			    TRAVELLER Digest 330

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Battle Rider Conversions
	by pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
  2) Help With Ship Design
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  3) Re: Ship Crews
	by goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden)
  4) More BR Conversions
	by pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
  5) Range to target...
	by tcgny!dinghy!berghold@uunet.uu.net (Peter L. Berghold)
  6) BattleRider in Boston
	by Wesley.Esser@hd62.haledorr.com
  7) Re: Big Lasers
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  8) Re: Battle Rider Conversions
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 10:56:36 -1600
From: pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Battle Rider Conversions
Message-ID: <9506270249.AA22869@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

Below are Battle Rider conversions for some of the FF&S designs posted here:


"Julian" Class Armed Scout

        SX Julian

-                       -1
-                       TL:12
-                       FC:-4
L4:1-1-0-0              -
A:4 P:4                 (SP)J3 G3
AV:2                    -
-                       8


"Republique" Class Barque

        CE Republique

-                       -1
-                       TL:12
-                       FC:-4
L(2x)4:1-1-0-0          M:5(20)
A:6 P:4 Msk             (SP)J3 G3
AV:2                    -
D:1                     11


"Passchendaele" Class Transport

        TT Passchendaele

-                       -1
-                       TL:12
-                       FC:-4
-                       -
A:2 P:3                 (SP)J2/1 G1*/1
AV:1                    -
-                       9

NB: Values represented as n/n indicate with 
and without drop tanks respectively.


I-1102 Solomani Scout

        S I-1102

-                       -1
-                       TL:14
-                       FC:-6
L5:1-1-1-1              -
A:10 P:5 Msk            (SP) J2 G2
AV:2                    -
-                       4

Type SZ Scout/Courier (experimental)

        SZ Scout/Courier (experimental)

-                       -1
-                       TL:16
-                       FC:-8
L10:2-2-2-2             -
A:16 P:6                (SP)J2 G2
AV:1                    -
-                       5
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 23:08:20 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Help With Ship Design
Message-ID: <199506270308.XAA06954@chopin.udel.edu>


I was wondering if anyone out there has converted the Garu-Class Far
Trader over to TNE using FFS?  Just wondering because I don't want to
have to reinvent the wheel if I don't have to.

Also, I have a question about fuel scoops.  How do you tell how much
fuel the fuel scoops can suck up in an hour?  In all of the ship stats
that I've come across, all I've seen mentioned is whether or not the
ship has them, and how long it takes the purification plant to process
the raw fuel.

Thanks in advance...

        --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8 
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 20:46:50 -0700
From: goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ship Crews
Message-ID: <9506270349.AA06868@deltanet.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
/* SNIP */

        I said:

>
>:         OK. But I'm still trying to figure out what positions those special b
>ridge workstations (twice as large as normal ones!) are. The ones for maneuver,
> sensor and weapons crews are obvious. But I'm still trying to figure out the o
>ther 11. To show what I'm talking about, here's the crew breakout:
>: 
>:         11 Command (CC, XO, ???...)
>:         2 Maneuver (pilot & astrogator)
>:         3 Electronics (handling 4 commos and 4 sensors)
>:         20 Gunnery (8 sandcaster turrets, 10 MFDs and 2 meson screen crew)
>:         39 Engineering
>:         7 Maintenance
>:         1 Steward
>:         1 Medical
>: 
>:         Of these, 26 are "bridge" workstations: 11 command, 2 maneuver, 3 ele
>ctronics and 10 MFD. D*&@! I just found an error in my design -- I have 28 brid
>ge ws. The maneuver, electronics and MFD are self evident. What the ^%# are the
> other 11 guys/gals/things doing on the bridge (or wherever the workstations ar
>e separated out to)?

        You replied:

>Looking over the numbers, here's what I can extrapolate (this may be
>wrong, but it seems to work).  Give yourself a captain and a first
>officer through fourth officer.  That's two.  Now for each department
>that has more than 5 people give them department heads for every ten (or
>so people).  Oh fudge, using this I come up with 12 officers.  Hell,
>make the steward the fourth officer.  There, so here's the breakdown:
>
>        captain
>        1st officer
>        2nd officer
>        3rd officer
>        4th officer
>        head engineer
>        2nd engineer
>        senior engineer
>        junior engineer
>        head gunnery officer
>        2nd gunnery officer
>
>And everyone else can just report to the captain and officers respectively.

        That sounds pretty good so far, although I'd probably leave the steward
a steward and just not have a fourth officer.

        I also said:

>
>:         I'm also leaning towards a declaration that when FF&S says you need s
>o many workstations, that's just a way of estimating volume requirements, and y
>ou wouldn't actually have that many workstations as shown on a deck plan. In ot
>her words, instead of putting in 26 workstations on the bridge (11 command, 2 m
>aneuver, 10 MFD, 3 electronics) I'd put in 16 (maneuver, MFD, electronics, plus
> captain/duty officer), and maybe one or two spares. The remaining workstations
> would be ignored, and the space used for bridge volume, ready room, etc. Comme
>nts?


        And you replied: 

>I don't think that'll cut it.  I think that you need a full crew
>manning the bridge during a battle, and that's why they do this.  What

        Well, what are all these command people doing on the bridge? If I've
got the Duty Officer (or whatever) and the CO on deck, why do I also need the
second, third, fourth, etc. officers? What are they doing, fetching coffee and
donuts? To me full crew for combat would mean the helmsman, all sensor, commo
and ECM operators, gunners, and the CO or whoever is running the thing. OK, so
you need someone to monitor engineering as well. The only other job I could
think of is coordinating damage control parties.

>you might want to do to save on space is design a gunnery bridge and
>place maybe half of the MFD's there (that way, you also don't have to

        This doesn't save any space ... the volume requirements for an MFD are
the same regardless of whether they're on the "main bridge" or not.

>worry about a shot knocking them all out--look under design
>evaluation).  Also, if you look at auxilary bridge rules, you could
>theoretically split the number of bridge controls between the two
>sites, and if they aren't both fully manned, then you would suffer from
>not having a bridge (now to be honest, I'm not sure if this is a viable
>option, hopefully one the FFS gurus out there will point out if I'm
>mistaken...).

        Well, the FF&S rules for auxiliary bridges require that you install
workstations _in addition_ to the full number of workstations for the main
bridge. In other words, whether the "main bridge" workstations are physically
located in a single compartment or spread throughout the ship, they still
functionally only count as one bridge.

>
>Anyway good luck on this behemoth of a ship!
>

        I hate to think what I'm going to go through trying to figure out the
actual crew composition for my next project, which will be something in the
10,000 Td size range! Thanks for the inputs.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6a

iQCVAwUBL+99F4q9M9KUhCkhAQFyKQP8DC1DaXxLFqU3Q1r1pN/ezX06dIaQSBI2
rfTc9uIkrihVG9r1S0pxjfNq65UhWJaSRTWIDiyNQRqBqoVdIJ6OMM/tzE0Tsef0
SavTzWR5ugXuvulCTZ8vmGNSt9MUBIpLp3xO+ULsDZSz3FIIXR/M15wqZrGRnibf
4ru5ot5LX7k=
=IxFU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                     |         D.GOLDEN@genie.geis.com
  PGP Public Key available        |           goldendj@deltanet.com

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine


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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:32:11 -1600
From: pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: More BR Conversions
Message-ID: <9506270424.AA27098@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

"Bulldog" Class Frigate (by Dave Golden)

        FFL "Bulldog"

-                       -2
L(4x)10:2-2-2-2         TL:12
-                       FC:-4
L(8x)1:0-0-0-0          M:4(64)
A:10 P:4 JM:10 Msk      (SP)J2 G6
AV:10                   -
MS:8 SC:8               12


Aslan Scout (by Alvin Plummer)
        
        S "Aslan Scout"

-                       -2
-                       TL:14
-                       FC:0
L2:1-1-1-1              -
A:4 P:2                 (SP)J3 G4
AV:2                    -
-                       10
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 12:34:53 +0500
From: tcgny!dinghy!berghold@uunet.uu.net (Peter L. Berghold)
To: uunet!mpgn.com!xboat@uunet.uu.net, uunet!mpgn.com!traveller@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Range to target...
Message-ID: <9506271634.AA10456@dinghy.animals>


Hi folks,

An odd thought and question came to my mind as I was doing my morning 
ritual today.  

In (Mega)Traveller, at what distances are battles between space fleets fought?
This brings up a host of other questions, such as:

	+	What types of activities are happening with apposing 
		fleets in the interim between detection and closing for
		battle?

	+	Do apposing admirals take pot shots at each other at 
		extereme ranges with missles?

Part of my thinking tells me that in today's Naval engagements you take 
shots at your enemy "over the horizon" with weapons that engage targets 
on their own, such as Tomahawk and Harpoon missles.  What is the Traveller
analogy to that?

Conversely, if folks take pot shots at each other from real long range, how
good are the missles and how good are the evasive tactics?

-- 
         /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
       _/ Peter L. Berghold -- Teleport Communications Group           _/
      _/ Sr. Unix Specialist   UUCP: ..!uunet!tcgny!berghold          _/
     _/VOX: (718) 355-2722 INTERNET: peterb@cnct.com                 _/
    _/ FAX: (718) 355-4734      URL: http://cnct.com/~peterb        _/
   _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 16:20:15 -0400
From: Wesley.Esser@hd62.haledorr.com
To: Rob Miracle <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: BattleRider in Boston
Message-ID: <"553*/G=Wesley/S=Esser/OU=hd62/O=hale and dorr/PRMD=haledorr/ADMD=mci/C=US/"@MHS>

Is there anyone out there in the Boston/Cambridge area that
would be interested in testing out ship designs using
BattleRider (or maybe Brilliant Lances)?  If so, get in touch
with me via email at wesley.esser@haledorr.com
Later, 
     Wes

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 16:17:22 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Big Lasers
Message-ID: <9506272217.AA17194@Rt66.com>


Steve Bonneville wrote: 
>
> Unless I made some grievous errors, I think that the PAWS weapon may
> still be useful in some circumstances.  Meson guns deliver more damage
> per unit of energy used to power them in comparison to lasers as well,
> but they're large, expensive, and crew-intensive.  Of course, only a
> meson screen or force field will stop them. 
> 
> Remember too, at over 40 hexes or so, you aren't going to be hitting
> much of anything, no matter what your weapons statistics are.  Well,
> maybe if you're Grandfather or are aiming at a *planet* or something.
> 80-hex range is only useful to keep the damage up if you do manage 
> an extreme range hit.  

One thing to remember regarding big lasers is that you don't really need to
make them do much more than a BR damage of 8.  Since size -4 ships can have
armors up to 40 (30 is far more likely), a damage 8 laser will do at least a
temp hit.  All these lasers are gonna be reduced by sand, so I'd rather have
a lot of "small" bay lasers in a fleet to overwhelm the sandcasters (not to
mention having a higher chance of an outstanding success).

I can't see why (short of the scrape things off the hull, and reset lame 
computers technique for non-military use) PAWs would ever come into use with
lasers like this around.

The whole giant laser thing got me thinking (well, OK, seeing a Babylon 5 
rerun was part of it, too :)

Optional Rule---Over penetration:

The BL rules have a maximum of 5 Major damage hits to a single location, at
which point the beam plays across the hull, and hits other areas.  I was 
wondering about overpenetration--maybe if the hit location doesn't shift for the
next 5 Mj hits, then you should take the 5, then 5 more in the opposite hull
section (internal), then penetrate out the opposite hull (external) taking any
surface features it might hit with it, then the rest of the shot is wasted 
(aside from any critical hits).  As long as the hit area changes, the beam is
cutting across the hull, if it dwells in one place too long it might go right
through.  (just a thought for all you non-TL*50 people out there (since the
smaller lasers probably won't be as likely to over penetrate))

-Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 16:27:47 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Battle Rider Conversions
Message-ID: <9506272227.AA18125@Rt66.com>


Michael Bailey posted some BR conversions, I just have a comment...

Take the "Republique" Barque as an example,

the missiles are listed M:5(20)---since the FC is -4, then a given MFD could
control 4 missiles.  I don't have the BL version in front of me, but I assume
that it has a few MFDs to control missiles.  Shouldn't the BR designs (damn near
all of them, actually (if military)) almost always be able to control as many
missiles as the MFDs can?  Since missiles are easy to kill in BR, it makes a big
difference.

(I'm not bashing on the conversions, it's a bash on the conversion rules in BR 
(they're either unclear, or plain wrong))

-Merrick


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 330
***************************
