this is that the
Zhodani by its close relationship with the government can limit the
number on corsair raids inside their borders.


Tirrils: An avian alien race native to Tirrokoelaeks (Gvurrdon 1821).
The Tirrils lives at TL 0. Which would classify them as barely sentient.
The Vargr which first took contact with them, hunted them for their fine
feather hide. But when it became evident that the birds were sentient,
all hunting ceased. The Tirrils are protected from hunting. Any killing
of a Tirril for their hide is penalized with death. The Tirrils are
about 150 centimeter high, and got bright colors from blood red to deep
navy blue. The chest and abdomen are generally white or silver grey.
They got a 15 centimeter long beak like a gull and powerful claws they
use to dig in the earth for Lummi roots or insects. What's curious about
the Tirrils are that they have excellent mathematical knowledge. Some
are so good that they can calculate the jump coordinates and data for a
distances up to one parsec without the aid of a computer. Some Vargr
merchants use Tirrils onboard their vessels for entertainment and for
their excellent mathematical skill. The language of the Tirrils are
consisting of whistling and body posture. Very few have been able to
learn their language without specific aiding tools as flutes. Those who
have been most successful with learning their language have usually good
musical skill. Most humans may be able to do basic communication with
just whistling with their lips. Vargr have proven unable to communicate
without flutes or language computers. Tirrils can with great difficulty
learn some Vargr languages. But human languages are easier for them to
learn. This is due to the specific development of their vocal cords.
Tirrils are popular on Tirrokoelaegz for their beautiful sing song
skills, and are often employed at taverns and inns for entertainment.
When the Tirrils are lacking manipulators they usually do not wear
clothes or use tools. However a few Vargr corporations have built waldos
that the Tirrils may use. However few do make use of the waldos when
they constrain them from flying.


Tongaesodhongaell massacre: During the Equality war
Tongaesodhongaell/Gvurrdon (1015) were heavily attacked by nuclear and
chemical weapons. Most of those who could not afford the overpriced
tickets out of the system before the attacking fleet reached the world,
got killed in the attack.The world are Interdicted by the Thirz Empire
because of the high radiation level. The world is still interdicted for
reasons unknown. There has also been a number of voices that demand that
the ancestors of the survivors are to be evacuated, but the Thirz Empire
don't want to for some reason.


Ukekhaedha: Ukekhaedha which can be translated to: Ritual of Charismatic
honor. This is a duel fought to death. The ritual have its roots from
Fukoezo (Gvurrdon 2702). The ritual have been law regulated the latest
since early 900. This has been done so that the number of duels to the
death was not to going to deplete populace of males, which are the only
gender which can do this ritual. To perform the ritual the offended part
must get approval from the court to do so. If the court finds the
offended part got good reason to re- install his charisma, the ritual is
permitted. However the requester get one week to cool off to see if he
changes his mind.

The ritual is performed like this:
Firstly the combatants undress completely, and donn loincloths. Both get
a gun with one poison dart. The combatants then selects how far from
each other they will stand. The closest range permitted are 7 meters and
21 meters at most. The guns are holstered when the ritual really starts.
First the Oenurzksan (the patient wait) starts. Here the two combatants
tries out wait each other. Sometimes one of the combatants chicken out
and wont go through with the ritual. Longer the wait more Charisma will
the offended part get back, if he wins the duel. He will also get back
more charisma if he is the last to draw the gun to shot when the action
starts. Some even waits until the other one has fired his gun before he
fires his own. If both miss their shots, the duel is ended and the
offended part cannot make another try. If the offender survives he will
not get any benefit than his life. If the offended part survives he may
get back all the charisma depending on how long the wait was and how he
performed overall. If both parts die, the duel is noted as an unresolved
matter and the case is closed. To be permitted to do this type of duel,
you must have experienced a major loss of charisma and economical loss.
Off worlders cannot under any circumstances perform this ritual in a
legal way. There have been some cases where humans have been performing
this ritual illegally, when they have offended a Vargr.


Urukhu: (nation of Urukhu). A former Interstellar empire which consisted
of the following systems: 2806  Ukokhuvoen, 2807  Kaekfesa, 2808
Dorrorue, 2908  Kutsgarrae, 3107  Ozago.

After Urukhu died in 1112 the nation started to collapse. The nation
were on its highest at 1103, when they managed to fend off a attack from
the Thoengling Empire. However the war effort did take its toll on the
Urukhu nation. Urukhu died in an assassination attempt at an age of 54
years. Who which are responsible for the act are unknown, but the Lliegz
corsair band are suspected. The Lliegz band tried to establish two bases
in the nation just after the war with the Thoengling empire. Urukhu
would not have them there, and the constant battle with the corsairs
depleted the limited naval forces even more. The Lliengz corsair band
were splintered in 1116 by internal disputes.


Uthith Fleet: Fleet of the Ekhlle Ksafi (40th squadron) based at Uthith
(Gvurrdon 1738). During the FFW, it occupied Yorbund (Spinward Marches
2403) and Heya (Spinward Marches 2402), but did not press further,
spending much time mopping up and consolidating. After the Gireel Fleet
was destroyed destroyed at beck's World, the Imperial 212nd fleet forces
Uthith back. On 252-1109, Admiral Thuekhs negotiated a separate peace
and withdrew the Uthith fleet from Regina subsector. Many vargr veterans
of the heyan occupation commonly have souvenirs, particulary bottles of
fine Heyan liquors.

When the Oekhos tirades, presented through a Vargr entertainment device
called Utovogh wass released. These devices became increasingly popular
in the Ve Ekhlle Ksafi space. Several voices started to demand action
against the Imperials for the defeat during the FFW. However nothing has
happened when the fleet to Ve Ekhlle was virtually non-existent. The
40th squadron did built a lot of new ships in the period 1123 to 1170.
The number of ships quadrupled. This seems much, but when the fleet only
consisted of a handfull of light cruisers, that was bearably
serviceable, the build- up wasn't considered a threat by Regency.
However Regency do keep an eye out for trouble.


Voronol Knaergh: (925-1005 Imperial). Famous Vargr architect. He have
designed many buildings in the Rukh Aegz alliance. His pride are the
Taknarkag city, which he used 10 years in drawing. Unfortunately he did
not live long enough to se the first stages of the city being completed.


Wolfpack: A group of infected Vargr ships. As pre-virus vargr starships
was quite low on maintained standard, Vargr ships that has been infected
has their best strenght when they operate in numbers. The onset of the
Virus forced dthe vargr governments to set up stricter standards to
starships. Something that made a post Virus starships more able to
withstand a Virus infection. And also to battle them in a space combat
as their equipment standards are higher than infected crafts.


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

Bundle: 635
Archive-Message-Number: 7966
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 10:29:01 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: Gvurrdon politics

Doc 6F0B

Author: Roger Myhre
        Ammerudgrenda 168
        0960 Oslo
        NORWAY


The groups of Gvurrdon as per 1200 Imperial.

Gvurrdon is filled with different political factions and groups. All got
their own agenda, and goals for the future. This makes it and different
place than most other sectors in charted space. The different outside
groups as Zhodani and Regency add to the confusion. The alliances among
the groups are also difficult to understand at times.

Allez: Remnants of the old Rukh alliance. The Rukh party tried to hold
off long as possible, but when the break did come, they lost all
control. After several years of internal fighting, a loose group of
aristocrat managed to get some kind of control. The alliance  is now
ruled by the aristocrats, but the worlds got some self rule to a limit.
They might not pass new laws without the Allez government gives them
permission to do so. They have over the last years worked with improve
their relations to the surrounding factions, among those Regency.
Zhodani already got an embassy here, from the time Rukh existed.

Church of the Chosen One: This quasi-religious sect has been diminishing
the last 50 years. During the Rebellion, and shortly after it
registrated a small increse in popularity, but the advent of the Virus
changed the opinions again. As a result of this they have closed most of
their centers, turning their resources into finding the Ancients, to
prove once and for all that the Vargr is meant to inherit the universe
after the Ancients.

Dzen Aeng Kho (Society of Equals): A military ruled society, where the
citizens must be rated Equal before they can get voting status, or enter
certain careers. To get rated as Equal the citizen must go through a
test, which can be dangerous. This test is taken at age 16 usually, but
it can be taken later. Non-Equal citizens that did not make the test
might be rated Equal later if they perform excellent in their line of
duty. And this is usually in the military services. SoE do also keep
slaves, but they may not be mistreated.

Gvaeknoks Trade Union: Formed in 1172 when Gvaeknoks got fed up by the
trading difficulties between Thirz Empire, and Society of Equals (SoE).
A new base had to be found. The break up of Rukh gave the right
opportunity to establish a base where Gvaeknoks could keep a political
presence without losing control. The Gvaeknoks Trade Union (GTU) was
formed short after. Gvaeknoks holds the control over the interstellar
government, but the worlds themselves maintain their own government.
Gvaeknoks got even more popular as it invested in different projects to
build up the local economy. Thus Gvaeknoks can buy cheap and sell
expensive to worlds outside GTU.

Kedzudh Aeng: Formed originally to hold corsairs at bay, but formed the
Glass Bond alliance with Kforuzeng in 1116-17. Imperial analysts
concluded that this bond wouldn't hold for long, but they were wrong.
After the campaign in Spinward Marches was finished, Kforuzeng started
to look for new markets. Kedzudh worked for improving its relations to
Regency. Kedzudh are still a loose alliance, with the worlds handling
their foreign policy on their own. Only the near presence of the virus
do keep them together today.

Noerrgh Confederate: A dissident group lead by Noerrgh started to get
popular in 1178. By two years it has spread to near lying worlds.
Noerrgh wanted to disband the monarchy of Thirz Empire, but the Royal
Thir Family resisted. Armed conflict broke out, but an armistice was
reached in 1182. Noerrgh Confederate is actually a wobbly alliance. They
don't seem to manage to agree on a single item. The only reason that it
still exist might be that Zhodani got some control, with help of Thirz
Empire, over the group. Why Thirz has not moved in and taken control is
not known.

Oberlindes Lines: A Spinward Marches based trade company. They are maybe
the best traders in the sector, not counting Gvaeknoks. As the peace has
been spreading through the rimward reaches of Gvurrdon Oberlindes are
looking into reopening their base at Triad, that got closed in 1117.
Further expansion into Gvurrdon are also planned, but there is a few
problems. Kforuzeng got quite a presence in the rimward portion.
Economic analysts just wait on the day that Emissary the Oberlindes
trade cruiser will clash with the light cruiser of Kforuzeng, Ozarr.
Gvaeknoks do also close their borders for Oberlindes, making a coreward
expansion difficult.

Regency: Doesn't have any direct presence in Gvurrdon, but keeps
emissaries around in the different groups to know what is happening.
They got best relations with Thoengling and Rueks Legacy. The relations
to Kedzudh and Ve Ekhlle Ksafi are also softening up.

Rroerz Uerra: This is actually what is left of Anti-Rukh coalition. When
the Rukh war was over, these worlds rebuilt their society. Helped by a
Zhodani backed Rroerz political party. The Zhodani presence has been
fading the last few years, but still there.

Rueks Legacy: One of the splinter groups of old Rukh. they hold a small
base, and try to stay out of trouble. To protect their worlds, they have
hired ships from 40th squadron. Repeating raids from Corsair's Den saw
to this.

The Freedom League: Also called Corsair's Den by outsiders. Kforuzeng
has control over this alliance, even on local world government level.
However not full control. Kforuzeng tried to take full control, but
found it too difficult, and that they could loose Charisma on it.
However after Kforuzeng took over the situation on the worlds became
actually better. Many corsair groups sought to Kforuzeng after this.
Corsairs that visit this place can come and go as they like, far as they
do not break any rules here. No one asks questions where the wares comes
from. The trade taxes are also quite low.

Thirz Uerra: An Interstellar Monarchy formed with the help of Zhodani.
The worlds got independence in that way that they can choose their own
local government, but the monarchy with its appointed governors do the
interstellar policy. This part of Gvurrdon holds a large percentage of
the Psionic capable Vargr. They fought the Equality war against SoE from
1111 to 1116. Where upon SoE lost much territory. It maintains good
relations to most factions in Gvurrdon, excepted for SoE, where a cold
war status is at hand.

Thoengling Raghz: Has always had good relations with the Empire, and
continue to nurture this through Regency. It is maybe the interstellar
state that has suffered most from the Virus. First they managed to keep
it at bay, but a breakthrough forced the Thoengling Navy to withdraw.
The Capital was lost in matter of weeks. Now there is only a handful
worlds left from this state, which once was the biggest is Gvurrdon.

Ve Ekhlle Ksafi (40th Sqr): One of the alliances that participated in
the FFW against the Imperium in 1107 to 1110. The government is a strict
military rule, but the individual worlds has gotten more to say the
latest years. The reason for this might be by the pressure from Regency
because of the Virus. Ve Ekhlle Ksafi doesn't like Regency much, but it
is not strong enough to make a dent in Regency's armor. The fleet
capability of Ve Ekhlle Ksafi has been built up over the years, but
still small compared to other groups.

Zhodani: Their aims for the Gvurrdon sector has changed over the years.
As their long time allied Rukh disappeared, Zhodani had to move in with
force to prevent that Zhodani owned industry didn't get caught in the
middle. However they was not able to prevent that Rukh broke up, maybe
for the best. As Zhodani sought after to control the groups along their
border to keep them safe, it got easier now that the tension in this
area of space loosened. It did also get easier to deal with the
different worlds after Rukh disappeared. Zhodani has opened quite a lot
of trade missions in Gvurrdon the latter 20 years.



Roger "StarWolf" Myhre

d Xienners can't shape change at all.

This shape change would have made them perfect soldiers, but they are
friendly and peaceful. Their culture is closely related to the nature,
even for their high technology. Killing can only be done in necessity.
This has made them the perfect diplomats, which are sought after in
Gvurrdon and surrounding areas. Another feature is the total lack if
Psionics. They can't utilize psionics at all, and try to mindread them
is futile.


Tirril

An avian alien race. The Tirrils lives at TL 0. Which would classify
them as barely sentient. The Vargr which first took contact with them,
hunted them for their fine feather hide. But when it became evident that
the birds were sentient, all hunting ceased. The Tirrils are protected
from hunting. Any killing of a Tirril for their hide is penalized with
death.

The Tirrils are about 150 centimetre high, and got bright colors from
blood red to deep navy blue. The chest and abdomen are generally white
or silver grey. They got a 15 centimetre long beak like a gull and
powerful claws they use to dig in the earth for Lummi roots or insects.

What's curious about the Tirrils are that they have excellent
mathematical knowledge. Some are so good that they can calculate the
jump coordinates and data for a distances up to one parsec without the
aid of a computer. Some Vargr merchants use Tirrils onboard their
vessels for entertainment and for their excellent mathematical skill.

Tirrils are popular in various parts of Gvurrdon for their beautiful
sing song skills, and are often employed at taverns and inns for
entertainment.

When the Tirrils are lacking manipulators they usually do not wear
clothes or use tools. However a few Vargr corporations have built waldos
that the Tirrils may use. However few do make use of the waldos when
they constrain them from flying.


Ungrest

This race descend from a desert dwelling carnivore. It got a thick hide,
almost chitin like in substance. They are somewhat hunched. When rolled
up they are totally hidden behind their shell like back, which gives
them very good protection. Their appearance is almost insect like, which
can scare the hell out of unwary travellers. They are quite small and
stocky, but not clumsy, even when they may seem like it. Even before the
Vargr contacted this race, they had acquired tech enough to start a
space programme. The first contact with Vargr, and Humans accelerated
this process.

They claim to have developed jumpdrive on their own, but this has not
been confirmed. However they are not able to use the jump technology to
its fullest. So in this field they are still on tech 9. The reason for
this is that the Ungrest can't survive the jump for some strange reason.
But the Ungrest do use so called unmanned jump launches, which actually
are crafts rangingfrom 100 to 300 ton. These are used to move supplies
fast through the system, and to the neighbouring system that they have
started to colonize. The Ungrest move through interstellar space with
SLD ships, powered by a ram scope.

The Ungrest is quite aggressive, but not outright hostile. Various
merchants do trade with them, but any technology is unavailable, when it
is much specified for the race. And the Ungrest is unwilling to sell out
technology to inferior traders. This might stem from a paranoia that
they are afraid of that the tech might be turned against them. However
there is possible to buy lot of other non- technical stuff like
foodstuffs, and art.


Bzruellokh

This race stems from an world which are quite chilly, which explains
their heavy built due to insulating fat. Descendants from
omnivore/gatherers which evolved on the great steppes of this planet.
They are massing about 95kg, the females a bit less. Their legs are
short with broad feet, that prevents them from sinking too deep into the
snow. Their early forefathers had quite a lot of body hair, which
disappeared when the Bzruellokh started using clothing to protect them
further from the chill. Their arms are long, reaching down to the knees
when they stand upright, and powerful. Their skin resembles that of a
human, but is rougher and thicker. The skin color ranges from white to
yellowish. Their arms and head is covered with thick white hair. The
face holds two small eyes which are set deep into the skull. The ears
resembles that of a rabbit, but is a bit broader.

>From what is usual among other races, Bzruellokh does have a peculiar
rhythm. Their pre-sentient ancestors hibernated during the winter,
gathering food in the summer. Thus they almost never sleep half of their
local year. In a modern society this is quite difficult, but this
hibernating are still being done. But the cycles are more controlled, so
that their society still works, even in the winter. Their starships got
special hibernation modules, for crew or owners that are due for they
hibernation cycle. The fact is that the Bzruellokh gets sick if it can't
hibernate over certain period. Drugs can prolong the wake time between
hibernation, but are used sparingly.


Opliaraz

Descendants from omnivore scavengers that was cave dwellers. The latter
has given them sight that spans from visible light to the infrared
spectrum. They got large black eyes. Matter of fact the pupils are the
only part of the eye visible. Their size is small compared to humans,
with an average height of 145cm. They got bat like ears that can be
moved towards a sound. This coupled with their wide field of vision,
that is 220 degrees gives them a superior surveillance capability
compared to most other sentient races.

Their society is built around the family, which forms a clan. When the
Vargr contacted these the first time, they were hunted for their fur.
Even when they had advanced into the iron age. This hunting was stopped
some hundred years ago, by a group of resourceful explorers. However the
Opliaraz is still xenophobic about outsiders. Those who wants to do
business in this system should do it through the Aelluengh Mercantile
Company, which is the only company the Opliaraz will trade with. The
reason for this is that the Aelluengh is owned by the ancestors of those
who helped the Opliaraz from extinction.



Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 636  7967 12-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      TNE: Gvurrdon UWP         <<
 636  7968 12-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5005: Democracy << Gentles

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

Bundle: 636
Archive-Message-Number: 7967
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 10:28:57 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: TNE: Gvurrdon UWP

             Doc 6F01; TNE update.  Date: 16 January, 1994


Author: Roger Myhre
        Ammerudgrenda 168
        0960 Oslo
        NORWAY



Gvurrdon Sector codes, and UWP codes.



Gvurrdon subsectors has no official names in the Vargr extends, but they
are named by the Imperial IISS for the
purpose of easy reference to a given part of the space. Thus most
subsectors in Gvurrdon has been given the
names of leading Vargr consentration in the subsector (if known). Given
the strange behavior of the Vargr, some
of these subsectors may have other rulers  now than then, when the names
were thought up.  The exception of this
rule are those sub sectors that borders to the Regency, where the old
Imperial mapping standards are more
common.

The sub sector names are:
Subsector                    Imperial translation (if any)
- ----------------------------------------------------------
A)      Ongvos
B)      Zoghz
C)      Adhsakh
D)      Fanganger
E)      Uerra Rueshken           Empire Trailing
F)      Dzen                     Society
G)      Lla Iz Therrg
H)      Thoengling
I)      Kfan Uzangou             White Fangs
J)      Ruhk Odzuetarug          Ruhk sector
K)      Ksits Usathu Odzuetarug  Free Spirit sector
L)      Aelluekh
M)      Llanic
N)      Spurl
O)      Uthe
P)      Firgr

Allegience Codes:
Code       Allegience
- --------------------------------------------------
Dr         Droyne
Va         Vargr Non-aligned
Vb         Thirz Uerra (Thirz Empire)
Vc         Dzen Aeng Kho (Society of Equals)
Vd         Noerrgh Confederate
Ve         Thoengling Raghz (Thoengling Empire)
Vf         Ongue Republic
Vg         Allez
Vh         Gvaeknoks Trade Union
Vl         Rroerz Uerra
Vm         Rueks Legacy
Vn         Ve Ekhlle Ksafi (40th Squadron)
Vp         Kedzudh Aeng (Commonality of Kedzudh)
Vq         The Freedom League (Corsair's Den)
Zh         Zhodani

Bases
Code       Type
- ------------------------------
 C         Corsair
 G         Naval (Vargr)
 H         Corsair and Naval
 Z         Zhodani Naval

Remarks
Code       Type
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
Cx         Interstallar government Capital
Cp         Regional Capital
Si         World ruled by sophonts native to world
Sv         World inhabited by sophonts native to world other than Vargr,
but
           the Vargr is in the control of the government. I.e.
colonization
           of land/planets originally belonging someone else, as in USA
or
           Australia a couple of hundred years ago.
O:xxxx     Pointer to who owns the system in the case of captive
governments
           (UWP code 6)
Wi         Wilds. For game purpose, any Vargr world in the wilds are
           considered Poor by the trading rules in traveller.
Bl         Balkanized. When worlds in the wilds to have a different set
of
           government codes than other worlds. There is no firm code for

           balkanized worlds in the UWP string.



World                     Hex  UWP       B Remarks             Z PBG Al
Star1  Star2  Star3  S
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----------------------
Enjtodl                   0104 C8A8100-8 Z Lo Ni Fl              501 Zh
M4 V   M4 D          A
Fufoekkfal                0112 E638688-7   Ni Si                 912 Vb
M9 V                 E
Taraeng                   0113 B00098C-A   Hi Na In As           212 Vb
M1 V                 E
Tjenl                     0130 A683875-C   Ri                    420 Zh
G3 II  M1 D          I
Satlpenzh                 0131 B657586-B   Ag Ni                 205 Zh
M4 V                 M
Chench                    0137 D559426-3   Ni                    214 Zh
K1 IV                M
Zhenchve'chip             0202 B666558-8 Z Ag Ni                 902 Zh
M1 V   M9 D          A
Matlmadl                  0205 B646730-8   Ag                    822 Zh
F0 V                 A
Dho Ega                   0208 E480653-8   Ni Ri De              610 Vb
M4 V   M7 D          A
Onagzorrruell             0212 D889737-2                         601 Vb
M2 V   M0 D          E
Kerkukhaeka               0215 B888554-B   Ag Ni                 325 Vb
K6 V                 E
Saezghen                  0216 B200A72-C G Hi Na In Va           402 Vb
M6 V                 E
Telfazagnou               0220 E7A5542-8   Ni Fl                 724 Vb
M3 V                 E
Aersaedha                 0221 B98A88A-8 G Ri Wa                 622 Vb
F6 V                 I
Aedhue                    0223 A9C4000-B   Lo Ba Ni              824 Vb
K0 II                I
Qanstanze                 0226 E73987A-3                         710 Zh
M1 V                 I
Eblonzyerefl              0230 B334210-D   Lo Ni                 403 Zh
G7 V   M0 D          I
Tseezh                    0231 B000762-B   Na As                 811 Zh
M7 V                 M
Jdiprqrafr                0232 B100A99-C Z Hi Na In Va           923 Zh
M4 III               M
Yied                      0233 B43677B-C                         721 Zh
M3 V                 M
Pliploranshich            0235 B626611-7   Ni                    825 Zh
F3 IV                M
Tlrt                      0239 B698542-B   Ag Ni An              803 Zh
F5 V                 M
Astanch                   0240 A341410-E   Ni Po                 301 Zh
M0 V                 M
Zaerrg                    0306 C674683-8   Ag Ni                 103 Va
M3 V                 A
Unoldhasaellae            0309 B300687-9 G Na Ni Va              201 Vb
M7 V                 A
Gzoulakhgha               0317 B793ACD-D   Hi In                 310 Vb
K9 V   M0 VI         E
Llathoevaghoe             0323 B673878-A                         410 Vb
M3 V   M3 D          I
Dzado                     0325 B6A4896-8   Fl                    703 Va
M3 V                 I
Iatl Iatl                 0327 B685233-B   Lo Ni                 322 Zh
G5 V   M4 D          I
Enjqore                   0329 A247245-A Z Lo Ni                 210 Zh
M0 V                 I
Blienzkats                0334 B465110-9   Lo Ni                 401 Zh
K0 VI  M2 D          M
Vriaajets                 0337 B583554-A Z Ni                    801 Zh
K7 V   M4 V          M
Diekech                   0339 B334579-C   Ni                    115 Zh
M4 III               M
Angudh                    0401 E7A77BA-B   Fl Si                 721 Va
M7 V                 A
Knoelurzudal              0402 A352614-D   Ni Po                 803 Va
K1 VI                A
Duduell                   0403 C352215-6 C Lo Ni Po              203 Va
F0 V                 A
Tarraekhs                 0405 B000657-C C Na Ni As              311 Va
M4 V   M2 D          A
Uedhoelukhue              0407 B300314-9   Ni Va                 920 Vb
K6 V                 A
Roeknughroe               0410 B100A99-C G Hi Na Va              924 Vb
M4 III               A
Zuts Asgning              0411 B43677B-B G                       222 Vb
M3 V                 E
Uefokung                  0419 D433640-6   Na Ni Po              821 Vb
F6 IV                E
Rarksagzvungougae         0422 A110100-D   Lo Ni                 701 Vb
M1 V                 I
Zulgziga                  0425 C8B4854-8   Fl                    202 Va
K0 V                 I
Ethue                     0426 B254300-B   Lo Ni An              233 Va
F7 V   M5 D          I
Vlazh Epr                 0428 C5A179C-5 Z Fl                    524 Zh
M0 III               I
Zhdapl                    0430 B63A58B-A   Ni Wa                 201 Zh
K3 V   M1 VI         I
Onsansh                   0433 B677732-5 Z Ag                    221 Zh
G1 V                 M
Odliadr                   0438 D7A7655-6   Ni Fl                 610 Zh
G2 V                 M
Aek Elakfough             0439 A000412-G   Lo Ni As              220 Va
K8 V   M7 D          M
Oughaetha                 0440 B767658-5   Ag Ni Ri              401 Va
M2 V   M2 D          M
Gvuksdourrgh              0502 X685000-0 C Lo Ba Ni Wi           103 Va
M3 V                 A
Songi                     0503 B736467-A   Ni O:0402             110 Va
M3 V   M1 D          A
Llaegh                    0504 B638359-9   Lo Ni                 110 Va
F0 V   M4 D          A
Torrvagve                 0505 A577526-C G Lo Ni An              220 Va
F3 V                 A
Uthgvoe                   0512 A481426-B G Ni Cx                 710 Vb
A3 II  K5 V          E
Gvoeloegnoethu            0517 B63A410-A G Ni Wa                 702 Vb
K6 V   M3 D          E
Gzughzuvulling            0525 A693530-A   Ni                    433 Va
M9 III               I
Oenoukh                   0528 C794459-9   Ni                    820 Va
M4 V                 I
Khoeghersaeng             0529 B896455-7   Ni                    823 Va
G9 V                 I
Sitlshaqr                 0535 B000331-C   Lo Ni As              721 Zh
A8 V                 M
Ognirrirrgzegukhuekh      0536 E86A346-4   Lo Ni Wa              701 Va
F7 V   M9 D          M
Tuetingou                 0537 C659337-5   Lo Ni                 501 Va
M4 V                 M
Tagakfaduen               0538 C89A225-9   Lo Ni Wa              211 Va
M3 V                 M
Rougungol                 0539 B330479-B C Ni Po De              501 Va
M0 V                 M
Aroelloe                  0613 B9C5533-9   Ni Fl                 303 Vb
M6 V   M6 D          E
Luerrghankaerz            0618 E276445-5   Ni                    812 Vb
K2 V                 E
Agsaez                    0619 DAC8787-9   Fl                    534 Vb
G8 V                 E
Foggzukoetsaellksakh      0625 C5028CB-8 C Na Ic Va              610 Va
M0 V                 I
Az                        0629 B657445-6   Ni                    210 Va
F8 V   M0 D          I
Taknarkag                 0630 B370499-A H Ni De                 112 Va
M3 II  G0 V   M7 VI  I
Aldhagh                   0633 A454420-9   Ni                    210 Va
M1 V                 M
Izivr                     0634 D326974-9   Hi In                 922 Zh
F2 V                 M
Saedhuenragh              0635 B441455-8   Ni Po                 223 Va
M3 V                 M
Fourfurrghagh             0639 B436352-E   Lo In                 221 Va
K5 V                 M
Dzukoun                   0703 C788759-7   An Bl Wi              814 Va
F6 V                 A
Onengoen                  0709 B450778-A   Po De                 302 Vd
M4 V                 A
Suedh                     0719 B436113-D   Lo Ni                 510 Vb
M1 V                 E
Tsukifi                   0720 B97788C-8                         220 Vb
G3 V                 E
Gvoedhoeks                0725 B582574-9 C Ni                    801 Va
M4 V   M1 D          I
Roegoukhaghoe             0727 B554853-7                         302 Va
K0 V   M9 D          I
Oraedzaeng                0728 B436445-C   Ni                    302 Va
M4 V   M6 D          I
Ghin Uerr                 0729 B865253-7   Lo Ni                 421 Va
K3 V                 I
Kson                      0730 B5A487A-A   Fl                    224 Va
F7 V                 I
Aeghez                    0735 B898537-6   Ag Ni                 802 Va
M1 V                 M
Kor                       0736 B66A425-9   Ni Wa                 310 Va
M3 V                 I
Duekh                     0737 E7A6886-8 C Fl                    434 Va
G4 VI                M
Kuenruekh                 0739 C35874A-7   Ag                    420 Va
F3 V                 M
Zangerr                   0803 D100000-0   Ni Va                 023 Va
M4 V                 A
Ksaghae                   0804 E878245-6   Lo Ni Bl Wi           310 Va
M2 V   M6 D          A
Tengerkukokhs             0807 C87A532-8   Ni Wa                 322 Vd
A8 V                 A
Ellfoegoezou              0808 E58878B-5   Ag Ri                 810 Vd
G7 VI                A
Gantsugh                  0809 A000100-D G Lo Ni As              420 Vd
M2 V                 A
Khaeknae                  0815 B485898-9   Ri                    102 Vb
M4 V                 E
Ellallue                  0817 B302632-9   Na Ni Ic Va           901 Vb
M4 V   M9 D          E
Gvurrdon                  0821 B756986-C   Hi                    503 Vb
M4 V                 I
Aerrigha                  0824 B6888DE-7 C                       724 Va
M4 V                 I
Uenag                     0832 D343534-6 C Ni Po                 210 Va
K2 VI                M
Onllae Roungo             0901 B886639-4   Ag Ni Bl Wi           810 Va
K3 VI  M8 D          B
Korruelloko               0904 X100000-0   Va Ba Wi              003 Va
K0 V   M5 D          B
Taekfoengsegzo            0908 B866553-9   Ag Ni Cx              901 Vd
G5 VI  M4 D          B
Daerrg                    0926 C636627-9   Ni                    723 Va
M4 V                 J
Orra                      0929 A00079C-F G Na As Cx              810 Vg
F9 II                J
Uegukell Vakfez           0930 BAD48AD-6   Fl                    102 Vg
G2 IV  K8 V          J
Vurrfourraeksan           0934 A65A255-A C Lo Ni Wa              422 Va
F0 V                 N
Saksoukuer                0935 B5727AC-6   Mr                    712 Va
A3 IV  K8 V          N
Aerritho                  0937 B3008C7-B G Na Va Cx              701 Vl
M9 VI  M6 D          N
Neridhueraeng             0938 B431334-B   Lo Ni Po              501 Vl
M4 V                 N
Ghin                      0939 C47778C-6   Ag                    810 Vl
M8 III               N
Luerrgnudhlaerz           1009 B657337-7 G Lo Ni                 323 Vb
K5 V                 B
Gzonough                  1010 D524842-4   Na                    930 Vb
F7 V   M7 D          B
Okskful                   1014 B661953-9   Hi                    602 Vb
G2 V   M3 D          F
Tongaesodhongaell         1015 C435379-6                       R 201 Vb
M0 V                 F
Gegvouk                   1023 B9AA887-C C Wa Fl                 104 Va
K1 V   M0 D          J
Saell                     1027 A3578AC-F G Hi                    202 Vg
M0 V                 J
Dheg                      1034 E310335-7   Lo Ni                 204 Va
K3 V                 N
Koekh Uez                 1036 C453332-7   Ni Po                 424 Vl
F7 V                 N
Inghinfudzolorz           1037 B6A5786-8   Fl Si                 343 Vl
K2 II  M3 V          N
Zaenluekegze              1039 B200686-8   Na Ni Va              334 Va
F0 V                 N
Aksugzael                 1102 XAC5000-0   Ba Fl Wi              002 Va
M6 V   M1 D          B
Ngues                     1104 E777200-4   Lo Ni Wi              201 Va
M2 V   M5 D          B
Rueskhen                  1106 X220000-0   Ba De Wi              022 Va
M7 III               B
Tsuengingeguekaetho       1107 B5A5204-B   Lo Ni                 814 Va
K2 V                 B
Louks Aek                 1109 E384026-3   Lo Ni                 703 Vb
K6 V                 B
Ksethu                    1112 A00089B-E   Na As                 622 Vb
M5 V                 F
Allous                    1115 B65A773-A   Wa                    713 Vb
M1 V                 F
Dzerrdhakse               1116 A766645-B G Ag Ni Ri              914 Vb
F4 VI                F
Darrugsug                 1119 B344564-B   Ag Ni O:1116          602 Vb
F2 V                 F
Vonghoe                   1120 B4007CG-9   Na Va                 622 Vb
G7 VI  M8 D          F
Tagath                    1125 B989559-A   Ni                    701 Vf
F6 IV  M0 D          J
Raezarourkollarrakhs      1126 C466634-B G Ni Si                 621 Vf
F0 V                 J
Langaetoukoe              1128 E433573-7   Ni Po                 120 Vg
M1 III G8 V   M8 D   J
Koekhae                   1129 B67A121-A G Lo Ni Wa              924 Vg
F3 II  M0 D          J
Ogotelloegzllig           1132 A576842-8                         324 Va
M2 III               N
Aeggiks                   1134 A505401-E   Ni Ic Va              920 Va
M3 V                 N
Akfukh                    1140 D330689-7   Na Ni Po De           603 Va
F9 V   M6 D          N
Uekongull                 1201 X779000-5   Ba Lo Ni Wi           901 Va
G6 IV  M0 D          B
Ngoerrgh                  1216 E22065A-7   Na Ni Po De           603 Vb
K8 V                 F
Ngurstur                  1219 C87A111-5 G Lo Ni Wa              434 Vb
F3 V                 F
Aedhar                    1225 B4908C9-A   De                    422 Vf
M0 V                 J
Voullatueng               1226 A203326-E G Lo Ni Ic Va Cx        421 Vf
K6 V                 J
Udaethaen                 1233 E221336-9   Lo Ni Po              720 Va
F6 IV                N
Ksorraknue                1236 B200657-C   Na Ni Va              104 Va
G9 V                 N
Uerzthu                   1238 B325986-B   Hi In                 302 Va
G0 V   M6 D          N
Kukhvu                    1305 X000000-0   Ba As Wi              011 Va
K7 V   M3 D          B
Rinvoengerrazodhae        1307 X110000-0   Ba Wi                 001 Va
F4 V   M6 D          B
Vaeghovangugh             1310 A576842-8                         324 Vb
M8 III G7 D          B
Firullvorzkokh            1315 B436654-9 G Ni                    920 Vb
M1 V   M3 VI         F
Aegadh                    1317 B737AEC-B G Hi Cp                 924 Vb
G4 V   M0 VI         F
Soerkon Aeth              1318 A23477A-B G                       520 Vc
F1 V                 F
Dhaeghoerzeoe             1320 B73A478-D G Ni Wa                 922 Vc
F6 VI                F
Akhaedag                  1327 B463355-B G Lo Ni                 801 Vf
K0 VI                J
Sethgnakh                 1333 D86769C-4   Ag Ni Ri              535 Va
G9 V                 N
Okfozarrga                1336 X596000-0   Ba                  R 013 Va
K5 V   M1 D          N
Thoghaezae                1337 E5A1300-8   Lo Ni Fl              901 Va
M0 V   M5 D          N
Dzuerongvoe               1413 B664997-C G Hi                    422 Vc
A4 V   K9 D          F
Urkhaksadh                1415 A120212-B G Lo Ni Po De           503 Vb
F4 V                 F
Lling                     1417 B261866-9   Ri O:1318             722 Vc
G8 V                 F
Oesar Gin                 1418 B86A322-C G Lo Ni Wa              701 Vc
M2 V   M2 D          F
Ilung                     1419 B561257-7   Lo Ni                 323 Vc
M4 II                F
Dhallorag                 1420 D554332-4   Lo Ni                 622 Vc
K6 III               F
Kfolaell                  1421 A86AAA6-B G Hi Wa                 403 Vb
M3 V                 J
Ogvasaekha                1428 B667877-9 G Ri                    122 Vh
F7 V                 J
Orz                       1429 D95A88C-6   Wa                    524 Vh
F8 V   M4 D          J
Fagvaenghuenouts          1430 B440786-8   Po De                 925 Vh
K2 V                 J
Dharrgkhaksuzarorrdzuer   1434 B843200-7   Lo Ni Po              901 Vm
G9 V   M0 D          N
Oungeghuegue              1502 X324000-0   Ba Wi                 021 Va
M4 V                 B
Dhueks                    1503 X433000-0   Ba Wi                 001 Va
M4 V   M8 D          B
Naen Dzi Ona              1504 X55856D-3   Ag Ni Bl Wi           702 Va
K1 IV                B
Roedz                     1506 B585400-8 G Ni Bl Wi              201 Va
M2 V                 B
Gikhs                     1508 C766568-5   Ag Ni Bl Wi           901 Va
M3 V   M5 D          B
Thadzlaksak               1511 D86769C-4   Ag Ni Ri              535 Vb
G9 V                 F
Ngaengza Duegha           1512 B75A779-6   Wa                    914 Vb
F8 V                 F
Raersava                  1524 B100262-A   Lo Ni Va O:1623       903 Vc
G1 V   M7 D          J
Kaneldhuellough           1527 A6535A9-A   Ni Po                 523 Va
K9 V                 J
Ghenkerongolu             1528 A331778-B G Na Po Cx              601 Vh
M4 V   M8 D          J
Noe                       1535 A110454-D H Ni Cx                 323 Vm
M4 III               N
Dhaengae                  1539 B9789AA-A   Hi In                 410 Va
M4 V   M3 D          N
Iloungrraegzer            1602 E538442-7   Ni Lo Po Bl Wi        101 Va
M1 V                 B
Gaknau Val                1616 A98A614-2 G Ni Wa                 620 Vc
M6 III M7 D          F
Illkarkunotoe             1622 B54587A-A                         420 Vc
M2 V                 J
Taeksoudhagnou            1623 A5A488C-D G Fl Cx                 323 Vc
M2 VI                J
Ougzsaeg                  1631 E9A9641-8 C Fl                    902 Va
M8 V   M1 D          N
Usere                     1634 B200674-7 C Na Ni Va              224 Vm
M8 V                 N
Okfitos                   1709 X000000-0   Ba As An Wi           023 Va
F3 V                 C
Zuerrguell                1713 B432321-A G Lo Ni Po              120 Vc
F2 V                 G
Rirrrronggzerzoell        1714 B3728AD-B                         110 Vc
M3 V   M3 D          G
Ghugi                     1716 B686567-B   Ag Ni O:1717          404 Vc
M3 V                 G
Lloursouth                1717 A253A9E-C   Hi Po                 602 Vc
M4 V   M4 D          G
Ungan                     1721 B402122-D   Lo Ni Ic Va           423 Vc
F0 V                 K
Tsounduekfegun            1722 B246455-C   Ni                    201 Vc
M1 V   M3 D          K
Ouse Faeg                 1724 A69476A-B G Ag O:1623             222 Vc
G8 V   M3 D          K
Aengvoung                 1726 A682731-B   Ri                    620 Va
M1 II                K
Ankhir                    1728 C6869BB-7   Hi                    613 Va
M2 V                 K
Erzthung                  1734 E75A440-6 C Ni Wa                 623 Vm
K4 V                 O
Uthith                    1738 B210577-C G Ni Cx                 623 Vn
M0 V                 O
Gzazogze                  1807 X424000-0   Ba Wi                 013 Va
F0 V   M5 D          C
Uzotssaza                 1816 B225435-D   Ni                    101 Vc
K3 V   M9 D          G
Tirrokoelaegz             1821 B463645-A   Ni Ri Sv              312 Vc
F4 V   M4 D          K
Lurraengfangnoksas        1823 E476232-8   Lo Ni                 210 Vc
G9 VI                K
Vaersngurr                1830 A99A873-C G Wa Cp                 503 Vq
M5 V                 K
Forrodhkhokh              1839 B75827B-B   Lo Ni                 201 Vn
M2 V   M7 D          O
Tsenggvaksdzong           1912 E54379A-5   Po                    910 Vc
M3 V   M8 D          G
Osuekha                   1914 E692120-5   Lo Ni                 424 Vc
G1 V                 G
Aedzaerz                  1915 D7658BA-2                         303 Vc
K8 V   M6 D          G
Vanas                     1918 B79879C-6   Ag                    135 Vc
M3 II                G
Dhallas                   1919 B66358C-9   Ni                    603 Vc
F0 V                 G
Gnoengungag               1923 B759623-7   Ni                    734 Vc
F3 V                 K
Dzenzaega                 1924 B20189B-7   Na Ic Va              701 Vc
M2 V   M8 D          K
Asurrorr                  1930 C000526-B   Ni As                 813 Vq
M1 V                 K
Aethkaek                  1933 B66A512-C C Ni Wa                 502 Va
M4 V   M3 D          O
Thaeuevae                 1936 D546300-8 G Lo Ni                 724 Vn
M2 III               O
Kousuesi                  1938 EA9A325-5   Lo Ni Wa              724 Vn
F8 V                 O
Gkakhaellan               2002 X210000-0   Ba Wi                 010 Va
F0 V                 C
Tanga                     2005 B9C56BB-A   Ni Fl                 220 Dr
M3 V                 C
Ragzael                   2010 X100000-0   Ba Wi                 023 Va
F5 V   M8 D          C
Aekfo                     2015 B645444-8   Ni                    523 Vc
F1 II  M2 D          G
Gurzueng                  2018 B788300-B   Lo Ni                 122 Vc
F5 V   M7 D          G
Ueksgug                   2022 A576235-A   Lo Ni                 235 Vc
G8 V                 K
Rredzutsaezougova         2023 B100BAC-D   Na Va                 122 Vc
M2 II                K
Angasaer                  2025 B88A846-9   Ri Wa                 201 Va
K9 V   M5 D          K
Kfenkudhuegzo             2029 B656120-7   Lo Ni                 320 Vq
M3 III               K
Gurzhvoursivazae          2030 B642410-A   Ni Po                 702 Vq
M1 V                 K
Urrllongonu               2037 B266545-9   Ag Ni                 301 Vn
M0 V                 O
Ougzdaelzoerrgh           2040 A899335-B C Lo Ni                 825 Va
M1 III               O
Vorroeng                  2101 C58A679-8   Ri Wa Wi              703 Va
K2 VI                C
Goedhung                  2111 X66A46D-6 C Ni Wa Wi              102 Va
M4 V   M3 D          G
Ekakh                     2117 B334579-C G Ni                    724 Vc
M4 III               G
Tseghagvarz               2118 B675746-5   Ag                    613 Vc
G5 IV                G
Knaegadae                 2119 A525586-D   Ni                    924 Vc
F0 V                 G
Tagnaghoutsozaeng         2123 B86A755-9   Ri Wa                 201 Vc
G4 V   M7 D          K
Aellaesgvarzath           2128 A231365-G   Lo Ni Po O:2129       210 Va
M1 V                 K
Gaekloungoerzaghun        2129 A697A78-G   Hi In Si              834 Va
F4 V                 K
Daeksuzaethukue           2137 B645677-A G Ag Ni                 523 Vn
M1 V                 O
Ikhotakhang               2209 C668686-1   Ag Ni Bl Wi           610 Va
F6 IV                C
Idza                      2219 B5748AA-5 G                       812 Vc
G0 V                 G
Gnael Oer                 2226 B10078C-7 C Na Va                 403 Va
M1 V                 K
Kueng                     2229 A762116-D   Lo Ni            01 Va
M1 V   M2 D          K
Gzogzu                    2232 B550889-9 C Po De                         O
Tinkaeghzzaklez           2234 B444233-A   Lo Ni                 810 a
M1V   M5 D          OPandrin                   2240 B260675-B C Ni Ri De              201 Vp
1 V   M6 D M8 D   O
Karsinarka              2302 B886368-5   Lo Ni Wi              603 Va
G2 V               C
Uthisodgoksae           2305 X403000-0   Ba Ic Va Wi           022 Va
K9 V                C
Khagogk230B452452-8   Ni Po Wi              201 Va
M1 V                 C
Rrouzasn                2316 E00000-0   Ba As Wi              014 Va
M9 V                 G
Orsesokhin               23 A00087F G Cx Na As              210 Ve
M5 V   M5 VI         K
Gaelaeth                 2329 C360A9-A  Hi De An              614 Va
F6 V   M9 D          K
Knall                    2331 A000000-C   o
K7 V   M3 D          O
Zoe                       2334 E757499-5   Ni                  132 Va
   2336 E673442-5   Ni                   5 Va
M5 II  M3 D          O
Kats                     238 B636631-7 H Ni                    111 Vp
0 IV                O
Ueghrzue                2339 6A47BA-A   Fl                    913 Vp
M0 V     rsae                234 C758646-7   Ag Ni               702 Vp
M4 V                 O
Gaengour                  2404 X4000-0   Ba De Wi             003 Va
M3 V                 C
Ilugh                  2407 X2260000   Ba Wi                004 Va
M0 V                 C
Sagukhunngo              2408 C995526-5 Ag Ni Bl Wi           40 Va
M1 V   M6 D          C
Kfugvugzozoaeksaer      Ba Wa Wi            001 Va
M2 V   M1 D         G
Soungadano                2414 X6   Lo Ni Wi              720 Va
7V   M6 D          G
Aehreng                  2418 X559568-2    Bl Wi              304 Va
K5 V               G
Ngekoe                   2419 X276300-5   Ni Wi                 510 Va
G9 V               G
Thoegzekkfk              2422 A483520-B   Ni                 4 D          K
Llueng   2424 C511445-7   Lo N Ic              201 Ve
M1 V   M4 D          K
Okhtous                  225 E355374-4   Lo Ni                601 Ve
F3 VI              K
Aerrkhukhkaekouguengdoung 2433639673-9 C Ni                   701 Va
M0 V   M2 D         O
Triad                     2436 B5877-8   Ag Ri                320 Va
M4 V                 O
Uer    2507 X582000-0   Ba Wi               014 Va
K6 V                D
Agh Thars                 2509 X522000-0   Ba Wi               022 Va
M8 III M5 D         D
Dzoekhsunoulloudzu    D569453-7   Lo Ni Wi              420 Va
K8 V                 H
Foel                      2514 687145-6   Lo Ni Wi              501 Va
K V  M9 D          H
Tsoroelae                2515 X200000-0      010 Va
M7 V   M0 D          H
nggvokhaengarsnonggue   2518 X8B5000-0   Ba Fl Wi              002 Va
A6 V   F7 V          H
Gvzae                   252 B678431-9 G Ni                 801 Ve
G1 V   M7 D          L
Vongouzdursueng          2524 B8         823 e
M7 II                L
Thagh                     2527 E6659A8-8   Hi                    733 Ve
G4 V                 L
Adegokh                   2530 A4047BB-A G Ic Va                 501 Ve
F7 IV  M2 D          L
Ngoluts                   2531 B304738-9   Ic Va                 803 Va
M4 V                 P
Fae Kodh                  2536 D445313-7   Lo Ni Sv              301 Va
M4 V   M1 D          P
Torrknungazarr            2537 A753300-C   Lo Ni Po              903 Vp
G8 V   M0 D          P
Ksunekso                  2540 B525575-A   Ni                    424 Vp
G5 VI                P
Knoerrgh                  2611 X230000-0   Ba De Wi              001 Va
M4 V   M4 D          H
Gzaer                     2613 X100000-0   Ba Va Wi              013 Va
F5 V   M5 D          H
Luthours                  2617 C551559-7   Ni Po Wi              123 Va
G6 V                 H
Knuerz                    2620 C749452-6   Lo Ni Wi              801 Va
G3 IV  M2 D          H
Rorroksueknea             2628 B374600-8   Ag Ni                 301 Ve
M3 V   M9 D          L
Ightursksoethaegenughz    2633 B300223-C   Lo Ni Va              410 Va
G9 V   M4 D          P
Vakunggvoruego            2634 B333887-7   Na Po                 201 Va
M3 V                 P
Gzaell                    2638 E773541-5   Ni                    910 Vp
K9 V   M7 D          P
Lluezukgzang              2701 X432000-0   Ba Wi                 002 Va
M0 V   M5 D          D
Fukoezo                   2702 X626000-0   Ni                    014 Va
K1 VI                D
Kaeg                      2703 X323000-0   Ba Wi                 001 Va
M1 V   M0 D          D
Vakhoell                  2704 X484467-5   Ni Bl Wi              103 Va
K2 V   M2 D          D
Dhanrranoez               2715 X9A8000-0   Ba Fl Wi              002 Va
M0 V   M4 D          H
Aerzdanthi                2717 E84A451-5   Lo Ni Wa Wi           224 Va
G3 V                 H
Radellogvate              2720 X7B8000-0   Ba Fl Wi              001 Va
M6 V   M5 D          H
Logvokseghaghzvoerour     2722 E786220-4   Lo Ni Wi              422 Va
M3 V                 L
Arrag                     2723 E57556E-5   Ag Wi                 310 Va
G5 V                 L
Aetskaekhoun              2725 C9889A7-5   Hi Bl Wi              201 Va
M2 V   M6 D          L
Zuekuzung                 2727 B200422-8   Lo Ni Va              124 Ve
G9 V                 L
Takhagvafoe               2729 B667585-7   Ag Ni                 701 Ve
K6 V   M8 D          L
Thurruegvudhotue          2731 C88A200-6   Lo Ni Wa              603 Ve
G9 V                 P
Asugunkhodz               2735 B97A313-A   Lo Ni Wa              502 Va
K3 V                 P
Roukhagzvaengoer          2740 E526899-7                         813 Vp
F4 V                 P
Gegerrrarrunu             2802 X421000-0   Ba Wi                 013 Va
M1 V                 D
Ukokhuvoen                2806 X637000-0   Ba Wi                 004 Va
G6 V   M4 D          D
Kaekfesa                  2807 B99746A-7   Ni Wi                 701 Va
M1 V   M5 D          D
Dorrorue                  2808 D659432-4   Ni Bl Wi              502 Va
M1 V                 D
Ghaertu                   2821 X73A000-0   Ba Wa                 021 Va
F3 V   M1 D          L
Etsgokhuenaellilkuer      2822 X756668-5   Ag Ni Bl Wi           313 Va
F6 V   M1 D          L
Vou                       2826 X644000-0 C Ba Wi                 001 Va
K0 V   M1 D          L
Oukgzueredh               2827 C35499B-A G Hi                    901 Ve
M4 V   G4 V          L
Gnurs                     2828 B628554-D   Ni                    202 Ve
K1 VI  M8 D   M9 D   L
Ourkan                    2829 B9D8554-D   Ni Fl                 423 Ve
A1 III G3 V          L
Taekfoengsegzo            2830 B445625-A G Ag Ni                 103 Ve
M4 V                 L
Oegaeldu                  2832 B200443-A   Ni Va                 602 Va
G2 V   M9 D          P
Kedzudh                   2833 B000525-D   Ni As                 822 Va
M8 V                 P
Gzoghz                    2834 B74A421-C   Ni Wa                 503 Va
M0 V                 P
Rruthaekuksu              2840 D231210-6   Lo Ni Po              823 Vp
K7 III M5 D          P
Okhgvonan                 2901 X310000-0   Ba Wi                 023 Va
G0 V                 D
Ngersouluekorruk          2905 A8AA432-C   Ni Fl Wa              822 Va
M6 V                 N
Kutsgarrae                2908 X200000-0   Ba Va Wi              034 Va
M8 V                 D
Kfuevavae                 2913 X636000-0   Ba Wi                 004 Va
M2 V                 H
Olgan                     2916 X88A000-5   Ba Lo Wa Wi           401 Va
M4 V                 H
Afougae                   2936 B000598-E   Ni As                 123 Vp
M1 III               P
Scangen                   2937 B88557A-C   Ni As                 224 Vp
K4 II                P
Galla                     2940 B686275-8 H Lo Ni                 502 Vp
M0 V                 P
Fuedhgusnaezrerzgzang     3003 C361430-5   Wi                    311 Va
K0 V                 D
Utsurr                    3004 X250000-0   Ba De Wi              021 Va
M4 V                 D
Khoekhoerr                3010 X200000-0   Ba Wi                 002 Va
G2 V   M9 D          D
Uefokung                  3012 X403000-0   Ba Ic Va Wi           020 Va
K0 V                 H
Ounoe Eglloeghz           3017 B403000-0   Ba Ic Va Wi           023 Va
A6 V                 H
Koesolaedze               3020 X585000-0   Ba Wi                 002 Va
M0 V   M7 D          H
Gaegzue                   3022 D574340-5   Ni Wi                 101 Va
M3 V   M4 D          L
Ngulivuedakhsnaru         3024 X748468-3   Ag Bl Wi              823 Va
K1 V                 L
Ungrughz                  3029 X554100-2   Lo Wi                 414 Va
F8 V                 L
Ughz                      3034 A424451-G G Ni Cx                 302 Vp
M4 V                 P
Ganokoulovaenu            3035 B352231-8 C Lo Ni Po              801 Vp
M2 V                 P
Llaekag                   3040 X520100-4 C Po                    523 Vp
M1 V                 P
Ozago                     3107 C331731-7   Na Po Si              501 Va
M0 V   M4 D          D
Zaersougvivu              3114 X423000-0   Ba Wi                 020 Va
K3 V   M9 VI         H
Thoengling                3117 A9AA000-0   Ba Fl Wa Wi           002 Va
K5 V                 H
Surrghkoeg                3120 A97A56C-3   Ni Wa Bl Wi           101 Va
M1 V   M0 VI         H
Daggueghaezghogu          3121 X495000-0   Ba Wi                 004 Va
M6 V   M7 D          L
Llukaegh Voerz            3124 X527000-0   Ba Wi                 010 Va
M4 V   M4 VI         L
Goghrra                   3126 X7B0000-0 C Ba De Wi              020 Va
M7 V                 L
Otse                      3128 X8A7000-0   Ba Fl Wi              023 Va
M2 V                 L
Oziz                      3133 B677433-B   Ni                    924 Vp
G0 V   M8 D          P
Torrrrerz                 3137 A463951-C   Hi                    521 Vp
M5 III M6 D          P
Dhurrgthaedz              3201 C262310-8   Ni Wi                 933 Va
M3 V                 D
Outhzaekaefakhsueghz      3211 X896333-5   Lo Ni Bl Wi           703 Va
M0 V                 H
Eksfarrarr                3213 X671553-4   Ni Bl Wi              322 Va
F8 V   M8 D          H
Tuelehollar               3217 X252343-3   Ni Po Lo Wi           711 Va
M1 V                 H
Ikkhadzkfaghukh           3218 B685765-5   Ag Bl Wi              401 Va
M3 V   M6 D          H
Rroungkhi                 3220 X736000-0   Ba Wi                 003 Va
M4 V                 H
Dzaekh                    3221 X547134-5   Lo Wi                 403 Va
K9 V                 L
Fanzuekh                  3222 C000000-0   Ba As Wi              011 Va
M5 V   M4 D          L
Thekrakfor                3229 B250000-0   Ba De Wi              001 Va
G7 VI  M8 D          L
Aekokfeg                  3230 B69A100-5   Lo Ni Wa Wi           702 Va
M4 V                 L
Gvutson                   3233 A85A7CE-8   Wa                    520 Vp
G6 V                 P
Oertsous                  3238 E253A9E-A C Hi Po                 602 Vp
M4 V   M4 D          P


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

Bundle: 636
Archive-Message-Number: 7968
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 14:14:44 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5005: Democracy

Gentlesophonts:

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

> David Johnson <djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
>
> >From Thurday night, Alistair Langsford <langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> writes:
>
> >>     After all, given Traveller's method for
> >>     classifying governments, the same government could be classified
> >>     different ways depending on which aspects of it are seen to be
> >>     most apparent by the typical traveller.
> >
> >Yes, this is true but focusing here doesn't really allow for much discussion
> >does it?
>
> I suppose so.  Alistair is right, though.
>
> >we can see that *all* government types, except those where a *single*
> >individual is able to exert *direct*, personal control over the others
> >(i.e., very small groups), are inherently *democratic* in the source of
> >of authority.  Even the most oppressive totalitiarian theocracy requires
> >*some* degree of consent from the populace in order to function.
>
> "Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word *democratic* that
>  I wasn't previously aware of."  :)
> I get the thesis here, that power is ultimately derived from the masses.
> But I don't know that I could possibly call an oppressive authoritarian
> government "democratic".

Sorry for the heavy quoting but I think this provides a great opportunity
to examine just how the Traveller government codes might be improved so
that they are less arbitrary and therefore more useful.

I've mentioned this before but, IMHO, it is uesful when examining a
government type to look at two issues: the *nature* of authority (who
rules) and the *source* of authority (who consents to that rule, or
who *is* ruled).

The keys here from a definition standpoint are the two suffixes *-archy*
and *-cracy*.  These are often used interchangeably to mean "rule".  They
are sometimes used to mean the same thing as in "monarchy" and "autocracy"
which are often seen as meaning "single or self rule".  Generally though,
the suffix *-archy" is used to denote a ruler or a system of rulers
("matriarch", "hierarchy") while the suffix *-cracy* is used to denote
the source of rule ("technocracy", "aristocracy", "theocracy").

It is useful to look at the distinction between the two suffixes when they
are used with the same prefix, say, "demarchy" and "democracy".  Demarchy
is used to distinguish actual, direct rule by the people, or *demos*, (through
referrenda and the like) as opposed to democratic rule based merely upon
the *consent* of the people in which actual authority may be placed in the
hands of some representative group or person.

When viewed in this fashion the *nature* of authority can have only three
manifestations: a single ruler (autarchy), a group of rulers (oligarchy),
or rule by the entire *demos* (demarchy).  Similarly, the *source* of
authority has only two manifestations: either it comes from the ruler(s)
themselves (autocracy) or else it is based upon the consent of the *demos*
(democracy).

This gives the following five government types:

- -Autocractic autarchy: rule by a single individual without *any* consent
  of the governed group.  Obviously this can only occur in *very* small
  groups where the `ruler' is able to exercise direct, personal control
  over the `ruled', say, a parent-child relationship or a captor-prisoner
  relationship.
- -Autocractic oligarchy: rule by a group of individuals without any consent
  of the governed group.  Again, this can only occur in small groups where
  the `rulers' can exercise direct, personal control over the `ruled', say
  bankrobbers holding bank employees hostage.
- -Democractic autarchy: rule by a single individual based upon the consent
  of the governed.  This fits our conceptions of a `traditional' monarchy
  but actually it also can only occur over relatively small groups, say
  a company or a small military organization.  (It's how Jean-Luc Picard
  rules the starship *Enterprise*.)
- -Democractic oligarchy: rule by a group of individuals based upon the
  consent of the governed.  This permits the rule of large groups such as
  modern nation states.  In this case, the rulers are not just the exective
  and legislative figures at the top of the government but the entire system
  or regulators, tax collectors, police enforcers, etc. that exercise
  authority in the `government'.  This form may sometimes be very oppressive
  (the Iranian `theocracy' came to power in a popular revolt and continues
  to enjoy a great deal of consent among a majority of the *demos*) but it
  is unable to continue once the consent of the *demos* is lost (hence
  the collapse of the Soviet Union).
- -Demarchy (democractic demarchy is redundant): direct rule by the *demos*.
  This is very difficult to accomplsh on a large scale but is facilitated
  by the advent of high technology which permits quick and broad disemination
  of information.  (Imagine a instantaneous global communications network
  that would permit `real time' discussion and voting on governmental issues.)

In the Earth Colonies campaign we have developed the following table to
generate UWP government codes using this scheme:

Government (Throw 2D-5 + pop)
Digit   Government
0-  none
1   autocratic autarchy
2   demarchy
3   autocratic oligarchy
4-6 democratic oligarchy
7   no central authority
8-9 democratic oligarchy
A-B democratic autarchy
C+  democratic oligarchy

Higher population worlds almost exclusive have `democractic' governments
because of the inability of any single individual or group of individuals
to directly, personally exercise authority over the rest of the populace.

This system leaves the actual characterization of the populace's consent
to authority up to the referee (or at least independent of population).
A Code C `democractic oligarchy' may be a "theocracy", a "technocracy",
a "plutocracy", or a `representative democracy'.  Which seems to make
sense since there is no clear relationship between these sorts of charcteri-
zations and the *size* of the particular *demos* involved.

Observations, questions and contrary views are solicited and encouraged.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

End of TML Nightly
******************

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 637  7969 12-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   Technological decline << David Johnson
 637  7971 12-Jun-1994 eabaltz@MIT.EDU  TNE: Lasers << Has anyone else noticed
 637  7972 12-Jun-1994 eabaltz@MIT.EDU  TNE: Antimatter Missiles << In response
 637  7973 12-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Sourceb
 637  7970 12-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   Feudal technocracy << David Jhonson wri

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

Bundle: 637
Archive-Message-Number: 7969
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: Technological decline
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 22:59:17 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
>
>>You asked for an explanation of
>>how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I
>>suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
>>Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
>>that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are.
>
>I'm worried we're getting a little acrimonious here.

I'm sorry you think so. I haven't felt acrimonious in this debate (until
today; but I will get to that later), and I regret if I've given any such
impression.

>>What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
>>world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
>>Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
>>_Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3
>
>I accept this.  And it *is* a factual record.  From *Supplement 3: The
>Spinward Marches* to *MegaTraveller Journal* #3 we have a period of about
>fifteen years of elapsed time.  Clearly there were some changes in this
>data (you've mentined the allegiance codes) so the fact that UWP changes
>weren't made *must* be assumed to be intentional.  (Although I *suspect*
>there *was* no intention, as in much of what's appeared over the years.)

If you're really prepared to argue that all the population levels and
population multipliers in the Spinward Marches could possibly remain intact
for 15 years of peaceful development, much less Vargr raids galore, then
I'm dropping out of that discussion. Think about what you're saying for
just a moment. No world increased it's population by as much as 10%? No
world lost as much as 10% in a raid? They all remained at _exactly_ the
same population? Every single one of them?

>Now [WARNING: I don't have TNE!] it's my understanding that there were some
>significant UWP changes for the the Regina subsector material presented in
>*TNE*.  Clearly, this is intentional as well.  Whether it is *reconcilable*
>with any of the pre-TNE material is another matter.

You don't need TNE. I'm talking CT and MegaT. I've ignored TNE because I
anticipated the argument that the years from 1120 to 1200 represent rather
unusual circumstances.

>I don't think it's that certain.  Yes, there may have been cycles but as
>it stands the records show fifteen years of stagnation and *no* evidence of
>any down turn.

There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their
population level totally stagnant for 15 years. some of them, sure. Not
even most of them, but some. Since the data in _Imperial Encyclopedia_
and _Megatraveller JOurnal 3_ dosen't show these changes, the data on
population must derive from the same census. Perhaps no new census was
made between 1105 and 1120. Other parts of the UPP may have been updated.
But as far as the population data goes, the three sources is one and the
same.

>Let's remember all this is occurring in a 2D universe!  How's that for a
>suspension of disbelief?

Put's quite a strain on it. That's why I don't need any more.

>Seriously, I, too, find the rate of technological advancement inscrutably
>slow but can rationalize it as a legacy of Vilani culture.

Good for you. I can't. Not for the Marches, whose culture in most every
Traveller publication to date has been shown to be overwhelmingly solomani-
style, and certainly not for the Sword Worlds who are spcifically _said_
to be Solomani-derived.

>>If the planet at any future date
>>becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its
>>technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously
>>cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had
>>TL B in under EL A in the first place).
>
>This is what grates with my economic and technological sensibilities.  You,
>yourself, have maintained that *maintenance* of a particular level of
>technology is easier than *advancing* into a new level.

Sure. That's propably why we haven't seen any technological downturns in
the wake of economic downturns here on Earth. I admit that there will be
a cushioning effect so that you could propably maintain TL B for a while,
since the investment in the factories and tools have been made. But
factories have to be maintained too. And if noone can afford to buy the
stuff the factories produce, why maintain them? And how? Try imagining
economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population, rather than
a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough, the
factories will close.

>Technological
>capability may be tied to economic capability but it is not directly so.
>Economies fluctuate all the time.  Technological fluctuation occurs much
>less frequently and is a much more *serious* event.  I maintain that a
>*severe* economic downturn would be required to produce a significant (in
>terms of a tech level change) technological downturn.

How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of
inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if
you have even more billions of people to do it.

Recall that our only
>modern example where this sort of event *might* have happened is during the
>Great Depression.

Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have
closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't
quote any examples.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

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

Bundle: 637
Archive-Message-Number: 7971
From: eabaltz@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 18:45:12 -0400
Subject: TNE: Lasers


Has anyone else noticed that X-ray lasers are even deadlier for their size if
gravitic focusing is not used.  The effective range on a TL13+ X-ray laser
barbette is 15 hexes, without using gravitic focusing.  This isn't all that
bad.  The big advantage is that it has an 85% efficiency (at TL15), instead
of 20%.  The biggest thing in the turret is the HPG, so a much higher energy
can be reached with the higher efficiency.

Here is a TL15 X-ray laser barbette design.  It isn't manned.

Energy 1400MJ.  Input energy 1650MJ.

Focal Array     22.4 tons   22.4 kl     4.48 MCr
HPG         15.5 tons   57.75 kl    .5775 MCr
Beam Pointer (10 Hex)   3 tons      3 kl        .3 MCr

This totals 140.9 tons, 83.15 kl, 5.3575 MCr.  At 100 shots per turn it draws
92 MW. Combat performance is as follows:

10: 94-1/30 20: 70-1/22 40: 35-1/11 80: 18-1/6

This has better performance at short and medium range than Roger Myhre's design
(6/11, message 7956) of a 423 MJ TL15 gravitically focused, unmanned barbette,
which had 51-1/16 out to 80 hexes.  It has much better performance at these
ranges than the Brilliant Lances designs.  If you are willing to sacrifice long
range performance, leave out the gravitic focusing and use X-ray lasers.


Ted Baltz
eabaltz@athena.mit.edu

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

Bundle: 637
Archive-Message-Number: 7972
From: eabaltz@MIT.EDU
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 19:16:28 -0400
Subject: TNE: Antimatter Missiles


In response to Roger Myhre's discussion of antimatter missiles:

Warheads for antimatter missiles wouldn't be all that small.  If you wanted a
non-impact warhead that could actually damage a ship, it would have to be
pretty large.  assuming we can get a missile within 100 km of the target, this
is 10e7 cm.  the energy per cm^2 is about 10e-15 of the blast energy at this
range.  To do one point of damage to a square cm, going by the FF&S guideline
that the effective range of a laser is where the energy is distributed over a
square cm, we need to deliver about a megajoule to a square cm, requiring on
the order of a megaton (1 megaton = 4.2e15 Joules).  This requires about 50
grams of antimatter, and it still has no hope of penetrating armor.  it could
damage surface features, but the energy would probably be too diffuse to do
much.  if a spot on a surface feature can withstand a 1 MJ laser easily, all a
1 megaton blast is going to do is lightly toast the outside of the ship.  :)

Either a much bigger warhead is needed, or the missile needs to get closer.
The consensus seems to be that impact missiles would be shot down easily.
Signifcant damage might be done by a warhead in the tens or hundreds of
megatons, but that would require more than a kg of antimatter.  manufacturing
the stuff isn't exactly easy...  Well the warhead is pretty small, if you want
to waste all that antimatter in a marginal weapon.

Ted Baltz
eabaltz@athena.mit.edu

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

Bundle: 637
Archive-Message-Number: 7973
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 94 18:27:24 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Sourcebook I

Gentlesophonts:

Here's the latest draft of our TML Regency Sourcebook, *Shall Not Perish*.
Thanks to everyone who has been contributing.  I've tried to keep all
citations accurate.  If you see an incorrect or incomplete citation please
let me know.  We want to make sure everyone gets credit where credit is due.
Also, if we've covered something that isn't represented here, please point
that out as ell.  We want to be as comprehensive as possible.

There are still many areas in need of development so please jump in wherever
your interest is piqued.

*SHALL NOT PERISH* - A TML Regency Sourcebook

(Reference TML Msg 586/7338 22-Apr-1994 & Msg 602/7550 12-May-1994)

INDEX
Part I:
  Regency Timeline
  Subsector Maps and UWP Data
  Major Worlds of the Regency
  Regency Language
  Regency Megacorps
Part II:
  Regency Government
  Regency Politics
Part III:
  The Quarantine Line
  Quarantine Service
  Quarantine Area of Operations
Part IV:
  Regency Navy and Army

REGENCY TIMELINE

1121-1130
  312-1130 Quarantine established [PBJuzyk <psualum@aol.com>]
1131-1140
  XXX-???? "liberalization of the Domain government" [Jeff Zeitlin
    <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>]
  XXX-???? "reorganization into the Regency, and rapprochement with the
    Zhodani, Vargr, and Aslan" [Jeff Zeitlin <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>]
  XXX-1145 Deneb Cultural Exchange (DCE) privatized [Jeff Zeitlin
    <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>]
1141-1150
1151-1160
  XXX-1160 Regency Institute for Cultural Education (RICE) created [Jeff
    Zeitlin <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com>]
1161-1170
1171-1180
1181-1190
1191-1200

Significant dates are still needed for the following:
 Declaration of the Regency
 The `Rape of Trin' (Gram?)
 Death of Norris(?)
 Openings to the Zhodani(?)
 Others?

SUBSECTOR MAPS AND UWP DATA

I would suggest a typical subsector on each of the Regency frontiers: the
Zhodani frontier (Jewell), the Vargr frontier (Regina, Aramis, or Pretoria),
the Virus frontier (Lamas, Dunmag or Usani) and the Aslan *ihatei* frontier
(Tobia, Gazulin, Pax Rulin or Glisten).  The capital subsector, Mora, would
be representative of the Regency 'core'.  Maybe a subsector in the Deneb Wilds?

Let's follow the *Path of Tears* format with Imperial Era (IE) and Post-
Imperial Era (PIE) UWP stats.

MAJOR WORLDS OF THE REGENCY

Major worlds ought to be Mora/Mora, Deneb/Usani, Gazulin/Gazulin,
Regina/Regina, Rhylanor/Rhylanor, Glisten/Glisten, Lintl/Vestus,
Pretoria/Pretoria, Magash/Sabine, Vincennes/Vincennes and Lunion/Lunion.

Any other candidates?

REGENCY LANGUAGE

Anyone care to offer a few examples of Riftian jargon after 70 years of
divergence from Galanglic?

REGENCY MEGACORPS

Delgado Trading (miniturization, heavy mining & refining, publishing and
   trading)
- -A key player in the war against the Virus.

General Products (starships, non-starships, heavy machinery)
- -Quality problems were threatening existence by Rebellion.  Domain/Regency
 susbsidies would be likely in order to maintain a major shipbuilder (cf.
 the Chrysler bailout).

GSbAG (starships)
- -Probably doing well equipping the Quarantine Service and the Deneb Navy.

Hortalez et Cie (banking and investment)
- -With addition of Zirunkariish assets most likely dominates Domain.

Instellarms (military products)
- -Probably doing well, although mercenary actions can be expected to be
 limited in Deneb by government efforts to conserve resources.  Can be
 expected to favor the Expansionists and Santanocheevists.

Ling Standard Products (mining, electronics and computers, starships,
   starship systems, power generation, small arms)
- -Probably the primary commercial and military contractor combating the Virus.

SuSAG (chemicals, pharmaceuticals, geneering, extra-Imperial psi drugs)
- -Will the illegal psi drug manufacturing move into the Regency?  Obviously,
 SuSAG will support the Tolerant bloc, if not openly then certainly with
 financial backing.

Sternmetal Horizons (mining, manufacturing, power generation, food processors)
- -Probably doing well.

Tukera Lines (shipping)
- -Probably still active and possibly a supporter of the Imperialist bloc.

Vilani Bureaux (probably not active in Deneb after the Collapse):
  Makhidkarun
  Sharurshid
  Naasirka (assets acquired by LSP?)
  Zirunkariish (assets acquired by Hortalez)

End of Part I

Parts II (~16K), III (~13K) and IV (~26K) are quite large.  I'll hold off
posting them for a few days to give anyone who'd rather not see them a chance
to object.  Maybe someone who knows how would be willing to post them to an
ftp site.  Let me know by direct e-mail and I'll mail them to you.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas USA

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

Bundle: 637
Archive-Message-Number: 7970
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: Feudal technocracy
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 23:26:37 +0100 (METDST)

David Jhonson writes:
>Now on to the question of feudal technocracy.

This is where I'm tempted to become a tad acrimonious. I'll try to hold
it down, but it's a little hard to provide definitions of what I'm
talking about and then having them dismissed as "not relevant". If you
have any authorities on feudal Europe that informs you that the feudal
lords didn't really care about formalities, could you quote them for
me, please? If you can't, don't you think you just might consider the
possibility that the old feudal system actually worked in some way
at least remotely related to the teory?

Even if you are right, for which you presented absolutely no evidence, it's
also possible that if someone looked at a new type of government and called
it 'feudal' something, they might be having dictionary definitions in mind
too.

>>>No.  A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
>>>industrial production give their support in exchange for economic
>>>opportunity or `protection'.
>>
>>Then its not analogous to a feudal society.
>
>Why not?  What if I had said `*holders* of industrial production'?

Because a feudal society is one where the feudal lord gives out land fiefs
in return for allegiance and support. By analogy a feudal technocracy is
one where the lord gives out industrial fiefs in support for allegiance
and support. Gee, I could have sworn I said this before.

>>Let's get a few definitions
>>straight:
>
>What I get from your emphasis on these defintions is a focus on *land*.

That's great. That means you got half my argument. These definitions
focus on land because that's what the people in feudal Europe focused
on. The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for
land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes
an analogous treatment of those holdings.

>Is that where our disagreement lies?  I grant the `ownership of land' by
>the lord but don't see it as being very important despite what the venerable
>Oxford tome has to say.

That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it. Why? What do
you know that I don't? From where do you derive your deep insight into how
feudal Europe REALLY worked? Tell me what books I've missed.

>The key part of the lord's end of the feudal
>agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some
>tenuous grant of land possession.

Is this something you just know? Who told you? Not the dictionary. Did
you read it in a book? Quotes, please.

>>And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel
>>and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the
>>board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord?
>>And all the shareholders are always in accord too?
>
>Of course there is dissent among the various shareholders, just as there
>was often dissent among the vassals of a particular lord.  I don't see
>your point here.  What is there about this that suggests it isn't feudal?

I just don't see how the shareholders in your description of a feudal
technocracy acts any different from the shareholders in any other
system with corporations. The standard capitalist society, for example.
Where does the feudal come into it?

>>>In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
>>>and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
>>>as *separate* and distinct entities.
>>
>>Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in
>>a corporation?
>
>The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
>to the Chairman of *that* company.

How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any
time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that?

>This is akin to a medieval situation in which a single individual had risen
>to the top of the feudal structure, a king.

The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders
swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and
a pension plan. Not fealthy.

>Maybe the difference here is that you're looking at, say, Gram,
>as medieval Germany, while I'm at looking the entire Sword Worlds as all of
>medieval Europe?

At the moment I'm not looking at the Sword worlds at all. I'm looking at
the whole concept of feudal technocracy. Of which I have several times
said: "By analogy, a feudal technocracy is one where industrial holdings
takes the place of land". I then presented a definition of a feudal
society. Let's have your definitions. Not examples, since I'm apparently
to dim to understand them. Straight definitions.

>>And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.
>
>In theory, yes.  In practice, not very often, unless the system had travelled
>well down the road toward autocracy.

Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron.
See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's)
manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head.

>>>This isn't correct.  In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
>>>land.
>>
>>Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the
>>biggest lord around.
>
>Etc.
>
>Okay, I stand corrected.  I maintain though that this `ownership' was not
>the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal
>agreement.  Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services
>that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement.

Why do you maintain that? What facts do you base this on? How come you
know more than the dictionary (Not just a snide question. Dictionaries
have been known to be wrong. But I do feel that the burden of proof is
on you in this case. Why do you think feudal society differed so
radically in theory and practice? Let's have some reasons).

>>Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back
>>him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs.
>
>Okay, I stand corrected again,  You're talking about the *philosophy* of
>feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its
>practical implementation).

Oh, are you? That means that you can quote me reams of examples of how
things really worked in practice, while I won't be able to find very
many examples of thing working according to the mere theory, right?
Would you care to begin?

>I think my focus is more useful in trying to
>understand the translation of the medeival feudal aristocracy to the
>feudal technocracy of Traveller.

I will tentatively agree that this seems reasonable. Ignoring for the
moment the possibility that 'feudal technocracy' is defined in terms
of the theory of feudal society instead of the practice. So let's hear
about this practice.

>>Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner.
>
>No.  The shareholders are a morass of different interests just like the
>various vassals of a medieval lord.

The shareholders of a corporation makes the same decisions a sole owner
of a company makes. The only difference between a corporation and a
non-corporation is that the first has shareholders where the second
has an owner. I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a
conglomerate owner.

>>In theory they make up one person, the owner of the corporation.
>
>Again, I don't think talking about theory is particularly useful.

I suggest you make up your mind on that on a case by case basis. Certainly
any great difference between theory and practice makes relying on the
theory problematical. But what is the great, yawning chasm between theory
and practice in this instance? Why are shareholders not like an owner?
(And why is a raven like a writing desk? ;-)

>>The Chairman works
>>for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?

>In practice there is *no* difference.  In *practice* the medieval king
>`works' for the vassals in provinding coordinated security services

This is where I say "No he dosen't!", right?

>just as the technocratic king works for the shareholders in providing
>coordinated profit services.

And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the
Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have
two seperate names for the same system?

>The medieval vassals provided military
>service *and* taxes and the technocratic vassal provides financial
>capital.  The two situations are *very* analogous, IMHO.

The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for
holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings
and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system.
The second is just a gang.

>>A fief has _one_ owner.
>
>Just as any single bloc of shares has *one* owner.

Sigh. OK, let's try to get past the redundancy into something constructive.
This bloc of shares you're talking about. Does it have any sort of
coherence? Is it all shares in one single corporation, or is it simply
a portfolio? Is it possible to put a lable on the bloc and call it
something other than 'Martin Vesterlund's current stock portfolio'? Can
it be called 'The barony of Thorvallsmines' and is there a specific baronial
title associated with it? Can the title be transferred to someone else by
sale or inheritance? Can the bloc be sold off in small bits, and if it does,
what happens to the title?

>>A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make the buyers part-barons
>>of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, but these bits then
>>become parts of other fiefs).
>
>Exactly.  Just as purchasers of shares gain title to their own new fief!

Who decides on the new title? And if a 'fief' is just a stock portfolio,
what's the difference between this system and any capitalist society?

>>And if a company is the
>>equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.
>
>No.  A private company, without public shareholders (there may *still* be
>several *private* shareholders), is akin to a `barony' on an island in
>the middle of an ocean somewhere.

Like the Isle of Man?

>It's not part of a feudal system either.

Why not?

So the baronies you're talking about has nothing to do with the examples
we see in _Space Viking_? (All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one
single person apiece  -  what you claim to be isolated baronies that are
not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)).

>>There can be no
>>shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.
>
>The group of shares held in common by any single shareholder (this may be
>a group of individuals but with respect to their stock they are acting in
>concert) *is* a fief!

You DO mean a stock portfolio! How do you figure out the baronial titles?

>>It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.
>
>I think that is a *great* definition of feudal technocracy! See, because
>it considers the entire economy (i.e., `capitalism') it is much more
>complicated than any single corporate system.  (BTW, the reason there
>*aren't* any anti-trust laws in a feudal technocracy is because political
>power is tied directly to economic power - there is no `government' to
>control the economic barons.  In a sense, the civil war on Joyeuse can
>be seen as an `anti-trust' action!)

OK. I arrive on Gram with a draft for a billion credits in my back pocket.
For that I buy 10% of Megatronics, 30% of Dynaline, 51% of Gombril Spaceyards
and 1% of a half dozen more (Assume for purposes of argument that I can find
people willing to sell). Now. What's my title? Who is my liege lord? Who are
my vassals? What's my rights and what's my obligations?

>>Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.
>
>Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*.

Again you dismiss evidence without any further argument.

>Medieval vassals paid taxes to their lords.

Some medieval vassals paid part of their service in money. All of them
paid some or all of it in service.

>>I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself.
>>But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the
>>title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the
>>Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-)
>
>It seems to me you're still focused on a single company.

I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding.
Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc.

>A feudal technocracy has to involve the *entire* economy.

It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs
together constitutes the entire economy.

>To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service'
>fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills,

Propably? What makes you say that? Where does it even imply that anywhere
in the book?

>just as Traskon and
>Karvallmills were held in fealty to Duke Angus.  Remember that Trask
>and Karvall were Angus's *vassals* but Trask later *sold* Traskon to
>Angus. Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
>Worlds.

It wasn't the sole basis, granted. But neither was it in early feudal
Europe. In an early feudal system each lord is independent. But they
are lords because they have vassals. They band together for mutual
protection, promising to support the king. Eventually they king assumes
ownership of their land.

>Profit generation was.

Elucidate, please.

>>That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in
>>its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar-
>>Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron.
>
>Trask sold the entire barony because he needed it for the ship, *not* because
>he couldn't sell it in parts!

What do you base that on? I base my argument on the analogy between a
medieval barony and what I believe to be the feudal technocratic
equivalent of such a barony. The fact is that Trask did sell the
whole thing. And that it was called "The Barony of Traskon", not "Lucas
Trask's holdings".

>>But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony
>>(ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must
>>remain relatively intact).
>
>Why?

Because it didn't happen in feudal Europe and I assume that a feudal
technocracy works analogously to a feudal society.

>This happens all the time, now.

We're not living in a feudal society, now.

>Through a series of mergers and acquisitions International Telephone and
>Telegraph (IT&T) no longer has any telecommunications businesses as it's
>`core'.

True. And if a society you imagine to be a feudal one allows such things
to happen then perhaps it isn't one, after all.

>>Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more
>>fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to
>>gain the support of some of the other big dukes.
>
>Okay, so he did just like I've suggested Sacnoth ought to do with Gram.
>He used his greater economic strength to acquire military force that
>permitted him to quicken the process of economic hegemony and eventual
>monopoly.

No. He gained enough strength to deal with an arch enemy. The operative
word is 'enough'. It's not enough for Sacnoth to gain an advantage over
Gram, it must be a decisive advantage. And Harald must be willing to
pay the price of using it.

>He convinced other Gram nobles to support him just like I
>suggested Sacnoth might find supporters among the other Sword Worlds for
>a move against Gram.  Are you arguing my case now?  :-)

No, I'm arguing that since Sacnoth hasn't moved against Gram just maybe
Harald hasn't been able to find supporters among the other Sword Worlds.
And/or perhaps he dosn't dislike Anders as much as Angus hated Omfray.

>It's pension funds for, say, teachers. The teachers' union has a pension
>fund for its members. These funds can run to billions of dollars. The
>manager of this pension fund, hired by the teachers' union, is responsible
>for gaining the best return for the fund. [...] The pension fund manager
>chooses to buy shares in, say, IBM.  The teachers' union becomes a
>shareholder of IBM, a `technocratic vassal'.

Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal,
it becomes a part owner.

>If the fund has purchased a large enough share of IBM it enjoys a great
>deal of influence on the IBM board.

Of course they do. you'd expect an owner, even just a part owner, to have
some say in how his property is run, wouldn't you?

>If IBM isn't profitable it's shares lose value and the pension fund loses
>money. This makes the teachers mad and the next thing you know, CEO Akers
>(the technocratic lord) is out and CEO Gerstner in now running IBM.

In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the
teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners. In a feudal
technocracy he would be a vassal (He wouldn't be a vassal of any pension
fund, though. In fact, he'd propably be a duke and may or may not be
independent. And IBM wouldn't be a corporation, but a company/fief).

>It's actually much more complicated because the teachers' union pension fund
>is invested in General Motors and Exxon and Mitsubishi Industries, etc. as
>well.  And then you have the railroad union, and the government employees
>union, and Ross Perot, all the other investing shareholders in the market
>place, including the corporations themselves which all own shares in each
>other.  It's as complicated as medieval Germany.

What's so complicated about medieval Germany?

>>We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land
>>from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath.
>
>Again, you're focused on theory and legal underpinnings.

I certainly am. So did a lot of feudal lords. Look at the whole business
of the civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maud. Some
lords, like Geoffery de Manderville, played fast and loose with their oaths
and their allegiance, but lot's of noblemen actually acted on the 'theory'.

>Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded
>Glaspyth?

He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords.

>The teachers' union has no legal `right' to replace the CEO but it happens
>when they're displeased nonetheless.

They don't? I thought they owned a big slice of IBM? Why don't they have
any right to do so? And if they don't, how did they manage it, and why
isn't this Akers person suing the pants off them?

>>You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But
>>a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if
>>they are vulnerable.
>
>No.  In a feudal *technocracy*, economic power is tied directly to political
>power.

You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building
blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally
differently from a garden variety capitalist society.

>>The reason US Industry fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable.
>>But why should Gram be vulnerable just because the US is?
>
>Because the Sword Worlds do not have the political stucutures outside of
>the economic stucture that contemporary free-market governments do.

Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce
a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just
happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable? And don't say
that I don't know that Gram is like that. I know I don't (I can't have both
economic fluctuations and a balanced economy). What I want to know is, why
couldn't it possibly be? Why MUST Gram be vulnerable?

>>Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
>>about economic superiority?
>
>I was simply pointing out, as Duke Angus of Wardshaven recognized, that
>military action would speed up the process of economic domination. It
> makes domination happen quicker but it will happen regardless.

It worked for Angus in one particular combination of strength and allies.
Dosn't mean it would work for Sacnoth in another situation. (Actually, it d
idn't work for Angus, btw. He blew it in the end. But it could have if he
hadn't been crazy).

>>The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
>>for tenancy with services instead of money.
>
>Try to get away from theoretical definitions an instead think about how
>it is implemented in *practice*.

Try to consider the possibility that the definitions are as they are
because that's the way things worked at times.

>>But I suggest
>>that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
>>the feudal fief.
>
>No.  It's based upon *possession*, of a land fief or a stock fief. It is
>manifest in the nature of the *obligations* (coordinated services on the
>part of the lord, local services and resources on the part of the vassal)
>arising from the feudal agreement.

So why use the word 'feudal' if the arrangement isn't feudal?


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

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

End of TML Nightly
******************

&
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 639  7992 13-Jun-1994 Roger Sanger     Attention C-programmers... <<
 639  7993 14-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      Sunbane and Gvurrdon      << mgessler@s
 639  7994 13-Jun-1994 Tony Zbaraschuk  Antimatter missiles in TNE << Keep in m
 639  7991 13-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocracy <

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

Bundle: 639
Archive-Message-Number: 7992
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 20:53:52 -0700
From: rodge@cyberspace.com (Roger Sanger)
Subject: Attention C-programmers...



I'm looking for programmers interested in delving into the world
of hypertext.

I've formed a company with the goal of developing
state-of-the-art hypertext applications.  My development team is
well on its way to completing its first program.

This may be of interest to you, for we are using
traveller-related writings in our hypernet prototypes.

Just in case you are interested,
Rodge.

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

Bundle: 639
Archive-Message-Number: 7993
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 07:40:37 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: Sunbane and Gvurrdon

mgessler@students.wisc.edu writes:

>Hello Rodger,
Eeerrh Roger I think my name is :)
>        Did you ever get your Gvurrdon material uploaded to Sunbane? I
>look for it but couldn't find it. If it is there could you tell me the
>path (e.g. "/aaa/bbbb/cccc/ddd"
I'm sorry for replying through the TML, but I'm using a offliner with
QWK message packing, and it only allows 25 characters in the address.
And you got 26 [sigh]

Anyway, yes I have uploaded the Gvurrdon stuff to Sunbane into the
Donations area as I was instructed by someone else on this list. I did
include some of the more important documents for Gvurrdon in the TML a
few nights ago. Those docs covered the most important information on
Gvurrdon as Library data, UWP, political factions and aliens. More will
be posted when I have sorted a few bugs out from the text.


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

Bundle: 639
Archive-Message-Number: 7994
From: tonyz@eskinews.eskimo.com (Tony Zbaraschuk)
Subject: Antimatter missiles in TNE
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 1994 23:16:22 -0700 (PDT)


Keep in mind that there's a very good reason (under _any_ rule set) NOT
to use antimatter missiles.

Safety.  One teensy tiny little failure in your containment system, and
your ship goes bye-bye.  (Maybe the Ancients could rig things so that
their antimatter batteries could discharge safely -- anyone else
remember _Twilight's Peak_), but somehow I think there are difficulties
at Imperial (even high Imperial) tech levels...

Tony Zbaraschuk (tonyz@eskimo.com)

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

Bundle: 639
Archive-Message-Number: 7991
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 21:14:37 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

My good friend Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> This is where I'm tempted to become a tad acrimonious. I'll try to hold
> it down, but it's a little hard to provide definitions of what I'm
> talking about and then having them dismissed as "not relevant".

I apologize.  I didn't mean to dismiss your points about medieval feudalism.
Clearly, you have a much better understanding of medieval feudalism than I
do.  I suggest though that your very familiarity with medieval feudalism
is hindering your ability to see a feudal technocracy as something different.
I feel that it is in terms of *technocracy* and how a technocratic system
might be "feudal" that I have failed the most in communicating my ideas.
I will endeavor to be more successful.

> it's
> also possible that if someone looked at a new type of government and called
> it 'feudal' something, they might be having dictionary definitions in mind
> too.

Certainly, but they chose to call it "feudal technocracy", not "technocractic
feudalism".  This is an important distinction when one is focusing on
precise definitions.

> By analogy a feudal technocracy is
> one where the lord gives out industrial fiefs in support for allegiance
> and support. Gee, I could have sworn I said this before.

How is "giving out industrial fiefs in [exchange] for allegiance and
support" different from "selling shares of an enterprise in exchange for
financial capital"?  In my view, they are the same thing.

> The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for
> land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes
> an analogous treatment of those holdings.

Here's one problem in communication.  We do not share the same definition of
an "industrial holding".  I believe to you this means a single corporate
entity, a company.  To me, it is a block of stock - a share - in an
industrial enterprise.  I believe my definition is more accurate but in
any event we ought to be able to discuss this in common language now.  We
both see an "industrial holding" as being the equivalent feudal "fief" but
we have identified them as different things.

> That seems to be the problem in a nutshell. You don't see it. Why? What do
> you know that I don't? From where do you derive your deep insight into how
> feudal Europe REALLY worked? Tell me what books I've missed.

Alas, I'm not discussing how medieval feudalism worked.  I'm trying to
show how some of the *practices* of medieval feudalism would be manifest
in a futuristic *technocracy*.  This is another source of our communication
problem.

> >The key part of the lord's end of the feudal
> >agreement was the provision of coordinated security services, not some
> >tenuous grant of land possession.
>
> Is this something you just know? Who told you? Not the dictionary. Did
> you read it in a book? Quotes, please.

This is the "key part" of the feudal arrangement that will be manifest in
a feudal technocracy.  In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns'
its shares and merely `grants possession' of them to it shareholders in
return for `services rendered' in the form of financial capital.

> I just don't see how the shareholders in your description of a feudal
> technocracy acts any different from the shareholders in any other
> system with corporations. The standard capitalist society, for example.
> Where does the feudal come into it?

In a capitalist market economy an external governmental entity exists to
provide the legal framework for interactions between actors in the market.
(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
market reforms in Russia today.)  In a feudal technocracy, feudal
principles provide the legal framework for interractions in the marketplace.

> >The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
> >to the Chairman of *that* company.
>
> How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any
> time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that?

The various shareholders can only act through cooperation.  An individual
shareholder cannot fire the Chairman (the `technocractic lord') on their own
(unless they hold a controlling share which is uncommon).  Thus they can
only remove the technocractic lord if a majority of the shareholders (vassals)
agree that she had failed in her duties as prescribed by the `feudal'
arrangement.  (These are primarily related to the generation of profits for
the firm.)

Keep in mind that this is not equivalent to contemporary market systems
which have an external governmental entity to define *all* aspects of the
system from embezzlement to anti-trust action.

> The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders
> swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and
> a pension plan. Not fealthy.

No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital.  This is
the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy.  (The enterprise provides the
Chairman's salary and pension.  A few years back Lee Iacocca was paid *one*
dollar one year.  Clearly, there is a different principle at work here than
the mere employee-employer relationship of the corporate model.)

> At the moment I'm not looking at the Sword worlds at all. I'm looking at
> the whole concept of feudal technocracy. Of which I have several times
> said: "By analogy, a feudal technocracy is one where industrial holdings
> takes the place of land". I then presented a definition of a feudal
> society. Let's have your definitions. Not examples, since I'm apparently
> to dim to understand them. Straight definitions.

See.  I don't want to talk about medieval feudalism.  I want to talk about
how aspects of feudalism will be manifest in a futuristic technocracy.

> Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron.
> See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's)
> manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head.

Not if the if the rest of the baron's knights had the same beef.

> >Okay, I stand corrected.  I maintain though that this `ownership' was not
> >the important, *practical* aspect of the lord's part of the feudal
> >agreement.  Rather, it was his provision of coordinated military services
> >that was what *mattered* in the feudal arrangement.
>
> Why do you maintain that? What facts do you base this on? How come you
> know more than the dictionary (Not just a snide question. Dictionaries
> have been known to be wrong. But I do feel that the burden of proof is
> on you in this case. Why do you think feudal society differed so
> radically in theory and practice? Let's have some reasons).

I guess I should have said "`ownership *is* not the important" and
"coordinated military service that *is* what *matters*" and added that
I was speaking in terms of how feudalism is manifest in a technocracy.

> >Okay, I stand corrected again,  You're talking about the *philosophy* of
> >feudalism (the legal basis) and I'm talking about the *practice* of it (its
> >practical implementation).
>
> Oh, are you? That means that you can quote me reams of examples of how
> things really worked in practice, while I won't be able to find very
> many examples of thing working according to the mere theory, right?
> Would you care to begin?

Again, I guess I should have been more clear that I was talking about how
the principles of feudalism would be manifest in a futuristic technocracy.
I didn't realize that we were arguing over what medieval feudalism was.  I
thought we were trying to discover what feudal technocracy would be.

> I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a
> conglomerate owner.

It's not the same.  It's *very* different.  A single owner needs no system
of rules to govern how she makes her decisions.  A group of shareholders
*does*.  In a feudal technocracy it is my view that feudal principles will
serve as this system.

> I suggest you make up your mind on that on a case by case basis. Certainly
> any great difference between theory and practice makes relying on the
> theory problematical. But what is the great, yawning chasm between theory
> and practice in this instance? Why are shareholders not like an owner?
> (And why is a raven like a writing desk? ;-)

Shareholders are not like a single owner because they require a set of
principles to govern their coordinated (there's that word again) actions.
It is specifically the portions of the medieval feudal definition that
relate to the ownership of *land* that are *least* useful when trying to
understand how feudal principles might be applied to a futuristic technocracy.

> And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the
> Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have
> two seperate names for the same system?

Well, I don't really see the differences in names or titles as relevant.
I see the Chairman as serving in the role of technocratic *baron* (if
there was one single Chairman in the entire economy then she would be
`king').  There are some differences here because the contemporary market
system is not the same as a feudal technocracy due to the influence
and role of government entities external to the marketplace.  This is
where the *kieretsu* come in because the relationships among the players
there occur (mostly) outside the influence of the government.  (You must
realize that none of these examples fit the model entirely.)

> The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for
> holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings
> and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system.
> The second is just a gang.

I disagree.  Medieval feudal vassals "banded together for mutual benefit"
under an aristocratic lord who provided coordinated security services.
Forget the focus on `land' and one might descibe this as a mere `gang'
as well.  (I don't choose to, mind you.)

> This bloc of shares you're talking about. Does it have any sort of
> coherence? Is it all shares in one single corporation, or is it simply
> a portfolio?

I would express this the other way around.  It is a *portfolio* rather than
`simply' shares in a single corporation.  A group of shares in a single
corporate entity makes the shareholder the `vassal' of the `baron' of that
particular corporation.  As the holder of different blocks of shares
in a variety of corporations I will have a variety of `vassal' relationships
to several different `barons'.  This is how the technocracy becomes more
complicated but I believe this sort of situation even occurred under the
medieval feudal system on occasion (and I can't cite examples).  Rememeber
as well that each `baron', each corporation, also holds shares (or is bound
by other relationships such as supplier agreements) to other `barons',
who might be better classed as `counts' or even `dukes'.

> Is it possible to put a lable on the bloc and call it
> something other than 'Martin Vesterlund's current stock portfolio'? Can
> it be called 'The barony of Thorvallsmines' and is there a specific baronial
> title associated with it? Can the title be transferred to someone else by
> sale or inheritance? Can the bloc be sold off in small bits, and if it does,
> what happens to the title?

Certainly.  Why wouldn't this be the case?  The `title' (which is actually
the definition of the prescribed responsibilities associated with that
share of stock) transfers with ownership by sale or inheritance or whatever.
If a particular block of stock represents a majority or even full holding
then one might call is something like `the Barony of Traskon'.  :-)

> Who decides on the new title? And if a 'fief' is just a stock portfolio,
> what's the difference between this system and any capitalist society?

The title is defined by the feudal responsibilities associated with that
block of shares.  Contemporary market systems attach no such relationship
to shareholding because all such responsibilities are provided through the
external government entity.  Remember this is not just legal things like
right to ownership and such but basic principles of the entire economic
system like currency supplies, interest rates, rates of exchange, etc.
(Recall Steve Bonneville's post that pointed out most *zaibatsu*
were organized around a central bank.)

> Why not?

I wasn't talking about the Isle of Man.  I was talking about an isolated
island that existed independent of any other feudal system.  A privately-
held corporation is in essence `outside' the rest of the economic system
if you focus merely on *ownership* as too much of the medieval model
might lead you to do.

> So the baronies you're talking about has nothing to do with the examples
> we see in _Space Viking_?

I think the system I'm describing fits *Space Viking* pretty darn well.
Mind you I'm not sure Beam put the effort into his system that we've already
put in here!  :-)

> (All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one
> single person apiece  -

We don't know this.  *All* we know is that *Trask* owned *Traskon*.

> what you claim to be isolated baronies that are
> not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)).

A wholly-owned holding still may still be part of the feudal system if the
feudal arrangements cover things in addition to mere ownership.  The
feudal arrangement for Traskon Barony may have descibed things like the
price Wardshaven would pay for Traskon beef, the nature of such transfers,
where Traskon acquired feed for its bisonoids, how veterinary services
were received, hiring and pay issues for ranch hands, etc., etc., etc.
Remember, in a contemporary market economy the external government entity
does most of these things.  There is no external government entity in a
feudal technocracy.

> You DO mean a stock portfolio! How do you figure out the baronial titles?

I don't know.  How did they do it in medieval times?  I imagine something
in the feudal agreement defines these sorts of things.

> OK. I arrive on Gram with a draft for a billion credits in my back pocket.

Well, I think you could probably figure this out yourself now but here goes.
You are Hans, Baron of Spindleworks (under the Duke of Megatronics), Count
of Gronemetrics (under the Duke of Dynaline), Duke of Gombril, and a minor
squire to a half dozen other lords.  You hold fealty to all of these lords.
You probably have dozens of your own vassals now.  (Now please don't hold
me to specifics here, but you get the idea I hope.)  You see that if King
Anders of Gram were to do this on Sacnoth he would be in vassalage to any
lord of which he owned a minority holding.

> >>Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.
> >
> >Again, you're arguing feudal *theory* and I'm arguing feudal *practice*.
>
> Again you dismiss evidence without any further argument.

Again, I apologize.  I should have said "medieval feudal theory (or practice)"
and "futuristic feudal technocractic practice".

> I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding.
> Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc.

Now you see how I'm using "industrial holding" differently.  There is nothing
about a technocracy that requires a holding to be held in full.  (And I'm
not sure you can support the claim that Karvallmills was held in full.  Also,
it's even possible that Trask only held a majority interest in Traskon.
Angus would still have gained control had Trask only sold a majority holding.
The very fact that Nik Trask was appointed Vicar-Baron suggests he might have
held a minority interest.)

> It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs
> together constitutes the entire economy.

*Technocractically-speaking*, what's the rationale for insisting that all
companies must be held in full?

> >To use the *Space Viking* model, there were probably `veterinary service'
> >fiefs under Traskon and `geological service' fiefs under Karvalmills,
>
> Propably? What makes you say that? Where does it even imply that anywhere
> in the book?

Nothing.  How does it conflict with what's in the book?  It helps me explain
what's required for an economy, any economy, to function though.

> >Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
> >Worlds.
>
> >Profit generation was.
>
> Elucidate, please.

What `service' did Duke Angus provide to Trask and Karvall and his other
vassals that was equivalent to the medieval duke riding forth with his
knight to protect an embattled baron?  (I suppose you'll say the same
military service.  Ug!)  What the Duchy of Wardshaven did, IMHO, was
coordinate economic activites (there's the feudal part) so that the
economic baronies of his vassals were able to function.  The Bank of
Wardshaven provided a source of investment capital for Karvallmills to
purchase milling equipment, some other vassal provided civil engineering
services so that Traskon had reliable water supplies, Karvallmills provided
collapsium for the vehicle manufacturing barony to build earthmovers for
the civil engineering barony, etc., etc., etc.

> I base my argument on the analogy between a
> medieval barony and what I believe to be the feudal technocratic
> equivalent of such a barony.

I don't see much technocracy in your model.  If political power is based
merely on industrial (as opposed to land) holdings where does the
"government by those with specialized knowledge" part of technocracy
come in?  Your model of feudal technocracy looks merely like futuristic
feudalism to me.

> And that it was called "The Barony of Traskon", not "Lucas
> Trask's holdings".

Excuse me for being dense, but what's the difference what it's called?  As
I envision it (and as I've *tried* to describe it) the terms `barony'
and `holdings' mean the same thing.

Okay, before I get into to my entire "IBM as feudal technocratic barony"
model let me make the disclaimer that despite the fact the I was using the
real names of the CEO and former CEO all my references to shareholders
(teachers' union and such) are strictly for illustrative purposes and do
not have anything remotely to do with the actual situation at IBM.

> Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal,
> it becomes a part owner.

You say, "Tomato."  Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe."  :-)  It's the same thing.
In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal.

> In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the
> teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners.

Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about a market economy.  I was using this
example to illustrate how a feudal technocracy works.

> In a feudal
> technocracy he would be a vassal

What can I say?  We have exactly opposite understandings here.  Again, you're
focused on the ownership of land, or now shares of stock.  You get this from
your understanding of medieval feudalism.  Where does the technocracy fit in
your model?  Or does the mere fact that there's `something technical' about
IBM or any industrial firm satisfy you in this regard?

IMHO, `technocracy' describes the basis for the ruling class's exercise
of authority and `feudal' describes the nature of the relationships between
the members of this ruling class.

> What's so complicated about medieval Germany?

Wasn't one of the problems with the formation of a nation-state in Germany
the fact that under the feudal system there the holdings were always split
among all the heirs of a dead lord?  This led to more and more fragmentation
among the various principalities and greater and greater intermingling of
the feudal agreements between various barons. This was unlike the experience
in other medieval nations where holdings passed to the eldest heir.  (Or do
I need to get my money back for those Western Civ courses?  :-)

> I certainly am. So did a lot of feudal lords. Look at the whole business
> of the civil war between Stephen of Blois and the Empress Maud. Some
> lords, like Geoffery de Manderville, played fast and loose with their oaths
> and their allegiance, but lot's of noblemen actually acted on the 'theory'.

Again, I admit I'm way out of my league here.  Let's get away from medieval
fedualism and back to feudal technocracy.

> >Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded
> >Glaspyth?
>
> He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords.

And what was the basis of this `legal' authority?  How was it defined?
Under what jurisdiction could such a dispute be brought for adjudication?

> They don't? I thought they owned a big slice of IBM? Why don't they have
> any right to do so? And if they don't, how did they manage it, and why
> isn't this Akers person suing the pants off them?

A minority shareholder has no legal influence in a corporation (other than
that pertaining specifically to the ownership of its shares).  A large
minority shareholder nevertheless has a great deal of *influence* among
other shareholders and can sway these other shareholders to action against
the Chairman of it can convince them that the Chairman, by not adequately
providing coordinated profit services, has violated his `feudal' duties.
It *is* legal for a majority of shareholders to `fire' the Chairman.  Your
question about `suing' illustrates the difference between our market
economy and a feudal technocracy once again - there is no external entity
under which to seek such redress in a feudal technocracy.

> You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building
> blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally
> differently from a garden variety capitalist society.

Are you beginning to see the difference?  In a market economy a government
entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles
which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace.  In a feudal
technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements.

> Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce
> a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just
> happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable?

Could a medieval king do this if a majority of his barons did not support
this move?  It's my view that in a feudal technocracy a majority of barons
would not support a king who proposed this course of action because it is
counter to the enhancement of profit.  If someone shows up from offworld
with a wad of cash willing to pay twice what you think your ranching barony
is worth and your liege tells you you can't do it you're going to be mighty
displeased.  It's as if a medieval king had proposed unilateral disarmament!

Now let's talk about economic might.  The entire Mexican economy is about
5% of the US economy.  Where would Mexican industry be in the face of US
industry if there were not an external government entity (the Mexican
government) trying to protect it and another external government entity
(the US government) making some effort to see that US industry respect the
will of the Mexican government?  The entire European Union economy is about
120% of the US economy but it is highly fractured when compared to US
industry.  The only thing protecting European industry from being diced up
and swallowed by US industry is the intervention once again of external
government entities on both sides of the Atlantic (this is, in fact, a major
motivation behind the whole idea of the European Union) and these powers enjoy
roughly the same level of technological capability.  Does that give you some
insight on what Sacnoth *ought* to be able to do to Gram under a feudal
technocracy where there are *no* external government entities to protect
less powerful economic players?  Remember, we have already tied technological
capability to economic output so *clearly* Sacnoth's technological edge over
Gram should translate to an equivalent economic edge.

> Try to consider the possibility that the definitions are as they are
> because that's the way things worked at times.

Accepted.  How does a technocracy work?  How is a futuristic feudal
technocracy different from medieval feudalism?

> So why use the word 'feudal' if the arrangement isn't feudal?

Two things:  Feudalism was much more than the ties to ownership of land;
and a feudal technocracy is something quite different from medieval fedualism.

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 640  7996 14-Jun-1994 "Glenn M. Goffi  Feudal Technocracy << I've been enjoyin
 640  7997 14-Jun-1994 kirschj@rhea.in  A matter of Anti Matter Missiles << Hel
 640  7998 14-Jun-1994 kirschj@rhea.in  Addition to Anti Matter Missile (my las
 640  7995 14-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   Re: All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocra
 640  7999 14-Jun-1994 b.borich@genie.  ALL: JTAS index << @acc,M.GelinAS@genie

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

Bundle: 640
Archive-Message-Number: 7996
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 00:28:47 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Feudal Technocracy

I've been enjoying the discussion so far.  Please advise as to whether I'm
summarizing correctly (that will depend on which camp you're in, I suppose):

Historical feudalism could be described as a "feudal landlord-ocracy," in
which the landowner granted the right to use his land to certain vassals.
The vassals obtained the land and the people on the land (serfs, peasants,
or tenant farmers), and were obliged to fight at the landlord's bidding, and
usually to provide some men-at-arms from the people.  The people gave all of
their surplus production (food in historical times -- I'm referring to
Europe, but there were analogous situations in Japan, China, and Russia as
well) to the landlord's vassal.  The people got protection from outside
enemies -- the landlord and his vassals would protect their lands and the
people on them -- as well as from internal problems -- their lord, the
landlord's vassal, would establish as manorial court and provide police-type
services.  The landlord's vassals got the surplus of the lands, which could
be traded, as well as often absolute power over the people.  The landlord
got troops, as well as taxes, and the surplus of his own personal holdings.

Maybe I've left some details out, but that's how I recall European feudalism
working in broad outline (remember from history class, not from being
there).

In a feudal technocracy, some technology is substituted for the land; rule
is by the owners of the technology, who grant a right to use it to some
vassal class.  The vassals then hold the technology and the people who apply
it.  The people give the technocrat's vassals their surplus production
(which is probably not food), which the vassals can sell.  Probably the
people give all of their production to the vassal class (vassal is really a
misnomer here; it just means someone who owes fealty to someone higher in
the feudal hierarchy), which sells it and pays a wage to the people who buy
items for their subsistence.

The vassals owe the technocrat something -- possibly military service, or
the provision of some military items.  Perhaps the vassal's fief creates
enough surplus production to finance a tank or a COACC fighter.  It's very
unlikely that the vassal and his men-at-arms just show up for war, but it's
not impossible, either.

The problem that I'm running into in analogizing feudal landlord-ocracy into
feudal technocracy is that I'm using terminology, and the attendant systems,
that comes from capitalism, which is a different development altogether.
Having advanced from feudalism to capitalism, can we have a feudal structure
again?

Ok this probably has ended up obfuscating more than clarifying.  I'll try
again when I'm fresher.

Here are two unrelated questions (maybe not so unrelated):

How have referees handled the question of slavery in the CT era?  Do your
Imperia allow slaves?  Interstellar slave trading?  Feudal technocratic
serfdom?  Labor unions?  Scratch that last one for now -- in fact, scratch
the last two.  I want to know about your views on regular sophont-as-chattel
slavery in the CT Imperium (and other states, too, I suppose).

What were the cultural effects of the psionics suppressions?  Are religious
visions considered a form of clairvoyance, and persecuted?  Are
mind-altering drugs associated with the Zhodani and avoided?  Or are they
embraced as a way of altering one's own mind without the interference of
another person?  Do people make psionic jokes?  Is meditation outlawed (or
embraced)?  Is hypnotherapy practiced?  What about psychiatry?  What about
neurosurgery?


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

Bundle: 640
Archive-Message-Number: 7997
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 12:01:50 MET_DST
From: kirschj@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: A matter of Anti Matter Missiles

Hello fellow Travellers,

just my comments on anti matter missiles:
I don't use them as penetrators. What I do is use them as slow destructive
charges. My use of antimatter is the following:

The missile is indeed a smart version of a usual drone, which carries an
antimatter dispenser on board. The drone maneuvers close to the enemy
vehicle and releases the antimatter in low quantities as hydrogen gas. There
is no immediate reaction, because space is nearly empty and the few matter
antimatter collisions in space will give a slight area jamming effect
(+1 Diff Mod for all Sensor actions, if antimatter is around).

The drone releases the Antimatter using a vector which will bring the enemy
starship in contact with the antimatter cloud. To do this the drone has to be
in the same hex as the target ship. If the antimatter is released in an adjacent
hex, it will disperse and become inert with respect to damage. If the drone
successfully insert antimatter in the pass of the target ship, the antimatter
causes 1 minor hit per round to all external devices (i.e. Antennas). If there
are no more devices on the hull, the hull is attacked. Each round of contact
to Antimatter reduces the hull armor by (50000/disp tons), because the
antimatter attacks the hull surface. One antimatter discharge of the missile
will be active for 2 space combat rounds, unless any maneuvers are done.
Regardless of the piloting roll or the thrust spended, the antimatter will
not be in contact with the ship anymore.

One shot of Antimatter in the sense above is 0.5 kl. To design the drone use
the spaceship design sequence. You need full computing power (i.e. no Flight
computer) and a special Software to do this job. Fully RCV operation is not
possible, because the time delay would severly limit the effectivity of this
weapon. As with standard X-Ray-Laser warheads, this weapon can only be used
at range 0. And it cannot be used in atmosphere, because in atmosphere the
drone will be destroyed by the released Antimatter.

required Antimatter launcher:
Volume: 0.25 kl, Weight: 0.25 kl, Power required: 0.5 MW, Price: 95000 Cr
Launched volume: 0.5 kl Antimatter per Space combat turn.
Modus Operandi:
The Antimatter launcher is the inverse of a bussard ramscoop. It uses
superconduting magnets to accelerate the antimatter hydrogen onto the target.

Any comments on this?

Juergen Kirsch

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

Bundle: 640
Archive-Message-Number: 7998
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 12:04:39 MET_DST
From: kirschj@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: Addition to Anti Matter Missile (my last message)

Just a short P.S.:

I forgot to mention: These drones are reusable, if you care to pick them up
after the fight. Because computers are not that cheap, it would be a good
idea to do so.

Juergen Kirsch
kirschj@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de

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

Bundle: 640
Archive-Message-Number: 7995
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: Re: All: PoliSci 5006: Feudal Technocracy
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 08:50:25 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>I didn't mean to dismiss your points about medieval feudalism. Clearly, you
>>have a much better understanding of medieval feudalism than I do.

Hey! You'll be making me blush next. I'm no expert. I have read quite a lot
of historical fiction, including some set in this time frame, but I know
full well that one should be wary of relying on such information. Some
fiction authors know what they're talking about, others definitely do not.
That's why I checked with a dictionary.

>I suggest though that your very familiarity with medieval feudalism
>is hindering your ability to see a feudal technocracy as something different.

Not quite. It's the basis of MY assumptions about feudal technocracy. I
realize that if a feudal technocracy is not feudal, then it may work very
differently. What is hindering my ability to see it working differently
is my faiure to see any fundamental difference between what you describe
and ordinary capitalism.

>How is "giving out industrial fiefs in [exchange] for allegiance and
>support" different from "selling shares of an enterprise in exchange for
>financial capital"?  In my view, they are the same thing.

In the first case the vassal does not pay money to acquire the fief, he
undertakes to perform the technical duties involved in running it. In
other words, he agrees to perform a service in exchange for the holding.
In the second case he possesses goods equivalent in value to the holding
and pays for it. In the first case he is obviously beholden to the lord,
since he has been given something for nothing (or rather, nothing more than
his solemn word that he will perform certain services as compensation. That
is of course quite a lot in any society where a man's word is considered
important). In a sense he is paying rent on is holding, except that he pays
his rent party or totally in service  -  and that is a central facet of a
feudal arrangment: service as payment for tenancy. In the second case he is
under no obigation to the seller. Goods of (supposedly) equal value has been
exchanged.

>>The second half of my argument substitutes industrial holdings for
>>land in order to derive a definition of a feudal _technocracy_ and assumes
>>an analogous treatment of those holdings.
>
>Here's one problem in communication.  We do not share the same definition of
>an "industrial holding".  I believe to you this means a single corporate
>entity, a company.

Right.

>To me, it is a block of stock - a share - in an industrial enterprise.

So I gather. Now the question becomes, does it make sense?

>I believe my definition is more accurate

Of course you do. Otherwise you would be agreeing with me.

>Alas, I'm not discussing how medieval feudalism worked.  I'm trying to
>show how some of the *practices* of medieval feudalism would be manifest
>in a futuristic *technocracy*.  This is another source of our communication
>problem.

For a start I'd ike a definition of a technocracy. Not a FT, but any system
that can be described as a technocracy. What are the essential features of a
technocracy?

>In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns' its shares and merely
>`grants possession' of them to it shareholders in return for `services
>rendered' in the form of financial capital.

That would be an extremely distorted view of a very simple arrangement: A
number of people pool their ressources to become joint owners of a business.

>In a capitalist market economy an external governmental entity exists to
>provide the legal framework for interactions between actors in the market.

That turns out not to be the case. The whole world economy, for example, is
based on negotiations between sovereign nations. Sovereign nations have no
external governmental entity to provide any legal framework. Yet would you
claim that the interactions between the U.S, EU, Japan, Russia, China, ect.
is not capitalist in nature?

>(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
>market reforms in Russia today.)

The disappearance of the USSR removed the established framework between the
member republics. The USSR were an exampe of a government providing a
framework. Now the republics are negotiating as equals to replace the
framework. Once they work out various treaties to govern their interaction
we will have an example of a framework provided without a government. The
internal relations of the EU is a hybrid. GATT is a negotiated framework.

>In a feudal technocracy, feudal
>principles provide the legal framework for interractions in the marketplace.

But the principles you've mentioned is not feudal.

>>>The various shareholders in a *particular* corporation all hold `fealty'
>>>to the Chairman of *that* company.
>>
>>How? Why? They elected him (well 51+% of them did). They can fire him any
>>time they want to. Legally. They employ him. Where's the fealthy in that?
>
>The various shareholders can only act through cooperation.

As is the case in any corporation.

>An individual shareholder cannot fire the Chairman [...] on their own (unless
>they hold a controlling share which is uncommon).

As is the case in any corporation.

>Thus they can only remove the technocractic lord if a majority of the
>shareholders (vassals) agree that she had failed in her duties as
>prescribed by the `feudal' arrangement.

Which seems to be a normal, standard business relationship. We buy a part
of the company. A majority of us decides how it should be run and hire
someone to do it for us. If he dosen't perform as we like, we fire him
and hire someone else.

>(These are primarily related to the generation of profits for the firm.)

As is the case in any corporation.

>Keep in mind that this is not equivalent to contemporary market systems
>which have an external governmental entity to define *all* aspects of the
>system from embezzlement to anti-trust action.

Of course one can have market systems without government supervision. Well,
you may need a government to make sure noone shoots at you while you're
manufacturing or trading, but what more do you need?

>>The king's vassals have all sworn to support him. Did the shareholders
>>swear to support their Chairman? No. They offered him a good salary and
>>a pension plan. Not fealthy.
>
>No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital.  This is
>the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy.

Why call it 'fealthy' then, since it isn't remotely like fealthy?

>(The enterprise provides the Chairman's salary and pension.

Of course it does. His salary (and pension) is an operating expense.
Naturally the enterprise has to generate enough money to cover that.
Wether the salary is fixed or depends on profits has no bearing on
that (It has a lot of bearing on the Chairman's incentive to strive
for the best possible results).

>A few years back Lee Iacocca was paid *one* dollar one year. Clearly, there
>is a different principle at work here than the mere employee-employer
>relationship of the corporate model.)

No. This merely means that his salary depends on the results he gets.

>>Take an early feudal society. See a knight who holds a manor from a baron.
>>See him give two fingers to his baron. See his baron take his (the baron's)
>>manor back from the knight and decorate the gate with the knight's head.
>
>Not if the if the rest of the baron's knights had the same beef.

But the other knights dosen't have a beef. We were talking about how an
employee has to obey orders or get fired. So does a knight. Unless he can
talk the other knights into joining him. Just as an employee who gets his
fellow empoyees to support him might get away with a strike.

>>I repeat: the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner.

>It's not the same.

Not quite.

>It's *very* different.

Not very.

>A single owner needs no system of rules to govern how she makes her
>decisions. A group of shareholders *does*.

They need one rule: Decisions are taken by a share majority. The only
difference between shareholders and a single owner is that the single
owner can run his company himself OR hire someone to do it, while
shareholders HAS to hire someone (although that someone can be one
of the shareholders, maybe even a majority shareholder, in which case
the difference is even less).

>In a feudal technocracy it is my view that feudal principles will
>serve as this system.

Principles, you say? As in theory? OK. What feudal principles?

>Shareholders are not like a single owner because they require a set of
>principles to govern their coordinated (there's that word again) actions.

They _require_ ONE pinciple: Majority rules. They can have more.

>It is specifically the portions of the medieval feudal definition that
>relate to the ownership of *land* that are *least* useful when trying to
>understand how feudal principles might be applied to a futuristic
>technocracy.

That's unfortunate, because that is the basis of the whole feudal system.
And that, of course, is why a system where you can become a vassal by
running a business instead of a land holding cannot be called a straight
feudality, but must be qualified to include industrial holdings.

>>And just how does the technocratic king (your version) differ from the
>>Chairman of a corporation? If there isn't any difference then why have
>>two seperate names for the same system?
>
>Well, I don't really see the differences in names or titles as relevant.

No, I meant a feudal technocracy and any other capitalist system. If
there isn't any real difference why have two seperate names for the
same systems?

>I see the Chairman as serving in the role of technocratic *baron*

Agreed.

>(if there was one single Chairman in the entire economy then she would be
>`king').

Only if she partitioned out the various industries to fiefholders in
return for their services. Otherwise it would be an autocracy.

>>The medieval vassals provided various kind of service in return for
>>holding the land. The people you describe acquire their holdings
>>and band together for mutual benefit. The first is a feudal system.
>>The second is just a gang.
>
>I disagree.  Medieval feudal vassals "banded together for mutual benefit"
>under an aristocratic lord who provided coordinated security services.

No, no, no. The cornerstone of the feudal arrangement were the manorial
holdings a big landholder gave to strong men in return for their promise
to support him. That made them vassals and him a feudal lord  -  a
sovereign feudal lord. It was these lords who banded together under princes
or kings for mutual benefit. Eventually the difference between the king's
own direct vassals, who had sworn fealthy to him in return for land, and
the other feudal lords who had sworn fealthy to him in return for protection,
became blurred and in the end those sovereign lords were not sovereign any
more.

>It is a *portfolio* rather than `simply' shares in a single corporation. A
>group of shares in a single corporate entity makes the shareholder the
>`vassal' of the `baron' of that particular corporation.

I can well understand that you put 'vassal' and 'baron' in quotes, because
this has nothing to do with vassalage og baronies. It's simpy a fancy way
of saying that if you buy some shares in a corporation you and your fellow
shareholders get to elect the man who runs the business and in return he
should make sure the shares pay dividends, because if not you will fire him.

>Certainly.  Why wouldn't this be the case?  The `title' (which is actually
>the definition of the prescribed responsibilities associated with that
>share of stock) transfers with ownership by sale or inheritance or whatever.

So a 'title' isn't a title either.

>The title is defined by the feudal responsibilities associated with that
>block of shares.  Contemporary market systems attach no such relationship
>to shareholding because all such responsibilities are provided through the
>external government entity.

If you mean that a government will enforce obligations freely entered into
by subjects of that government, then you're right, but what's that got to
do with it? The 'responsibiities' inherent in paying money for shares in
a company is usually defined by the parties involved without recourse to
the government. "I pay you for part of that company. I get a say in who
we hire to run it. I get a share of the profits. Agreed?". The government
need only ensure that people keep their word (athough admittedely most
governments don't have the good sense to stop there).

>Remember this is not just legal things like
>right to ownership and such but basic principles of the entire economic
>system like currency supplies, interest rates, rates of exchange, etc.

You'll have to explain that. How does owning shares in a company allow me
to have a say about currencies, interest rates, and rates of exchange, etc?

>A privately-held corporation is in essence `outside' the rest of the
>economic system if you focus merely on *ownership* as too much of the
>medieval model might lead you to do.

But I don't focus *merely* on ownership. A medieval fief-holder certainly
interacted with other people than his liege lord. Like all the neighbours
for a start. Likewise a private company interacts with other companies as
much as any corporation. In fact, if you were the chairman of a company
dealing with the chairman of another company then it would matter not a whit
wether you had been hired by a single owner or a bunch of shareholders. Nor
would it matter if he had been hired by one or the other.

>I think the system I'm describing fits *Space Viking* pretty darn well.

I think it fits terribly. Obviously this is a different subject.

>>(All the fiefs we hear named are owned by one single person apiece  -
>
>We don't know this.  *All* we know is that *Trask* owned *Traskon*.

You don't think Sesar Karvall owned Karvallmills? Andray Dunnan did. So did
whoever it was who called him 'Baron of Karvallmills'.

>>what you claim to be isolated baronies that are
>>not part of the feudal structure (this might surprise Duke Angus to learn)).
>
>A wholly-owned holding still may still be part of the feudal system if the
>feudal arrangements cover things in addition to mere ownership.

A feudal arrangement is not about mere ownership. It's about tenancy in
exchange for service.

>The feudal arrangement for Traskon Barony may have descibed things like the
>price Wardshaven would pay for Traskon beef, the nature of such transfers,
>where Traskon acquired feed for its bisonoids, how veterinary services
>were received, hiring and pay issues for ranch hands, etc., etc., etc.

There's not a shred of evidence to support that. The only thing we are
told for sure is that the fighting men of Traskon and Karvallmills
henceforth will be seen as solidly behind Duke Angus. Very possibly
Trask and Karvall have been independent (though themselves feudal lords
to _their_ liegemen) until the wedding and the ceremony we see is the
public declaration of fealthy to Angus.

>>I am. The company is IMO the FT equivalent of the feudal land holding.
>>Like Karvalmills is one holding. Traskon is one. Etc.
>
>Now you see how I'm using "industrial holding" differently.

Yes. What I can't see is how your 'industrial holding' differs from an
ordinary stock portfolio. And if there isn't any diference then why
have a special name for the system?

>>It does. Each company is a fief, owned by a nobleman. All the fiefs
>>together constitutes the entire economy.
>
>*Technocractically-speaking*, what's the rationale for insisting that all
>companies must be held in full?

That the service a vassal gives in return for an industrial holding is to
manage the holding for the liege lord. Since the holding is a business of
some kind the vassal has to be competent to run the business.

>>>Ownership was not the legal basis for homage in Piper's Sword
>>>Worlds. Profit generation was.
>>
>>Elucidate, please.
>
>What `service' did Duke Angus provide to Trask and Karvall and his other
>vassals that was equivalent to the medieval duke riding forth with his
>knight to protect an embattled baron?  (I suppose you'll say the same
>military service.  Ug!)

Right. 'The fighting men of Traskon and Karvallmills', remember? And Lucas
explained that the reason he supported Angus was that Angus was the only
duke Lucas thought had a chance to unite Gram and become a king, and Lucas
thought a king was a good idea. And how did Angus unite Gram? He used his
fighting men to conquer the lords he couldn't persuade to support him.

>What the Duchy of Wardshaven did, IMHO, was coordinate economic activites
>(there's the feudal part) so that the economic baronies of his vassals were
>able to function.

What's the difference between this and what the head of a conglomorate
does that makes it feudal in any way, shape, or form?

>The Bank of Wardshaven provided a source of investment capital for
>Karvallmills to purchase milling equipment, some other vassal provided
>civil engineering services so that Traskon had reliable water supplies,
>Karvallmills provided collapsium for the vehicle manufacturing barony
>to build earthmovers for the civil engineering barony, etc., etc., etc.

That may be so, but there's not one jot of evidence in the book that this
was the basis of the feudal relationship between Trask and Karvall on one
side and Duke Angus on the other, and some evidence to the contrary. And
btw, to fit your above definition, shouldn't Trask and Karvall own a share
of Wardshaven in order to be Angus' vassals?

>I don't see much technocracy in your model.  If political power is based
>merely on industrial (as opposed to land) holdings where does the
>"government by those with specialized knowledge" part of technocracy
>come in?

You need to be able to perform whatever technical task your holding demands
in order to perform the service you pay for your tenancy.

>Your model of feudal technocracy looks merely like futuristic feudalism to
>me.

Right. But since the whole definition of feudalism has to do with land, a
system where industrial holdings can substitute cannot be called true
feudalism.

>>Bingo! There's the fallacy. The teacher's union dosen't become a vassal,
>>it becomes a part owner.
>
>You say, "Tomato."  Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe."  :-)  It's the same thing.
>In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal.

In spite of the fact that the relationship between a part owner and the
chairman he helped elect is nothing remotely like the relationship
between a vassal and his liege lord. That's not "Tomato/tomatoe". That's
"Tomato/fried egg".

>>In a capitalist society CEO Akers isn't a lord, he is an employee of the
>>teacher's union pension fund and the other part owners.
>
>Well, yes, but I wasn't talking about a market economy.  I was using this
>example to illustrate how a feudal technocracy works.

And I was using the example to demonstrate that your concept of a liege
lord was nothing more than an ordinary business chairman. Nothing like
a liege lord at all.

>>In a feudal technocracy he would be a vassal
>
>What can I say?  We have exactly opposite understandings here.  Again, you're
>focused on the ownership of land, or now shares of stock.

Not shares. Companies.

>Where does the technocracy fit in your model?  Or does the mere fact that
there's `something technical' about IBM or any industrial firm satisfy you
in this regard?

If it hadn't been for that four-line definition provided by GDW then that
would have been enough. To satisfy that I add that these holdings require
the vassal to run them himself.

>IMHO, `technocracy' describes the basis for the ruling class's exercise
>of authority and `feudal' describes the nature of the relationships between
>the members of this ruling class.

All very well. I admit that I may be on thin ice with the 'technocracy'
part (Maybe a definition of 'technocracy' would help). But you are under
the ice about the feudal relationship. Nothing you've described resembles
a feudal arrangement.

>>>Do you suppose Duke Angus was acting within `legal' bounds when he invaded
>>>Glaspyth?
>>
>>He propably was. Angus and Omfray were both sovereign lords.
>
>And what was the basis of this `legal' authority?  How was it defined?
>Under what jurisdiction could such a dispute be brought for adjudication?

That's the whole problem with sovereignity. There is no authority over the
sovereign. That's one reason petty lords support a king: to provide a
legal authority to settle their disputes.

>A minority shareholder has no legal influence in a corporation (other than
>that pertaining specifically to the ownership of its shares).

Like the right to replace the chairman if he can get enough other share-
holders to agree.

>A large minority shareholder nevertheless has a great deal of *influence*
>among other shareholders and can sway these other shareholders to action
>against the Chairman of it can convince them that the Chairman, by not
>adequately providing coordinated profit services, has violated his `feudal'
>duties.

Or, as it could also be expressed, that by not doing his job properly the
Chairman had become a liability and should be replaced by his employers.

>It *is* legal for a majority of shareholders to `fire' the Chairman.

That's what I thought.

>Your question about `suing' illustrates the difference between our market
>economy and a feudal technocracy once again - there is no external entity
>under which to seek such redress in a feudal technocracy.

Why can't there be?

>Are you beginning to see the difference?  In a market economy a government
>entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles
>which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace.

Except in those market economies where no government exists. A government
is not an absolute requirement for a market (although it can be a big
help in keeping people from shooting each other), nor does it _have_ to
interfere with the market whose tranquiity it ensures (Unfortunately,
human nature being what it is, few politicians can resist the temptation
to meddle).

>In a feudal
>technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements.

And in what way does these agreements differ from contracts?

>>Why not? You have a world. The world is a feudal technocracy. They produce
>>a king. The king sez: "No sale of industry to outsiders. Dixit". They just
>>happen to have a balanced economy. How are they vulnerable?
>
>Could a medieval king do this if a majority of his barons did not support
>this move?

That would depend on wether they disliked the idea more than the idea of
the disruption it would cause to depose the king. Or wether the king
could make it worth the while of enough of them to agree.

>It's my view that in a feudal technocracy a majority of barons would not
>support a king who proposed this course of action because it is counter to
>the enhancement of profit.

Unless, maybe, the king can persuade you that dealing with an outsider
is detrimental to your home planet and a treasonous, dastardly thing to do.

>If someone shows up from offworld
>with a wad of cash willing to pay twice what you think your ranching barony
>is worth and your liege tells you you can't do it you're going to be mighty
>displeased.

Possibly, but will your neighbours be? Unless the offworlder can buy their
holdings too, why would they care? Don't you think they would support the
king against you? For that matter, would you sell that which gives you
your position in society for mere money?

>Now let's talk about economic might. [...] Does that give you some insight
>on what Sacnoth *ought* to be able to do to Gram under a feudal technocracy
>where there are *no* external government entities to protect less powerful
>economic players?

It does, except that I don't accept the postulate that a feudal technocracy
can't have a government. Certainly not my concept of a FT and not even the
kind of FT you've described. Even granted the conglomorate type society
you call a feudal technocracy there's nothing to prevent the players on
Gram from realizing that allowing the stronger Sacnoth players to play
wil eventually mean loosing all the marbles to them. Now, if Gram needs
something that only Sacnoth can provide, Sacnoth can use that dependency
to force Gram to let them play. But if that vulnerability isn't there,
Sacnoth can go fly a kite made out of their stronger credit notes. Or
if Sacnoth is considerably stronger than Gram, militarily, they can force
their way in, provided they are willing to use force. But if they aren't
that much stronger, or if they aren't willing to use their strength, that
still leaves them out in the cold.

>Remember, we have already tied technological
>capability to economic output so *clearly* Sacnoth's technological edge over
>Gram should translate to an equivalent economic edge.

Sure. In _TCS_ terms their money is worth the same (higher technology, but
lower starport type, (indicating less trade relatively)). In _Striker_
terms their money is worth 14.3 % more. But 14% or even 50% superiority
is cold comfort if you're exchanging nuclear missiles.

>Two things:  Feudalism was much more than the ties to ownership of land;
>and a feudal technocracy is something quite different from medieval fedualism.

Something different, obviouly. But as I mentioned earlier, I assumed from the
start that 'feudal' had some meaning analogous its old one.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir

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

Bundle: 640
Archive-Message-Number: 7999
From: b.borich@genie.geis.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 09:53:00 UTC
Subject: ALL: JTAS index

@acc,M.GelinAS@genie.geis.com@inet#,GDW.support@genie.geis.com@inet#
@acc,sword.knight@genie.geis.com@inet#
    Before I forget, this is an index I put together many years ago:
Format:
   1st column is issue #
   2nd column is type
   3rd column is article title
       AZ is Amber Zone
       BE is Bestiary
       CA is ?
       CE is Casual Encounter
       CO is Contact!
       FA is Featured Article
       MO is ?
       RF is Rules Feature
       RN is ?
       SL is Ship's Locker
       SS is Special Supplement
       TM is ?
       VA is ?
   4th is page number

8,"AZ","A DAGGER AT EFATE",6
14,"AZ","ACES & EIGHTS",36
28,"AZ","BEHIND THE SCENES",26
18,"AZ","CHARIOTS OF FIRE",9
15,"AZ","CHILL",7
27,"AZ","CHOSEN AT RANDOM:  A VARGR SCENARIO",17
10,"AZ","COUP D'ETAT",36
20,"AZ","CRITICAL VECTOR",6
8,"AZ","CRYSTAL'S FROM DINOM",10
16,"AZ","DAY OF THE GLOW",40
28,"AZ","DOUBLE FEATURE",45
15,"AZ","DRANNIXA GAMBIT",20
24,"AZ","EMBASSY IN ARMS",9
5,"AZ","FOODRUNNER",12
10,"AZ","GERIA TRANSFER",13
21,"AZ","HOMESTEADERS' STAND",38
16,"AZ","LAST FLIGHT OF THE THEMIS",9
13,"AZ","LOCKBOX",9
6,"AZ","LOGGERHEADS",32
3,"AZ","PLANETOID P-4638",24
19,"AZ","PRIDE OF LIONS",13
33,"AZ","PROJECT FARSTAR",33
7,"AZ","PURSUE AND DESTROY",36
20,"AZ","RAID ON STATAORLAI",28
23,"AZ","ROADSHOW",33
12,"AZ","ROYAL HUNT",34
9,"AZ","RULE OF MAN COMMEMORATIVE",54
4,"AZ","SALVAGE ON SHARMUN",12
7,"AZ","SCAM",32
25,"AZ","SIEGE",37
19,"AZ","SMALL PACKAGE",33
9,"AZ","SOFT BUNK",28
14,"AZ","STRIKER VARIANT / FOXHOUND",44
32,"AZ","SWIFT WATER:  AN AMBER ZONE",27
12,"AZ","TARKINE DOWN",12
23,"AZ","THE BIRTHDAY PLOT",12
24,"AZ","THE LOST VILLAGE",40
2,"AZ","THE SHIP IN THE LAKE",12
22,"AZ","THE THING IN THE DEPTHS",37
26,"AZ","THE TUKTAAR CONNECTION",46
30,"AZ","THE WAREHOUSE",21
5,"AZ","THE WEREWOLF DISEASE",32
13,"AZ","THOUGHTWAVES",37
11,"AZ","THUNDER ON ZYRA",6
6,"AZ","TICKET TO SWORDS",28
26,"AZ","TOURNAMENT",30
22,"AZ","VENTURES AFAR",13
18,"AZ","WITHOUT A TRACE",37
11,"AZ","WORK OF ART",33
31,"AZ","WRONG WAY VALVE:  AN AMBER ZONE SCENARIO",34
20,"BE","AFEAHYAHLTOW",24
3,"BE","BEAKED MONKEY or BEAKER",26
11,"BE","BLOODVARK",10
15,"BE","CRESTED JABBERWOCK",44
6,"BE","DOLPHINS (PART I)",38
7,"BE","DOLPHINS (PART II)",35
15,"BE","DOYLE'S EEL",45
2,"BE","GARAN'S LEECH",27
13,"BE","GARHAWK",13
13,"BE","HOPLITES",15
17,"BE","ICE SPIDER",7
17,"BE","ICECRAWLER",6
9,"BE","KIAN",37
2,"BE","KUDEBECK'S GAZELLE (IVORY GAZELLE)",26
18,"BE","LUUGIIR",28
21,"BE","MICRO-ECOLOGY OF QUICORAL",47
16,"BE","MINIPHANTS",37
27,"BE","OEGONGONG",31
20,"BE","PONSONBY'S VELVET",25
11,"BE","RAGFISH",9
4,"BE","RETICULAN PARASITE",28
3,"BE","SEA BEAR",27
16,"BE","SEED SPITTER",36
14,"BE","SMAETAL SWARMS",40
9,"BE","SPRINGER",36
30,"BE","STORMRIDER",23
18,"BE","TREE LION",29
10,"BE","TREE RAT",40
11,"CA","ARCHIAC MISSILE WEAPONS",44
3,"CA","ASTERIOD MINING",14
8,"CA","BROADSWORD CLASS MERCENARY CRUISERS",24
7,"CA","CHAMPA INTERSTELLAR STARPORT",6
9,"CA","EPITHETS OF THE FIFTH FRONTIER WAR",27
4,"CA","GAZELLE CLASS CLOSE ESCORT VESSELS",14
5,"CA","IMPERIUM:  GROUND COMBAT MODULE",16
10,"CA","PLANET-BUILDING, A REF'S GUIDE (PART I)",16
9,"CA","PSI HELMETS",30
9,"CA","SYSTEM DEFENSE BOATS",32
9,"CA","THE BATTLE FLEETS OF THE MARCHES",38
9,"CA","THE DUKE OF REGINA'S OWN HUSCARLES",12
6,"CA","THE IMPERIAL INTERSTELLAR SCOUT SERVICE",11
2,"CA","VICTORIA - GENERAL DATA",14
2,"CA","VICTORIA - SURFACE MAP",16
11,"CA","ZHODANI MILITARY ORGANIZATION",26
26,"CE","BOOMER BRANKOVICH",44
27,"CE","CAIN",42
19,"CE","CRIMINAL BOSS",47
22,"CE","ENLI IDDUKAGAN",46
20,"CE","EX-NAVY CAPTAIN",26
14,"CE","FREE TRADER",6
13,"CE","MERCENARY FIRST SARGEANT",24
15,"CE","MERCHANT/PILOT",11
11,"CE","NOBLE/HEIRESS",46
25,"CE","RINGAAL DeAstera",46
16,"CE","ROGUE/CON ARTIST",46
12,"CE","SCIENTIST/ARCHEOLOGIST",37
18,"CE","SCIENTIST/ROGUE",6
32,"CE","TLEA",30
10,"CO","CENTAURS",6
14,"CO","DARRIANS",16
21,"CO","GIRUG'KAGH",33
16,"CO","GITHIASKIO",12
13,"CO","HIVERS",16
17,"CO","JGD-II-JAGD",9
11,"CO","NEWTS",12
28,"CO","SABMIQYS",31
18,"CO","SWORLD WORLDERS",13
15,"CO","THE AEL YAEL",13
7,"CO","THE ASLAN",25
24,"CO","THE DYNCHIA",44
22,"CO","THE HLANSSAI",40
23,"CO","THE IRKLAN",15
26,"CO","THE PRT'",35
8,"CO","THE VARGR",13
12,"CO","VIRUSHI",10
9,"CO","ZHODANI",8
2,"DP","SERPENT CLASS SCOUT SHIPS",8
22,"FA","'TIL THEY GLOW",6
10,"FA","77TH PATRON",27
29,"FA","A DECADE OF TRAVELLER",18
8,"FA","A TRAVELLER BIBLIOGRAPHY",38
32,"FA","A WORLD ON ITS OWN",18
28,"FA","ACROSS THE IMPERIUM",17
20,"FA","ADVENTURES IN TRAVELLER",20
18,"FA","ADVENTURES IN TRAVELLER:  EXPLORATION",45
17,"FA","AIR STRIKE",33
19,"FA","ANIMAL HANDLING SKILLS",18
15,"FA","AZUN",36
25,"FA","BAIT:  Q-SHIPS IN TRAVELLER",32
26,"FA","CARGO:  A MERCHANT PRINCE VARIANT",17
15,"FA","CHARACTER GENERATION SYSTEM DESIGN",27
13,"FA","CHARGED PARTICLE ACCLERATOR WEAPONS",6
27,"FA","CHURCH OF THE CHOSEN ONES",26
14,"FA","CIVILIAN VEHICLES FOR STRIKER",31
22,"FA","COMPUTER IMPLANTS",9
24,"FA","DATA FILE:  INFORMATION SOURCES",18
21,"FA","DESTINY:  WITHIN THE 2000 WORLDS",41
13,"FA","DISEASE IN TRAVELLER",33
4,"FA","EMPERORS OF THE THIRD IMPERIUM",8
30,"FA","FALL OF THE IMPERIUM",30
27,"FA","FIGHTER PROFILE:  THE RAMPART IV & V",23
35,"FA","FIRE ABOARD SHIP",26
25,"FA","FLEET ESCORT LISIANI",18
6,"FA","FLESHING OUT THE BELT",6
22,"FA","FROM PORT TO JUMP-POINT",24
34,"FA","GENERATING IRIS CHARACTERS FOR MEGATRAVELLER",35
19,"FA","GERONTOLOGY, REJUVENATION AND TRAVELLER",6
16,"FA","GIVING THE BANK A FIGHTING CHANCE",24
27,"FA","GRANDFATHER'S WORLDS",35
12,"FA","HARLEQUIN SUBSECTOR",8
31,"FA","HAZARDOUS CARGOES",20
13,"FA","HIGH FINANCE",44
6,"FA","HIGH GUARD (PART 1)",15
7,"FA","HIGH GUARD (PART 2)",17
8,"FA","HIGH GUARD (PART 3)",19
14,"FA","HIGH GUARD:  OPTIONAL RULES",25
14,"FA","HIGH JUSTICE",19
17,"FA","HUNTING BUGS, STRIKER/CHAMAX/PLAGUE/HORDE",40
22,"FA","IMPERIAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE",18
12,"FA","IMPERIAL MARINE TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION",42
33,"FA","IRIS",53
27,"FA","JOURNALISM AND THE STARS",44
24,"FA","JUMPSPACE",34
28,"FA","K'KREE STARSHIPS -- A HUMAN PERSPECTIVE",22
16,"FA","LANGUAGE IN TRAVELLER",28
8,"FA","MAPS OF THE MOON & PLANETS",8
11,"FA","MEDICAL TREATMENT IN TRAVELLER",22
31,"FA","MEGATRAVELLER DESIGNER'S NOTES",38
16,"FA","MERGING STRIKER & TRAVELLER COMBAT SYSTEMS",0
26,"FA","MILITARY ACADEMY:  A TRAVELLER VARIANT",38
23,"FA","NAVAL COMMAND",36
19,"FA","PARACHUTES",22
29,"FA","PICKING A HOMEWORLD",46
11,"FA","PLANET-BUILDING, A REF'S GUIDE (PART 2)",37
25,"FA","PLANETARY INVASIONS IN TRAVELLER",40
22,"FA","PLANETARY MAPS",16
14,"FA","POLICE FORCES IN TRAVELLER",12
10,"FA","POLTROONERY, COURT MARTIALS & THE ICMJ",31
18,"FA","POPULATING THE TRAVELLER UNIVERSE",22
20,"FA","PREPARING A COMMERCIAL TRAVELLER'S ATLAS",46
20,"FA","PROLOGUE:  ADVENTURES IN THE IMPERIUM'S PAST",33
7,"FA","R&R",34
18,"FA","READY-MADE CHROME FOR TRAVELLER",20
18,"FA","REF'S NOTES:  JACK OF ALL TRADES",31
24,"FA","RELIGION IN THE TWO THOUSAND WORLDS",6
29,"FA","SCIENTISTS",28
19,"FA","SCOUTS ERRATA",35
22,"FA","SEASTRIKE",31
19,"FA","SKYPORT AUTHORITY",37
18,"FA","SMALL CARGOES AND SPECIAL HANDLING",40
20,"FA","SMALL CARGOS",37
27,"FA","SMALL CARGOS:  THREE FOR THE ROAD",33
5,"FA","SPECIAL PSIONIC POWERS",25
21,"FA","SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT 3, MISSILES",17
5,"FA","SPECULATION WITHOUT A STARSHIP",34
20,"FA","SPINAL MOUNTS REVISTED",40
15,"FA","STARSHIP MALFUNCTIONS",16
12,"FA","STRIKER ERRATA",40
26,"FA","STRIKER WEAPON SYSTEMS REVISITED",22
21,"FA","STRIKER WEAPONS SYSTEMS ANALYSIS",6
12,"FA","STRIKING IT RICH: STRIKER FOR THE TRAVELLER PLAYER",46
19,"FA","SUGGESTIONS FOR MARTIAL ARTS COMBAT IN TRAVELLER",43
16,"FA","SUSAG",16
14,"FA","TCS SQUADRON DESIGN (PART 1)",9
15,"FA","TCS SQUADRON DESIGN (PART 2)",31
20,"FA","TEMPERATURE IN TRAVELLER, A SCOUTS VARIANT",14
11,"FA","THE ATMOSPHERIC RE-ENTRY KIT",16
9,"FA","THE CARE AND FEEDING OF NPCS",22
7,"FA","THE CLOSEST ENCOUNTER",14
25,"FA","THE DARRIAN WAY OF LIFE",34
19,"FA","THE ECOLOGY OF PIRACY IN THE SPINWARD",9
35,"FA","THE SPICE OF LIFE",21
8,"FA","THE UMPIRE STRIKES BACK!",16
29,"FA","THE UNIVERSAL TASK PROFILE",23
20,"FA","THE WAYS OF THE KUZU",10
30,"FA","THERE WHEN YOU NEED THEM:  THE POLICE",34
10,"FA","TRAVELLER IN MINIATURE",43
19,"FA","TRAVELLER NEWS SERVICE (REVISITED)",27
6,"FA","TRAVELLER STOCK EXCHANGE",30
18,"FA","TRAVELLING WITHOUT A STARSHIP",32
1,"FA","TRILLION CREDIT SQUADRON WINNERS",38
31,"FA","TWISTING TECH LEVELS:  A TRAVELLER VARIANT",27
24,"FA","USING YOUR MODEL/1BIS",39
9,"FA","VACC SUITS",47
21,"FA","VARGR CORSAIRS",9
26,"FA","VOLCANOES",31
14,"FA","WHERE NO WOMAN HAS GONE BEFORE",23
16,"FA","WORLD MAPS FOR TRAVELLERS",6
23,"FA","ZHODANI PHILOSOPHIES",42
3,"MO","ADVANCED POWERED BATTLE ARMOR",23
3,"MO","MERCENARY CHARACTER GENERATION OUTLINE",30
10,"RF","MILITARY ACADEMIES",28
13,"RF","REAL TIME TRAVELLER",29
2,"RF","ROBOTS (ARTICLE 1)",10
3,"RF","ROBOTS (ARTICLE 2)",6
4,"RF","ROBOTS (ARTICLE 3)",22
5,"RF","SAMPLE ROBOTS",14
18,"RN","ASLAN/VARGR",26
26,"RN","ELECTRONICALLY EXPLORING THE TRAVELLER UNIVERSE",24
26,"RN","FLOW CHARTS FOR MANAGEABLE CAMPAIGNS",13
24,"RN","HIGH GUARD AND TCS CAMPAIGNS",24
25,"RN","ON THE USE OF NPCS",14
17,"RN","SOLOMANI/VILANI/ZHODANI",45
25,"RN","USING YOUR MODEL/2 BIS",39
13,"SL","4mm GAUSS PISTOL",43
13,"SL","ACETYLENE TORCH",42
2,"SL","AIRSHIP",6
17,"SL","ASSAULT ROCKET LAUNCHER",14
3,"SL","ATV",28
9,"SL","BANDAGE",45
25,"SL","BREACHING CHARGES",44
18,"SL","COMBINATION LOCK",12
2,"SL","COMPRESSOR",7
18,"SL","ELECTRONIC LOCKS",12
18,"SL","FINGERPRINT READERS",12
25,"SL","FLARES AND SIGNALLING DEVICES",43
12,"SL","GAATV",7
9,"SL","HEAVY MACHINEGUN",44
5,"SL","HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT KITS",31
17,"SL","IMAGE CONVERTOR",16
2,"SL","LASER PISTOL",3
13,"SL","LASER WELDER",42
5,"SL","LIFEBOATS",30
14,"SL","LIGHT APC",29
14,"SL","LIGHT PATROL VEHICLE",28
18,"SL","LOCKPICK SETS",11
18,"SL","LOCKS",11
18,"SL","MAGNETIC READERS",12
18,"SL","METABOLIC SCANNERS",12
6,"SL","MODEL 317 PRESSURIZED SHELTER",35
23,"SL","NON-LETHAL WEAPONS AND AMMO",46
2,"SL","OXYGEN TANKS",7
13,"SL","PORTABLE LASER WELDER",42
24,"SL","REMOTE PILOTED RECONNAISSANCE UNIT",13
18,"SL","RETINAL SCANNERS",12
12,"SL","SUBMERSIBLE ATV (DEEP-V)",7
2,"SL","SWIMMING EQUIPMENT",7
23,"SL","TECH LEVEL 14+ VACC SUIT",45
24,"SL","THE CREDIT CARD",12
18,"SL","TUMBLER LOCKS",12
2,"SL","VACC SUIT",7
27,"SL","VARGR GRAV PLATFORMS",29
18,"SL","VOICEPRINT READERS",12
17,"SS","EXOTIC ATMOSPHERES",17
12,"SS","MERCHANT PRINCE",17
5,"TM","LSP MODULAR CUTTER",6
4,"TM","TRADE AND COMMERCE",5
3,"VA","CENTENNIAL, FOR DOUBLE STAR",12

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 641  8000 14-Jun-1994 b.borich@genie.  TNE: Shall not Perish <<     <Thanks, B
 641  8001 14-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      TCS meets FF&S. << Would anyone be inte
 641  8002 14-Jun-1994 PPUGLIESE@pimac  Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7950-7957 V76#8 <
 641  8003 14-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Impact Missiles << pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.
 641  8004 14-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      How to make black holes   << "Tariq M.
 641  8005 14-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      Lasers yet again          << Juergen Ki
 641  8006 14-Jun-1994 KELLOGG@thorin.  Ancient Coyns << Hans was writing about
 641  8007 14-Jun-1994 eabaltz@MIT.EDU  TNE: Lasers << One obvious use for the
 641  8008 14-Jun-1994 eabaltz@MIT.EDU  TNE: Missiles << Eric Moore says (messa
 641  8009 14-Jun-1994 TML Administrat  Re: Is it gone yet?  << Rob Dean <robde
 641  8010 14-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: *Shall Not Perish* RICE Papers <<
 641  8011 15-Jun-1994 "Glenn M. Goffi  Feudal technocracy potshots << Potshots
 641  8012 15-Jun-1994 "Upton, Django"  Remote controlled fighters << Roger Myh
 641  8013 15-Jun-1994 tom@csvax1.ucc.  Re: Feudal Technocracies etc. << > "Gle
 641  8014 15-Jun-1994 tom@csvax1.ucc.  RE: feudal system -Magna Carta << Given
 641  8015 15-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Coyns << Scott Kellogg writes:
 641  8016 15-Jun-1994 Roger Myhre      Lasers and missiles       << "Les Howie
 641  8017 15-Jun-1994 J Roberson       GURPS FF&S << I just bought GDW's FF&S
 642  8018 15-Jun-1994 J Roberson       I can't believe it's not Feudalism! <<
 642  8019 15-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      A comment on Feudal Technocracy << I'm
 642  8020 15-Jun-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re:Designs:Weapons:AFV << In continuing
 642  8021 15-Jun-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re: Border Crossings << The last thing
 642  8022 15-Jun-1994 Steve Charlton/  TNE Drivel << Yes, by all means, less d
 642  8023 16-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Spinward Marches census (singular?

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8000
From: b.borich@genie.geis.com
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 09:53:00 UTC
Subject: TNE: Shall not Perish

    <Thanks, Bryan, for making this available.> You're welcome. Sorry it
took so long, but forgot about it and than had troubles (extracting and
getting the mailer to accept it)
    <Since we're examining the Regency it makes since to use the *POT*
figures, doesn't it?> I'd also suggest that POT should be used as a
guideline, not a 'Bible'. The Regency is different in nature from the
worlds depicted in POT.

     <An interesting concept.  Does this mean *every* military asset in the
Regency must be retrofitted in some fashion?> All computers will be refitted.
There is a probability of a ban on robots, at least as independent entities,
as fixed installations they still might be acceptable.
    Most older vessels will probably be refitted to newer tech (this being
easier than building new ships) where possible. The Regency needs to use
whatever technological advantage it has so that it can best protect its
boarders (Virus, Zhodani, Aslan, Vargr, etc...).
    <You think so?  I would have thought that use of this sort of weapon would
have become quite inconceivable after the Viral Collapse.> The TNE book
I believe states that the Regency has a captive virus.
    <A `true' heir to the Iridium Throne showing up with a Unification Fleet?
(Rebellion II).> See Arrival Vengeance....
    <Regency nobles upset at the `democractic' reforms taking place (Rebellion
III).
    Regency `democracts' upset at the slow pace of `reforms' (Rebellion IV).>
If either of these happen I would figure on assassination wars, somewhat like
the Aslan, I think most of the leaders would be too worried about the Virus
for one thing at least to start a major war. Unless of course said individual
is certifiably insane, which I admit there is always a possibility of. But
I think Norris is smart enough to use whatever methods he needs to clean
things up....

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8001
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 08:42:39 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: TCS meets FF&S.

Would anyone be interested in a FF&S/BL Based TCS
Campaign?  If enough folks would be interested, I would
be happy to run one.

The game would be two-sided, with players allocated to
sides in order of request to join.  The players on each
side will have to work out among themselves command
procedures, ship designs, etc.

The campaign would take place between two subsector-
sized units, with a third frontier sector seperating
them.  Both sides will be assumed to have come up to
TL13 within the past year, so existing fleet production
will be 20% TL11, 80%TL12, + TL13 production as desired
from one year's budget starting 52 weeks before the
start of game.

If there are requests, I may add a couple of tertiary
powers to the game.

Tactical combat would be resolved by the referee, in
accordance with player's orders and with the aid of the
local gaming group.  At critical junctures in a tactical
situation, if there is a player with the force, I will
consult if I feel input is required.

I expect the game to move quite slowly, with generous
deadlines (and especially so during initial design and
periods of intense tactical activity).

I will assume that the two societies at conflict are
reatively open, so that many details of at least older
designs will be public knowledge (...pass me Jane's,
will you?)  and particlarly interesting designs and
events will be posted to TML.

If you are interested, please email me directly.  I will
allow a couple of weeks to gather responses, and judge
from that if I should proceed.


Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8002
Date: 14 Jun 1994 05:10:42 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: TML nightly: Msgs 7950-7957 V76#8

As far as the "dearth" of posts in the XMTL, so gleefully pointed out
by Dave Johnson, goes, the whole point of it was to eliminate the TNE
drivel, much of which originates from the previously mentioned person,
whose main efforts seem to be stirring up acrimony ala an InterNet news-
group. Fortunately the amount of garbage is alot lower on the XMTL.
If that means the volume is lower too then I look on it as something
positive.

Phil
Pugliese


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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8003
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 09:18:55 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Impact Missiles

pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au wrote
> Subject: TNE: Anti-matter missile
>
>
> Firstly, I don't see why a missile impact is impossible ... s**t happens.
 Frankly, I don't either.  I can see where, given the ranges and velocities
of space combat, it would be very hard, but no matter how improbably it is, a
ship can be constructed to deliver enough missles quickly enough to make at
least one hit probable -- and an impact by even one delayed-detonation H-bomb
riding in a high velocity penetrator ought to really ruin your day.

OTOH, can you image how the "tradition" based gamers would react to missles
becoming genuinely effective?  In traditional high guard, a missile armed
figher cannot seriously threaten a large warship.  With impact nukes honestly
represented, they could.  Perhaps that is what the decision to ban them was
based on.


Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8004
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:04:29 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: How to make black holes

"Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu> writes:
>How do you make a black hole?  You need at least several solar masses o
>material concentrated in one place so that even the neutrons cannot
>support it.  Of course there is gravitational compression ala TNE, it
>could work....anybody?
Possible or not, I do think we are talking Ancients technology here. Or
close to it at least.



>That done, why would you want to?  Well, once it gets moving it aint
>gonna stop, Itll absorb anything that hits it.  Back to antimatter miss
Several SF writers has used black holes or singularities (same thing) as
weapons or as a means of locomotion in either real space or hyperspace.
David Gerrold use it in his latest book "Covenant of Justice". Larry
Niven used it as a murder weapon and as a weapon from destroying
starships. One of the two latter (if not both) stories are not realistic
as Stephen Hawkins found that black holes of the size mentioned in these
stories would only exist a few seconds before they ceased to exist.

And a missile with with a black hole must keep the black hole "alive"
until after it is used. And this will undoubtfully cost power and/or
mass. How much? do anyone know? [sigh, back to the drawing board]


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8005
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 16:04:29 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: Lasers yet again

Juergen Kirsch writes:
>at first a big thanks to Roger "StarWolf" Myhre for the Laser table. I'
Thanks, you are welcome :)

>someone did the work for me ;-). Roger, can you tell me if the Focal Ar
>are designed to stand overpowered ROFs?
They can take ROF overpowering according to the rules given in BL. That
will say; To get a -1 difficulty level you multiply the power
requirement with 5, and with 10 for a -2 difficulty level.

How do the cost come out for lasers not using gravitic focusing? That
could be interesting to know for those who are going to the tournament
GDW will hold at GenCon. Alas I can't come this year. I hope I'll make
it next year.


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8006
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 10:06:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: KELLOGG@thorin.uthscsa.edu
Subject: Ancient Coyns

Hans was writing about alternate coyn sets for the Droyne.
Suggestions for alternate Coyns:

In the modern set we have the six castes.  An ancient set might
have seven.  The seventh caste being that of the ancients
themselves:  Grandfather and his children.

While I think that the races idea being representative of their
respective personality types, I might also suggest that they
represent the competition that the Droyne face in the present
setting.  Grandfather, when setting out the coyns thought he had
better show the Droyne who/what else was out there in the universe.
I guess I'm thinking of Niven's Ringworld Engineers where the Pak
had built their ringworld with bits and pieces of other worlds to
serve as warnings to their descendents:  Earth, Mars, Kzin etc.

But at other times, it was not apparant just who were the races
that Grandfather might want to show to the Droyne.  Example:  Until
the Aslan hit space, they were a pretty small deal.  Thus, Coyns
from before that time wouldn't include them.

But what other races are out there?

The extinct race on Sabmiqys:  The Gya Ks.  Until -8000 when their
planet was wiped out, these guys must have looked like a potent
force to Gramps. (TL 17 but no jump drive.) [Challenge]

The extinct race on Spica now known as the Hasst'kor:  The creators
of the Prt'.  Until -10000 when they were wiped out in a war, they
were doing quite well.  (TL 16) [Challenge]

The Droashav, also known as the G'naak by the K'kree:  The original
G'naak carnivores who almost conquered Kirur in -27000.  Their TL
is unknown, but was at least TL10, and some of their
instrumentation has survived 23000 years without any maintenance.
(Sounds like TL 16+ to me, but no jump drive).  [MegaTrav Journal]

The Hhkar:  The stogie smoking lizards have been in space since
- -50000.  (TL10 but no jump drive.)  [Challenge]

The intelligent Chamax thingies:  (Unlikely, but these guys were
space faring in the 700s. (TL9-10 but no jump drive) [Double
Adventure 5]

The unnamed alien race in Traveller's Digest #21.  These guys were
just sort of thrown in without any explanation.  They were
obviously some kind of servant race for the Ancients.

The Primordials:  These guys who were so dang powerful, they made
Grandfather look like a doddering senile old Worker Caste.  Then
they got bored and died.  I almost did too when I read that one.
[Knightfall]

Alternately, an ancient set of coyns might have proto-vargr on
them.  Vargr looked quite different in -300,000.

Or How about Dolphins?

How about another dead alien race we've never heard of before in
Traveller?  The Krell from Forbidden Planet?  The things from
Aliens (JTAS)?  The creatures the Aliens originally snacked on in
Alien?  Larry Niven's Slavers?  David Brin's Progenitors?  Arthur
C. Clarke's Ramans?  The Ancient High Martians from Space: 1889?
The Daleks?  The aliens from UFO?  The Mysterons from Captain
Scarlet?  The alien races from 2300AD?  James P. Hogan's giant
Ganymeans.  Saberhaugen's Berserker creators?  The Moties?  H. P.
Lovecraft's Ancient Ones?  The mice from Hitch Hiker's Guide to the
Galaxy?  The Hive creatures from Alt.Pub.Havens-Rest?

Who knows, maybe in the future we may be seeing coyns with Ael Yael
on them or Brinn, or Newts?  [The players find a bag of coyns that
went through a time warp.  From the past, or the future? :-]

Scott 2G Kellogg
PS to the people involved in my Trav Sale.  Don't worry, I'm
getting things organized!
^Z

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8007
From: eabaltz@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 18:14:54 -0400
Subject: TNE: Lasers


One obvious use for the short range highly efficient X-ray lasers is in
defense against fighters and missiles, both of which need to be close to
attack.  Range isn't needed, and much better firepower is available without
gravitic focusing.  In fact, for missile defense it might be advantageous to
put more than one laser in a turret.  Hers's a TL15 turret design that has
three lasers, each of which fires at 800 per turn.  Three shots at -5 Diff...
can it miss????

This system uses one beam pointer and one HPG for all three lasers.  If a
separate beam pointer and HPG are used, the power drops to about 200 MJ, still
adequate for missile defense.

With a little geometry, I determined that each focal array has a diameter of
1.65 meters.  This makes effective range 5.5 hexes.  The focal arrays are
built to fire at 800 shots per turn.

Discharge Energy 430 MJ (each), Input Energy 506 MJ (each)

Beam Pointer (5 Hex)    1.5 tons    1.5 kl      .15MCr
Focal Arrays        22.07 tons  22.07 kl    4.414MCr
HPG         35.42 tons  17.71 kl    .1771MCr

This totals 58.99 tons, 4.7411 MCr, and Draws 675 MW at maximum rate of fire.

Performance is:

5: 52-1/17  10: 29-1/9  20: 14-1/5  40: 7-1/2

Its pretty crummy at long range, but with three shots, each at -5 Diff, it
probably wont miss.  Firing every .75 seconds... if YOU were a fighter pilot,
would you go anywhere near this thing???  :)

Ted Baltz
eabaltz@athena.mit.edu



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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8008
From: eabaltz@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 18:35:52 -0400
Subject: TNE: Missiles


Eric Moore says (message 7987) that 1 MJ per square centimeter is enough to do
serious damage to antennas.  I agree with this, but GDW apparently doesn't.
Their guidline for lasers is that 1 MJ per square cm is about a point of
damage.  I think that warships would be built with a different design
philosophy if large nukes were a mainstay of space combat.  A missile gets
within 100 km, detonates, and then your blind because all of your antennas are
slag.  This isn't exactly a difficult fire control problem either.  Antennas
would be designed to better withstand this kind of abuse.  A zillion watt
particle accelerator in a jillion ton vessel is useless if you've burnt off all
the antennas.  maybe you could look through a porthole and aim???  :)

Large fusion bombs aren't that hard to build, especially at higher tech levels.
They're also MUCH cheaper than antimatter.  And even if you want to be
environmentally conscious, there is a known fusion process that is entirely
clean.  Boron-11 fusing with a proton (hydrogen nucleus) produces a Carbon-12
nucleus which is stable, and some gamma rays.  No positrons, no nasty
radioactive waste.  Just soot.  Of course for it to be clean is has to be
detonated by inertial confinement (lasers), or by gravitic confinement if you
want to use that tech.  And boron-11 isn't even that rare.  The other naturally
occuring isotope (B-10 i think) is commonly used in reactor shielding.  The
palnt to separate natural boron are already lying around.  There's even piles
of Boron-11 already separated.  The only catch is that its a lot harder to make
it fuse than the hydogen reactions.

Another design point: forget solid fuel on space missiles.  Put a small
powerplant (2 MW) and a 8G HePlaR drive on it.  Then you can carry about 100
g-turns of fuel, and fly circles around other missiles.  And why not more than
one warhead.  The missiles in Brilliant Lances aren't very optimized.  Unless
an 8G missile needs 80 points of armor.  This is clearly ridiculous.  40cm of
steel on a 7m long missile?????  what were they thinking???

Ted Baltz
eabaltz@athena.mit.edu

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8009
Subject: Re: Is it gone yet?
Reply-To: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Administrator)
From: TML Administrator <traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 16:44:29 PDT


Rob Dean <robdean@access.digex.net> writes:
> Has the horrible message eating monster been banished yet?

I think it's fixed.

James

- -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
James Perkins, List Administrator           Eugene, Oregon, USA
Traveller Mailing List (incl. The New Era)   traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Xboat Traveller Mailing List (Classic & MegaT)   xboat-request@engrg.uwo.ca

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8010
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 94 19:24:40 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* RICE Papers

Gentlesophonts:

>From TML 613/7706, Jeff Zeitlin <jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com> writes:

> 6.  When Will the RICE Paper for <insert chosen planet here> Be
>     Available?
>
> In order to get the highest quality reports from the field, we
> have chosen not to require that a particular planet be done at a
> particular time.  We do record requests, and, when demand
> warrants, add requested planets to a list of the "Ten Most
> Desired Destinations" distributed to all RICE Liaison Offices.

Here are my votes:

 1. Mora/Mora, the Regency capital
 2. Deneb/Usani, capital of Deneb
 3. Gazulin/Gazulin, cradle of Denebian democracy?
 4. Regina/Regina, home of the Aledons
 5. Glisten/Glisten, with an *ihatei* Duke?
 6. Rhylanor/Rhylanor, base of the Santanocheevists?
 7. Lintl/Vestus, `capital' of Reft
 8. Pretoria/Pretoria, gateway to the Vargr Extents
 9. Magash/Sabine, workhorse of the Regency
10. Vincennes/Vincennes, pinnacle of technology

What about yours?  (Don't have any preference?  Then get out your copy of
*World Builder's Handbook* and get cracking on these!)

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8011
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 00:03:13 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: Feudal technocracy potshots

Potshots at feudal technocracy arguments:



David Johnson writes:



>This is the "key part" of the feudal arrangement that will be manifest in

>a feudal technocracy.  In `theory' one might say that a corporation `owns'

>its shares and merely `grants possession' of them to it shareholders in

>return for `services rendered' in the form of financial capital.



This doesn't make any sense.  Under what theory can a corporation

own its shares and grant possession of them to shareholders, when shares

themselves are merely evidence of ownership?  Shareholders provide capital

only once, when they buy.  Lenders providing loan facilities maybe have

some duty to render service in the form of providing capital.



>No, they provide the technocratic lord with financial capital.  This is

>the equivalent to `fealty' in a technocracy.



Fealty is loyalty.  How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty?

The Chairman--and, more importantly for this discussion, the CEO--

owe a duty of loyalty to the company and the shareholders, not the other

way around.



>I would express this the other way around.  It is a *portfolio* rather than

>`simply' shares in a single corporation.  A group of shares in a single

>corporate entity makes the shareholder the `vassal' of the `baron' of that

>particular corporation.



>You say, "Tomato."  Dan Qualye says, "Tomatoe."  :-)  It's the same thing.

>In a feudal *technocractic* model a `part owner' *is* a vassal.



Again, you've turned the relationships around.  The shareholders aren't
vassals;

rather, the management of the corporation owes a duty of loyalty to them,

to maximize the value of their investment.  The employees of the corporation

are closer to vassals of the CEO, and maybe a feudal structure could be

arranged around this idea.



Hans Rancke writes



>A feudal arrangement is not about mere ownership. It's about tenancy in

>exchange for service.



I (probably obviously) agree with this analysis.  What is being held in
tenancy,

and what kind of service, are the defining issues here.



The text:  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.  [Book 3:  Worlds and

Adventures 11 (1981).]

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8012
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
Subject: Remote controlled fighters
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 12:40:00 EST


Roger Myhre wrote:
 -Actually I don't buy the idea of remote controlled fighters. Ever
 -thought about the time lag in communications? And what kind of
 -communicator do you use for control?
 -
 -Laser? Naaah it will be like aiming a 30,000km straw at a target you
 -can't see. And it moves as well. If the communication laser loose the
 -drone once it is lost for ever. And there is a lot of other things that
 -has to work perfectly. Read Challenge 71.
 -
 -Tight beam radio? Better. It sends out a cone of radio waves. Much
 -easier to keep the drone in control, but then we got jamming.

Actually, I think you will find that a laser can have any beam divergence
you like!
Check out the laser formulae in FF&S.
You can see the remote because you program it to send frequent messages to
you.
The advantage of a laser communicator is that the high frequency allows the
antenna to be much smaller than a radio frequency antenna of the same beam
divergence. Also a true tight beam radio communicator would be just as hard
to jam as an equivalent laser communicator!

 -The comminication lag is the worst hurdle to get over. If the drone is
 -10 hexes away the update wil take 2 full seconds just in communication.
 -And then we got the reaction time with the controller. Even though we
 -don't got crafts that can't maneuver on a dime anymore, there will be a
 -lot of operations that need short response times or else the craft may
 -be lost. Just a mudane thing as few controls cease to work properly.

The communications lag is a real problem if you are trying to do "seat of
the pants" flying by direct control but is less so if a certain amount of
automation is allowed.
By fitting your remote with sensors and a computer capable of determining a
target solution it can attack the enemy without direct intervention of the
controller!
The computer can also be programmed to perform evasive maneuvers!
The remote controller's function is to make "executive" decisions; which
ship to attack, when to evade, which sensors to use etc.

The K'kree CAN use this for remote fighters but whether they WANT to after
the effects of the virus on computer controlled weapon systems, particularly
on those in constant communication with other computers is another matter.

"A most unwilling suspension of disbelief"

Django

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8013
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:21:33 BST
From: tom@csvax1.ucc.ie
Subject: Re: Feudal Technocracies etc.


> "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us> said (among other things)
>
> The problem that I'm running into in analogizing feudal landlord-ocracy into
> feudal technocracy is that I'm using terminology, and the attendant systems,
> that comes from capitalism, which is a different development altogether.
> Having advanced from feudalism to capitalism, can we have a feudal structure
> again?

I think the answer is yes. It better be in the Imperium, since FT's are so
common. A FT does not need to be capitalist - indeed the very system would
often dictate against capitalism. If control of a particular resource
determines one's place in society, selling it off may not make sense.
(As Hans mentioned in a previous posting). There does not necessarily even
have to be money (at least in the form we currently recognise it).

<snip>
> How have referees handled the question of slavery in the CT era?  Do your
> Imperia allow slaves?  Interstellar slave trading?  Feudal technocratic
> serfdom?

Slavery has been acknowledged as existing in a number of Traveller
publications. By Imperium law, slavery is outlawed. However, by the policy
of imperial non-interference in local affairs, it seems that many local
populations effectively live in serfdom, if not outright slavery. It
also makes for stirring adentures and story-lines, regardless of
whether it makes economic sense or not.

This actually is quite relevant. One characteristic of the feudal system
is some form of serfdom or slavery for the common people. In the 19th
century company-store-type wage-slavery produced a serf-like relationship
between employees and company owners - thus the industrial Robber-Barons
were born. Feudalism has been called a medieval protection racket. The
common people were almost powerless and lived at the whim of their lords.
Certainly, I associate feudalism with powerlessness for the common
people.

If this is a common attribute of FT's, then they will tend to be
isolationist and xenophobic, at least at higher social levels, to prevent
the commons from getting ideas above their station. This also makes
social status extremely important in such a society, and anything that
risks it something to be avoided. Capitalism and the rising mercantile
class is what destroyed feudalism - money replaced land as the measure
of a person's worth, and penniless nobles found themselves in debt
to rich but unlanded merchants.

I will try to give an example of a non-capitalist FT.

Consider a vacuum world with a number of population centres. At some stage
the environmental engineers controlling the life support systems perform a
takeover and gain political power by virtue of their technical knowledge
ie. their ability to selectively turn off the life support systems. This
covers the technocracy aspect of the definition.

The takeover being successful, the engineers use the already-established
life-support regions to define their individual holdings, or feifs.
Holding the de-facto power of life and death in these regions, they can
distribute the control of industries and buildings pretty much as they
desire, creating vassals. The people in these regions are dependent on
their Regional Engineer (Baron/Lord) for their continued existence.
Resources are traded between regions on the barter system, the resources
including workers (serfs/slaves) with special skills. Engineers provide
their serfs with all the necessities of life for service, not payment.
A Planetary Engineer (king) may or may not exist, but if he does he
adjudicates disputes between regional engineers, appoints replacements
when there is no clear successor and appoints new engineers to newly
formed regions, which may occur from building or reorganisation.
This is the feudal component of the FT.

The above system could use money, but I left it out to make my point.
(perhaps they have a religious objection - after all, money is the
root of all evil). The above system will only work so long as the
serfs accept their subordinate position. An Engineer's title depends
on his control of the life-support apparatus of his area, and trading
or selling it means losing control of that region. Anyone who gains
control of a region must be able to operate it's environmental systems,
as that is the basis of his rule there, whether that is personal
control or control of subordinates loyal to him - but the latter leaves
him open to betrayal and takeover by his subordinates.

This is just one example, and I hope it is a useful contribution to this
ever-expanding thread.
                                                Tom

  Tom O'Neill  |   Tom@CSVAX1.UCC.IE        SCCS6085@IRUCCVAX.UCC.IE
- ---------------!--------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fact is stranger than fiction

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8014
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 13:28:24 BST
From: tom@csvax1.ucc.ie
Subject: RE: feudal system -Magna Carta

Given all the feudal discussion, just to tell you that the Magna Carta was
signed at Runnymede on this day, 15 June, 1215 AD, when King John's
strong baron's forced him to reduce his power and cede them more rights.
:-)
                                                Tom

  Tom O'Neill  |   Tom@CSVAX1.UCC.IE        SCCS6085@IRUCCVAX.UCC.IE
- ---------------!--------------------------------------------------------------
                    Fact is stranger than fiction

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8015
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Coyns
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:30:07 +0100 (METDST)

Scott Kellogg writes:
>In the modern set we have the six castes.  An ancient set might
>have seven.  The seventh caste being that of the ancients
>themselves:  Grandfather and his children.

Quite possible. It was a judgement call wether the coyns had been modified
during the 2000-year Ancients period. Just as it was a judgement call that
the pre-Ancients didn't have more than one set of coyns. I decided in the
end that though coyns had been important during the Ancient period (as
evidenced by their widespread occurence in Ancient installations) they
had not been of such paramount importance as they became when casting
became dependent on them (In fact, a case could be made for the caste
coyns not being original, but that would leave me with six more to make
up).

>While I think that the races idea being representative of their respective
>personality types, I might also suggest that they represent the competition
>that the Droyne face in the present setting.

That's my own theory.

>But at other times, it was not apparant just who were the races
>that Grandfather might want to show to the Droyne.  Example:  Until
>the Aslan hit space, they were a pretty small deal.  Thus, Coyns
>from before that time wouldn't include them.

Right. In my universe Grandfather (Or rather, those mysterious beings who
gave rise to the Grandfather myth) last revised the coyns around -1000.

I hadn't thought much about the interim sets. My players are on a Grand
Tour to a number of previously undetected Ancient sites in the Spinward
Marches (courtsey of a Hiver archeologist with an Ancient artifact) and
one of the stops will be Vanejen where the coyns failed to help the
Chirpers living there regain their ability to caste. Hence I've concen-
trated on the Ancient sets the PCs will find in the sites and the first
coyn set that the Chirpers have kept for 75,000 years (quite a feat, that,
but all their coyn sets have 38 pieces  -  obviously an early variant).
Thanks for your ideas. They would certainly be relevnt for anyone
excavating old Droyne ruins (as opposed to Ancient ruins). Unless, that
is, Grandpop didn't take care to recall each old set every time he put
out a revised edition... ;-)

>The extinct race on Sabmiqys:  The Gya Ks.  Until -8000 when their
>planet was wiped out, these guys must have looked like a potent
>force to Gramps. (TL 17 but no jump drive.) [Challenge]

I've imagined that the criterion Gramps used to choose was a sizable
number of planetary populations. That's why the Aslans are there in
spite of not having developed the jump drive themselves (Or perhaps
Gramps used the Major Race criterion and simply didn't realize that
the Aslans had 'cheated').

>The extinct race on Spica now known as the Hasst'kor:  The creators
>of the Prt'.  Until -10000 when they were wiped out in a war, they
>were doing quite well.  (TL 16) [Challenge]

Did they get off the planet in a big way?

>The Hhkar:  The stogie smoking lizards have been in space since
>- -50000.  (TL10 but no jump drive.)  [Challenge]

Definitely a contender. But why would they be removed again? They are
still out there, aren't they?

>The unnamed alien race in Traveller's Digest #21.  These guys were
>just sort of thrown in without any explanation.  They were
>obviously some kind of servant race for the Ancients.

And propably died out long before -75,000. Anyway, the Ancients propably
had lots of servant races. That's why I don't think the Vargr would be
on any Ancient coyns. Back then they were just one obscure experiment out
of many.

>The Primordials:  These guys who were so dang powerful, they made
>Grandfather look like a doddering senile old Worker Caste.  Then
>they got bored and died.  I almost did too when I read that one.
>[Knightfall]

Primordials? What Primordials? They've never been heard of in my universe.

>Alternately, an ancient set of coyns might have proto-vargr on
>them.  Vargr looked quite different in -300,000.

And any humans quite different too. In fact, the human on the -75,000 coyn
set is IMO a 'homo antiquitus', humans the way they looked in Ancient times.

>Or How about Dolphins?

My premise is that the last revision took place around -1000.

>How about another dead alien race we've never heard of before in Traveller?
>The Krell from Forbidden Planet?  The things from Aliens (JTAS)?  [etc.]

And the Originals, forerunners of the Primordials? And the Firstborn. And
the Firstcomers. Ant the Very-firsters. And the Really-truly-swear-to-God-
we-were-the-firsters. Etc, etc.

>Who knows, maybe in the future we may be seeing coyns with Ael Yael
>on them or Brinn, or Newts?  [The players find a bag of coyns that
>went through a time warp.  From the past, or the future? :-]

OUCH! Causality violation alert! Aroooga! Arooogah! Aroogah! ;-)


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8016
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:39:03 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
Subject: Lasers and missiles

"Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90> writes:
>Subject: Impact Missiles

>pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au wrote
>> Subject: TNE: Anti-matter missile
>> Firstly, I don't see why a missile impact is impossible ... s**t happ
> Frankly, I don't either.  I can see where, given the ranges and veloci
>of space combat, it would be very hard, but no matter how improbably it
>ship can be constructed to deliver enough missles quickly enough to mak
>least one hit probable -- and an impact by even one delayed-detonation
>riding in a high velocity penetrator ought to really ruin your day.
First if you are to deliver a lot of missiles at one target, the turrets
and barbettes for these has to be better. Something like the VLS system
to USS Ticonderoga. And missiles take up premium space. And the rapid
firing laser thingie mentioned later will stop almost anything that
approaches of missiles. Do you see any use in missiles with 200 armor
points? It leaves precious little space for controls, warhead and drive.



>OTOH, can you image how the "tradition" based gamers would react to mis
>becoming genuinely effective?  In traditional high guard, a missile arm
>figher cannot seriously threaten a large warship.  With impact nukes ho
>represented, they could.  Perhaps that is what the decision to ban them
>based on.
Why must the nuke impact? I believe the electromagnetic pulse generated
will do enough damage to most ships within several hundred kilometers.



eabaltz@MIT.EDU writes:
>One obvious use for the short range highly efficient X-ray lasers is in
>defense against fighters and missiles, both of which need to be close t
>attack.  Range isn't needed, and much better firepower is available wit
>gravitic focusing.  In fact, for missile defense it might be advantageo
>put more than one laser in a turret.  Hers's a TL15 turret design that
>three lasers, each of which fires at 800 per turn.  Three shots at -5 D
>can it miss????
Yes if you roll 17+ three times in a row :)

[technical details cut away]

>Its pretty crummy at long range, but with three shots, each at -5 Diff,
>probably wont miss.  Firing every .75 seconds... if YOU were a fighter
>would you go anywhere near this thing???  :)
Nope, never in a hundred years. Even a brainwashed soldier wouldn't do
anything this crazy. But then again shit happens.


The discussion has taken a very militaristic slant. What about the
traders and pirates? I don't believe merchants will have access to the
best missiles possible. Those available might even be built in a way
that prevents them from detonating in a gravity well, or close to it.
Else any crazy nut can hold a planet for ransome.

>From the designs of missiles I have seen from GDW to date are more
suited for civilian crafts than military crafts. Military crafts need
missiles with longer duration and more stealthy one too. Emission
masking on missiles, what are your thoughts about that?



Roger "StarWolf" Myhre


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

Bundle: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8017
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:30:07 +0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: GURPS FF&S

I just bought GDW's FF&S yesterday, hoping to design some high-tech weapons
and vehicles. After glancing through it, I believe it is *much* better than
GURPS vehicles for designing spacecraft, and generally better for anything
beyond GURPS TL 9 (I think that's an Imperial TL 10 - not sure).

Anyway, what I would really like to do is revise the GURPS fire combat
rules to make them a little more streamlined and less overwhelming in
damage. The two biggest complaints I have about non-fantasy/lowtech GURPS
is:
        Gun stats are too detailed for quick play.
        Damage is excessive.

I find that the range mods in GURPS go up and down to quickly to keep good
track of accurately, especially if more than 4 people are involved. I also
concur with the excessive damage - I believe ultratech combat stats could
be scaled back a tad with no problem.

ANYWAY - I was wondering if anyone else had done this, or would be
interested in the results.

ALso, I'd like to use FF&S to create Shadowrun weapons - far more difficult
because of the way Shadowrun does damage. Any takers?

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





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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8018
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:30:14 +0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: I can't believe it's not Feudalism!

>How is "giving out industrial fiefs in [exchange] for allegiance and
>support" different from "selling shares of an enterprise in exchange for
>financial capital"?  In my view, they are the same thing.

A couple of differences:
        First of all, a shareholder is not responsible for the development
of the shares the CEO & assorted lackeys are. Secondly, from a more
romantic point of view, loyalty and fealty do not come from being paid off,
but from the heart - this is an ideal which is nice, but historically there
were probably more than a few lords & vassals who contemplated loyalty
based on personal gain.

        I think you've been approaching Techno-Feudalism wrong from the
beginning. From what I've read in this exchange, the CEO of a corp and the
Baron of a fief are being equated. But who's got the power? The CEO runs
things, but he must answer to the Board of Directors, who are in turn
selected by the dominant shareholders (usually). Granted, the Baron has to
have some level of consent from his vassals (and initial consent is
strengthened by years of tradition and faith in the ruling family).
However, while the Baron has legal authority over his vassals and subjects,
the CEO of Corporation X has no legal authority over the shareholders.

        IMHO it is the predominant shareholders who have the ultimate
authority in a FT. Rail Baron Getty invests and eventually controls 35% of
Getty Rails. *He* is the Baronial equivalent, and the other stockholders
have their own fiefs - parts of Getty Rails. But since Getty owns most of
the company, everyone agrees to follow his lead (most of the time) and
looks to him for leadership.
The CEO, the Board of Directors - these are but the minions of the
fiefholders who maintain the company, equivalent (perhaps) to the Sheriffs,
Castellans, and others who were granted authority but not fiefs.

        Now, rather than going to war to acquire more fiefs, Getty simply
invests in another company. This can lead to hostile takeovers, poison
pills, and all the other trendy economic actions involved in mergers &
buyouts. If it works, Getty gets a significant portion of another company's
stock. It may not be controlling interest, but then again, King Henry never
controll all or even most of France, either.
        The other shareholders can initiate their own dealings and
eventually acquire a power base outside the company - but Baron Getty might
be aware and could take steps to prevent them from getting far.

How's that for Feudal Technocracy?

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





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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8019
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 12:41:48 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: A comment on Feudal Technocracy

I'm probably going to end up putting both feet in my mouth, but here's my
Cr.02:

My OED offers for technocracy: n. Organization an management of a countries
industrial resourses by technical experts for the good of the whole community.

And for feudal system: medieval European form of government based on relation
of vassel and superior arising from holding land in feud.

and GDW offers the laconic definition for 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.

Now David Johnson (if I have this straight) has argued for the equivalence of
"share fiefs" with "industrial fiefs".  I cannot accept this because a share
holder performs no TECHNICAL service for the corporation.    He provides
Capital and receives dividends and a measure of control.  I think this is
a more proper role for a Capitalist, not a Technocrat.

If, on the other hand, the ruler grants an industrial fief to a vassel the
vassel will have a technical role - managing the industry.  He must then
find "vassels" for the feifs within the plant, say the Information Systems
fief.

Thinking about this, I think perhaps the "Industrial Feudalism" of Mote Prime
(Niven & Pournelle) resembles a "Feudal Technocracy" as well.

As a side note, while Aristocratic terminology rang true for Piper's Sword
Worlds, it probably confuses the issue in this debate, since the historical
view of a Medieval Duke is of a person whose only skills were in military
matters; the feif itself was run by a paid employee.



Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8020
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:54:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re:Designs:Weapons:AFV

In continuing my previous submission of MBT main guns here are several
mass drivers from TL 11 to TL 14.  Note thay I have omitted short range
so that anyone can use his/her own fix.

NOTE:the HPGs can also be used for a helluva point defense laser ***

Your PD laser can be a whopper once gun energy begins to climb.

                                AFV Armament
                                Mass-Drivers
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 11   4cm MD   Projectile Mass=2.5 kg   MV=2000 m/s
        Optic, Laser, EMS Ranging   26,000 Cr   0.14 MT
        ME=5 MJ    RE=12 MJ   HPG  0.72Kl  1.44MT  7200 Cr
        Gun Wt=0.32 MT    Gun Pr = 16000 Cr    Unit Pr = 49,200 Cr
        APFSDSCI  170-160-150-130

TL 12   5cm MD   Projectile Mass=4.91 Kg  MV=2500 m/s
        Optic,Laser,EMS Ranging  26,000 Cr  Wt 0.14 MT
        ME=15.3 MJ  RE=30.7 MJ   HPG 1.53 KL  3.07 MT  15,300 Cr
        Gun Wt = 0.72 MT   Gun Pr=36,000 Cr   Unit Pr=77,300 Cr
        APFSDSCI  285-275-265-245

TL 13   4cm MD  Projectile Mass=2.5 Kg    MV=3000 m/s
        Optic,Laser, EMS Ranging  26,000 Cr  Wt 0.14 MT
        ME=11.25 MJ  RE=20MJ   HPG 0.9 Kl  1.8MT  Pr 9000 Cr
        Gun Wt = 0.6 Mt  Gun Pr 24,000 Cr   Unit Pr=59,000 Cr
        APFSDSSD 250-240-230-210

TL 14   6cm MD  Projectile Mass=8.44 Kg  MV=2430 m/s
        Optic, Laser, EMS Ranging  26,000 Cr  Wt 0.14 Mt
        ME=25 MJ  Re=40 MJ    HPG  1.6 Kl  3.2 Mt   16,000 Cr
        Gun Wt=0.72 Mt  Gun Pr = 36,000 Cr  Unit Pr=78,000 Cr
        APFSDSBSD 610-600-590-570
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Im not sure about the gun prices for the TL 13 5cm Gun, you might
want to check that, however its about right.

Adio
Tariq



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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8021
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Border Crossings

The last thing we need is XTML people coming over to TML to flame anyone
or TMLs over to XTML, I thought we had settled this, TML readers do not
feel like reading about how great XTML is.  They can do that on XTML like
I do.

Tariq



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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8022
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
Date: 15 Jun 94 16:09:51
Subject: TNE Drivel

Yes, by all means, less drivel!  Why would I want to read
 an intelligent conversation on the definition of feudal
 technocracy when I can instead read dozens of flame
 messages on how the defenseless Traveller virgin was
 deflowered.

I thought we were finished with this whole debate.
Nobody has been forced to subscribe to TML, and anyone
can unsubscribe when they wish.  Can we please stop
whining about issues that are now moot, and get on with
our lives?

We now return you to the Hans and Dave show, already
in progress...


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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8023
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Spinward Marches census (singular?)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 01:25:57 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>First off, I thought we had given up on the technology issue?  :-)

More or less. But the discussion keeps shifting to new interesting aspects.
Now you're trying to suspend our disbelief in the notion that three different
UWP listings for the Spinward Marches made over a period of at least 12 years
could possibly have _all_ the population data identical.

>I merely stated that since there were changes to the UWP data over this
>fifteen year period

It is 17 years if your're talking about data from the earliest Traveller
background material (which didn't have population multipliers) and 12
years if you're talking about the three full listings I've mentioned
before. The only change I know of (although there may be others; I've
only spot checked) is Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was
suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo.

>*and* the population and other figures were not changed that it must be
>*assumed* to have been done intentionally.

Only if there is no simpler explanation. I suggest that they are all three
based on the same census and that only the allegiance codes were updated
for the _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and the _Megatraveller Journal_ publications.
If there should be a few differences (and with a spot check of 10% of the
systems I didn't find a single one) I suggest that they are typos or
corections of typos.

>I did a little arithmetic though and found some interesting numbers. A
>population increase of 10% over a period of 15 years works out to an annual
>rate of increase of 0.64%.  Here are some `real' annual rates from a handy
>1990 almanac (these are net figures, accounting for births, deaths and
>migrations):
>
>US         0.7%
>Denmark    0.0%
>Japan      0.5%
>Spain      0.5%
>UK         0.2%
>France     0.4%
>USSR       1.0%
>Greece     0.1%
>Italy      0.0%
>Germany   -0.1% (a decrease!)
>India      2.2%
>
>It's clear for `developed' countries that something less than a 10% increase
>over a period of fifteen years is not unreasonable.

Agreed. As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion that the history of the
settlement of Charted Space does not make sense unless one postulates
that most well-developed worlds (not excluding the Aslan ones) practise
population control. But to go from there to the assumption that _all_
worlds in the Spinward Marches (a not yet developed area, after all)
practise it is IMO to go to far.

>Keep in mind as well that due to rounding conventions, a 10% increase (or
>decrease) will not show up even in the PBG population multipler (the
>mantissa) for values under 5 and that *only* a 10% *increase* will affect
>the actual UWP population code *if* the population multipler is 9.

I'm well aware of that. I used 10% as an average. Remember that roughly 10%
of the worlds should have a mantissa of X.4 (whatever X may be) and that in
that case considerably less than 10% increase is necessary to kick it over
into the next higher number. A world with a mantissa of 8.4, for example,
needs only a 1.2% increase to reach 8.5. Fulacin, a TL 5 world with a
population of 543 million in 1105 needs only a 1.3% increase. In 17 years!

>It's my impression that most worlds in the Spinward Marches are going to be
>more equivalent in terms of population growth to contemporary `developed'
>nations than to `developing' nations (just my opinion).

They certainly _ought_ to be, since they've had up to ten centuries of
developement. Yet Spinward Marches is again and again referred to as a
'frontier'  -  not only in the 'frontier with other nations' sense, but
also the 'developing area' sense. Certainly scores of systems seems to
be woefully undeveloped.

>Furthermore, while one might expect high birth rates and low death rates
>(due to available high tech medical care) on `developing' worlds one would
>also expect high rates of *emigration* (to high population worlds) to keep
>the net growth rate low.

Now, are you SURE you're not allowing the discussion to affect your good
sense here? I would expect a lot of emigration FROM high-population planets
to developing low-population planets. That's usually the way it goes here
on Earth: From the crowded (or opressive) to the less crowded.

>In fact, it is internal migration that ought to have the greatest effect
>on population for worlds within the Domain/Regency.

Oh, sure. But that should register too, shouldn't it?

>Now, I accept that it is quite incredulous not to see any change in *any*
>world population over a span of fifteen years (and I suspect if we looked
>hard enough we might even find a couple of changes due to errors in
>transcription) but I submit the above information in an effort to suggest
>that such an occurrence is not *impossible*.  (Maybe only as unlikely as
>the occurrence of `techno-economic cycles'.  :-)

Far more unlikely. I refer you to the examples of Forboldn, Fulacin, and
Vanejen. Each of them ought to have had changes in population, most likely
also TL and starport type in the case of the first two. In each case the
lack of change could be explained away. But it would have to be explained
AWAY. And my point is that if you need a new and distinct explanation for
each world you examine, then a simpler solution that explains them all is
to be preferred. I stand by my claim that the three different UWP listings
we have are one and the same (and one that was already somewhat out of date
in 1110).

>Nevertheless, I believe we were discussing tech levels not population levels
>and the fact that no tech levels changed still does not suggest that *any*
>of them went *down* so the lack of any evidence for the `techno-economic
>cycles' remains.  (Remember, I've already admitted the *possibility* that
>they *could* exist.  I can just explain Gram's domination of the Sword
>Worlds through the less incredulous agency of Zhodani aid.)
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
                         incredible, surely?

I see no reason why both can't be true. Nevertheless, if you think that the
Zhodani help alone is sufficient (and I don't intend to dispute that) and
you don't believe the other then don't use it. (But I STILL think the
developement of the Spinward Marches has been slow, SLOW, *S*L*O*W*!!!)

>>There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their
>>population level totally stagnant for 15 years. Some of them, sure. Not
>>even most of them, but some.
>
>It's *possible*, just not very damn likely.

I'd say that it's the same kind of "possible" you get when you're talking
about all the air in a room suddenly collecting under one table. Sure, it's
*possible*. ;-)

>>Try imagining economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population,
>>rather than a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough,
>>the factories will close.
>
>Well, first off, it's my sense that as the size of the economy *increases*
>it becomes *more* difficult for economic down turns to affect technological
>capabilities (since there is more of a buffer to absorb down turns in
>particular sectors).

The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican
economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US?

>I've admitted this is possible though.  So, please give me some sense of
>your sense of the relative likeliness of these `techo-economic cycles'
>occurring as compared to the likelihood of there being no population change
>in the Marches over fifteen years. Twice as likely? Five times? Ten times?
>A hundred times?  It's my sense that these two occurrences are about
>*equally* likely. :^)

Oh, far, far from it. Orders of magnitude different. But then, I know
something of statistics and can't see the population thing happening in
a thousand years and have very little knowledge of economics and see no
difficulty at all in those economic swings. As for putting numbers on it,
that's difficult. But taking a wild stab I'd say that at any given year at
least one in a hundred worlds inside the Imperium is getting shafted enough
by outside manipulation to be on the decline and several times that number
outside the Imperium. Exactly how long it takes for a downturn to affect
the TL is another difficulty. Not less than 10 years, I'd say. And of course
a downturn would not always last long enough (As you can see, I'm weaseling
like crazy. That's because I really know too little about economics to put
numbers on anything. But I'll have a shot at defending these ones).

>>How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of
>>inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if
>>you have even more billions of people to do it.
>
>Again, see above.  As the size of the economy grows it becomes *more*
>difficult for economic factors to affect overall technological capabilities.

Yes, but are you saying that 10 billion people have a greater difficulty
affecting 1 billion people than 1 billion people have affecting 100 million?
My guessing bone tells me that the proportions would remain roughly the
same.

>>Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have
>>closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't
>>quote any examples.
>
>Even if you could this is not a matter of technological fluctuation that
>is tied to economic factors.  If the country is unable to continue to
>operate the factory then it never *had* that level of capability.  The
>company that pulled out maintains its own tech level at its other facilities.

Oh yes it is. This is one thing I'm certain of (as defined by Traveller,
that is). There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech
classification that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own
population base. In 1105 Fulacin ran a Type A starport and a TL of 13
with a population of 800. You couldn't even run a civilization with
half that TL with that. All these worlds must have their TLs artificially
maintained by outside sources.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 642  8025 15-Jun-1994 J Roberson       GURPS FF&S << Haven't got back robo-res
 642  8026 15-Jun-1994 Rodney W. Morri  The revival of the net.plot.book << The
 642  8027 16-Jun-1994 b.borich@genie.  TNE: Shall not Perish <<     <Thanks, B
 642  8028 16-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Missile Tactics << Roger Myhre <myhre@o
 642  8029 16-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       leaving << With  thanks to all on the l
 642  8030 16-Jun-1994 mgood@MIT.EDU    Traveller 73 Review, Product Release Da
 642  8031 16-Jun-1994 CHiggin@aol.com  JTAS index (2nd try) << From: b.borich@
 643  8032 16-Jun-1994 CHiggin@aol.com  Feudal TechnoEconomics (2nd try) << I f
 643  8033 16-Jun-1994 Andy Lilly       Talk << I'm very lucky in that my e-mai
 643  8035 17-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Population and Tech Level Growth <
 642  8024 15-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5007: Feudal Technocracy <
 643  8034 17-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: PoliSci 5008: Feudal Technocracy <

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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8025
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 19:10:47 +0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: GURPS FF&S

Haven't got back robo-response so here goes again. First time I've had a
problem with TML. . .

>I just bought GDW's FF&S yesterday, hoping to design some high-tech weapons
>and vehicles. After glancing through it, I believe it is *much* better than
>GURPS vehicles for designing spacecraft, and generally better for anything
>beyond GURPS TL 9 (I think that's an Imperial TL 10 - not sure).
>
>Anyway, what I would really like to do is revise the GURPS fire combat
>rules to make them a little more streamlined and less overwhelming in
>damage. The two biggest complaints I have about non-fantasy/lowtech GURPS
>is:
>        Gun stats are too detailed for quick play.
>        Damage is excessive.
>
>I find that the range mods in GURPS go up and down to quickly to keep good
>track of accurately, especially if more than 4 people are involved. I also
>concur with the excessive damage - I believe ultratech combat stats could
>be scaled back a tad with no problem.
>
>ANYWAY - I was wondering if anyone else had done this, or would be
>interested in the results.
>
>ALso, I'd like to use FF&S to create Shadowrun weapons - far more difficult
>because of the way Shadowrun does damage. Any takers?

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





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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8026
From: csc3rwm@cabell.vcu.edu (Rodney W. Morris)
Subject: The revival of the net.plot.book
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 21:57:24 EDT

The Prince of Darkness
X-Mailer: ELM-MIME [version 1.0 PL0]

        I am reviving the Net.Plot.Book, beginning with Volume III.
If you have any ideas for plots of any kind, please drop me a line.
The idea shouldn't be too detailed.  No need for specific stats and
such, just some plot lines for GMs to grab and use in their
campaigns.  Be kind and include your RL name, and the system or
genres your plot is meant for ('misc' is a viable genre).  Chances
are you'll see your name in print, at the least.  Please include
PLOTS: in your header.  I will be posting the results of the book,
when I think it's big enough to ;) to the list as well as major rpg
ftp sites, in ascii format.
        PLEASE only send these to me, as I'm not subscribed to many
of the lists I've sent this message to.  Thanks.

        Lucifer >:} csc3rwm@cabell.vcu.edu

        P.S. If you can contact the previous owner of these books
(or ARE that person), please drop me a line.  I'm not trying to step
on anyone's toes, I'd just like to see further issues...and, as they
say, if you want something done...

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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8027
From: b.borich@genie.geis.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 04:20:00 UTC
Subject: TNE: Shall not Perish

    <Thanks, Bryan, for making this available.> You're welcome. Sorry it
took so long, but forgot about it and than had troubles (extracting and
getting the mailer to accept it)
    <Since we're examining the Regency it makes since to use the *POT*
figures, doesn't it?> I'd also suggest that POT should be used as a
guideline, not a 'Bible'. The Regency is different in nature from the
worlds depicted in POT.

     <An interesting concept.  Does this mean *every* military asset in the
Regency must be retrofitted in some fashion?> All computers will be refitted.
There is a probability of a ban on robots, at least as independent entities,
as fixed installations they still might be acceptable.
    Most older vessels will probably be refitted to newer tech (this being
easier than building new ships) where possible. The Regency needs to use
whatever technological advantage it has so that it can best protect its
boarders (Virus, Zhodani, Aslan, Vargr, etc...).
    <You think so?  I would have thought that use of this sort of weapon would
have become quite inconceivable after the Viral Collapse.> The TNE book
I believe states that the Regency has a captive virus.
    <A `true' heir to the Iridium Throne showing up with a Unification Fleet?
(Rebellion II).> See Arrival Vengeance....
    <Regency nobles upset at the `democractic' reforms taking place (Rebellion
III).
    Regency `democracts' upset at the slow pace of `reforms' (Rebellion IV).>
If either of these happen I would figure on assassination wars, somewhat like
the Aslan, I think most of the leaders would be too worried about the Virus
for one thing at least to start a major war. Unless of course said individual
is certifiably insane, which I admit there is always a possibility of. But
I think Norris is smart enough to use whatever methods he needs to clean
things up....

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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8028
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 08:14:13 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Missile Tactics

Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no> writes:
> First if you are to deliver a lot of missiles at one target, the turrets
> and barbettes for these has to be better. Something like the VLS system
> to USS Ticonderoga. And missiles take up premium space. And the rapid
> firing laser thingie mentioned later will stop almost anything that
> approaches of missiles. Do you see any use in missiles with 200 armor
> points? It leaves precious little space for controls, warhead and drive.

The question is, are missiles of any use at all.  In the context of GDW's rules
(which is what I plan to go by) it is easy enough to armour capital ships over
the penetration limit off the 500Kt det-laser.  However, I do not think that the
potential damage to sensors and shields can be ignored, so some form of
point-defence is needed.

The benefit is that, by launching a missile attack against my opponent, even if
I cannot penetrate his defences, I am forcing him to either (1) use his main
weapons (which could otherwise be punching holes in my capital ships) to defeat
the attack or (2) allocate resourses at design time to either point defence or
specialized zone defence ships.

I am going to want some more BL experience before I commit myself to where the
tradeoff lies.

I think its a tautaulogy  that enough missiles can saturtate any defence.  You
just have to define enough as 1 + the number of missiles that could be destroyed
by 100% effective point defence fire.  I think your point is that it might not
be worth it, which is true.

> Why must the nuke impact? I believe the electromagnetic pulse generated
> will do enough damage to most ships within several hundred kilometers.
>
Good question.  Much the same as the question Why Can't My Nuke Ever Impact.
Damned if I know, I didn't write the rules :-)

>
> The discussion has taken a very militaristic slant. What about the
> traders and pirates? I don't believe merchants will have access to the
> best missiles possible. Those available might even be built in a way
> that prevents them from detonating in a gravity well, or close to it.
> Else any crazy nut can hold a planet for ransome.
>

Well, chances are any crazy nut CAN hold a planet for ransom.


> >From the designs of missiles I have seen from GDW to date are more
> suited for civilian crafts than military crafts. Military crafts need
> missiles with longer duration and more stealthy one too. Emission
> masking on missiles, what are your thoughts about that?

I do plan to play with these rules a bit.  None of the weapons I have seen in
TNE (I am still wating for BL) seem to rate very highly for fleet use.  Most of
the ships seem to be equivalent to light cutters with machine guns, and the
pirate equivalents.  I think major combat units will be quite a bit different.
One of the criteria I am using for hull design is the armour to defeat
penetration by any basic game laser.

Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8029
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: leaving
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 12:55:53 +0100 (BST)

With  thanks to all on the list i must inform you all  that  till
september  i will not be on-line or reciving any maill , This  is
a  thank  you  to  all for the well  thought  out  arguments  and
points, and the designs.
        So untill september
Goodbye and thanks for all the stuff.
L. Bryant

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


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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8030
From: mgood@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 09:50:23 -0400
Subject: Traveller 73 Review, Product Release Dates


Traveller 73 is worth picking up, if only for "Strange Lights Over
Hokum", a GREAT TNE adventure by Mike Mikesh (sp?  sorry!).  While set
in the TNE, it could easily be converted to any era, or GURPS Atomic
Horror :-) (I'm busily trying to figure out how to convert it to
Space:1889 ;-)

"Hokum" should appeal to people on both lists: it's a non-combat
oriented adventure with high amusement value.  I can give more
specifics, but I hate posting spoilers.

Product Release Dates: Confusingly, GDW keeps listing all the TNE
stuff as if it's available.  I know the RC Equipment Guide is out,
but what about Battle Rider?  Does anyone have a schedule?

Matt

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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8031
From: CHiggin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 10:18:50 EDT
Subject: JTAS index (2nd try)

From: b.borich@genie.geis.com

>    Before I forget, this is an index I put together many years ago:
>Format:
>   1st column is issue #
>   2nd column is type
>   3rd column is article title
>       AZ is Amber Zone
>       BE is Bestiary
>       CA is ?
        CA is Cover Article??

>       CE is Casual Encounter
>       CO is Contact!
>       FA is Featured Article
>       MO is ?
        MO is Mercenary something-or-other??

>       RF is Rules Feature
>       RN is ?
>       SL is Ship's Locker
>       SS is Special Supplement
>       TM is ?
>       VA is ?

>   4th is page number

Add:   DP is Deck Plan

Thanks for the index, BTW.




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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8032
From: CHiggin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 94 10:19:01 EDT
Subject: Feudal TechnoEconomics (2nd try)

I feel compelled to comment on the Hans & David show:

David Johnston:

>> You keep saying that, but how does it work? Start with the basic building
>> blocks, show me how they hang together and why it works fundamentally
>> differently from a garden variety capitalist society.

>Are you beginning to see the difference?  In a market economy a government
>entity external to the marketplace provides the framework of principles
>which govern the nature of interactions in the marketplace.  In a feudal
>technocracy these principles will be provided by the feudal agreements.

    After reading much of your post, I think I am finally coming
understand your point of view -- not necessarily agree with it, but at
least understand it.  The question arises: what is the difference
between your view of "feudal technocracy" and laissez-faire
capitalism, or libertarianism?  If the government concerns itself
merely with external defense and preventing violent crime, and leaves
economic interactions to "market forces", how does that differ from
your picture of a "feudal technocracy"?

>Now let's talk about economic might.  The entire Mexican economy
>is about 5% of the US economy.  Where would Mexican industry be in
>the face of US industry if there were not an external government
>entity (the Mexican government) trying to protect it and another
>external government entity (the US government) making some effort to
>see that US industry respect the will of the Mexican government?

    Probably in much better shape.  Mexico's "formerly" socialist
habits of nationalizing industries and "protecting" the hell out of
them with tariffs, etc.  guaranteed inefficient, ineffective national
industries unable to compete against an efficient free-market economy.
With the opening up of Mexico, we are seeing more efficient,
competitive Mexican companies going into partnership with U.S.
companies and/or competing with them.

>The entire European Union economy is about 120% of the US economy
>but it is highly fractured when compared to US industry.  The only
>thing protecting European industry from being diced up and swallowed
>by US industry is the intervention once again of external government
>entities on both sides of the Atlantic (this is, in fact, a major
>motivation behind the whole idea of the European Union) and these
>powers enjoy roughly the same level of technological capability.

    I hate to burst your soap bubble, but the main thing keeping the
EU economy from dominating the world is the "intervention once again
of external government entities on both sides of the Atlantic".  The
socialist, interventionist policies of most European nations has
hobbled and crippled their economies to the point where most of these
economies are on the edge of collapse from spiraling budget deficits
and skyrocketing unemployment, all directly traceable to socialist
"tax the producers until they can't produce anymore and throw revenues
down a fiscal black hole" policies.
    It has been repeatedly demonstrated that the best way to make an
economy boom, and improve the standard of living for all is to provide
the basic legal foundations for entrepreneurship to flourish (i.e.,
establish and respect property rights), and then get the government
the hell out of the way!  Government intervention beyond protecting
property rights just gums up the works.  The U.S.  is productive IN
SPITE of the U.S.  Government; German corporations are productive in
spite of the German government, and in spite of the European Union.

    Excuse me for getting up on the soapbox, but I can't stand to see
outright misinformation spread about without some attempt at
correction.


From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>

>Having advanced from feudalism to capitalism, can we have a feudal
>structure again?

    It would be difficult at high-population levels, because feudalism
depends on the responsibilties of each individual to each other
individual, going up and down the ladder.  OTOH, many idealists have
postulated that in an enlightened society, the only "government" would
be that of each individual willingly carrying out his/her/its
responsiblities and obligations to other individuals above and below
him, a la feudalism.  I expect that a true Libertarian society would
appear feudal with class mobility.
    As for the concept that societies inevitably go from tribalism ->
feudalism -> capitalism -> communism, (if that's what you're referring
to) hasn't Marx been discredited yet?!?  :-)






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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8033
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 16:17:36 +0100
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
Subject: Talk

I'm very lucky in that my e-mail is run by a generous company who are
understanding enough to let engineers like myself participate in interactive
groups on Internet, etc. However, for those who have to pay for their TML, I
would like to venture that they are sharpening their knives with regard to
the ongoing 'feudal technocracy' (or whatever) discussion. Today's biweekly
bundle seemed to me to be 90% such stuff (just my impression, I know it's
not accurate).

Might I humbly suggest that the 'players' in this 'game of intrigue' discuss
the whole matter privately and come back to TML with a BRIEF SUMMARY of
their conclusions (including any disputed points where individual referees
will have to decide for themselves).

Just a (humble) thought...

Andy
Commander Lilly, PITS (Political Intelligence Team, Scout)
Nothing I say or do in any way reflects the views of my very kind and
generous employers.


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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8035
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:47:52 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Population and Tech Level Growth

Gentlesophonts:

First off, I accept that the most likely explanation of the constant
population levels in the CT/MT Spinward Marches UWP sources is that this
information all comes from a single census.  I still feel though that
this population issue isn't really relevant to and somewhat needlessly
confuses the tech level growth issue.

My good friend Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was
> suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo.

It wasn't a typo.  The TL 10 listing for Regina also appears in *Book 6:
Scouts* and *Book 7: Merchant Prince*.

> Yet Spinward Marches is again and again referred to as a
> 'frontier'  -  not only in the 'frontier with other nations' sense, but
> also the 'developing area' sense.

Maybe, but I think `frontier' might mean something quite `advanced' in terms
of `development' in a millenium-old interstellar empire.

> I would expect a lot of emigration FROM high-population planets
> to developing low-population planets. That's usually the way it goes here
> on Earth: From the crowded (or opressive) to the less crowded.

No.  Most migrations are from rural areas to urban areas and result in
an increase in population in developed areas and a decrease in developing
areas.  Even in developed areas migration is only from the urban center
to the suburban fringe.  There is no sigificant migration from New York
City to rural Iowa, much less to rural Somalia.  There has been a great deal
of migration from rural Haiti and rural Central America to urban Florida,
California and Texas.  Similarly, migration in the Regency can be expected
to be from low-pop worlds to high-pop worlds.  This may not show up as
changes in population figures because *a lot* of folks from *a lot* of
low pop worlds would have to immigrate to Porozlo, say, before the population
number there changes much.

> The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican
> economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US?

To some extent, yes.  I'm not sure what you mean by `unified'.  Do you mean
`isolated' instead?

> Yes, but are you saying that 10 billion people have a greater difficulty
> affecting 1 billion people than 1 billion people have affecting 100 million?
> My guessing bone tells me that the proportions would remain roughly the
> same.

I'm not sure I get your point.  If you mean could an economy of 1 billion
easily affect a neighboring economy of 100 million (assuming somewhat
equivalent tech levles), I'd have to agree.  If you mean could an economy
of 1 billion cause severe *fluctuation* (enough to affect tech level) in
a neighboring economy of 100 million, I'd have to say again that it's not
very likely.  The larger economy would have to fluctuate quite a lot to
do that.  This might be more pronounced in a 10 million economy or smaller
though.

> There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech
> classification that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own
> population base.

Yes, yes.  I thought we'd already agreed that these anomalies don't fit our
understanding of tech level as measuring technological capability?

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, TExas, USA

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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8024
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 19:57:03 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5007: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

I think replying directly to specific quotes is beginning to stretch out
the discussion and making it difficult to maintain a coherent thread so
let me try to respond without quoting directly and then pick and choose
quotes `out of order' as appropriate.  (If I miss an important point by
doing this please let me know.)

We seem to have spent a lot of effort discussing the `feudal' portion of
feudal technocracy but not much discussing the `technocracy'.  I've tried
to suggest that a technocracy is much like a capitalist market economy but
haven't been very successful in describing how a technocracy is *different*
from a capitalist market economy.  The main difference as I see it is that
in a capitalist market economy there are government entities external to
the marketplace that provide the political framework which allows the
market economy to function.

Hans Ranke <rancke@diku.dk> asks for a definition of technocracy which
seems like a good place to start.

Grabbing a handy dictionary (I know others have already done this):

Technocracy: government by technicians, specifically management of society
  by technical experts.

This refers to the *nature* of authority.  It defines the ruling class.
What is meant by `technicians' and `technical' experts though?

Technical: having special, usually practical knowledge, especially of a
  mechanical or scientific subject.

This is the first of several definitions.  Of particular interest is the
sixth definition:

Technical: (6) resulting chiefly from internal market factors rather than
external influences.

This suggests a technocracy is a government where authority is exercised by
a class with specialized knowledge.  This knowledge is somehow practical,
scientific and related to market forces.  This suggests technology which is
the confluence of the practical application of science and the requisite
economic factors that permit that application.  Hence, technocracy is rule
by an industrial class based upon the `practice of technology' - everything
that is required for technological endeavor.

A technocracy ties political power (government) to economic power (industry,
the `practice of technology').  This is something much more sophisiticated
than mere government by engineers and scientists.  It takes much more than
just engineers and scientists to successfully run industry and an industrial
economy.

In contemporary market economies much of the political framework that
permits the industrial economy to function is provide by democratically
established governments that exist external to the economic system.
Furthermore, the basis for political power is also outside of the economic
system.  (Keep in mind the above `sixth' definition of technocracy here.)
Thus, contemporary capitalist systems are not technocracies.

Nevetheless, any technocracy needs a political framework to permit the
functioning of the industrial economy.  To meet the requirements of a
technocracy this framework must arise from *within* the market place.
One way to do this is for the strongest economic actor to establish this
framework.  One might call this `autocratic technocracy' or "what's good
for General Motors is good for planet Earth".

Another means might be to establish this framework through a formalized
system of well-defined relationships between the various actors in the
industrial economy.

Let's grab that dictionary again:

Feudalism: the system of political organization [prevailing in medieval
  Europe] having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land
  held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants
  under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture.

Now medieval feudalism, as we've already seen, was closely tied to the
the ownership of land.  This was the *nature* of the authority in a
medieval feudal structure - it defined the ruling class just as "specialized
knowledge" or industrial proficiency defines the ruling class in a
technocracy.

There was more to the feudal system though.  It was based upon "the relation
of lord and vassal" with respect to that which defined the the ruling class,
namely land.  The characteristics of fedualism (homage, service, wardship,
forfeiture, etc.) were all manifestations of this relationship between the
actors in the feudal system.  Feudalism provided the framework needed to
permit the fuedal economy to function.  It did this through a formalized
system of well-defined relationships between the various actors in the
feudal economy.

Sound familiar?  That's just the sort of thing that might provide the
political framework in a technocracy.

Whew!  I feel like I deserve some college credit for all that!  :-)

Okay, now let's look at some specifics of the discussion that might help
to further illustrate this point.

Hans writes:

> The whole world economy, for example, is
> based on negotiations between sovereign nations. Sovereign nations have no
> external governmental entity to provide any legal framework.

Nation-states *are* the `external government entities'.  They are not actors
*within* the industrial economy.

> Yet would you
> claim that the interactions between the U.S, EU, Japan, Russia, China, ect.
> is not capitalist in nature?

Of course not.  This is the essence of a capitalist market economy.  It's not
a technocracy though.

> >(This lack of a stable source of legal authority is the major barrier to
> >market reforms in Russia today.)
>
> The disappearance of the USSR removed the established framework between the
> member republics. The USSR were an exampe of a government providing a
> framework.

This misses the point.  First, there was not a capitalist system within
the Soviet Union.  In centrally-planned economies the government *is* an
*internal* entity in the economy but this most certainly is *not* an
`industrial economy', i.e. one geared solely to the `practice of technology'.
Centrally-planned economies have other goals such as full-employment.
Furthermore, *political* power is not tied to economic power but rather
is *superior* to economic power.  (Hence all the unprofitable but still-
powerful industrial actors in the former Soviet states.)

There is currently no entity (external *or* internal to the economy) within
the former Soviet states to provide a framework under which an industrial
economy can function.  Thus there is no legal framework to guarrantee
access to profits, rates of exchange, control of investment or any of the
other factors necessary to conduct profit-oriented industry.

[BTW, I'm not claiming `industrial economy' is `better' than any other
system, I'm just explaining what's necessary for it to function since I
see that as the goal of a technocracy.]

> Now the republics are negotiating as equals to replace the
> framework. Once they work out various treaties to govern their interaction
> we will have an example of a framework provided without a government. The
> internal relations of the EU is a hybrid. GATT is a negotiated framework.

Exactly (except for the part about "without a government").  It is clear
from all of these examples that some sort of framework is needed.  In all
of these cases that framework is established by governmens acting external
to the industrial economy.  In the former Soviet states, in the European
Union, under GATT, the only recourse of any economic actor to seek redress
for mistreatment is through its own local governmental entity or through
structures established and enforced by its local governmental entity.
There are no agreements between, say, a Kazakh oil field and an Australian
drilling corporation, that are not enforced by some governmental entity
that exists *external* to the marketplace.

These are all elements of the capitalist system.  None of them are elements
of a technocracy.

> Of course one can have market systems without government supervision. Well,
> you may need a government to make sure noone shoots at you while you're
> manufacturing or trading, but what more do you need?

You need someone to print currency, to establish procedures to guarrantee
control of investments and access to profits, to control monetary supplies
and rates or exchange, etc.  In capitalist market economies governmental
entities external to the market perform these functions.  Under technocracy
these functions are performed *internal* to the market.

Let's take for example this idea of a `technocractic lord' `selling' shares
in her enterprise to a `technocractic vassal' in exchange for financial
capital.  Under a capitalist system the goverment prints that money and
guarrantees its value.  In a technocracy the lord and vassal must come
to some agreement themselves as to just what that `financial capital'
is worth because the vassal (shareholder) doesn't have any `money' to
`give' to the lord (chairman).  In essence, money is nothing more than a
promise guarranteed by the government.  In a feudal technocracy, feudal
principals are used to guarrantee that `promise' internally to the market.

I think that's enough for now.  I hope I've made some progress in explaining
what, IMHO, a feudal technocracy is.  To recap:

1. The nature of authority: authority is exercised by those possessing
   specialized knowledge related to the practice of technology as manifest
   in an industrial economy.
2. Politcal power and thus the framework for the industrial economy must
   arise from *within* the industrial economy.
3. Feudal principles will be used to establish the framework through a
   system of well-defined relationships between the actors in the market.

Remember, it's feudal *technocracy*, not technocratic feudalism.

Finally, Glenn Goffin <sudet@well.sf.ca.us> writes:

> I've been enjoying the discussion so far.

I'm glad to hear someone besides Hans and I has been enjoying this!  :-)
(Phil Pugliese are you listening?)

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8034
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 94 16:05:24 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: PoliSci 5008: Feudal Technocracy

Gentlesophonts:

It's great to have so many other folks join in the feudal technocracy thread.
(BTW, I haven't yet received Thursday night's messages.  My definition of
technocracy should have appeared there though.  If it didn't show up some
of what I write here might not make sense.)

Glenn Goffin <sudet@well.sf.ca.us> writes:

> Under what theory can a corporation
> own its shares and grant possession of them to shareholders, when shares
> themselves are merely evidence of ownership?

I see this `evidence of ownership' as being analogous to the feudal title
granted by an aristocractic lord to his vassal tenants.  Ownership of a
portion of industry in a technocracy (a block of shares) is the same
as *tenancy* under the feudal system.

> Shareholders provide capital
> only once, when they buy.

No.  In a technocracy where there is no governmental entity external to the
industrial economy to print, manage and guarranty currency the shareholders
must have a well-defined and continuous relationship with the technocractic
lord in order to guarranty the value of and access to that capital.

> Fealty is loyalty.  How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty?

In a technocracy there is no external entity to provide `money'.  What
serves as currency in a technocratic system must be arranged through
agreement by the participants.  One might call the shareholders portion
of this agreement `loyalty'.  The key is that the system requires inter-
dependent relationships between the actors - `lord' and `vassal'.

> The Chairman--and, more importantly for this discussion, the CEO--
> owe a duty of loyalty to the company and the shareholders, not the other
> way around.

Don't confuse CEO and Chairman (and I have been guilty of this myself in
the past).  The CEO is just the `chamberlain' who sees to the day to day
operations.  The Chairman is the technocratic lord.  An aristocratic
lord had a duty to his vassals to provide coordinated security services.
A technocractic lord (Chairman) has a duty to her vassals (shareholders)
to provide coordinated profit services.

> Again, you've turned the relationships around.  The shareholders aren't
> vassals;
> rather, the management of the corporation owes a duty of loyalty to them,
> to maximize the value of their investment.

Focus on the `duty' rather than the more nebulous `loyalty'.  IMHO, it's
important to examine how things such as `loyalty' are manifest in order
to apply feudal principles to technocracy.

> The employees of the corporation
> are closer to vassals of the CEO, and maybe a feudal structure could be
> arranged around this idea.

No.  I've said this before.  There is no `inter-relatedness' between
employee and employer.  The corporate model is a specialized form of
autocracy.  It is in no way feudal.

> What is being held in
> tenancy,
> and what kind of service, are the defining issues here.

A block of the corporate enterprise is held in `tenancy' in exchange for
the `service' required to guarranty the access to and value of financial
capital.

> The text:  Feudal technocracy.

See my previous post (TML 634/7959) for why this canonical definition is
so vague as to be virtually useless.


Tom O'Neill <tom@csvax1.ucc.ie> writes:

> A FT does not need to be capitalist - indeed the very system would
> often dictate against capitalism. If control of a particular resource
> determines one's place in society, selling it off may not make sense.

I'd have to disagree.  A technocracy may not have to be capitalist but it
involves much more than the control of resources or a particular technology.
A technocracy is government by the class of individuals responsible for
the complete `practice of technology'.  In a capitalist system this role
is played by the actors in the industrial economy (but these actors do
not have political power to match their economy power which is what makes
them different from technocrats).

> This actually is quite relevant. One characteristic of the feudal system
> is some form of serfdom or slavery for the common people.

No.  Feudalism defined the relationships *between* the members of the
ruling class, not between the ruling class and the ruled classes.  Serfdom
occurred in concert with feudalism but was not part of feudalism.

> Capitalism and the rising mercantile
> class is what destroyed feudalism

No.  The rise of the mercantile class destroyed the feudal ruling class and
hence the framework of interactions between the members of that ruling
class, feudalism, disappeared.  Concurrent with the ascendancy of the
mercantile class was a separation of political power from economic power.
In a technocracy these two spheres of power are reunited.

> I will try to give an example of a non-capitalist FT.

Any system in which a group of elites control some crucial technology to
exercise control of the remaining populace is neither feudal nor
technocractic.  It's not feudal because there is no `inter-relatedness'
between the participants and it's not technocratic because those who
control a particular critical technology are not involved in the `practice
of technology'.


J Roberson <RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu> writes:

>         First of all, a shareholder is not responsible for the development
> of the shares the CEO & assorted lackeys are.

Nor was an aristocratic vassal responsible for providing coordinated
security services.  The `development' of a technocratic fief (shares)
is associated with the responsibilites necessary to guarrantee the
value of and access to the capital provided to the technocratic lord.

> Secondly, from a more
> romantic point of view, loyalty and fealty do not come from being paid off,
> but from the heart

And in a technocracy where the value of, access to and control of `money'
must be guarranteed through the `agreements' between `lord' and `vassal'
one might find some `romantic' aspects for loyalty as well.

> However, while the Baron has legal authority over his vassals and subjects,
> the CEO of Corporation X has no legal authority over the shareholders.

Well, first, again, the CEO is not the `technocratic lord', the Chairman
is.  This `legal basis' for any relationship in a capitalist market
economy is provided by the government entity external to the market. In
a technocracy there must be some relationship between the `lord'
(Chairman) and the `vassals' (shareholders)  that is developed among
themselves.  This is the basis for all `legal' issues between them.  For
example, in a market economy the external government entity guarrantees
the value of the capital provided by the shareholder to the chairman.  In
a technocracy the `lord' must have some means to ensure the value of and
access to this capital.  In a feudal technocracy, feudal agreements
between lord and vassal will do this.

>         IMHO it is the predominant shareholders who have the ultimate
> authority in a FT. Rail Baron Getty invests and eventually controls 35% of
> Getty Rails. *He* is the Baronial equivalent

This is no different from `Baron Gustaf' who provides 35% of the military
forces in an aristocratic duchy.  This is what I've been saying all along.
The shareholders are the equivalent of medieval feudal barons.

> The CEO, the Board of Directors - these are but the minions of the
> fiefholders who maintain the company, equivalent (perhaps) to the Sheriffs,
> Castellans, and others who were granted authority but not fiefs.

The CEO, yes.  The Chairman, no, because without the role of the external
government entity to enforce the `legal' behavior of the Chairman this
person controls all of the financial capital provided by the shareholders.
The only way for the shareholders to guarrantee their own access to their
funds, in the absence of the external governmental entity, is through a
series of agreements with the technocratic lord (chairman).


Les Howie <lhowie@Prograph.Com> writes:

> Now David Johnson (if I have this straight) has argued for the equivalence of
> "share fiefs" with "industrial fiefs".  I cannot accept this because a share
> holder performs no TECHNICAL service for the corporation.

Look at your OED definition of technocracy again.  It doesn't talk about
`technical service for a corporation'.  It talks about `management of
industrial resources', i.e. industrial holdings or `fiefs'.

> He provides
> Capital and receives dividends and a measure of control.  I think this is
> a more proper role for a Capitalist, not a Technocrat.

These are `proper roles' for both.  The difference is that a capitalist
has a government entity external to the market to establish the framework
for interaction there.  A technocrat must establish this framework internal
to the market.  The most powerful technocrat can establish this framework
through fiat if she's powerful enough.  That might be called `autocratic
technocracy'.  If there is no single technocrat powerful enough to establish
this framework herself then some system of agreements must be reached
among the various technocrats to establish the framework.  In a feudal
technocracy, feudal principles are used to establish this framework.

> As a side note, while Aristocratic terminology rang true for Piper's Sword
> Worlds, it probably confuses the issue in this debate

Good point.  I think we've begun to get past this though.

Great work all!  Some very constructive, interesting and valuable
contributions here.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 643  8036 18-Jun-1994 b.borich@genie.  ALL: Regency & Var. answers <<     Firs
 643  8037 17-Jun-1994 "Glenn M. Goffi  xboat and tml -- I'd like both << I'm s
 643  8038 18-Jun-1994 Muir Macpherson  Feudal Technocracy << I'd like to secon
 643  8039 19-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Technocracy, Feudal or otherwise <

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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8036
From: b.borich@genie.geis.com
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 94 04:25:00 UTC
Subject: ALL: Regency & Var. answers

    First off, I've gone and decided to read through the Regency section
in the TNE book.

    <The also might have a few nasty viruses in bottles to unleash on
opponents.> The Regency does have a bottled, and maybe semi-tame
virus it is using (though if asked they don't have such a thing). And
there is a concern between all the Spinward states of going to war
because of the Virus threat, either because your enemy well set it on
you, or because it might leak through because your assets are tied up
fighting the other guy.

    <An interesting concept.  Does this mean *every* military asset in the
Regency must be retrofitted in some fashion?> This seems to be the case.
And makes sense.

    <internal disorder (Rebellion)> This seems to be the biggest factor,
but it looks like I said earlier. It seems to be restricted to
assassinations.

    <Kirsch> Care to post your designs? I'm sure there are plenty of people
who might like to see/use them.

    <Kirsch: Is someone compiling the submitted weapon specs in one archive?>
I have something of a compilation. There aren't many yet.

    <Howie: GM=1> Government Modifier? I'm not sure offhand, but that's my
guess.
    <I presume "Early" "Average" and "High" technologies correspond to TL
13, 14 and 15?> See Megatraveller. Early Stellar, Average Stellar, and
High Stellar. I think 9-11, 12-13, and 14-16?

     <Plus RCEs and Regency ship classifications will differ...Please
xpand on this point.> The RCES seems to have very limited ship building
capacity. Actually change that to has very limited ship building capacity.
The Regency on the other hand still has almost the entire shipbuilding
capacity it did before the Virus (and might even be better now after the
Virus do to various needs).

    <BTW, how can I get at more documentation of this sort?> On disk. IBM.
By joining HIWG.

     <Jeff: Also, can anyone tell me how to go about getting the Sunbane
sectors> Same as previos answer.

     <What I'd like to know is, "What publishers' material is considered
'official'?"> GDW, DGP, FASA. High Passage, 3rd Imperium(?), Far
Traveller(?). Maybe more. I think it mostly depends on what the
main writers considered worthwhile material. Or the quality of the
material itself.

     <Fuedal Technocracy> An idea here might be rather than shares in a
corporation the vassals. They might give patents instead (at least this
would allow for something different than shares, though shares seems
to have been what has been used by the Imperium).


    <A zillion watt particle accelerator in a jillion ton vessel is
useless if you've burnt off all the antennas.  maybe you could look
through a porthole and aim???  :)> In designing large vessels at least.
I'd have two thoughts. First would be back-up folding array antennas,
the second would be either missile(rpv) or fighter based sensor arrays that
feed the info to the larger vessel and for that matter extend it's
sensor range.

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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8037
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 1994 23:19:01 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
Subject: xboat and tml -- I'd like both

I'm sending this to traveller@engrg.uwo.ca because the mailer daemon
returned my mail addressed to traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca.

I understand (from the context of email received from Cynthia Higgins) that
there are now two mailing lists, one devoted to TNE, and one to CT/MT.  I'd
like to receive both mailing lists, if possible.  If not, just send me the
CT/MT list.

thanks for your attention.

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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8038
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 1994 13:39:59 -0700
From: Muir Macpherson <muirmac@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Feudal Technocracy

I'd like to second the motion that the Feudal Tech debate be moved off the
list.  Except for those few directly involved in it, I think it has exhausted
all possibilities for further discussion.  Furthermore, I think it's crowd-
ing out other topics, IMHO.

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

Bundle: 643
Archive-Message-Number: 8039
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Technocracy, Feudal or otherwise
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 1994 00:58:14 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>My good friend Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
>
>>Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was
>>suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo.
>
>It wasn't a typo.  The TL 10 listing for Regina also appears in *Book 6:
>Scouts* and *Book 7: Merchant Prince*.

What does that have to do with it? If an authoritaive source makes a misprint,
that misprint can make it's way into a lot of secondary publications that
rely on the primary source. Then the primary source is reprinted and the
typo corrected; all without the original source being updated. And if it
wasn't a misprint we're back to my old question: Why did it take Regina
many centuries to reach TL 10 when they advanced two TLs from 1107 to 1110?

>Similarly, migration in the Regency can be expected to be from low-pop
>worlds to high-pop worlds.

It might make for migration from rural areas on low-pop worlds to urban areas
on the same worlds (always providing that such planets had urban areas). The
classic SF theme is from overcrowded planets to frontier planets. And the
only colonization project we have any knowledge of (The Forboldn Project,
mentioned in _Kinunir_) has people transported to the Spinward Marches from
the Core.

>>The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican
>>economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US?
>
>To some extent, yes.  I'm not sure what you mean by `unified'.  Do you mean
>`isolated' instead?

An economy so tied together as to actively compensate for fluctuations in
production. A large country is less suceptible to a bad harvest because
the governing forces can transport food from areas not affected to areas
affected. If the same population was a number of isolated economies, the
very same harvest would cause some of these countries disaster despite
the total number of people involved being the same.

>>There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech classification
>>that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own population base.
>
>Yes, yes.  I thought we'd already agreed that these anomalies don't fit our
>understanding of tech level as measuring technological capability?

It fits my understanding perfectly. Some outsider brings in (or some local
imports) the machinery needed to produce some kind of high-tech stuff from
local raw materials. As long as the factory is functioning that planet is
effectively of the equivalent tech level  -  even if the factory has to
be maintained with imported spare parts.

>Technocracy: government by technicians, specifically management of society
>   by technical experts.
>
>This refers to the *nature* of authority.  It defines the ruling class.
>What is meant by `technicians' and `technical' experts though?
>
>Technical: having special, usually practical knowledge, especially of a
>   mechanical or scientific subject.

So far so good.

>This is the first of several definitions.  Of particular interest is the
>sixth definition:
>
>Technical: (6) resulting chiefly from internal market factors rather than
>external influences.
>
>This suggests a technocracy is a government where authority is exercised by
>a class with specialized knowledge.  This knowledge is somehow practical,
>scientific and related to market forces.

Here's the fallacy. Nothing in the definition requires the expertise to be
economic. Sure, it _could_ be  -  if economy is accepted as a science with
an associated technology. Focussing on the sixth most common meaning on a
word to the exclusion of all other meanings seems very specious. I'd be
happier if you could include some of the more common meanings too. The
definition of technocracy didn't say "see _Technical_ (6)", did it? Any
society managed by technical experts would seem to fit.

>A technocracy ties political power (government) to economic power (industry,
>the `practice of  economicpower might
well be a technocracy, but to conclude that a technocracy has to be such a
ociety is a coe fallacy. Of course, a government that is a technocracy
musogical expertise.

>This is something much more sophisiticated than meregovernment by engineers
rial economy.

If economics is a science, then a chnician ca rn an economy. If it's not
aence then someone who can run an economy can't be mery a technocrat
(By definition). However, a merenment by engineers and scientis is
enough to satisfy the definition and is therefor a technocracy. Stick with thebroad definitions.
  
>n contemporary market economies much of the polframework that
>permits theindustrial economy to function is provide by democratically
>establised gvernments that exist external to the economic system.

Why does it have o be democratically estab any technocray needs a political framework to pemit the
>functioning of the industrial eco  To meet the requirements of
>technocracy this framework must arise from *within te market plac.

A complete red herring. To meet the requirements of a technorcy, the
leaders of the society must be
>>based on negotiations betweeve n
ernal governmental entity to provide any legal framework.
>
>Nation-state *are* the `external government entities'.  They are not actors
>*wiin the industrial economy.

Of course they are. Why wouldat takes place betwn nation-states may take place at the political
level, but it's re in the eonomic sector. If General Motors didn't
give a hoot in hell about Japanesears on the American market, do you
think the President would? However, ta wasn't quite my point. One of the
prime fesThat's what
the 'sovereign' means. (In the last half century the nations of he ebeen trying to bootstra som sort of system superior to the individual
nations. I doubt anyoe will arue that they've succeeded yet. When they
do, they won't be soveign nymore). So any deal str, was what I meant). If those deals are economic 
i nature they are examples of economic eane without governen 
intervention.

>Exactly (except for the part about "without a government).  It is clear
>framewrk is needed.

No. It is clear thacnomic deals struck
between people wh had nothing but the god fat of their opponent (and
his hoped-fosire to continue trading) to ensure the ullfillment of
the deal. In fact, unless two nations have anaking to protec each
other's traders even against their ow n deal between traders of
differezakh oilfield and an Australian
>drilling oporation, that are not enforced by some governmental entity
>that exextern* to the marketplace.

Insofar as most governments frown on non-governmentsanctioned forc you're
quite right. They can't be _enforced_. But you canstill make agreements.
And in the old days ampe, but any armed merchant
an could do it in the absence of an _opposing_ government. So you might
actu ay that one only needs government help to enforce ageeents if
there are governments around.

>Of course one can have market systes without government supervision. Well,>>you may need a government tsomeone to prit currency,

Promisory notes bakd by the issuing company.

>to establish pros to guarrantee control occess to
>profits,

Idon't quite know what you men by "control of investments and access to
profit, but any proceurs can be established by negotiation what way, and why can this not be doneby negotiation?

>In capitalist market economies governmentities extnal to the market
>perform these functions.

They do so today, but they are not neessary. Convenient, maybe.

>Let's take for example this iea of a `technocrcti lord' `selling' sharee goverment prints that money and
>guarranees its value.

This is what the do today (and ipor system), but the didn't do
so before they left the gold standard. Before that moneywabcked by real
value. There is no reason why a company can't issue it's own money backed
by it's ow resry note. So is a check.

>In a technocracy the lord and vasal must come to some agreement themselv>as to just what that `financi cpital' is worth because the vassal
>(shareholder) doesn't have any `ney' to `give' to the lord (chaidoes the 'vassal' bring to the deal?And if he dondustrialists buying Gram industries as an examl ofwhy a feudal
technocracy was vulnerable to a stroconomic entity?)

>In essnce, money is nothing more than  pomise guarranteed by the
>governme
Right. But in earlier times many banks issuedtheir own notes.Just because
governments today doseney.

>I think that's enough or now.  I hope I've made some progress in explaining
>what, IMHO, a echnocracy is.  To recap:
>
>1. The nature of authority: authority is eercised by those posseing
>   specialized knowledge related to the practice of technology as manifest
>  in an industrial ecooomy must
>    arise from *within*he industrial economy.

Like the man who owns the factory decides who rn it?

> 3. Feudal principles will be used to establish the framework through a
    system of well-defined relationships between the actors in the market.

Li the man who ges o run the factory is under a specific obligation to
the liege-lord who made him manager. I agree completely.

>Remember, it's feudal *technocracy*, not technocratic feudalism.

What's the difference? Or rather, what do you think is the difference?

>I see this `evidence of ownership' as being analogous to the feudal title
>granted by an aristocractic lord to his vassal tenants.

Why, so do I!

>Ownership of a portion of industry in a technocracy (a block of shares) is
>the same as *tenancy* under the feudal system.

There's a small, but important difference between ownership and tenancy that
makes it impossible to equate the two. (Hint: with ownership you own, with
tenancy you don't).

>In a technocracy where there is no governmental entity external to the
>industrial economy to print, manage and guarranty currency the shareholders
>must have a well-defined and continuous relationship with the technocractic
>lord in order to guarranty the value of and access to that capital.

Leaving aside that you can have technocracy with or without a government and
that you can have money with or without government and government with or
without currency (I use 'currency' as 'government-backed' money here)...
hmmm... leaving that aside there's not much left of that argument...

>>Fealty is loyalty.  How is the provision of money equivalent to loyalty?
>
>In a technocracy there is no external entity to provide `money'.

I can't keep repeating myself each time this comes up, so from now on
please insert your own 'Fallacy!' comment after every occurrence.

>What serves as currency in a technocratic system must be arranged through
>agreement by the participants.

Not 'must be'. 'Can be'. One company could put out money backed by its
products, another money backed by its. Or they could use some rare metal.
Or government-backed money. There are lots of possibilities.

>One might call the shareholders portion of this agreement `loyalty'.

So the socalled shareholders does not provide any goods or capital? This
begins to resemble my notions more and more.

>The key is that the system requires inter-dependent relationships between
>the actors - `lord' and `vassal'.

Absolutely right. Otherwise it's not a feudal arrangement. But by now you
can drop the quotes around lord and vassal. If the vassal dosen't buy the
'share' then he is a vassal and his lord a lord.

>The Chairman is the technocratic lord.  An aristocratic lord had a duty to
>his vassals to provide coordinated security services.

That's true enough. _In addition_ to giving out the fief in exchange for
the loyalty of the vassal the lord also assumed the duty to protect his
vassal.

>A technocractic lord (Chairman) has a duty to her vassals (shareholders)
>to provide coordinated profit services.

That makes sense. In addition to giving them their fiefs she also assumes
the duty to protect them financially. A good analogy. Of course, the
crucial part of the feudal relationship is the providing of the fiefs,
since lots of other systems require the leader to protect the followers.
In fact, I can't think of any that dosen't.

>Focus on the `duty' rather than the more nebulous `loyalty'.

Not a good idea. In a feudal relationship both sides have duties to the
other part, so you can't say who's the lord and who's the vassal from
that.

>A block of the corporate enterprise is held in `tenancy' in exchange for
>the `service' required to guarranty the access to and value of financial
>capital.

This is pure gibberish. Oh, sorry! I mean, I don't understand a word you're
saying here. Could you put it in layman's terms?



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
"I used to argue the matter at first, but I'm wiser now. Facts
are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 644  8044 19-Jun-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  TNE, DES, GEN : RPVs << TML Categories:
 644  8045 19-Jun-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  TNE/SCEN/GEN : Shall not Perish << TNE,
 644  8046 19-Jun-1994 PSUAlum@aol.com  TNE, SCEN, GEN :VIRUSproof equip << TNE
 644  8047 20-Jun-1994 Jo_Grant.LOTUSI  CASUAL ENCOUNTER: SHIP'S CATS << CASUAL
 644  8048 20-Jun-1994 kirschj@rhea.in  RE: ALL: Regency & Var. answers << as a
 644  8049 20-Jun-1994 Michael Llaneza  Feudal Technocracies << If in a traditi
 644  8050 20-Jun-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re:Feudal Techno << I would like to bac
 644  8051 20-Jun-1994 KELLOGG@thorin.  Lost Address:  Gregg Giles << A few wee
 644  8052 20-Jun-1994 David Johnson    Misc: Pugnacious Phil << Gentlesophonts

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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8044
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 23:17:20 EDT
Subject: TNE, DES, GEN : RPVs

TML Categories: TNE, DES, GEN

Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no> posted:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually I don't buy the idea of remote controlled fighters. Ever
thought about the time lag in communications? And what kind of

communicator do you use for control?
(et cetera)
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ohhh noooo someone is trying to put the science in my sci fi.  I don't
entirely agree with the difficulty in laser communicators (also FFS has
maser and meson communicators that are also tight-beam) but you are
correct about comm lags over a distance.  Possibly an electronics
/control craft would need to accompany each squadron.

Insomuch as keeping comm links with the remotely piloted vehicles (rpv)
should you lose contact the rpv should have rudimentary programming to
either allow it to continue the mission or break off and withdraw to a
programmed marshalling point.   Also a radio backup could come online to
attempt recommunication before switching back to tight-beam modes.

Also my theoretical tender/carrier would have an extensive suite of all
the best electronic/communication gear that would enable it to monitor
the precise location of all craft invloved in the action, especially its
rpvs, so if a comm lock was momentarily lost with a particular unit its
position could be scanned, adjusted for its vector, and tight-beam comm
reestablished.

Unless I missed an important section of the official rules nothing is
mentioned in either TNE or FFS about communication lags (which I agree
would definitely exist) or major difficulties with maintaining laser (or
maser, meson) communications.


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


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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8045
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 23:18:25 EDT
Subject: TNE/SCEN/GEN : Shall not Perish

TNE, SCEN, GEN

> Subject: Military threats to the Regency
>
> can anybody think of any others?

Younger sons/daughters of Regency nobles and/or ihatai upset at the
limited opportunities for advancement within the ranks of nobility and
also the acquisition of new systems as fiefs.  This is somewhat related
to the anti-democratic reform movement.

I wrote:

> FICT/SCEN/AHIS : Shall Not Perish - Government

> I think there would be some basis for Planetary
> Courts either in place of or in addition to these District Courts.

I never ruled out that this function was performed by the nobility of
the Regency.  Although I would think one of the initial reforms of
democracy would be to remove the power of the nobility from the courts.


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


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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8046
From: PSUAlum@aol.com
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 94 23:18:47 EDT
Subject: TNE, SCEN, GEN :VIRUSproof equip

TNE, SCEN, GEN

Steven Gott <sgott@u.washington.edu> writes:

> I think that the rebellion's influence is minimal compared
> to the influence of the black war and Virus.
> Dealing with this threat
> will profoundly change the Regency.  Think of all of the computers and
> electronic they must have.  Why to convert them to safer
configurations
> could take decades...

This provides some interesting role-playing opportunities.  I don't know
of any gov't/military organization that orders a particular piece of
equipment (that need to be replaced) to be immediately removed and
destroyed and the replacement issued to every single unit/ship/person
that works with that equipment.

It would seem that while the units on the frontline might immediately be
equipped with VIRUS-safe comps reserve units and those on the Spinward
border would almost certainly not.  It is also doubtful that the
frontline units would universally received such improved equipment.  No
doubt a great deal of jury-rigged comps are being used.

Now imagine a group of players venturing forth against a possible VIRUS
hazard.  Is the equipment they are issued protected against the VIRUS?
If jury-rigged is the performance downgraded?  How successful is the
jury-rigging?  Not to mention that it is rare for a piece of equipment
to work as advertised when it is state-of-the-art,  the bugs always have
to be worked out:)

Regarding the possibility that the Regency military (regular navy) is
involved in VIRUS actions it is my opinion that if they are it is only
in a reservce capacity.  The Regency Quarantine Service was established
to perform this duty (by guarding and maintaining the quarantine zone
[gee doesn't that sound like the Neutral Zone?]) but if a major invasion
by a Vampire fleet were identified no doubt the RQS could call upon Navy
fleets to meet this threat.  Possibly the protocols for calling on Navy
assistance were inadequately implemented when the Rape of Trin occurred.

Just my Cr2 worth.



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


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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8047
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 94 04:40:44 EDT
From: Jo_Grant.LOTUSINT.LOTUS@CRD.lotus.com
Subject: CASUAL ENCOUNTER: SHIP'S CATS

CASUAL ENCOUNTER:    SHIP'S CATS

        There is a breed of cats called "Ship's Cats" that have
been specifically bred to serve on space ships. There have been
small amounts of genetic tinkering in their line. This has mainly
been changes to their instinctual reactions to certain things.
Of course the original product has interbred and changed over time
leaving a species which is partially engineered and partially
adapted.
        Ship's Cats can deal well with changes in gravity and
can cope quite well in zero-G. Most understand standard "brace
for acceleration" warnings and can act accordingly. Special
cat-spacesuits are available on the market and it takes minimal
training for a cat to learn how to get in and seal themselves.
        Although they are still competent at chasing out small
vermin of a variety of species (which *still* can cause problems
on ships) they are less skilled at this than their terrestrial
companions. They do have a keen sensitivity to changes in
pressure and electrical disturbances. Often their behaviour can
point to potential problems.
        They tend to understand the difference between Crew and
Passengers and are good at not being seen by people who would not
appreciate seeing them. Exceptional specimens can even distinguish
between High and Middle passengers.
        Ships Cats are more restrained in their breeding habits.
They tend to remain infertile for long periods during travel.
They will come into heat when at dock for an extended period,
such as during annual maintenance. Also if they are with another
animal that is not a near relation they will move into a breeding
cycle. Their ability to distinguish relations is based on scent
and makes it safe to have more than one cat from one family on
a ship.
        The offspring of these family units are highly sought
after. Many of their skills are learned from their parents and
the type of ship they were raised on. As such there are Navy
breeds, Merchant breeds, etc, etc. Certain family lines are
widely known and the subject of idle dockside talk.
        Most spaceports allow registered ship's cats into
their extrality zone with the same processing as for crew.
All such animals must be identified, though.

        Moving from the general to the specific, my players had
a Ship's Cat for ages but lost it due to various events. At one
point they decided they wanted another. Nothing specifically
notable happened with their first one, it was just generally
useful. However they decided to buy their next one at a small pop,
tech level G spaceport. I decided that the selection was limited
and give them three choices.
        The first was a fairly mangy looking beast. This, of
course was the best buy, being an authentic experienced cat. They
could have got it at a good price as the sales people didn't think
much of it.
        The second was basically your standard Terrestrial Model
Russian Blue. Pretty, pedigree, and pretty expensive. But,
just a cat.
        The third was just for laughs: a cross-eyed neurotic
Siamese with a god-awful throaty meow. Moderate in price.
        What do the players go for? The bloody Siamese! They
named it "Crosby" because of the eyes and thought it was
cute as it wandered around bumping into things.
        It has, of course, been no end of trouble for them.
Crosby has a knack of turning up in the wrong place at the
wrong time. Perhaps it has some of the Ship's Cat's genes
bred into it: in reverse. Usually it announces its presence
in such a circumstance with its throaty yowl.
        It sat on passenger's breakfasts. It crapped in the
marine's shoes. It managed to get into the Exec's shower
cubicle and turned it on without being discovered for several
hours.
        In one circumstance the players were involved in a
sniper fight in a crashed spaceship on a planets surface.
Suddenly, on their internal speaker channel they hear Crosby's
familiar yowl. "It must be warning us!" they decide and
send some of them racing back to the ship (parked nearby)
to see what was up. When they got there Crosby was sitting
on the bridge console playing with the pretty lights.
        Later they were making a tension filled landing
on the base of a dubious genetic lab under threat of
a laser battery (see the Critter follow-up posted earlier)
with a critically wounded passenger. Just as they are
committing to landing up jumps Crosby onto the bridge
console as pleasantly as your own moggy jumps on they
Sunday paper you are trying to read.
        They began wondering how Crosby, who could barely
walk in a straight line, could keep getting into places
that were crew-locked. Eventually they found out the
ship's Chief Steward had entered Crosby onto the database
as ship's crew for tax reasons. This meant that the
ships computer considered Crosby crew. Crosby's yowls
matched no known language recognition so the ship had
dutifully engaged the self learning language ability
and tried to comprehend the feline utterances as orders.
Of course, it frequently got it wrong. So far the worst
Crosby has managed to do was lock everyone off the ship.
It hasn't found the right pitch for self-destruct just
yet...

(replies to jo_grant@crd.lotus.com, NOT the reply header)

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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8048
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 12:51:11 MET_DST
From: kirschj@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: RE: ALL: Regency & Var. answers

as answer to b.borich@genie.geis.com comments:
>     <Kirsch> Care to post your designs? I'm sure there are plenty of people
> who might like to see/use them.

I will post some designs in the next weeks. I'm preparing some sessions for next
weekends large con in germany, FeenCon in Bonn Bad Godesberg, so I'm a bit busy.
Because I like High Tech designs using Thruster Plates, I did some odd things
like a Fighter of less than one displacement ton. Think of it, using EMS Jammer
and EMM it's impossible to detect (Submicro: +2 to detect against active and
passiv EMS, EMM +1 against EMS, EMS Jammer: an additional +1 or +2 (depends on
TL of sensing ship) is: +4 or +5 to difficulty. If the fighter is in short range
the base difficulty is Average + 4 diff level = 1 more than impossible, so no
task allowed). At the moment I check if I can do this using fusion power plant
instead of the currently installed MAA plant.

>     <Kirsch: Is someone compiling the submitted weapon specs in one archive?>
> I have something of a compilation. There aren't many yet.

I saw several submissions of weapons in this list, but what I need are some
stats like in RC Equipment Guide (I just don't bother the design sequence, I'm
just too lazy to design small arms. I stick to Starships and Vehicles).

Juergen
P.S.: Is it possible to include a name in the posting? I don't like to answer
      to email adresses as above.

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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8049
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 09:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Llaneza <mllaneza@mercury.sfsu.edu>
Subject: Feudal Technocracies


If in a traditional feudalism the economic basis is land;; then would in=20
a feudal technocracy the basis be technical resources?
By this I mean the resources that are required for a functioning high=20
tech society. F=D5rinstance the Duke of Water Management would own all=20
water purification and sewage treatment plants, aqueducts, and=20
reservoirs.  He would claim fealty and service from the Countess of the=20
Western Region and she would in turn claimservice from her site managers;=
=20
which positions being assigned by her much as a medieval lord would=20
assign land.
The question is in allocation of resources. To keep with the feudal=20
tgadition I will suggest that many of these positions  be inherited. We=20
may also see a situation where a university degree would carry the same=20
prestige as minor patent of nobility.=20
With education being a prerequisite for technical functioning most=20
schools operating under a fedal technocracy, much of the school=D5s=20
resources would go towards educating the noble children. Likely,=20
=D4peasant=D5 children who show promise would receive an education and beco=
me=20
minor nobility themselves.
I doubt that education would be directly linked to educational=20
acheivment. More likely noble rank will be linked to educational=20
opportunities.
If anyone else would like to expand on these notes, please feel free.
Michael Carter Llaneza

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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8050
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 14:52:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re:Feudal Techno

I would like to back the motion that the Feudal Technocracy discussion be
moved off of the TML, as interesting as it WAS, I can only watch C-SPAN
for a half hour or so before I change the Channel.  The suggestion about
summarizing the discussion for presentation to all TMLers is one I could
really go for.  Im sure of the 400+ TMLers out there, most share my opinion.

Tariq



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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8051
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 1994 14:34:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: KELLOGG@thorin.uthscsa.edu
Subject: Lost Address:  Gregg Giles

A few weeks back Gregg Giles expressed an interest in some
Traveller items for sale.  Unfortunately mail to his address bounces.
If you're still out there, please drop me a line for some Trav
stuff I'm selling.  (Or any other interested parties who aren't currently
in the bidding.)

And while I'm at it:  Allen Shock?  What's your address?

Thanx,

Scott 2G Kellogg
Kellogg@thorin.uthscsa.edu

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

Bundle: 644
Archive-Message-Number: 8052
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 94 14:42:08 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: Misc: Pugnacious Phil

Gentlesophonts:

Once again Phil Pugliese <PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu> has chosen to insult
me on the TML because he doesn't like what I have to say.  Frankly, I'm
getting a little tired of this.  I find it incredible that this guy can
bitch about wasting bandwidth at the same time he's hurling personal
insults!

To set the record straight on the Feudal Technocracy thread, this discussion
went off-line almost *immediately* as soon as folks expressed some dismay
at its lengthiness and relevancy.  My last posts on the matter appeared
the *same* night as the first request by Andy Lilly that the discussion
move off-line.  The last feudal technocracy post to appear from *anyone*
appeared the night immediately following Andy's request.  Furthermore,
while there have only been three (3) requests to move the discussion off-
line (including that cretin Phil's) there have been *at least* ten (10)
TML members who have contributed constructively to the discussion.

So please, Phil, will you crawl back under your rock?  I thought you had
run away to XTML anyway?

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

P.S.  Sorry, folks, but I suspect this creep is really going to start
      wasting everyone's bandwidth now.  Rest assured though, this will
      be *my* last post on the matter.

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 645  8067 21-Jun-1994 Jeff Zeitlin     *Shall Not Perish* The Co << Subject: *
 645  8068 22-Jun-1994 "/dev/null"      subscribe? << i am interested in subscr
 645  8069 22-Jun-1994 Diane Kelly      Feudal Technocracies, Missiles, and oth
 646  8070 22-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Shall Not Perish: Regency Governme
 645  8066 21-Jun-1994 David Johnson    TNE: *Shall Not Perish* II: Government

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

Bundle: 645
Archive-Message-Number: 8067
Subject: *Shall Not Perish* The Co
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 18:43:00 -0500

Subject: *Shall Not Perish* The Color of Culture 1

  The Society of Space Breathers

  "Really, the odds were against it.  How often would you expect to
  come out of jump right in the path of a rogue missile?
  Fortunately, the Navy ship that had fired it (it was a test
  firing) had disarmed the warhead - it just punctured the
  Engineering chamber, and knocked out all power to all systems.
  Fortunately, there was a battery-powered radio with a good chunk
  of range; we were able to get a squawk out on it, and the Navy
  ship came into the area at max.

  "That's when we found out that (a) somehow all the spacesuit
  locker doors were jammed shut, and (b) there was no airlock that
  the Navy ship could successfully attach a "hose" to.  The one
  functional airlock (because it could be manually operated -
  except the air pumps) could handle _one_ spacesuit at a time.
  Period.  We weren't getting out of this one so easy.

  "Fortunately, the Navy ship was close by, and we had "Slipstick"
  Smith, who could calculate in his head like you wouldn't believe.
  What?  Oh, why was he called "Slipstick"?  Well, he had a habit
  of fiddling with some old toy of some sort that he had, when he
  calculated stuff for us in his head - said he could do math on
  it, but that's not possible; it was just a wooden board with a
  couple of sliding pieces on it.  I looked at it once; it had a
  bunch of numbers on it, but they were just painted on.  No
  buttons, no readout, no nothing.  Tell me how you do math on
  that, bright boy.

  "Anyway, Slipstick figures out that (a) a man can hold his breath
  long enough to jump from our ship to theirs, and (b) we won't
  lose enough air total to hurt by passing through the airlock
  without pumping it down first.  Especially since we're not gonna
  stay on the ship longer than we have to, anyway.

  "That's when Doc chimes in.  She says that we'll explode if we
  try to hold in a breath while making the jump, and Slipstick is
  just plain looney.  Slipstick turns to her and asks how long a
  person can survive after exhaling before he _has_ to inhale
  again.  Turns out that we had plenty of time to do it that way,
  too.

  "Well, you can guess the rest.  As a precaution, Doc told us each
  to hyperventilate before blowing the air in the lock, and don't
  worry about trying not to breathe - it won't matter once the air
  is gone.  But jump as fast and straight as you can...  We all
  made it; didn't lose a soul.  The Navy was surprised that we'd
  risk it, but when we told 'em that the air was leaking out, and
  we had to do something, they allowed as how maybe it would work.
  But they'd put a guy on a tether out there just in case.  Didn't
  need him, but..."

  That is how the Society of Space Breathers got its start.  It
  was not any kind of formal organization initially, just a group
  of people with a shared experience that was well out of the
  ordinary.  The organization was formalized at a dinner hosted by
  (then) Duke (of Regina) Norris Aella Aledon, later the Archduke
  of the Domain of Deneb, and the First Regent.  Anecdotal evidence
  says that it was a "roast" of some high Naval officers, and a
  "play" was put on by a few of the Duke's retainers, spoofing on
  how the Navy likes to give out awards, and one of the awards was
  for "Heroic Sacrifice of Respiratory Rations".  (Un?)Fortunately,
  the Duke knew about the rescue, and liked the idea.  Not long
  afterward, he sent the first "Space Breather" ribbons to the
  survivors of the disaster, and empowered any ship's commanding
  officer, in any service or none, to give the "award" for any
  rescue where the qualifications were met.

  The qualifications established are:

  1) The recipients have made an unaided transfer from one ship to
  another, 2) as the recipient of emergency assistance to a
  disabled vessel, 3) without benefit of any protective clothing,
  breathing apparatus, portable airlock, rescue ball, life pod, et
  cetera, 4) outside the limits of atmosphere.

  The award itself consists of a strip of ribbon (really
  holorecord tape), in "space black", with the name of the rescued
  ship and the date of rescue imprinted on it in gold or silver.
  It is worn hanging from a lapel pin or military ribbon pin, whose
  design is at the wearer's discretion.  Most wearers pick one of a
  limited set of pins which have developed into symbols of
  breathing space.  Military and paramilitary recipients generally
  wear the ribbon descending from a standard ribbon pin with no
  ribbon depiction.  Droyne recipients favor a pin with a replica
  of the "Void" coyn.  Aslan wear an intricate monogrammatic
  representation of the Trokh inscriptions for "Breath" and "Space"
  intertwined (note that it is in the "male" script, even when the
  recipient is female).  Vargr and Non-(para)military recipients
  wear a variety of pins, but the most common motifs seem to be
  either a pin with no "face" attached at all, or a four-pointed
  star, although on worlds with Droyne population, the Void coyn
  design is also popular.
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
 ~ QMPro 1.52 ~ I used to have a handle on life, then it broke.

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

Bundle: 645
Archive-Message-Number: 8068
From: "/dev/null" <rthomas@arlingtonhgts.pamd.cig.mot.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 13:50:34 -0500
Subject: subscribe?

i am interested in subscribing to your list.  could you please
send me the proper subscription info?

thanx.



- --

o    robert thomas: Unix consultant. Navy veteran. user scratching post.    o
o         e-mail: rthomas@pamd.cig.mot.com --or-- robt@cymru.com            o
o                  vox: 708.632.5768  fax: 708.632.5694                     o
o                -- System Administrator's Dictionary --                    o
o   user (you'zer) n. 1 A waste of system resources; an unwanted load on    o
o   the processor(s) of a Unix system. 2 Someone who uses Caps Lock.        o

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

Bundle: 645
Archive-Message-Number: 8069
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 1994 16:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Diane Kelly <dkelly@acpub.duke.edu>
Subject: Feudal Technocracies, Missiles, and other flamebait

        I realize this is probably a foolish thing to do, but nevertheless
I am compelled to dive into two ongoing controversies on this mailing
list:  the nature of a feudal technocracy and the reasoning behind x-ray
laser missiles.

        First:  Feudal Technocracies.  This government type has been
perplexing me ever since I first read Book 3 of the original _Traveller_
set.  For a while I thought it might mean knights-and-lasers, then (after
reading Niven and Pournelle's _Oath of Fealty_) I assumed it was a
patriarchal sort of corporate state.
        But then I got to thinking about the meanings of the two words.  A
feudal system is one in which there is no distinction between economic and
political roles -- the nobles control the basis of wealth (land), and the
more land you own, the bigger and more important a noble you are.
Relationships are determined by personal ties rather than by institutional
offices.
        A technocracy is a system in which governing tasks are performed
by experts, selected on the basis of training and expertise.  The exact
mechanism has never been specified, so a technocracy could be elective,
hereditary, appointive, or whatever.
        Putting the two into the Cuisinart and turning it to "high"
produces the following scenario:
        A feudal technocracy is one in which _knowledge_ is the
fundamental basis of economic and political power.  (Perfect for an
"information economy" by the way.)  Individuals control access to stores
of information which they possess, and those with greater supplies of data
are more powerful.  In place of feudal oaths we have the equivalent of
copyrights and patents (which, interestingly enough, descends from the
"letters of patent" granted to new nobility).
        So here I am, a feudal-tech baron.  What do I do?  I own (say) the
patent on role-playing games.  Anybody who wants to produce them must
become my vassal, and give me a share of the profits.  If I am a smart
baron, I will use much of my resources to expand my "data fief" through
research and development, buying-out of smaller holders, education, etc.
Note that feudal barons occasionally had to defend their rights by force;
as a Techno-baron I must do the same, by sending goons to beat up
unauthorized users of my role-playing patent.  Similarly, I can try to
steal other baron's information holdings -- by all the usual methods so
familiar to readers of cyberpunk fiction.
        What appeals to me about this model is that it is _plausible_.  I
can see it developing already in the current fight over the "Information
superhighway" and control of movie libraries.  None of the other f-tech
societies made much sense.  I offer this for constructive criticism and
opinions.  Flames and gripes will be sneered at.

        Forging bravely ahead, I will now deal with the Missile Question:
This one is fairly simple.  A nuke in space is not really much good unless
you get it very close to the target; on the order of a few hundred meters.
 A real nuke does its damage by shockwave, and there just _isnt_ any blast
wave in space.  (Well, yes, you do get a cloud of plasma ejected by the
bomb, but its mass is small and it dissipates rapidly.)  Radiation flash
effects dissipate following the inverse-square law, so even they fall off
fairly quickly (and remember that ships will be shielded against radiation
anyway).  To damage an enemy ship with a nuclear missile, you need
fantastically good tracking and prediction electronics, a _huge_ warhead,
on the order of 10 or 100 megatons, and a vast amount of fuel, so that it
can chase down the target and get close enough to do damage.
        Contrast this with the x-ray laser missile.  It uses a smallish
warhead (500 ktons max), which is nice if you worry about somebody using
one as a bomb.  It delivers its energy across a large distance without
attenuation; so the missile merely needs to get in the same hex as the
target (recall that Brilliant Lances hexes are 30,000 kilometers across).
It delivers the damage at lightspeed, so doesn't need to catch up to the
target before going off.
        Want some "real-life" proof?  The SDI organization picked nuke-det
laser bombs as the weapon of choice against incoming missiles.  They could
have chosen plain nukes, but x-ray lasers did the job better.

Jim Cambias
Fearless Authority on Everything
Misusing My Wife's Internet Account
At Duke


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

Bundle: 646
Archive-Message-Number: 8070
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 94 15:43:41 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Shall Not Perish: Regency Government

Gentlesophonts:

Here's another contribution to our TML Regency Sourcebook, *Shall Not
Perish*.

I'd like to propose the following modification to Wes Esser's
<wesley@hd62.haledorr.com> excellent diagram on the structure of the
Regency government.

                                Regent
R                                 |
E W       ---------------------------------------------------
G I        Legislature        Judiciary          Executive
E D       |           |           |            |            |
N E       |           |           |            |            |
C         |           |           |            |            |
Y       Moot        Senate     Regent's        |            |
                      |         Court          |            |
- ----------------------|-----------|------------|------------|-----
S                     |           |            |            |
E W                   |        Sector          |          Sector
C I                   |        Dukes's         |           Dukes
T D                   |        Court           |            |
O E                   |           |            |            |
R                     |           |            |            |
______________________|___________|____________|____________|_____
  S                   |           |            |            |
S E W                 |------------------> Governors       Dukes
U C I                 |         Duke's         |            |
B T D                 |         Court          |            |
  O E                 -------------------      |            |
  R                               |     |      |            |
- ----------------------------------|-----|------|------------|-----
C                              Count's  |      |          Counts
O                               Court   |      |            |
U                                 |     |      |            |
N                                 |     |      |            |
T                                 |     |      |            |
Y                                 |     |      |            |
- ----------------------------------|-----|------|------------|-----
W                             Marquis's |-->Residents   Marquises
O                               Court                       |
R                                 |                       Barons
L                              Baron's
D                               Court

This model removes the military from the actual government structure.
Previous information on the Imperium has suggested that while the
nobility meddles in the military, the military generally remains outside
the political system except in times of severe stress like the (First)
Civil War.  Even in the Rebellion, we did not see the military itself
as a player in the political struggle (despite my earlier comments to this
effect).

The legislative branch retains the noble Moot and the popularly-elected
Senate.  The model retains the Imperial tradition of the nobility as being
responsible for judicial functions rather than the Regent-appointed courts
suggested by Wes.  The executive branch includes both the Regenct-appointed
executives and the traditional nobility.

Senate review is limited to executives appointed by the Regent.

I suggest the following rationale for the rise of Regent-appointed executives.
Under the Imperium all noble patents came from the authority of the Emperor.
In the Regency there is no such clear authority to serve as the source of
noble patents.  Therefore, the Regent has appointed Governors (for subsectors)
and Residents (for worlds) when vacancies have appeared in the noble ranks
as surrogate executives pending the `restoration' of the Empire.  In actual
practice, these executives permit the Regent to establish a loyal power base
independent of the nobility.  The nobility has grudgingly accepted this in
the absence of an Emperor to replenish the noble ranks.

This system avoids noble and Regenct-appointed executives having the same
jurisdiction.

Comments, critiques and accolades are encouraged.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 645
Archive-Message-Number: 8066
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 94 21:46:37 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* II: Government

Gentlesophonts:

Since no one has responded asking me not to post this info here's the
second installment in our draft of *Shall Not Perish*, our TML Regency
Sourcebook.

*****

*SHALL NOT PERISH* - A TML Regency Sourcebook, Part II

(Reference TML Msg 586/7338 22-Apr-1994, Msg 602/7550 12-May-1994 & Msg
637/7973 12-Jun-1994)

REGENCY GOVERNMENT

Wes Esser <wesley@hd62.haledorr.com> writes:

         The Regency has three actual branches of government: Legislative,
         Judicial, Executive; and the Military.  The legislative branch
         consists of two chambers, the Moot and the Senate, which share
         power.  The judicial branch consists of a series of appeals courts
         of varying power, and executive branch consists of the various
         Governors.  The military is not a separate branch, but is not
         beholden to the other branches.  The Regent is the highest level
         of authority for each branch.

                                         Regent <--
         R                                  |      |
         E W       --------------------------------|------------------
         G I     Legislative Branches  Judiciary   |Executive     Military
         E D       |           |           |       |    |            |
         N E       |   -----------------------------    |            |
         C         |   |       |           |            |         Admirals
         Y       Regency     Senate---> Regent's        |        ----------
                  Moot         |         Court          |         Marshals
         ----------|-----------|-----------|------------|------------|-----
         S       Sector        |         Sector         |            |
         E W     Dukes         |------> Apellate        |            |
         C I       |           |         Court          |            |
         T D       |           |           |            |            |
         O E       |           |           |            |            |
         R         |           |           |            |            |
         __________|___________|___________|____________|____________|_____
           S      Sub          |           |           Sub         Fleet
         S E W   Sector        |----------------->    Sector      Admirals
         U C I   Dukes         |           |        Governors        |
         B T D     |           |           |            |            |
           O E     |           -------------------      |            |
           R       |                       |     |      |            |
         ----------|-----------------------|-----|------|------------|-----
         W       Counts                District  -->Planetary     Reserve
         O      Marquises               Courts      Governors     Admirals
         R       Barons                                          ----------
         L                                                        Generals
         D

         At the top of this hierarchy, wielding the highest power of the
         executive, legislative, judicial and military branches, is the
         Regent.  The office is held for life and passed on to the
         designated heir.  The Regent appoints candidates to all executive
         and judical posts on the sector and subsector levels, subject to
         confirmation by the Senate.  The armed forces are controlled
         directly by the Regent with no oversight by the Senate or the
         Moot.  The titles held by the Regent include, but are not limited
         to:  Lord Regent of the Third Imperium, Archduke of Deneb,
         President of the Senate, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Navy,
         and Supreme Marshall of the Imperial Army.

         The Moot is the senior chamber of the legislative branch, composed
         of the peers of baronial rank and higher in the realm who serve as
         long as they maintain their title (usually for life, although
         abdications do occur).  There is approximately one noble per
         planet in the Regency, and as such, the Moot tends to favor the
         rights of lower population worlds.  The members of the Moot are
         predominantly human.  Although the Moot does vote to confirm the
         succession to the Regency, this power is mitigated by the fact
         that they can only vote for, not against a new Regent.
         Politically the Moot tends to be dominated by the Aristocratic,
         Imperiallist and Sovreignist blocks.

         The Senate is technically the junior chamber of the legislature,
         although in fact it is more active politcally than the Moot.
         Senators are popularly elected representatives of Senatorial
         Districts of approximately 1 billion sophonts.  Being based on
         population, these districts can vary in size from a portion of a
         world to a dozen or more entire worlds.  Because of this, the
         Senate tends to favor the high population worlds, where some 96%
         of the Regency's population live.  In addition, the Senate is a
         more cosmopolitan body, with 29 Llelywolly Senators from Junidy,
         11 Gl'lu Senators from Kibushish, one Ebokin Senator from Yebab,
         several Aslan Senators from the spinward regions, and even one
         Chirper Senator from Vanejeen.  Senators serve 10 year terms, and
         may be elected to no more than 3 terms in succession.  The Senate
         has the power to confirm or reject all appointments to the
         Judicial and Executive branches made by the Regent. Unsuprisingly,
         the Senate tends to hold Democratic/Interventionist views.

         The judicial branch exists to decide when (or if) Regency law has
         been violated, and consisists of a series of courts at various
         levels that have the ability to review the decisions of courts at
         lower levels. The lowest level are the Regency District Courts,
         corresponding to the Senatorial Districts.  These courts are the
         base of Regency law, and spend much of their time hearing local
         cases dealing with conflicts between Regency law and the local
         laws.  Decisions of the District Courts may be appealed to the
         Subsector Appeals Court, which can in turn lead to an appeal to
         the Regent's Court on Mora.  The final avenue of appeal is
         directly to the Regent, who can reverse the decision of any
         Regency Court.  Justices of the District Courts are elected from
         the district.  Justices of the Appeals and Regent's courts are
         appointed by the Regent for indefinite terms, but are subject to
         confirmation by the Senate.  They may be removed from office by
         the Regent, or by a vote of the Senate.

         The executive branch consists of the Subsector Governors appointed
         by the Regent and confirmed by the Senate, and Planetary Governors
         appointed by the Senate.  It's purpose is to ensure that the will
         of the Senate and of the Regent is carried out.  Thus the
         Governors are responsible for collection of taxes, implementation
         of policy and enforcement of Regency law.

         The military in the Regency is not an actual branch of the
         government, but it funtions in many was as such.  The head of the
         military is the Regent, and under him are the Admirals and
         Marshals of the Realm.  Each Sub-Sector has a Fleet admiral
         assigned to it, and each high population world has a Reserve
         Admiral in charge of the reserve fleet, and a General in charge of
         the planet's ground forces.  The military, through the person of
         the Regent (undoubtedly with advice from the Senate and the Moot),
         has the right to decide when to wage war or make peace.  It is
         effectively outside the the control of the Senate, the Moot and
         the Governors on most matters.  The military is, however, bound to
         uphold Regency law, and thus must obey decisions of the judiciary.

David Johnson <djohnson@mms403.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

This suggests the aristocracy has given up its traditional judicial role
held under the Imperium.  This is a major change that represents a major
loss of power for the nobility.  Is there a rationale for this loss?

This represents another loss of power for the nobility.  One wonders just
what the nobility does in the Regency?  And more importantly, how they came
to lose such influence?

This is a good idea but I'm not sure how to rectify it with the inclusion
of barons in the Moot.  (And I don't see how barons could be excluded either.)
Maybe there is a way to deal with this by adjusting the population levels
for the Senate districts.  How many Senators are there in the Regency at one
per billion population?  Lowering this number to one per half billion (or
less) would increase the number of Senators (and correspondingly the
influence of hi-pop worlds) with repsect to the barons of the Moot.

Electing Senators at-large in any of these mulit-billion districts would
further enhance the influence of hi-pop worlds.  In your example one might
expect Pixie, Yres and Boughene (and possibly part of Menorb) to be included
as one sub-district (and thereby give the smaller worlds a chance at some
representation).  On the other hand, three at-large Senators would all be
likely to come from Menorb.

This is some great work.  I might suggest as a modification leaving the
judicial function in the hands of the nobility.  (They've already been
weakened by the appearance of the Senate abd it doesn't really affect the
split in the power structure you've outlined.)  Furthermore, the Regent's
Governors (subsector and world) are also a big threat to the nobles.  They
also seem to be in direct conflict.  (What's the relationship between the
Duke of Vincennes and the Subsector Governor or the Marquise of Efate and
the Planetary Governor?)  Maybe these Regency executives only exist in fiefs
where the noble patents have been vacated, either through death without
issue or through the dislocations resulting from the Rebellion and the Viral
Assault?  Possibly, for example, there is no longer a Marquis of Glisten
but rather an *ihatei* Governor (I'd prefer `Resident' for worlds to
distinguish them from a subsector Governor) who was appointed by the Regent
when Glisten came back `into the fold'.

Keep in mind that the separation of the military from the political
process is a decidedly modern, Western idea.  For most of human history
and still in many places today the military is a key player in the
political process.  This is also a part of the Imperial tradition.
Remember the Civil War and even the Rebellion.  This latter though,
might have led to some poltical efforts to *limit* the influence of
the military.  This might have been one of the ways the power of the
nobility was weakened.  Much of the power of the nobility has been
embodied in the military in the past.

*POT* apparently has a table of all RC worlds, their populations, political
bloc and number of representatives.  Anyone care to post a list of Regency
worlds with populations (maybe Roger's hypertext can help here?) and we can
work on representatives from there?

REGENCY POLITICS

David Johnson <djohnson@mms403.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:

The Nobility:

Archduke of Deneb and Regent: Norris? Seldrian? Avery?
Duchess of Mora: Elane Shankarr Muudashir at Mora
 -Leader of the Aristocratic bloc, possibly
Duke/Duchess of Deneb: Aleksandr Lagaashinga or his heir at Deneb
 -Leader of the Imperialist bloc?
Duke/Duchess of Gazulin: Sharik Arcadia or her heir at Gazulin
 -The most prrominent new Democrat?
Duke/Duchess of Regina: Seldrian Aledon or her heir at Regina
Duke/Duchess of Glisten: at Glisten
Duke/Duchess of Rhylanor: at Rhylanor
 -Possibly a leader of the Santanocheevists?
Duke/Duchess of Vestus: at Lintl
Duke/Duchess of Pretoria: at Pretoria
Duke/Duchess of Sabine: at Magash
Duke/Duchess of Vincennes: at Vincennes?
 -Where does Count Audine Garhik, Marquis Vincennes (Norris's nephew)
  fit in here?  If Count Audine is Marquis of Vincennes but not Duke
  then where is the Duke's seat?  Why isn't it Vincennes if the subsector
  capital is there?
Duke/Duchess of Lunion: at Lunion
Duke/Duchess of Trin's Veil: no longer at Trin!
 -Possibly a leader of the Isolationist bloc
Duke/Duchess of Vilis: at Frenzie
 -Prominent in the Santanocheevist bloc?
Duke/Duchess of Lanth: at Lanth
Duke/Duchess of Lamas: at Lamas? (Quarantine Line)
 -Prominent in the Expansionist bloc
Duke/Duchess of Inar: at Inar
Duke/Duchess of Dunmag: at Dunmag? (Quarantine Line)
 -Prominent in the Expansionist bloc
Duke/Duchess of Star Lane: at Imone
Duke/Duchess of Usani: at Usani? (Quarantine Line)
 -Prominent in the Expansionist bloc
Duke/Duchess of Geniishir: at Geniishir? (Quarantine Line)
 -Prominent in the Expansionist bloc
Duke/Duchess of Gulf: at Qevar
Duke/Duchess of Zeng: at Zeng

Other dukes/duchesses-in-exile who will be prominent in the House of
Nobles and the Aristocratic and Imperialist blocs:

Duke/Duchess of Antra/Deneb
Duke/Duchess of Million/Deneb
Duke/Duchess of Atsah/Deneb? (overrun by Vargr during the Rebellion)
Duke/Duchess of Tobia/Trojan Reach: heir of Duke Alexander

These political blocs have been suggested:

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.
Autonomists favor independence and a complete break from the Imperial past.
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

*****

End of Part II.  Please comment as it strikes you.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

End of TML Nightly
******************
