Traveller-digest       Friday, June 27 1997       Volume 1997 : Number 1494



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Definition of a ton
Re: Generic Task Descriptions
Re: T4 Task Rational
Re: Re: TL of ramshackle empire
Re: penetrating battledress.
Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...
Re: Deckplan Question?
Re: Battledress and Heroism
Re: Task systems.
Re: Rule of Man TL?
Re: Generic task description.
Re: Definition of a ton
Re: Battledress and Heroism

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:59:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Definition of a ton

   Hi.
   
> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 14:06:00 -0700 (MST)
> From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
   
> All of this matters little, UNLESS the NAH is going to come out saying
> that a displacement ton is 13.5 m^3. Then, the design system and the
> mapping system are going to be based on different $@#!$@ definitions, and
> there will be no end of hell to pay from the gearheads on the list.
   
> FOEX, my 200 Td Yugobox design becomes 207 Td under the CT system. While
> it doesn't sound like much, that changes things for that ship quite a
> bit...that's three more staterooms that I get or seven more tons of cargo,
> 'for free'! At standard cargo and passenger rates that adds a _lot_ to my
> monthly bottom line.
   
   Any design system for a game that pretends to be 3.5% accurate is
   fooling itself.  The only reason that Traveller (or any RPG) has
   design systems at all is to put a hamper on munchkin abuses.  In CT,
   the claim on the designs were that they were accurate to within 20%,
   as far as deckplan layout went.  That is a reasonable claim for a game,
   especially a game with such simplistic rules for designing things as
   complex as starships.
   
   If you want to add seven tons of cargo to your design, the only thing
   stopping you is referee fiat.  A 3.5% change in the definition of a
   ton is well below the game's realism resolution, and won't cause any
   realistic problems at all.  It will mereley inflate or deflate the
   dimensions inside your starship by 1% and will have no effect on
   roleplaying.  A more reasonable 20% uncertaintly corresponds to a 6%
   slop in your ship's dimensions.
   
   -Rob

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 97 12:37:31 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: Generic Task Descriptions

On 06/27/97 at 08:56 AM,  anders.backman@aniware.se (Anders Backman) said:

>>>It's easy to understand and it's not specific to any task system. It's
>>>usable by everyone regardless of rules system without modification (I
>>>haven't had chance to check the details).
>>
>>J, it looks good to me.  The GM can take this description and put it into
>>the format required by a specific task system very easily. It makes tasks
>>much easier to use across systems and with house rules.
>>
>>
>>Eris

>Eh, isn't this what's already there? Aren't task descriptions in T4
>basically: Hard,Dex,Vaccsuit?

I quote from "The Long Way Home" page 7:

    To detect a gas giant 1 parsec away (12 hours)
    (Education+Survey)+DMs < Difficult (2.5D)
    Uncertain (1D)
    
    DM's depend upon the contents of the target system:  -1 if only one
    small gas giant is present, +1 for each gas giant beyond the first,
    -2 for each parsec beyond he first, -1 if the target star is size I,
    II or III.

end quote.

This format follows that laid out in a post Marc presented to the list on
97/02/22.  I *like* Marc's layout and the processes it follows, but I think
it could be made a little more generic without losing important
information.

My understanding of J's suggestion is to remove as many system specific
details as possible.  In the example above, you would remove the + signs
and the (2.5D) because not all task systems would add the full stat to the
full skill level and not all Difficult task levels would use 2.5D.
Additionally, as many DMs as possible should be expressed as changes to
task level rather than flat +/- numbers to maximize cross-system
compatability.  

Concerning the DMs, I suggest dropping the number, but retaining the + and
- - signs.  A single + or - would indicates a minor DM and ++ or --
indicates a major DM, for whatever task system being used.

A more generic Task Description:

    To detect a gas giant 1 parsec away (12 hours)
    (Education,Survey,DMs) < Difficult, Uncertain 
    
    +DM for each gas giant beyond 1
    -DM if only one gas giant present
    -DM if target star is I, II, or III
    --DM for each parsec beyond 1
    
I'm not going to say my suggested layout is *better* than Marc's, but I
think it is more generic, and it still gives all the information you'd need
to use it with T4/T4.1..and I *think* MT.  

You can take the components and plug them into systems that divide Stats,
multiply Skills, or don't use the Stat at all.  You can take the DM's and
use them as task level modifiers, or target number modifiers whichever you
choice of task system requires.  How much each DM affects the outcome is up
to the task system, but *relative* importance is given as a guideline.

Eris

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 08:51:50 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
Subject: Re: T4 Task Rational

At 12:00 am 06/27/97 -0700, you wrote:
>[Mostly to clean up.  This really doesn't cover anything that
>hasn't been hashed over before.]
>Thu, 26 Jun 1997 19:29:58 -0600, "David J. Golden" <goldendj@pcisys.net>
>>>Well, I simply don't agree.  I have met a lot of people I would
>>>_never_ want to treat me in an ER.  A smart guy with a minimum of
>>>training will know enough not to do something that will kill me.
>
>>	Oh? If he hasn't had the training not to do something, how will he know
>>not to do it?
>
>Not what I said at all.  He has training and he is smart enough
>to know where his training can take him.  Meanwhile the guy
>with low intellegence tries things he never really got right
>in training.

	OK. Let's go back and rehash AGAIN what I said, instead of twisting it.
The example I used he DIDN'T HAVE TRAINING! There's a big difference in
training  between a first year med school student (Med-1?) and a graduate
(Med-4). And I never mentioned a low intelligence person. PS: If he never
got it right in training, how did he get the skill? This isn't like the
american education system, where you can get a piece of paper meaning
absolutely nothing. The skill is an absolute, gaming measure of your level
of knowledge or training in a specific field.

	I repeat: If you give me a task system where a very bright first-year med
student (Med-1, Int-12) is a better doctor than an average MD (Med-4,
Int-8), it reflects not at all reality. In fact, it goes against reality.
The Med student HASN'T HAD ALL THE TRAINING! There is quite a bit he
*won't* know not to do , simply because he hasn't learned not to do it, and
it's not intuitive.

	Anything else doesn't pass my common sense test. Albert Einstein, with
Int-99, couldn't do heart surgery until he'd gotten thorough training.
Med-1 doesn't provide that level of training.

>>Not everything is "intuitively obvious" or what's the purpose
>>of training in the first place.
>
>That's why you don't allow some rolls unless you have at
>least some level of skill above 0.

	Every version of Traveller prior to T4 has allowed ANYBODY to take a shot
at a task. Lack of skill simply means you don't have much chance to do it.

>>>I'm not sure I have the same trust in an incompetant who will messed
>>>up what he never really got down in the training. The point is that all
>
>>	If he's incompetent then he won't have skill-4
>
>Exactly, and that is one reason why some people find the whole idea
>that someone with low stat and skill-4 should beat out a guy with
>a higher stat to be wrong.

	If he's got skill-4, he's competent. He may not be brilliant, but he's
competent. Certainly better trained than Skill-1.

>>Skill levels don't represent how much training you've
>>*received*, they reflect how much ability you've *gained* from the
>>training.
>
>I see.  And where does this distinction come from?  And if so, why
>do you get a skill every year, regardless of how bright you are?
>
>What you are doint is trying to include the effects of stat
>into skill, which supports the idea that talent _does_ make
>a difference.

	I'm not arguing talent doesn't make a difference. But it's not the
overriding point. Int-12 Med-1 will never ever match Int-8 Med-4 over the
range of tasks a doctor performs.

>>>What you are doing is poking holes based on the fact that, as
>>>in any game, you have to generalize skills.  This can lead to
>>>problems but there is not really any way around it and leave
>>>the game playable.
>>
>>	And what you seem to be doing is redefining skills. To me, a skill
>>is "the
>>ability to use one's knowledge effectively and readily in execution or
>>performance" (Websters). Not how much training somebody has ignored.
>
>I'm not.  You are.  The difference between Stat 7 and Stat 4 isn't
>what you can do.  It's how well you can do it.  The current rules
>allow someone with Medical-1, regardless of whether his stat is 8
>or 11, to try heart surgery.  If you have a problem with that then
>you need rule that you need a minimum skill level to try it at
>all.  If you don't, then I see no reason why the more talented
>person shouldn't have a better chance.

	I don't have a problem with Stat-8 Med-1 trying heart surgery. But Stat-12
Med-1 doesn't mean he's more "talented" at medicine than Stat-8 Med-4.

	If you really would prefer a first-year med student to treat you when you
come into a hospital, that's fine. I'll go with the licensed MD...

>>>[Gratitously long list of intellegence based skills deleted...]
>>
>>	Not particularly gratuitous--those are the skills listed on pp39-47
>>of T4
>>which are controlled by EDU (not int)
>
>It was gratuitous because you could have just refered to them
>rather than listing every one out.

	I was trying to make a point. Obviously that point was missed.

>>>Well, no.  Even with reading you still have skill-0.  You need
>>>skill-1 to suceed (in general, of course GM can make exceptions).
>
>>	Not in any version prior to T4, and often not in T4. You can make rolls
>>with Skill-0.
>
>I'm sorry.  In Classic Traveller rolling against skill-0 is
>explicitly mentioned as only being allowed at the GM's discression.

	OK, I must have missed that one. It's only been a decade since I've played
CT. And frankly, when I did, I let people roll regardless, just penalized
them.

>In any case.  I agree that certain task would require a minimum
>of training.  I also find it obvious that people with equal
>traiing are going to exhibit a huge range in how effective
>that training is.

	We are obviously talking at right angles here. I'm treating skill as
absolute, you seem to be treating it as a relative. The range for me comes
in with how well that person can apply the skill, measured by attribute.

>>>Do you really know just how many systems you have just called
>>>"fundamentally flawed and unuseable"?  This maybe your opinion,
>>>but I would consider the fact that much of the gaming world outside
>>>of Traveller before you state your opinion as fact.
>
>>	Much of the world outside of Traveller is irrelevant to me, because
>>Traveller is the only gaming system I have bothered with in many years.
>
>This is obvious.  Unfortunately this attitude leads to this sort
>of automatic negation of new ideas for the game.  Most people would

	I'm not automatically negating new ideas for the game, or I wouldn't be
bothering to discuss it. I could equally fling out the irrelevant charge
that other people are automatically accepting anything new and different as
good, which is just as ridiculous.

	I've got no major problem with rolling multiple dice, and I can accept the
half-die, even from the original task system. Rather than automatically
negating the new ideas, I've looked at the EFFECTS of the new idea of a
flat stat+skill, and they don't work for me. I could care less how many
other games use them, that doesn't mean it works for me.

	It's obvious we want different kinds of games here. In your game, skills
aren't really important. Players would be much better off concentrating on
increasing their stats, with low skills (you're the one who claims Int-11
Med-1 is better than Int-8, Med-4). Why waste time trying to get more than
skill-1 in anything? That same point could be applied to a stat, and boost
a whole RANGE of skills.

	I prefer a game where you have to balance your skills to get the kind of
character you want. I don't want a game to be "OK, we've got our
high-strength character and our high-int character. Now we need somebody to
roll up a high-dex character." That smacks too much of D&D's "OK, we've got
a fighter and a mage. Who's going to be the thief?"

	Instead, I want the players to try to get a good mix of abilities. "OK,
Joe's a good pilot and navigator, we've got a gunner with some medical
ability. I'll try to pick up some trading skills and admin, and maybe a
little engineering--maybe I'll try the merchant career field. Nobody's got
high weapons skills, so let's avoid personal combat, folks..."

>say that the idea that other games have tried stat+skill and found
>it to work means that it can work for Traveller too.

	Other games also have different feels. Traveller generally has not had the
"Ultra-Heroic" feel of the Lensman series, where a single character could
do everything well simply because of characteristics, while another average
(note: don't twist average to mean moron or clumsy, please) character could
never hope to match him. And there are very few people in real life who can
do everything well.

	BTW, please don't take any of this as a personal attack. I disagree
strongly with much of your rationale, but that's simply because I prefer a
different style of game. Not that mine's better than yours--well, for me it
is, but not in an absolute sense--but we're obviously not getting through
to each other. Our underlying assumptions are different, which means we're
thinking at right angles.
- -- Dave Golden                  http://www.pcisys.net/~goldendj --
   goldendj@pcisys.net                       finger for PGP key
    *** USE OF THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR SOLICITATION PROHIBITED ***

 "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: 27 Jun 1997 18:10:56 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Re: TL of ramshackle empire

>I [Rupert] was thinking on this instead of working today, and it occured to
me 
>that there's really no way of exlaining how the RoM could make TL14 
>Vacc Siuts, and yet didn't have fusion plus - a TL12 invention.

Hm.  This one could be very easy to explain.  Unless a vacc suit _requires_
Fusion Plus (or unless the factory that makes it requires Fusion Plus) then
you could have advanced vacc suit technology without the energy technology.

Not to restart the whole TL debate/flamewar again, but tech levels aren't
monolithic, and many times alternate technologies can provide the same
effects.

Thus, for HTL flight you need a power source with a good power-to-mass ratio.
 Better materials technology will help to lower the mass (of both the engine
and the plane), but there is no restriction on _which_ power tech you use,
provided that it can meet the power-to-mass requirements.

A society could have cars, trains, etc. without internal combustion engines -
just use external combustion engines instead. 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:13:27 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: penetrating battledress.

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 13:25:27 MET, Volker A. Greimann wrote:

> -> This makes absolutely no sense.  No matter how skilled you are, an
> -> M-16 will not penetrate the hide of an M1 Abrams (one of numerous

> Even a tank has holes- for viewing the surrounding area, f.e.!

Modern tanks don't have holes.  They are completely sealed to combat
the use of chemical and biological weapons.  They do have armoured
periscopes for manual viewing, but these are armour plated and even a
.50 calibre round will not be able to pierce the bullet proof glass,
ricochet around inside the periscope body (which contains even more
bulletproof glass, I believe), and enter the tank through the eye
piece.

If you are talking about a tank commander that pops the hatch to get a
better view of the battlefield, this is more akin to removing one's
helmet when wearing BD, not a lucky shot that somehow manages to
penetrate a TL12 visor or articulated joint.

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:28:30 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: The MT task system was *FAR* from perfect...

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:14:37 +0100, Anders Backman wrote:

> >But if the task truly is impossible (eg: driving a screwdriver through
> >the side of an APC), the game system should reflect this.  I actually
> >snapped the T4 rulebook shut and didn't look at it again for nearly a
> >week when I read the following phrase:
> >
> >"Because the dice code for ranged combat tasks is dependent upon
> >distance rather than weapon type, it is theoretically possible for a
> >character to hit a target at 1500 meters with a pistol, though very
> >unlikely."
> 
> 45 degrees shot angle (mortar style).
> 
> In sweden there was a man shot to death 4 kilometers from a shooting range.
> The bullet entered through the open left cardoor window and hit him in the
> template. The man died instantly but it took some time to figure where the
> bullet came from.

But was the shot intentional?  I think not.  Your confusing exactly
how far away a pistol can lob a piece of lead (on a good day, with
ideal circumstances) with how far away a shooter can hope to hit a
target (without relying 100% on pure luck).

James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:32:02 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Deckplan Question?

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Simon Early wrote:

> The density of liquid hydrogen at 1 atm and -253 C (20 K) is 70.8 
> g/litre, giveing a value for 1 displacement tonne of 14.12 m3.
> 
> Solid hydrogen at -262 C (11 K) is 70.6 g/l
> 
> Unfortunately I could not find the compressibility of liquid hydrogen, 
> density data for L-hyd at other pressures.  Also, I can't find any 
> information about the storage temperature and pressure on Traveller 
> ships - what do the hand-waving crew suggest :-)
> 
> <... later>  I must look up the critical pont for hydrogen ... there 
> is a good chance that this will be sensible storage conditions for 
> L-hyd.

The handwaving crew (at least this one ;-) suggests that minimal
pressurization is required, but that the system pressurizes itself via
evaporation. More than likely, allowing some of it to evaporate and vent
helps keep it cool...you don't really want your cryogenic systems
_completely_ sealed, since then a cooling failure leads to explosive
pressure levels pretty quickly. I'll bet that LHyd systems on starships
are kept cool through a combination of passive (evaporative cooling+
radiators) and active (refrigeration systems) The problem with cyogenic
systems, is that the efficiency way down there at 20K isn't so hot, (so to
speak).

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

> 

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 18:24:28 GMT
From: jlindsay@direct.ca (James Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997 09:54:00 -0400, Bill Prankard wrote:

> This reminds me of a joke:
> 
> It is a dark stormy night at sea.  An Admiral on a huge, heavily armed and 
> armoured air craft carrier gets a message on the radio demanding that he 
> change course.
> 
> "Who is this?", says the Admiral.
> 
> "This is Ensign McGyvers sir, we humbly request you change course..."
> 
> The Admiral thinking that it's a lowly Ensign on a PT boat is not amused by 
> the "order". "What, how dare you. I am an Admiral and this is a Carrier, you 
> change course or I'll see you slapped down so hard you'd think you were a 
> first year cadet!
> 
> "I can't do that sir..."
> 
> "What?  This is insubordnation! I'll see you in chains for this..."
> 
> "Where a lighthouse sir!"
> 
> "Ulp!"

It wasn't a joke.  It was part of an actual transcript between a US
naval vessel and Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in
October, 1995 (I happen to have the article right in front of me...
what a coincidence).


US ship: "Please divert your course 0.5 degrees to the south to avoid
a collision."

Canada: "Recommend you divert /your/ course 15 degrees to the south to
avoid a collision."

US ship: "This is the captain of a US navy ship.  I say again, divert
/your/ course."

Canada: "No.  I say again, divert /your/ course."

US ship:  "This is the aircraft carrier USS Missouri.  We are a large
warship of the US Navy.  Divert your course NOW!" (you can almost
/feel/ the arrogance)

Canada:  This is a lighthouse.  Your call.



James W. Lindsay     Vancouver, British Columbia
  "http://www.prosperoimaging.com/ground_zero"

"Give me the strength to change the things I can,
    the grace to accept the things I cannot,
         and a great big bag of money."

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

Date: 27 Jun 1997 18:31:10 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Task systems.

Jon, you've quantified my thoughts perfectly.  I hadn't envisioned restricting
the tasks systems to just two, but you're right that this should be explicit.
 And I really like your standard task description:

>        To put on a Vacc suit
>        Average, DEX, Vacc suit
>        increase difficulty level if in a confined space
>        decrease difficulty level if another character is assisting

My only suggestion would be to change the "increase difficulty level" to
"increase difficulty", thus emphasising that the choice between a +1 Dm and a
level change is up to the referee (and each task system should have a default
choice)

>T4.1 can be printed with a single task system inside. Printing more than one

>task system may be confusing to new players (particularly to people who have

>never played an RPG).

Actually, I would suggest that T4.1 is printed with several task systems
inside, each one corresponding to a definate game style.  This way the game
appeal is broadened (several styles, one game) and if the book is properly
written it will be _very_ clear that the gamers should pick one system and
stick to it.

I'd even like to see the 'skill sets difficulty level' system that Eris wrote
of; I think we could do this by specifying that the difficulty in the task
profile is for a person with skill-3 (or some other standard level). 
Although in this case I think that I would allow alternate attributes, with
penalties.  For example, a task may require intelligence but a really well
educated person might be able to apply some of their generalized knowledge,
thus I would let a player use Int or Edu/2, their choice.

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:11:49 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Rule of Man TL?

>This might even be an interesting division in Vilani/Terran thought:
>The Vilani will easily exterminate local animals/plantlife if they aren't
>productive which we terrans find unacceptable thinking while we remodel
>ourselves with geneering which look extremely disgusting to the Vilani.

This might explain the vast numbers of worlds that produce human-friendly
life.. the Vilani did it during the First Imperium
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:53:06 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Generic task description.

Since this isn't about the task debate, I feel safe posting.  Here is how I
would like to see the task description look:

(Short description of Task), (Difficulty), (Dice)
(Skill), (Stat used), (Task modifiers), (Time)
(One or two sentence summary, includes special results for SS or SF)

For example:

To shut down the Droyne reactor, Staggering (4D6)
Engineering, INT,  Fateful, Hazardous, 15 minutes
If the PC reads Droyne, this becomes Formidable.
If the PC has a translator on hand, task is Formidable and time is doubled.
- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 11:51:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@Pharmacy.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Definition of a ton

On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Robert Flammang wrote:

snip
    
>    If you want to add seven tons of cargo to your design, the only thing
>    stopping you is referee fiat.  A 3.5% change in the definition of a
>    ton is well below the game's realism resolution, and won't cause any
>    realistic problems at all.  It will mereley inflate or deflate the
>    dimensions inside your starship by 1% and will have no effect on
>    roleplaying.  A more reasonable 20% uncertaintly corresponds to a 6%
>    slop in your ship's dimensions.

The problem I have with this arose when we were trying to figure out
whether that free traders we could design _using the rules in the book_,
could be economically viable _using the rules in the book_!

If by referee fiat, I can just magically add space as needed, why have a
design system at all?

Granted, this degenerates rapidly into a Rule playing vs. Role playing
argument, in which I fall firmly on the side of the Role-playing camp.

But the truth is all I want is that a consistent set of units be used. If
one book says a Td is 14 m^3, another says that it's 13.5 m^3 and yet
another says that it's 10 m^3 or whatever, there is an undeniable problem
no matter WHAT the 'slop factor' on deckplans is.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Fri, 27 Jun 1997 10:44:37 -0700
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Battledress and Heroism

At 07:35 AM 6/27/97 -0700, Chris wrote:

>Douglas E. Berry wrote:

>>A big part of sniping is knowing when to shoot, along with knowing how to
>>shoot.

>Sure, but those are fairly specific circumstances. The difficulty is
>reduced in this scenario because the target has effectively stopped moving
>in three dimensions and for the sniper's purposes, moves in only two as he
>either moves directly *toward* you or *away* from you. But this describes
>only one scenario.

Well, the phrase I used was "charging Consular Guard" or somesuch.. I
thought that I made it clear that the target wasn't presenting much lateral
motion.

>If you want a good set of sniper rules for Traveller, refer to Harold
>Hale's TNE sniper rules at the HIWG home page. They're at:
>
>http://home.sn.no/~starwolf/HIWG/

I shall wander out there presently.

>>So the characters survive a little longer..  I really don't like games
>>where PC death is caused by anything short of gross stupidity.  I never let
>>random event kill off well crafted PCs.
>
>I agree with you here.

>>He's learned the Tanker's Lesson:  You are not immortal just because you
>>are surronded by 60 tons of armor.  That player had to learn (the hard way)
>>to use sound tactics in conjunction with the improved abilities conferred
>>by his armor.
>
>Yes, but tankers need only fear artillery rounds or shots fired from other
>tanks.

They also have to worry about ATGMs like the TOW-2 being fired from every
bush, land mines, Infantry firing AT-4s into their tracks for a mobility
kill, and the ever popular greande through the hatch.  This is why, much to
the Armor's disgust, they still need to work with the infantry.

At Ft. Irwin, I kept a T-72 crew pinned inside their disabled tank for over
an hour by simply popping of a round everytime I saw something move.  It
was about 100F outside, I hate to think what it was like in that box...

>The problem becomes even more acute if you're running a mercenary or other
>military campaign. In a merc campaign, you have a high incidence of these
>encounters. The problems of the reality-flouting MT rules multiply
>expontentially because you have a lot more people running around in combat
>armor or BD. In a less militaristic campaign, you can get away with it
>because such encounters may be few and far between.

For military style combat, I use systems like Stargrunt II or Dirtside II
(both from Ground Zero Games).  For more abstract large combats, CORPS has
an excellent mass combat system that I would love to see Greg Porter adapt
for Traveller.

BattleDress isn't just the armor, but the sensors, commo, and ability to
bring near-vehicle class weaponry into the infantry enviroment.  A Marine
wearing TL12 ABD and carrying a RF-Gauss rifle is going to be a match for a
modern US rifle platoon.  However, he has to work as part of a team, since
all it takes is one lucky shot (the "golden BB") to render him combat
ineffective (dead, wounded, or just disable the armor.)

>I don't have a problem with trying not to kill PCs, but I'd rather show
>mercy for them when using realistic mechanics so I know more accurately
>what I've allowed them to survive.

I have spent 20 years on a quest for the best combat mechanics.  IMHO,
CORPS comes closest.  For the kind of Traveller combat I tend to run
(pistols and shotguns mainly) MT worked well.

Oddly enough, I don't run many military/Mercenary games.. maybe it's a case
of been there, done that..

- --
+------------------------------------------------+
|   Douglas E. Berry         dberry@hooked.net   |
| Gearhead & Planetologist, Traveller since 1977 |
|         http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/         |
|************************************************|
|    "Traveller assumes a remote centralized     |
|   government (referred to in this volume as    |
|    the Imperium)...                            |
|       -Introduction, Book 4: Mercenary (1978)  |
+------------------------------------------------+

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

End of Traveller-digest V1997 #1494
***********************************
