Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 334
Date:	95-07-01 21:44:09 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
			    TRAVELLER Digest 334

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) BIG LASERS (WAS THE BATTLE RI
	by john.bogan@asb.com
  2) RE: BIG LASERS
	by john.bogan@asb.com
  3) DEFENDING AGAINST BIG LASERS
	by john.bogan@asb.com
  4) Origins
	by john.bogan@asb.com
  5) Questions About Crews
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

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

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 95 00:23:25 -0500
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: BIG LASERS (WAS THE BATTLE RI
Message-ID: <9507010023.00JQV02@asb.com>



 > From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>


 > I haven't seen any 50*TL power output limit on Lasers in FF&S;
 > someone have a page / rule # citation?

That's a house rule, not official FF&S. I came up with that
after the first round of playing with big lasers.

It doesn't pretend to be based on any kind of reality,
it just restores lasers to their traditional place in
the Traveller Ship-Weapons food chain -- "small arms".

The smallest PAW published was 1000 Mj, so they would 
supercede lasers as main weapons.

 > Without it, and I havent' seen it so I assume it's not mandatory
 > (or perhaps nonexistent? 8-), lasers which hit with full effeiency
 > out to 80 hexes are easy, and gigajoule to tens of gigajoule lasers

Why bother giving lasers (or any other weapon) a range of
80 hexes unless they're for planetary bombardment.
At TL 15, factoring in all possible diffmods, maximum
range you can hit anything is 50 hexes.

John Bogan

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

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 95 01:04:05 -0500
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: BIG LASERS
Message-ID: <9507010104.01I0O02@asb.com>



 >    You *can* argue, IMHO, over whether the limit should be 50*TL or
 > 75*TL or even 100*TL.  Anyone know why GDW-beta decided on 50?
 > 
 > 
 > --Harold

I think so.  I came up with it and hashed out the "why not *75
or *100" with Wildstar.

The CT and MT weapons pecking order was something like:

Turret weapons: lasers and missles
Barbetes: small PAWs
Bays: missles, PAWs, Hi-E weaps, MGs, 
Spinals: PAWs and MGs


The published designs (as of the publishing of FF&S) assumed, 
like with previous editions, that spinal mounts were the main
weapons.  With the loss of effective Hi-E weaps and bay PAW/MGs,
lasers expanded to fill the nitche.
  Also clear in the design rules, lasers were assumed to be
turret (or at most bay) weapons, due to the assumed crew of _one_.

Given the effectiveness of large lasers, being at odds both
with Traveller history and (if that's not enough), simply having
an interesting wargame, since the weapons mix on ships would 
logically collapse to lasers vs. missles (themselves lasers of a
sort), and this would get dull.

The smallest PAWs and MGs published are 1000 Mj.  I tried to come
up with something where these would be more effective than 
competing lasers _AND_ encompass all published lasers.

TL*50 Mj fit the bill.  Higher multipliers would mean designs
like the Chrysanthemums make less sense, since its main
weapons are PAWs.  *50 kept everyting existing to that point
and still put a limitation on lasers.

John Bogan


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

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 95 01:15:20 -0500
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: DEFENDING AGAINST BIG LASERS
Message-ID: <9507010115.01RIF02@asb.com>



 > From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>


 > 1/Sandcaster Bays -I'm not sure how much more effective these would 
 > be, but they 
 > should be better optimised for use of space, cutting down the amount 
 > of 
 > controlling hardware you need.

I designed a few of these, actually, by some makeshift
assumtions from the info in FF&S.

The REAL problem is the limited ammo combined with the
laser targeting sensor.

In the time the sensors have to make a fire/no fire decision
(not much), could they tell the sensor lock for a 2 Mj laser
from the lock for a 2000 Mj laser?

Probably not.  But that would leave them vulnerable to blowing
their ammo on small fire or holding back and getting gored by a 
big shot....

John Bogan

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

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 95 02:24:20 -0500
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Origins
Message-ID: <9507010224.03DO402@asb.com>


Is anyone going to be at Origins?

I'll be there on Saturday.

John Bogan


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

Date: Sat, 01 Jul 1995 12:47:56 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Questions About Crews
Message-ID: <199507011647.MAA04737@chopin.udel.edu>


This totally escapes me right now and I can't find it in the rulebook,
so, does anyone know what the penalties are for not having a full crew
on a starship?  Also, what part of the rules is this in?  I thought
that it would be under the 'starships' part of 'worlds and travel' but
my scan didn't find it in there.

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

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 334
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Sat Jul  1 21:44:19 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by emin05.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA096989458; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 21:44:19 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id VAA19971; Sat, 1 Jul 1995 21:38:41 -0400
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 1995 21:38:41 -0400
Message-Id: <199507020138.VAA19971@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 334
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

