From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Feb 10 00:49:53 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA17974) Mon, 10 Feb 92 00:49:26 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA10081@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:01:06 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA26843; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:01:53 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA25315; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:00:27 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA06604; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:00:21 PST
Message-Id: <9202100500.AA06604@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #301: Msgs 3656-3664
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 92 21:00:19 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: RO


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Feb  9 21:00:15 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #301: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3656  04-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha More fleet action... << Hans Rancke_Madsen: >
3657  05-Feb-92 bonnevil@stolaf.e Stars In Their Places (Part Two) << Well, her
3658  05-Feb-92 kirsch@rhea.infor RE: armor volume << Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 9:1
3659  05-Feb-92 James T Perkins   A banner month on TML << The month of January
3660  05-Feb-92 burt@ptltd.COM     << A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope) 
3661  05-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai Alcyon Deck Plans << I have converted (for my
3662  06-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse Re: Pirates and Merchants and Navies (oh my!)
3663  06-Feb-92 lyle@ecn.purdue.e  << ------------------------------ Date: Tue,
3664  06-Feb-92 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: more Navy/merchant bickering... << > From

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3656
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 23:08:59 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: More fleet action...

Hans Rancke_Madsen:
 
>                                                   Even so, you'd have
>a much harder time persuading me to lend you MCrimp 3000 than MCrimp
>30.
 
Actually, you'd have a hard time persuading me to lend MCr30 to a
footloose adventurer.  But then, no-one with 6MCr in his pocket really
fits that description.  I personally could live comfortably off the
interest of that amount.
 
>Note that "if it will pay". The price of the ship affects the
>feasiblility of running a Free Trader enourmously. Up the yearly
>payments to the bank and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
 
It sure will.  But if the ship's income climbs as much as the outgo
climbs, no problem.
 
>And then the PCs has to come up with 1/5th of the purchase price up
>front.  Say that there are 6 equal partners in the group who's just
>acquired MCrimp 600. That's 100 million credits per adventurer. I don't
>know about your players, but mine would start wondering why their fool
>characters didn't just buy an annuity apiece. Even if they buy really
>conservative blue chip bonds they should be able to get 1% per year.
>That's a million credits per year. That's a lot of high passages. Who'd
>be a free-trader?
 
So who would do it if they had only 6MCr?  At the kind of return a 30
year T-bill pays, those same six guys could settle down to a life of
luxury on most worlds.  Note that your standard of living only costs
Cr30,000 per annum unless you are a noble.
 
 
 
>Agreed, but I don't want the average pirate to be as small as the PCs
>ship, just the occational one. On the contrary, I want the average
>pirate to be so tough that the navy will be unable to station a
>squadron adequate to deal with the average pirate in all frontier
>starsystems. I want the navy to have to settle for keeping the
>important planets inviolable (and I do mean inviolable; no Vargr
>corsairs or Aslan ihatei need apply) and just patrol the frontier
>systems from time to time.
 
I like the idea.  But interstellar trade will evaporate except to the
protected systems, in that case.  And pirates like that are more like
Boskone: foreign warships masquerading as pirates.
 
 
>Reread TCS. I agree that it says what you say above. But it also says
>the opposite. Start a campaign. If someone keeps the peace and dosen't
>get attacked for a century, how many ships does he have then? As many
>as he started with. Will they be the same ships? Ostensibly, yes, but
>they can't be, can they? So the 10% maintenance figure must include
>peacetime replacement of the ships. I suspect that glitch snuck past
>the TCS authors because nobody in a game campaign ever manages to spend
>any time at peace.
 
No.  TCS assumes that if you want to build new ships, you decommission
old ones:  put them in ordinary, mothball them, whatever you prefer. 
Then use the extra money saved from maintenance to build new ones.  And
the situation you describe is exactly what happened in the USA between
wars last century:  the ships got older and more decrepit until the
shooting started, then they were replaced by modern ships.
 
 
>You've got that one turned around. The pre-WW2 powers had Treaty Bases
>scattered all over the world, because their ships _couldn't_ operate
>far from a base (fuel was a major problem, for one thing). I believe
>that the ships were build to stay away from bases a long as was
>practically possible (of course, this was just one more design
>tradeoff).
>The Napoleonic Wars showed clearly that the longer a ship can stay away
>from a home base, the more effective it was in tying down enemy ships
>protecting potential targets. That's why the English ships blockaded
>the French harbours so assiduously.
 
I concede the point, though part of the effect you describe is a
function of technological possiblity, rather than Naval Doctrine.
 
 
>That _can't_ be true!! Let me check that... Egad! You're right!
>
>Well, all I can say is that that's just plain ridiculous. As soon as I
>get a little time (unfortunately I'm as busy as a one-armed paperhanger
>with the hives at the moment) I'm going to sit down and make some rules
>that will allow naval bases to maintain ships. Not build and only field
>repair, but standard annual maintenance at least. Tying the Navy to the
 
:-)  We agree.  When I pointed that out to Cynthia, she said almost
exactly the same thing.
 
 
>Btw. The Trojan Reach fleets could refit at Tobia. And don't tell me
>that Tobia has fallen to the Aslan, because I won't believe you ;-)
 
Tobia fallen to Aslan?  You've been reading Fairy Tales again, haven't
you?  Or having a bad dream, perhaps?
 
 
>>Do you want your PCs doing this too?  Never allow an element into a
>>game unless you prepared to let your PCs acquire (read:steal) it.
>
>Certainly. If the PCs are willing to pay twice the normal price for the
>ability to pay for ten weeks of maintenance every 5 years instead of
>two weeks every year, then let them. But don't forget that if the ship
>is twice as expensive then the maintenance will cost twice as much per
>week too.
 
Fine.  I like it, as I said earlier.  It fits my needs quite well. 
Notice that it helps pirates operate farther from their bases as well,
which makes piracy slightly more feasible.
 
 
>five year duration and cost twice as much (You will agree that cutting
>the size of the fleet by 50% is a good start, won't you?)
 
A good start, but just a start:-)
 
 
>PS. Your other posting about the government just raking in more taxes
>or printing more money was a joke, right? I don't have to refute that,
>do I?
 
I hope not.  But governments DO do things like that.  How do you think
inflation happens?  And keep in mind that the USA's fraction of the GNP
spent on the military is almost ten times as high as the one ascribed to
Imperial worlds.  There is a lot of room for increasing the fleet size
in the Imperium.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3657
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 01:44:06 CST
From: bonnevil@stolaf.edu (Steven Bonneville)
Subject: Stars In Their Places (Part Two)

Well, here is the result of my comparison of the Traveller star map to real
life.  I want to start by saying that I am not an professional astronomer,
just somebody who has an idle interest in astronomy.  To help me with
this project, I used the 17th edition _Norton's Star Atlas_ and a list of
the stars and spectral classes of stars with an apparent magnitude brighter
that 3.5 (from Earth, of course) :) printed in the early seventies.

Incidentally, I'd still be interested in hearing from people who have the
old Traveller map in the Library Data-style which shows some nebulae, and
could tell me what names are there, and in which sectors.

Of course, corrections and additions are welcome!

*********************
OUR GALAXY and CHARTED SPACE

The Milky Way Galaxy is a spiral galaxy with a radius of some 15,000 parsecs.
Charted Space is centered on the arbitrary point Reference/Core, which is
considered to be 10,000 parsecs from the galactic center.  Charted Space
is tiny in comparison to the galaxy, about 500 parsecs on a side.

That's not to say that that is all that has been explored, however.  The 
Solomani Confederation has sent ships out 3000 parsecs toward the rim --
about three-fifths of the way there.  It's not clear how far anyone has
explored along the spiral arms.  Most impressive of all is the Zhodani Core
Expeditions, which has systematically explored and at a few points even
colonized a subsector-wide corridor running 7000 parsecs toward the
galactic core itself.  In the next Core Expedition, the Zhodani are on
the verge of entering the core "bulge" itself, the point where the galaxy
thickens from a flattened disk into a ball surrounding the mysterious
center of our galaxy.  To realize how impressive this is, draw a scale map
of Charted Space sometime.  A jump6 ship might take forty or fifty years
to travel from Zhdant to the far end!

**********************
STARS AND INTERESTING OBJECTS

A flat map just can't simulate a three-dimensional space.  Whoever designed
the Traveller universe really didn't worry too much about reality or the
massive distortions that the flat approach would cause.  I was actually
quite surprised that *any* stars seemed to be reasonably close to the
right angles and ranges.

I started with the assumption that some "obvious" stars, like supergiants
such as Deneb or class "B" stars, would be deliberately placed.  I don't
think that they did this consistently.  There just don't seem to be enough
class "B" stars in the Imperium.  Also, the handful of supergiants I found
in the UWPs didn't seem to match well.  So I moved on to trying to figure
out where some particular stars "should" be found on the map, more or less.
 
When I was deciding where certain stars "should" be, I used several methods.
For stars near Terra, I depended on UWP spectral classes from the GEnie data.
I tried to keep constellations together...for instance, I decided that
Dingir should be 40 Eridani because the stars were right and the direction
from terra was close to that of Epsilon Eridani.  Sometimes, if a star was
very close to another in the sky that had an official location, I tried to
place it on a "line" very roughly through it from Earth.  Otherwise, I
compared it to a map of "galactic longitude" in _Norton's_, which shows
the night sky with the Milky Way as the equator. 

Spectral classes of stars if given with a Traveller hex are the ones in
the sector data, otherwise they are the ones in reference books.  Names
in curly braces are alternate star names, usually the one which identifies
it in its constellation.  Names in plain text are the most common name for
stars that do not have a proper name, or are identified by a mainworld
name in Traveller.  If the system has a Traveller name like "Beta Cygni-2",
it wasn't retyped to remove the number.

A/B suffix means that the star is in a binary system.  AB suffix means the star
has a close companion that can't be distinguished from it.

*******************
"Official" Star Systems (GDW and DGP):

Terra      (1827 SolRim)    G2V            Sol
Fenris     (1830 SolRim)    F5V            Procyon {Alpha Canis Minor}
Barnard    (1926 SolRim)    M5V            Barnard's Star
Prometheus (2027 SolRim)    G4V K2V        Alpha Centauri A/B
Sirius     (1629 SolRim)    A1V F3D        {Alpha Canis Major}
Fomalhaut  (1024 SolRim)    A3V K4V        {Alpha Piscis Australis}
Iilike     (1429 SolRim)    G8V            Tau Ceti
Capella    (1440 SolRim)    G4III M1V M5V  {Alpha Aurigae}
Altair     (1522 SolRim)    A7V            {Alpha Aquarii}
Shulimik   (1530 SolRim)    K2V            Epsilon Eridani
Vega       (1720 SolRim)    A0V            {Alpha Lyrae}
Castor     (2236 SolRim)    KOIII          {Alpha Geminorum}
Pollux     (2339 SolRim)    K0III          {Beta Geminorum}
Arcturus   (2921 SolRim)    K2III          {Alpha Bootes}
Antares    (2421 Antares)   M1Ib A0VI      {vilani: Mika, Alpha Scorpii}
Deneb      (1925 Deneb)     A2Ia           {Alpha Cygni}
Gashikan   (2732 Gashikan)  M6III KOIV     X Ophiuchi

"Official" Star Systems that haven't been located:

Spica          B1V.  Somewhere in Spica Sector, probably subsector C.
Acrux          B2IV.  Somewhere in Alpha Crucis Sector.
Denebola       A3V.  Somewhere in Alpha Crucis subsector I (Denebola).
Aldebaran      K5III.  Somewhere in Aldebaran subsector B (Aldebaran).
                       Possibly Home/Aldebaran?  (Just a wild guess).
Canopus        F0Ib.  Somewhere in Canopus sector.

"Official" Star Systems in question:

R'bak         (1314 Reft)      G3V.  Possibly Rukbat {Alpha Sagittarii}.
              Located alone in Sagittarian subsector.  Judging by Sector
              library data, a homage to Anne McCaffrey's world "Pern".
              If so, her Pern did orbit Rukbat.
Beta Cygni-4  (3006 Ilelish)   M0V MOD.  Should be K3II with binary. Angle OK.
              Distance not checked.  Also called "Albireo".
Gamma Lupus-2 (2104 Ilelish)   M7V.  Should be B2V, and position is wrong.  
Mizar-5       (1011 OldExp)    K0V.  Should be A2V, and position is wrong.
Theta Borealis.  Sector name.  There is no constellation "Borealis".  Could
              possibly be a eventual shortening of "Corona Borealis", then
              its position may also be OK.
Sigma Zephyrus.  Sector name.  There is no constellation "Zephyrus".  At
              least, not on 20th century Earth.
Delta Cephei.  G2Ib.  Paranoia Press put this variable star in their
              version of Beyond Sector.  Don't know if it's still there.
Helix Nebula {NGC 7293}.  "Planetary" nebula.  Paranoia Press put this parsec
              sized nebula in their version of "Vanguard Reaches" sector.
              Whether it's still there is unknown.

Possible Stars for some systems:

Junction     (1929 SolRim)   M6V       Wolf 359
Peraspera    (2028 SolRim)   M5V       Lalande 21185
Meshan       (1526 SolRim)   K5V       Epsilon Indi
Nusku        (1822 SolRim)   K5V K7V   61 Cygni A/B
Dingir       (1222 SolRim)   K0V M1D   40 Eridani A/B
Markhashi    (1529 SolRim)   M5V M6V   UV Ceti A/B  (maybe not, is flare star)

Undetermined Nearby Supergiants:

Eakhoi       (2123 DkNebula) F8Ia      (Polaris?  Is a bit too close to Terra.)
Sardas       (0839 Mendan)   F0Ib M7D
             (1530 EmptyQtr) M4Ia M4D

Stars of spectral class O9 or greater with Terran app.magn. brighter than 3.5: 

Mintaka           O9II   (binary)  far to rimward-trailing (400-600pcs)
Iota Orionis AB   O9III  (binary)  "
Lambda Orionis AB O8?    (trinary) "
Alnitak           09Ib   (binary)  "
Zeta Puppis       O5Ia?            far to trailing (750pcs)
Zeta Ophiuchi     O9V    (solo)    Lishun sector?  (At same range as Antares)
Gamma Velorum A/B WC7 07?          rimward-trailing Centrax sector*

  *This star system is particularly interesting.  Gamma Velorum A, or Regor,
   is one of only about 130 "Wolf-Rayet" stars in our galaxy.  Essentially,
   this is a decidedly unstable type O star that is driving out large masses
   of hydrogen to expose parts of its core.  This star could explode into
   a nova at some time in the future.  By a quirk of astrography, it is only
   a handful of parsecs from the Hive Federation capital, Glea.
       The Hivers don't have official "travel zones", but this system would
   probably be equivalent to an amber zone, and also be a "Fascinating"
   system, on the basis of the star alone. 

Some objects to watch for:

Regulus       B7V.  Probably somewhere in Aldebaran Sector, range 25pcs.
Betelgeuse    M2Ia. Probably in sector 7,1 (one rimward from RimReach).
Rho Ophiuchi Dark Cloud.  Collection of nebulae.  Probably in coreward
              Trenchan Sector.  

There are two interstellar governments in Malorn Sector, the "Daprolix
Juncture of Suns" and "Bright Star Cooperate", that are adjacent and along
a line which includes two clusters of bright stars, the Hyades (40pcs.) and
the Pleiades (120pcs.), clusters containing hundreds of stars in a few
parsecs!  The problem is, the cluster shown is at *80 parsecs*, so it's
right between them.  Your guess is as good as mine which one it is.

******************

That's about all for now.  If anyone has any comments, corrections, or
additions, please feel free.

- --Steve Bonneville
<bonnevil@stolaf.edu> 


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3658
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 1992 11:19:58 EST
From: kirsch@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de
Subject: RE: armor volume

Date:    Tue, 4 Feb 1992 9:14:15 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: (3649) armor volume

Brandon Cope writes:

>The subject of armor volume got me thinking a little bit (a dangerous
>thing...). I worked out the ship and armor volume of three different ships,
>with the armor staying constant in thickness (300mm of WHATEVER). However,
>to simplify things, I assumed that the ships were box-like, and I did not
>subtract overlapping volumes (I wasn't in the mood for the math involved,
>and it just means that the armor is listed as taking more space than it really
>does; as you will see, this DOES NOT hurt the conclusion).
>
>ship dimensions		hull volume	armor volume	armor % of hull
>
> 3m x 12m x 20m		720 m^3		~100 m^3	14%
> 6m x 24m x 40m		5760 m^3	~400 m^3	7%
>12m x 48m x 80m		46,080 m^3	~1600 m^3	3.5%

>As you can see, if the ship's protection is held steady, the effect on
>available volume IS NOT CONSTANT! Thus, the system in Book 5: High Guard
>is in error. I also found out that even if the hull volume is held
>constant, but the actual dimensions are changed, the armor volume DOES
>change. Thus, things get VERY complicated, since the dimensions of the ship
>are what determines armor volume, not just straight hull volume.

Nice idea, but you had to think of the structural support of your armor. While
the ship is small, you only need small amounts of strutural support, because
the hull is stable. If the hull gets bigger, the armor is thick as before, but
its stability is weaker. So you had to support the hull.
These supports will fill the gap between High Guard and your calculation.

Juergen

- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Juergen Kirsch
Institut fuer Informatik, Universitaet Bonn
Germany
kirsch@rhea.informatik.uni-bonn.de

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3659
Subject: A banner month on TML
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 92 14:34:19 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


The month of January produced an all-time traffic high in number of TML
messages.  I counted 236 messages last month.  That's an average of 7.6
messages/day, one message every 3.2 hours.  Talkative, aren't we.

__   __/         /   /	    Internet Traveller Mailing List, Administrator
    /     /  /  /   /	   James T. Perkins in Beaverton, Oregon, USA
 __/   __/__/__/ _____/   traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3660
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 11:20:38 EST
From: burt@ptltd.COM (Burton Choinski.)

A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope) Notes:
[]The subject of armor volume got me thinking a little bit (a dangerous
[]thing...).

 I'll say.  I never got into as much trouble as I did on the torg board
when I started thinking about falling damage.


[] I worked out the ship and armor volume of three different ships,
[]with the armor staying constant in thickness (300mm of WHATEVER). However,
[]to simplify things, I assumed that the ships were box-like, and I did not
[]subtract overlapping volumes (I wasn't in the mood for the math involved,
[]and it just means that the armor is listed as taking more space than it really
[]does; as you will see, this DOES NOT hurt the conclusion).

- -- tables deleted --

I did much the same thing some time ago, also checking my conclusions with
spherical hulls.  In essense, as dimensions are scaled, volume is cubed and
surface area is squared.  Since Armor is based on surface area, the
overall result (if looking at volume) is that armor volume (if thickness
remains the same) is about a .66667 power operation.  That is...

     Armor Vol = Scale ^ 0.6667

Using 100t ships as a base, use tonnage/100 as the scale.  Thus a 1000t
ship sould not have 10 times the weight of armor, but instead only 4.64 times
the weight (assuming configuration is the same).

If reasonable conversions from an "ideal" form can be calculated, (i.e. 
if spherical configs = x1, box = x1.3, etc), then a more accurate portrayal
of armor can be gained.
===============================================================================
Steve_Higginbotham writes:
[]Well, no, again.  Most of those Imperial worlds have been settled for
[]5000+ years.  Even the Spinward Marches has been settled for 700+
[]years.  Not very colonial anymore.

Another big problem with the existing system.  You're going to tell me
that Planet X has maintained a population of 1000 for 200+ years, with no
change in TL, Law level, etc?  Time for another refresher course at the IISS
Survey School...

Perhaps the best thing to do is to increase the number of "Cruft" worlds,
a-la 2300ad.  In that world generation system you would be damned lucky to
find a garden (or even habitable) world.  The problem is with having every 
hex filled with a habitable and inhabited world.  
===============================================================================
Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us (Steve Higginbotham) again:

[]Bertil:
[]
[]>  The system as it stands today does not allow this sort of thing.
[]>Pinpoint does *not* fit the description, because there are some things
[]>that can be protected by full armour that can be pinpointed for half
[]>armour (like the power plant) and there are some things that *isn't*
[]>protected by *any* armour and yet pinpoint protects them with 0.5*full
[]>armour (like some sensors and some weapons).
[] 
[]So let's fix the pinpoint hit rule.

Better yet, let's go back to the Striker armoring and put some tactics,
firing arcs and the like back into it.  It's true -- it's only a slugfest
in traveller right now, since it all boils down to one shooting at the
other, since all weapons can be targetted and armor covers everything.

I vote for a little more of a "Star Fleet Battles" feel (or at least, 2300ad
feel) for T3.
      -- Burton

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3661
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Alcyon Deck Plans
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 92 21:44:46 EST

I have converted (for my own use) Mark's GIF-format deckplans
to IFF (Amiga format) in 640X400 B&W.  E-mail me if you want
a set.  Be sure to tell me if/how you want them bundled or whatevered.

Looks like I could also convert them to TIFF, JPEG, or Postscript
if we need them that way, but I'd rather abstain for a while.  I tried
PS, but the files come out about 650kB each!
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3662
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Pirates and Merchants and Navies (oh my!)
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 7:36:48 MET

Steve Higginbotham writes:
>Hans Rancke-Madsen:
>>And then the PCs has to come up with 1/5th of the purchase price up
>>front.  Say that there are 6 equal partners in the group who's just
>>acquired MCrimp 600. That's 100 million credits per adventurer. I don't
>>know about your players, but mine would start wondering why their fool
>>characters didn't just buy an annuity apiece. Even if they buy really
>>conservative blue chip bonds they should be able to get 1% per year.
>>That's a million credits per year. That's a lot of high passages. Who'd
>>be a free-trader?
>
>So who would do it if they had only 6MCr?  At the kind of return a 30
>year T-bill pays, those same six guys could settle down to a life of
>luxury on most worlds.  Note that your standard of living only costs
>Cr30,000 per annum unless you are a noble.

How true (sigh!). Still, at least you might use the lure of the stars as
an excuse. With a 1MCr annuity of 1 or 2 % you don't get enough to travel
at will among the stars. I suspect, however, that most PCs (and most free
traders) will get their ships second (or third or tenth) hand. In any case
I'd like to keep the cost of civilian ships down as much as possible (while
making warships as expensive as possible  -  that's the dillema).


>>Agreed, but I don't want the average pirate to be as small as the PCs
>>ship, just the occational one. On the contrary, I want the average
>>pirate to be so tough that the navy will be unable to station a
>>squadron adequate to deal with the average pirate in all frontier
>>starsystems. I want the navy to have to settle for keeping the
>>important planets inviolable (and I do mean inviolable; no Vargr
>>corsairs or Aslan ihatei need apply) and just patrol the frontier
>>systems from time to time.

>I like the idea.  But interstellar trade will evaporate except to the
>protected systems, in that case.  And pirates like that are more like
>Boskone: foreign warships masquerading as pirates.

I'm not saying that pirates ought to be able to stand up to the Navy.
But if the average pirate can deal with a Gazelle, then the Navy will
need to use Chrysanthemums to patrol, which more than halves the number
of patrols they can afford. If the average pirate can deal with a
Chrysanthemum, then the Navy will need to use Sloans and so on. The
problem is that the bigger a pirate becomes, the bigger prey it needs
and the bigger nuisance it becomes, so there is a limit to how big they
can become.


[>>> and > = Steve, >> = Bertil]

>No.  You can only fight pirates where you are.  The number of ships
>would be the minimum required to put an adequate force in EVERY system
>needing them.  The Navy size would be AT LEAST as large as required to
>do that.  If it wasn't, then merchant traffic would collapse, and the
>Navy would be forced to deal with the problem by building more and
>better ships.

You're wrong when you assume that merchant traffic will collapse unless
the Navy can suppress piracy. On the contrary, piracy is self-regulating.
If it becomes too great a burden on trade, then the number of merchants
will decrease, true, but then the number of pirates will dwindle too,
whereupon merchant traffic will pick up, which will allow the piracy
traffic to pick up too, etc. etc.. You can't _have_ pirates without trade
to prey on. And when the potential profit outweighs the risks, merchants
will be out there trading, pirates or no pirates.

You're right in saying that any government will try to suppress piracy
(unless properly licenced ;-), because any profits will be greater
without piracy-caused overheads, but a government will not necessarily
suppress it totally. If they have the means to they will, of course, but
the (political) cost of actually building more ships is an immidiate one
(increased taxes, which the government will be blamed for), while the
benefit of getting rid of pirates will only appear later, and will often
not be credited to the government, but simply taken for granted. Thus
extra money will not be available unless the pirates are such a nuisance
that pressure is brought on the government by the merchant community.

Look at history. It's only in the last two centuries that piracy has really
been brought under control, chiefly because the various government fleets
finally became big and/or efficient enough to make piracy unprofitable (and
even today we sometimes hear of pirate-style robberies). Certainly the 16th
17th and 18th Centuries (where the great trading companies flourished) had
their share of pirates as well as national fleets.


>>>If you want to cut the number of warships, try eliminating piracy as
>>>a consideration.
>>
>> I'd like to cut the number of warships to make piracy easier.
>
>Lovely pipe dream.  Won't happen unless you remove ALL governments
>operating at above the planetary level.  Pirates need bases, and if
>there is an interstellar government, they will have the resources to
>remove the pirates.  If they don't, then the subordinate units will
>ignore them, and the interstellar government will cease to exist.

No, pirates need to be able to hide from government fleets, which is
not quite the same. The whole problem arises out of the fact that it
_is_ the same in the Traveller universe as it is now (because the
Navy is big enough to patrol all systems adequately at all times),
so what Bertil and I want is to reduce the size of the Navy.

>And if piracy levels are high, then worlds will be forced to develop
>their own resources, rather than importing things, and the merchant
>traffic will cease, and the pirates will disappear.

Never worked that way on pre-spaceflight Terra. Merchant traffic will
cease only when it becomes unprofitable and pirates can't make trade
unprofitable (unless state-subsidized).

>Try looking at historical examples of piracy.  Piracy as a problem
>appeared when there was something to steal, and vanished shortly
>thereafter (except during wartime, when the Navy was busy elsewhere),
>when the merchants forced the Navy to deal with the problem.

We seem to have read different history books ;-) Try one about the
Caribbean and see how long it took from the first government attempt
to suppress piracy until the last pirate was caught.

>                                     Why play Traveller if there is no
>interstellar traffic?  There won't be if the pirates are kept, and the
>Navy is removed.  And if the Navy isn't removed, then the pirates will
>be (by the Navy).

Only if the Navy can find them. The problem is that there aren't all
that many areas to patrol and more than enough Navy ships to patrol
them. Pirates can rely on disguise to keep them safe between strikes
(looking like innocent merchants), but that dosen't help if there's
warship within range when the pirate actually attacks its prey.

>50 years ago the Navy was bigger.  60 years ago it was smaller.  75
>years ago it was bigger (but not as big as 50 years ago).  100 years ago
>it was MUCH smaller.  150 years ago it was smaller still.  Ditto for
>200.  The Navy size has never been limited by money available.

Yes and no. It is limited by the amount of money that the citizenry is
willing to or can be coreced into spending. Look at what happened after
the Peace of Amiens. Most military men and quite a few politicians knew
that they would most likely be at war with Napoleon again as soon as he
had had time to rebuild his forces, and yet the government reduced the
navy to its peacetime complement. Why? Not because they didn't need the
ships, but because people refused to keep up paying an income tax of four
shilling in the pound.

>It was always limited by NEED.

Yes, but you don't need to eradicate piracy to keep commerce flowing,
just to keep it within bounds.

>> 100% of GNP in taxes is the maximum they will get, and even long
>>before that their return will begin to decrease with increased taxes.
>
>I take it they don't do "deficit spending" over there.  That is the
>process of spending money you don't have.   Most governments use it, and
>make up the difference by printing money.  This is called "inflation".

You can spend money you don't have, but only to get ressources on credit.
You can't use ressources you can't get. I won't belabour this point
though, because it's obvious that the Imperium could afford a lot more
than it curently does (_Striker_ talks of 3% of GNP (rising to 15% in
wartime) and we've examples of far more than that in history). What we
have to stick to is that the 3% represents the amount that is politically
feasible to use (and as I've written earlier, I'm working on a way to
reduce that for high-population worlds). So the problem is: Given a fixed
budget, how can we reduce the size of the Imperial Fleet to something that
will allow pirates to survive on frontier worlds?

>>Reread TCS. I agree that it says what you say above. But it also says
>>the opposite. Start a campaign. If someone keeps the peace and dosen't
>>get attacked for a century, how many ships does he have then? As many
>>as he started with. Will they be the same ships? Ostensibly, yes, but
>>they can't be, can they? So the 10% maintenance figure must include
>>peacetime replacement of the ships. I suspect that glitch snuck past
>>the TCS authors because nobody in a game campaign ever manages to spend
>>any time at peace.
>
>No.  TCS assumes that if you want to build new ships, you decommission
>old ones:  put them in ordinary, mothball them, whatever you prefer.
>Then use the extra money saved from maintenance to build new ones.  And
>the situation you describe is exactly what happened in the USA between
>wars last century:  the ships got older and more decrepit until the
>shooting started, then they were replaced by modern ships.

Ah, but in TCS my century-old ships dose not become decrepit. That's
what I mean when I write that it is ostensible the same ships, but that
it can't really be. I repeat: TCS assumes both things.

>>PS. Your other posting about the government just raking in more taxes
>>or printing more money was a joke, right? I don't have to refute that,
>>do I?
>
>I hope not.  But governments DO do things like that.  How do you think
>inflation happens?

Inflation happens because you CAN'T do things like that, but governments
think you can ;-).

Seriously, if you look behind the GNP to the actual ressources that are
there, you will run into a genuine limit. Unfortunately not enough to solve
our problem though, so I have to fall back on a political explanation: The
3% spent on military forces represents what it's politically feasible to
spend. If that's insufficient to provide a fleet that can supress piracy
totally, then that's just too bad ;-)

>                     And keep in mind that the USA's fraction of the GNP
>spent on the military is almost ten times as high as the one ascribed to
>Imperial worlds.  There is a lot of room for increasing the fleet size
>in the Imperium.

Oh, I agree. But please don't tell the Emperor :-)



      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3663
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 02:06:02 -0500
From: lyle@ecn.purdue.edu (Lyle Youngblood)

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

Date: Tue, 4 Feb 92 14:07:21 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: (3652) more Navy/merchant bickering...

>>  100% of GNP in taxes is the maximum they will get, and even long
>>before that their return will begin to decrease with increased taxes.
 
>I take it they don't do "deficit spending" over there.  That is the
>process of spending money you don't have.   Most governments use it, and
>make up the difference by printing money.  This is called "inflation".

    I hope this was some kind of joke?  Deficit spending is done by the
government borrowing money and/or selling bonds that they cannot
reasonably expect to pay without borrowing.  The amount of actual
cash money that is printed by the government has nothing to do with
either its income or its outlay, especially in a modern economy where
90+% of all government transactions are either electronic or paper
(not cash) transactions.  In point of fact, I believe the actual
amount of cash money in circulation has been dropping, as the government
prints/coins less than it destroys as outdated and estimates is lost/
destroyed in private hands.  Inflation and deficit spending are linked,
true, but neither has anything to do with printing money.
                                      Lyle
 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3664
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: more Navy/merchant bickering...
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 11:49:40 MET

> From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3652) more Navy/merchant bickering...
> 
> Bertil:
>  
> >  The navy could protect the merchants using *fewer* ships because each
> >ship could kick around several pirates.
>  
> No.  You can only fight pirates where you are.  The number of ships
> would be the minimum required to put an adequate force in EVERY system
> needing them.

  How about the convoy tactic? Or 'defended sealine'? This could be 
realized in Traveller by putting three of my 'stronger than the pirates' 
military ships at each main world and at one gas giant in each system:
One ship would guard a 'jump point' where the merchants jump in and out,
one would guard the mainworld or gasgiant and the third would escort them
between the point and the mainworld/gasgiant.
  
  The number of vessels that is needed to eliminate piracy is reached by
assuming one mainworld and one gasgiant in each system, each having three
ships to handle the merchants. This would be 62982 ships. Counting 2/3rds on
station at each given moment this increase to 94473 ships. 
  But some systems lack a gasgiant, some mainworlds are moons of gasgiants and
so on, which would reduce it to (wild estimate) 70000 ships, many more if
the ships arn't 100% 'pirate proof'.

  If we go below that number, wider and wider areas of the Imperium will begin
to become open to the pirates, and unprotected systems would probably be
posted by the TAS. I'm not sure how to factor in protection against outside
agression into this, that would increase the number of ships and their size
somewhat (to say the least:)

  The Gross Imperial Product is 219,474,958,700,000,000 Credits (courtesy of
Wildstar). This is the value of everything that is produced in the Imperium
each year. This must then also be the *absolute* top figure on how much
the Imperium can spend on anti-piracy ships.
  I'm assuming that each ship lasts 40 years and that crew costs are 50% of
the budget. This is a low estimate: The Swedish defence budget is about 60%
wages despite the fact that all conscripts go on $4 to $25 per day.
  This will lead to a expenditure of 25% of the full price of the ships
for each ship each year (10% base, 40 years life is 1/40th per year: 2.5%,
12.5% doubled is 25%.) 
  The maximum cost of each one of those 70000 ships would then be 1.25E13 Cr or
12.5 Teracredits. A suitable ship is the Sun Tzu cruiser, which cost GCr31.
The relationship between max ship cost and real ship cost for 70000 Sun Tzus 
is 404.
  But the Imperium cannot spend 100% of its GIP on anti-piracy ships, going 
from Terran history I would put the top limit on defence spending at 30% GIP.
So if the entire military budget is spent on buying anti-piracy ships they 
will have 120 times as much as needed. 
  A likelier percentage of anti-piracy vice other military work is 25/75, then
they would have 30 times as much as needed. So if we make all military ships
50 times as expensive, they will have to cut down on either anti-zhodani or
anti-piracy work.

> And if piracy levels are high, then worlds will be forced to develop
> their own resources, rather than importing things, and the merchant
> traffic will cease, and the pirates will disappear.
  
  And when the pirates are gone, trade will commence again and so on.

  This is not a fixed state: It is a cycle just like the rabbit population 
and given the normal amount of referee freedom we can choose where on
this cycle the Imperium is depending on the level of piracy we want. It is 
probably dependent on the frontier wars, by the way: When the navy is occupied
kicking the zhodanis around, or replacing destroyed ships in the Marches by
depleting the fleet in their own sector piracy goes up.

> In that case, use bigger nukes.

  I don't have a killpound table handy, but there is a limit on how big a 
nuke one can cram into a 100kg 15cm missile, and it is smaller than the
nuke one can cram into a 400kg(?) 25cm missile which in turn is smaller than
that in a 65cm missile.

> I can see other ways.  Removing all interstellar governments from the
> scene would be a good start.  NOT reducing them in size, removing them
> completely.  

  Will it be Traveller? I've seen more persons using the Traveller background
with other rules than the Traveller rules with other backgrounds so I am
forced to look upon 'Traveller' as a setting more than a set of rules.
  
> >  100% of GNP in taxes is the maximum they will get, and even long
> >before that their return will begin to decrease with increased taxes.
>  
> I take it they don't do "deficit spending" over there.  That is the
> process of spending money you don't have.   Most governments use it, and
> make up the difference by printing money.  This is called "inflation".

  Isn't GNP the value of all goods and services produced during one year?
If the military spending is equal to the GNP it means that any and all work
done is done for a directly military purpose. Not a centicred goes to growing
food or sweeping the streets or to health care or to educating children.
How can the Imperium go above this unless by buying ships from outside 
sources?

  Deficit spending is the government spending more than what the government
'earns' from taxes. But taxes are just a percentage of the GNP, so it isn't
a case of the government spending more than the GNP.

> Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Feb 10 00:38:34 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA17969) Mon, 10 Feb 92 00:38:22 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA10080@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:01:06 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA26844; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:01:54 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA25318; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:00:34 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA06618; Sun, 9 Feb 92 21:00:29 PST
Message-Id: <9202100500.AA06618@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #302: Msgs 3665-3675
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 92 21:00:27 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Feb  9 21:00:24 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #302: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3665  06-Feb-92 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: still more striker (1)... << > From: Stev
3666  06-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha more fleet actions, reprised... << Hans Ranck
3667  06-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha still more fleet actions (sigh)... << Hans Ra
3668  06-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Zhodani Consualte... Safe for Pirates? << I s
3669  06-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Variable armor thickness << On armor thicknes
3670  07-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S pirate corsairs << To the question of where t
3671  07-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI"  << SUBJECT: Greetings Hi There... I'm back a
3672  07-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha "pancakes" and other Striker... << Bertil: > 
3673  07-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha fleets revisited, again... << Lyle: > I hope 
3674  07-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai Cheap Starships << Hans Rancke-Madsen says he
3675  07-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai Why Strephon was Shot << In response to Scott

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3665
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: still more striker (1)...
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 12:42:52 MET

> From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.la.us (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3653) still more striker (1)...
> 
> >  Like densitometers? Graviton lasers? Where is the muzzle on a
> >meason-gun tank by the way?
>  
> Good point.  Of course there is no tank sized meson gun, but that is
> another question entirely.

  Isn't the battle-field meson gun in Striker or Mercenary on around 50 tons?
  
> I do not consider ground combat at all likely while both sides still
> have an operational fleet in near space.  "Our" fleet may save us, if we
> are the attackers, but if we are defending, then "our" fleet is probably
> radioactive debris before the first grav tank is offloaded from their
> transports.
  
  I checked the Fire Control difficulties table in MegaT, and it revealed
an interesting thing: Even at hight TLs it isn't easy to hit a target at 
5 to 50km range and close to impossible at 50-500km. If we accept
this, and factor in the movement DMs, it will be very hard for the navy to 
hit a Gravtank at all. One could make a case for the tank being treated as a
fighter, but it would have to be above the ground clutter for that, so 
the threat of an orbital navy against NOE tanks is not that high.
  
> >  From below we can get various boobytraps and infantry weapons. But
> >they will also at most have a penetration of around 65. If they appear
> >close by the point defences might not hit them, and it *is* possible to
> >hide them well enough so that the sensors will miss them. Energy
> >weapons will be close to impossible to hide due to their powerplants.
> >Meson guns are not possible to armour against so we discount them, and
> >the PA's won't work in air.
>  
> Of course, if we operate at 10,000 meters, this all goes out the window.

  Not really. 10000 meters will make it possible to mount PD on the
bottom of the tank, thus removing the threat from missiles and nukes. PAs
will still don't work. But remember the difficulty in hitting: Non-missile
weapons would have a hard time hitting *if we accept these difficulties*.

  If we on the other hand think that it is too difficult to hit, and that
we should factor in the computer and similar things, it will lend more
credibility to the pancake theory since the ranges are much longer than
5000m, (The tank is operating in the middle of the 10000m thick pancake)
(I'm basing this on Striker with its saner model of penetration attenuation):
  Fusionguns have ranges of 11 to 30km and lasers of 50 to 250km. If we up the
power to penetrate the armour, we will get even longer ranges.

> I do not necessarily agree with the pancake, though notice my earlier
> opinion about weaponry on the TL14+ battlefield:  leave the grav
> vehicles home, since they are more detectable than a hovercraft, and
> thus more vulnerable.

  Imagine the savings in weight and cost if one could reduce the belly
armour of hovercrafts... :)

> >  Why hasn't any modern tank a rear hull armored as good as its glacis?
> >If gravtanks can appear from behind, so can T76s, so the US Army must 
> >put its trust in its tactics and routines to avoid that some T76s get
> >behind their M1s, because nobody argues that the M1 is "worthless as a
> >weapon system."
>  
> Have you noticed that modern anti-tank missiles, and anti-tank
> helicopters are causing tank designers to increase the deck armour on
> new tanks (as opposed to the generally quite thin deck armour on older
> tanks)?

  But even if you put, say 300mm of armour plate on all faces of an M1, 
assuming that the weight don't make it unable to move, it will have a thicker
effective armour thickness on some faces due to the slant of those faces.
  If the glacis slants at 45 degrees it will have an effective armour
thickness of around 400mm if my calculator isn't decieving me.

  The same reasoning holds true for gravtanks unless they look like spheres:
Equal thickness all around give unequal armour protection depending on face
hit and angle of hit.

> >  Yes, but real world ships don't have to pull 6G. There were some talk
> >about the inertial compensators removing the inertia that would tear
> >the ship up during 6G manuevers, but that sounds like a TL11 version of
> >lifting oneself in ones hair.
>  
> So, you disbelieve in inertial compensators when you find them
> inconvenient, but use them when they support your opinions?

  If I believed in them in the second way (cancel all inertia of the whole 
ship even structural components) any ship in the Imperium would go like
greased lightning if they put normal (chemical or fusion) rockets on them:
  The power to weight relationship would approach infinity as weight 
(seen as inertia) approached zero.

> >  Only when used on starships and vehicles: Mount it on a normal ship
> >and watch it swell to its normal proportions (Wet Navy rules).
>  
> SO let's fix it for MT, too.

  No opposition to this: In fact I would like it that way (but it was done 
badly in Wet Navy).

> >  They are kludges and shouldn't be taken as valid designs.
>  
> Why not?

  For once, some of them has more HUDs than crew, and the listed missile
consumptions are far far to low (so the magazines isn't big enough) and they've
violated their own armour rules among other things. 

> No.  Not when I was in the Navy.  Navy ships carried all those extra
> guys to keep things operating even with normal failure incidence.  When
> something broke, we fixed it.  Right then.

  Well, that is *one* reason why MTBFs must be longer for aircrafts and 
real-life space equipment (where you can't make repairs on the fly) than for
ships, but isn't the other reason that any failure can have immediately 
disastrous effects for aerospace vehicles?
  An aircraft having an engine failure is more likely to be lost than a
ship having an engine failure, all other factors being equal.

> Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US
 
- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3666
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 09:44:16 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: more fleet actions, reprised...

Hans Rancke-Madsen:
 
>I'd like to keep the cost of civilian ships down as much as possible
>(while making warships as expensive as possible  -  that's the
>dillema).
 
It is that, all right.
 
 
>I'm not saying that pirates ought to be able to stand up to the Navy.
>But if the average pirate can deal with a Gazelle, then the Navy will
>need to use Chrysanthemums to patrol, which more than halves the number
>of patrols they can afford. If the average pirate can deal with a
>Chrysanthemum, then the Navy will need to use Sloans and so on. The
>problem is that the bigger a pirate becomes, the bigger prey it needs
>and the bigger nuisance it becomes, so there is a limit to how big they
>can become.
 
This is mostly true.  But if the pirate is big anough and tough
enough,it's prey becomes frontier worlds, not ships.  And all the
anlysis I ever did assumed SEH-class light cruisers numbered in the
100,000s in the Imperium.  I haven't even gotten down to the Sloan or
Chrysnthemum level yet.  Start counting at millions and work up.
 
 
>You're wrong when you assume that merchant traffic will collapse unless
>the Navy can suppress piracy. On the contrary, piracy is
>self-regulating.  If it becomes too great a burden on trade, then the
>number of merchants will decrease, true, but then the number of pirates
>will dwindle too, whereupon merchant traffic will pick up, which will
>allow the piracy traffic to pick up too, etc. etc.. You can't _have_
>pirates without trade to prey on. And when the potential profit
>outweighs the risks, merchants will be out there trading, pirates or no
>pirates.
 
Of course merchant traffic won't really collapse.  What will really
happen is that the merchants will arm their ships to the point that they
can deal with pirates, or force the Navy to deal with them.
 
 
>Look at history. It's only in the last two centuries that piracy has
>really been brought under control, chiefly because the various
>government fleets finally became big and/or efficient enough to make
>piracy unprofitable (and even today we sometimes hear of pirate-style
>robberies). Certainly the 16th 17th and 18th Centuries (where the great
>trading companies flourished) had their share of pirates as well as
>national fleets.
 
Chiefly because piracy became impossible when a pirate required coal to
make his ship go.  When you go to get coal, they arrest you.  Piracy is
a trivial problem now, and that is more due to other factors.
 
 
>No, pirates need to be able to hide from government fleets, which is
>not quite the same. The whole problem arises out of the fact that it
>_is_ the same in the Traveller universe as it is now (because the
>Navy is big enough to patrol all systems adequately at all times),
>so what Bertil and I want is to reduce the size of the Navy.
 
No, pirates need to be able to operate in the target areas, and get
somewhere for maintenance and resale of loot.  MT's Jump technology
limits the pirate's ability to operate far from a refuge world.
 
 
>Never worked that way on pre-spaceflight Terra. Merchant traffic will
>cease only when it becomes unprofitable and pirates can't make trade
>unprofitable (unless state-subsidized).
 
Piracy was never much of a problem on pre-spaceflight Terra.  Something
to do with the trivial cost of a ship, and the EXTREMELY high profits to
be made from even one successful voyage.  When one successful voyage
will replace the ship that failed to come home, piracy can remove 50% of
all shipping without affecting shipping volume.  When a voyage brings
home 0.25% of the cost of a ship, then even a small amount of piracy
will be lethal to trade.
 
 
>>Try looking at historical examples of piracy.  Piracy as a problem
>>appeared when there was something to steal, and vanished shortly
>>thereafter (except during wartime, when the Navy was busy elsewhere),
>>when the merchants forced the Navy to deal with the problem.
>
>We seem to have read different history books ;-) Try one about the
>Caribbean and see how long it took from the first government attempt
>to suppress piracy until the last pirate was caught.
 
I know about the Caribbean pirates.  How many of them were operating
under a Letter of Marque and Reprisal from one European country or
another.  In virtually every case of persistent piracy in this world,
the "pirates" were essentially foreign warships operating against
merchant shipping.
 
 
>Only if the Navy can find them. The problem is that there aren't all
>that many areas to patrol and more than enough Navy ships to patrol
>them. Pirates can rely on disguise to keep them safe between strikes
>(looking like innocent merchants), but that dosen't help if there's
>warship within range when the pirate actually attacks its prey.
 
MOST ships in MT (Jump-capable ones at least) are never more than 100
diameters from the main world of a system.  If you check, you will find
that 12 warships can be deployed so that that ENTIRE VOLUME can be
brought under fire at any time.  ANd it is hard to disguise a ship as an
"innocent merchant" that carries a fusion plant big enough to fight off
a Sloan.  These things are noticable by Customs inspectors, as well as
System Defense Squadrons.
 
 
>Yes and no. It is limited by the amount of money that the citizenry is
>willing to or can be coreced into spending. Look at what happened after
>the Peace of Amiens. Most military men and quite a few politicians knew
>that they would most likely be at war with Napoleon again as soon as he
>had had time to rebuild his forces, and yet the government reduced the
>navy to its peacetime complement. Why? Not because they didn't need the
>ships, but because people refused to keep up paying an income tax of
>four shilling in the pound.
 
Again, I concede the point.  My example was from US history alone. 
There are, in fact, examples of abject stupidity in every country and at
every time in the history of the world.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3667
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 92 09:46:36 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: still more fleet actions (sigh)...

Hans Rancke-Madsen:
 
>You can spend money you don't have, but only to get ressources on
>credit.  You can't use ressources you can't get. I won't belabour this
>point though, because it's obvious that the Imperium could afford a lot
>more than it curently does (_Striker_ talks of 3% of GNP (rising to 15%
>in wartime) and we've examples of far more than that in history). What
>we have to stick to is that the 3% represents the amount that is
>politically feasible to use (and as I've written earlier, I'm working
>on a way to reduce that for high-population worlds). So the problem is:
>Given a fixed budget, how can we reduce the size of the Imperial Fleet
>to something that will allow pirates to survive on frontier worlds?
 
I admit that you cannot buy what does not exist.  However, deficit
spending is not just a matter of buying things on credit.  It is a
matter of creating money where none existed before.  Look at economic
history.
 
The surest way to destroy piracy, uncer the conditions you aim for, is
to let Navy ships operate far from TL15 worlds.  As it stands now,
piracy should be a major problem in Jewell Subsector (FAR form the Navy,
so few patrols, and CLOSE to the Zhos, so a safe haven nearby), and Five
Sisters, for similar reasons.  I know the Zhos won't want pirates in
their systems, but as long as you are a good boy in Zho space, they
probably won't bother fixing an Impy problem, and sure the Imperium
isn't going to start the Sixth Frontier War just to chase a few
moth-eaten pirates.
 
If you want piracy to flourish, keep the Impy ships close to home, and
far from the frontier.  Shorten the maintenance cycle, rather than
lengthening it.  Keep a lot of Navy ships in yards being upgraded to
state-of-the-art.  That way they are on Glisten/Mora/Rhylanor/Trin as
opposed to the frontiers.
 
 
>Ah, but in TCS my century-old ships dose not become decrepit. That's
>what I mean when I write that it is ostensible the same ships, but that
>it can't really be. I repeat: TCS assumes both things.
 
TCS ignores the question of ship aging, and MT and TCS both ignore the
question of technological advancement.  These are defects in the
system.  They do NOT assume both things, they merely ignore certain
CRUCIAL elements of reality.
 
 
>Inflation happens because you CAN'T do things like that, but
>governments think you can ;-).
 
A better way of phrasing that is that you can't but Governments do
anyway.
 
 
>Seriously, if you look behind the GNP to the actual ressources that are
>there, you will run into a genuine limit. Unfortunately not enough to
>solve our problem though, so I have to fall back on a political
>explanation: The 3% spent on military forces represents what it's
>politically feasible to spend. If that's insufficient to provide a
>fleet that can supress piracy totally, then that's just too bad ;-)
 
I do not believe in ANY resource limit to TL15 cultures.  One lousy
asteroid can provide all the steel you'll need for any normal usage. 
The total complement of an asteroid belt will provide for ANY
concievable fleet production.  Robots can be built without limit, so
fleets can be as big as you want them to be.  BUT, the money question,
while meaningless, can be played up if the powers-that-be want to do
so.  Unfortunately, that provides for a fleet that can deal with any
problem short of government-sponsered piracy.  And it can probably deal
with them, too.
 
How about this as a solution?  Someone (who knows who?  the Shadow?)
drops an asteroid on Ruie (no-one will care that it is missing, it has
no effect on any campaign I have ever seen), and destroys civilization
there.  The governments of the Imperial worlds decide that that is a
danger, and insist that the Imperium keep enough hardware in each system
to deal with the potential threat.  The Navy sets up skywatches in all
Hi Pop systems, but has insufficent forces to do so throughout the
Imperium.  Too bad.  The remaining unprotected worlds make up less than
3% of the population, so their protests are drowned out by the sighs of
relief from the Hi Pop systems.  Piracy flourishes, frontiers become a
little wilder.  All them good GMs and players are happy.
PS.  It was, in fact, a cosmic coincidence that this happened, and it
will never happen again in the course of the next 50,000 game years.
 
Later...
 

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3668
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 23:18 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Zhodani Consualte... Safe for Pirates?

I seriously doubt that the Consulate would be a safe place to operate out of
for a pirate.  The Zho's wouldn't care WHERE you committed the crimes.  They'd
just re-educate you anyway.

Even during wartime, I'd guess that pirates would be sent to the re-education
centers.  (They'd just take the ship and put their own crew aboard.)

Scott Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3669
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 1992 23:22 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Variable armor thickness

On armor thickness.

I have always assumed that vehicles Do in fact have variable armor facings.
This accounts for the effects of tactical skills and higher than normal
penetration hits.

Scott Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3670
Date:    Fri, 7 Feb 1992 8:58:27 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: pirate corsairs

To the question of where the 400-ton corsairs come from: why not make them
privateers instead of pirates? I know this is going a little beyond what a
privateer is normally defined as, but the corsairs are built by empires
hostile to the Imperium, and, in exchange for a share fof the loot, and a 
promise not to attack *that* empire's shipping, the ship is handed over to
a pirate crew (after properly screening them first, of course...). This means
that, for example, the Zhodani can raid Imperial shipping without using their
own warships and crews. 

One little comment on pirates: traditionally, the pre-19th century pirates
would NOT kill a ship's crew, or even rob the individual crewmen, if the
crew surrendered without a fight. Many times, the pirates wouldn't even take
the ship, and even if they did, they made sure to land the crew on an island
with provisions. It should be noted that such merchant ships were owned by
companies, and thus the crews were just employees. However, many merchant
craft in Traveller are privately owned; either the pirates will have to go
in expecting a fight or will leave the independants alone. MY pirates (most
of them anyway) would rather not fight unless they have to, so will prefer
the company ships.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3671
Date: 7 Feb 92 10:29:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>

SUBJECT:  Greetings

Hi There...  I'm back after a 8 month hiatus from the network...

SUBJECT:  TCS Discussions

I'm excited by the discussions about TCS.  Does this mean that people are
playing it, or are interested in playing it?  Anyone want to play over the net?

SUBJECT:  Pirates

I'm a firm believer that Pirates will always exist given: A: something worth
stealing, and B: someplace to hide.  I guess everyone here knows that 'space is
big, *really* big'.  No Matter *HOW* big the Imperial Fleet it, there will be
someplace to hide, especially with being able to pop out with the jump drive.
No Fleet is big enough to search all of space and worlds within say jump 6,
including empty space in between systems, the best place for pirate bases.

Anyways, I doubt that chasing pirates is an *Imperial* Fleet job.  And any ship
over 2,000 Tons  OT or so will be overkill;  A 100,000 Ton will not be very
usefull in a search and destroy.  Maybe the Destroy part, but by then the
pirates will be long gone.  Most likely dealing with pirates will be left to
the locals, a Coast Guard equivilent or some such.

I can make a bigger case for pirates not having anything worthwhile to steal.
If the average free merchant can't make ends meet, what makes you think that
a pirate can.  Sure, pirate cargos are 'free', but you do have very frequent,
very expensive repairs to your ships.

If anyone remembers the discussions a year ago on trade, I argued that trade
would be only of exceptional items which cannot be produced locally, rather
then of run of the mill commodities, spacefaring being so expensive.  We have
run of the mill shipping today, because it's ...  well, run of the mill,
common, boring and cheap.  If you want star travel to be adventurous, it will
be expensive and exceptional.

The only piracy I could ever justify, given the high cost of shipping was,
piracy of shipping, hijacking et al.  The best payoff was to hijack a ship from
within.  The second was to have a big enough ship, and attack a small enough
ship so as to cow your victim into surrendering, and be able to jump out with a
whole, or nearly whole ship.  If they put up a big enough fight, and you have
to disable it, you better have a big enough hold to hold it, or some way to
jump it out as dead weight.  Otherwise, you will only get whatever you can
strip from it in the few hours you have before reinforcement come.

Of course, safe traders will stay near the jump point if there is a designated
one, and near the main planet, and *maybe* the gass giant, where the navy/coast
guard/high guard is.  These traders will be virtually safe from random piracy,
but not as chosen targets if word gets out that they have a certain cargo
someone wants badly.  Any ships that go outside of these protected spots will
be fair game.  And there will be some, occasionally who are in the wrong place
at the wrong time.

I view pirates as being a pretty much opportunistic, if they are in the right
place at the right time with the right victim, they attack.  They don't
generally wait in a particular place waiting for a target.  If it's a place
heavily travelled enough to make it worthwhile for them to wait, pretty soon it
will be worthwhile for to be protected.  Of course it's a dance, where the
traders try to find safe passage, pirates try to find targets in weak spots of
the defense, and the government tries to shore up weak spots.

Jim Baranski


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3672
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 92 09:00:24 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: "pancakes" and other Striker...

Bertil:
 
>  Isn't the battle-field meson gun in Striker or Mercenary on around 50
>tons?
 
Perhaps in Mercenary.  Striker deleted that little fiction.
 
 
>  I checked the Fire Control difficulties table in MegaT, and it
>revealed an interesting thing: Even at hight TLs it isn't easy to hit a
>target at 5 to 50km range and close to impossible at 50-500km. If we
>accept this, and factor in the movement DMs, it will be very hard for
>the navy to hit a Gravtank at all. One could make a case for the tank
>being treated as a fighter, but it would have to be above the ground
>clutter for that, so the threat of an orbital navy against NOE tanks is
>not that high.
 
Hmmm... So starships cannot hit a 10 ton tank at 500Km, but can hit a
ten ton fighter at 500,000Km.  Odd.
As to the question of ground clutter, look up the description of the
densitometer.  Artificial grav fields at range less than 50,000Km stand
out quite clearly.  Ground clutter is meaningless against grav tanks.
 
 
>  Not really. 10000 meters will make it possible to mount PD on the
>bottom of the tank, thus removing the threat from missiles and nukes.
>PAs will still don't work. But remember the difficulty in hitting:
>Non-missile weapons would have a hard time hitting *if we accept these
>difficulties*.
 
An odd picture, but perfectly true, all the same.  I concede the point. 
However you inadvertently made MY point:  that it is safer to be at
altitude than at NOE.
 
 
{more discussion of the "pancake}
 
BTW, the pncake has one serious flaw:  curvature of the planet limits
the effective side of the pancake to no more than 5 or so Km, unless the
tanks are operating at altitude.  So the "pancake" doesn't actually
exist except in theoreticians' minds>
 
 
>  Imagine the savings in weight and cost if one could reduce the belly
>armour of hovercrafts... :)
 
Yeah.  Really... :-)
 
 
>  But even if you put, say 300mm of armour plate on all faces of an M1,
>assuming that the weight don't make it unable to move, it will have a
>thicker effective armour thickness on some faces due to the slant of
>those faces.
 
You are showing your track-layer prejudices again.  If you can fly, you
can choose an altitude where your shot falls at the most advantageous
(to you) angle.  Then armour sloping becomes much more problematic, and
design theory would probably consist of determining optimum slope to
convince your enemy to move to a position (relative to you) that makes
HIm more vulnerable.  Sounds like fun... 
 
>  If I believed in them in the second way (cancel all inertia of the
>whole ship even structural components) any ship in the Imperium would
>go like greased lightning if they put normal (chemical or fusion)
>rockets on them:
>  The power to weight relationship would approach infinity as weight 
>(seen as inertia) approached zero.
 
Power to weight ratio (though MT loves teh concept) is meaningless.  The
correct concept is "power to MASS ratio".  Even if weight is zero, mass
is still there.
 
 
>  No opposition to this: In fact I would like it that way (but it was
>done badly in Wet Navy).
 
So we do agree on something.  Great!
 
 
>  For once, some of them has more HUDs than crew, and the listed
>missile consumptions are far far to low (so the magazines isn't big
>enough) and they've violated their own armour rules among other things.
 
Good points.  Though their missile usage may be based on Referee's Guide
before the Errata.  I noticed the HUD problem myself last night on the
Vargr ships in Rebellion Sourcebook.  I suspect this has something to do
with the fact that the various controls DON'T DO ANYTHING other than
contribute to CP totals.  Something needs to be done (at least
informally) to regulate the use of controls of various types.  No more
than one HUD per workstation, or whatever.  For that matter, why can't a
ship have large numbers of computers, so ships don't need to be limited
by Computer CP limits?
 
 
>  Well, that is *one* reason why MTBFs must be longer for aircrafts and
>real-life space equipment (where you can't make repairs on the fly)
>than for ships, but isn't the other reason that any failure can have
>immediately disastrous effects for aerospace vehicles?
>  An aircraft having an engine failure is more likely to be lost than a
>ship having an engine failure, all other factors being equal.
 
Too true.  But a starship in space is in less danger from engine failure
than a surface ship.  Very little out there to hit, and you aren't
likely to need the engine for quite some time.  
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3673
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 92 09:03:28 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: fleets revisited, again...

 
Lyle:
 
>    I hope this was some kind of joke?  Deficit spending is done by the
>government borrowing money and/or selling bonds that they cannot
>reasonably expect to pay without borrowing.  The amount of actual
>cash money that is printed by the government has nothing to do with
>either its income or its outlay, especially in a modern economy where
>90+% of all government transactions are either electronic or paper
>(not cash) transactions.  In point of fact, I believe the actual
>amount of cash money in circulation has been dropping, as the
>government prints/coins less than it destroys as outdated and estimates
>is lost/destroyed in private hands.  Inflation and deficit spending are
>linked, true, but neither has anything to do with printing money.
         
The phrase "print money" is a figure of speech, based on the bad old
days of the sixties when the government did, in fact, print more money. 
Any process whereby a government spends money it doesn't have, and can't
get, can be described that way.  BTW, I noticed in the newspaper
yesterday that the Russians were going to deal with an expected revenue
shortfall by (in the words of their spokesman) "printing more money".
 
 
Bertil:
  
>> No.  You can only fight pirates where you are.  The number of ships
>> would be the minimum required to put an adequate force in EVERY
>> system needing them.
>
>  How about the convoy tactic? Or 'defended sealine'? This could be 
>realized in Traveller by putting three of my 'stronger than the
>pirates' military ships at each main world and at one gas giant in each
>system: One ship would guard a 'jump point' where the merchants jump in
>and out, one would guard the mainworld or gasgiant and the third would
>escort them between the point and the mainworld/gasgiant.
  
The "jumppoiny is a myth.  Properly, it is the surface of a sphere of
radius 100 planetary diameters.  It would take considerably more than
one ship to defend same (perhaps 12, as I said earlier (for a world, a
gas giant would require thousands).
I take it you have little enough traffic that convoying daily traffic
with one ship is possible.  In our game, the level of merchant traffic
is measured in thousands of ships per day to most non-backwaters.
Under that kind of load, escort duties could only be met by hundreds of
ships per world.
 
 
>  I'm assuming that each ship lasts 40 years and that crew costs are
>50% of the budget. This is a low estimate: The Swedish defence budget
>is about 60% wages despite the fact that all conscripts go on $4 to $25
>per day.
>  This will lead to a expenditure of 25% of the full price of the ships
>for each ship each year (10% base, 40 years life is 1/40th per year:
>2.5%, 12.5% doubled is 25%.) 
 
Sigh... TCS already sets crew and basing costs at 99% of the Naval
Budget.  Which is where the 10% base comes from.
 
 
>12.5 Teracredits. A suitable ship is the Sun Tzu cruiser, which cost
>GCr31.
 
Actually, a "suitable" ship is the 5000 ton fleet escort at about GCr4.
Multiply ship availability by 7.75 again.
 
 
>they would have 30 times as much as needed. So if we make all military
>ships 50 times as expensive, they will have to cut down on either
>anti-zhodani or anti-piracy work.
 
And if we make automobiles fifty times as expensive, people will stop
buying them.  Of course, the pirates will then cost fifty times as much,
too.  If they don't, then they are built like merchant ships, and a
Naval vessel that could fight them could be built that way, too.  Then
the price of anti-piracy operations drop by a factor of 50, and the
Imperial merchants breathe a collective sigh of relief.
 
>> And if piracy levels are high, then worlds will be forced to develop
>> their own resources, rather than importing things, and the merchant
>> traffic will cease, and the pirates will disappear.
> 
>  And when the pirates are gone, trade will commence again and so on.
 
No.  If you are forced by "other concerns" to build a grav unit factory
on your own planet, then when the pirates are gone, why would you shut
it down and start importing them?  Once your indigenous industry can
build something, importing it becomes a waste.  Therefore, after the
pirates go away, trade will remain virtually non-existant.
 
 
>> In that case, use bigger nukes.
>
>  I don't have a killpound table handy, but there is a limit on how big
>a nuke one can cram into a 100kg 15cm missile, and it is smaller than
>the nuke one can cram into a 400kg(?) 25cm missile which in turn is
>smaller than that in a 65cm missile.
 
Too true.  But I don't believe in 100Kg missiles that can cross
500,000Km at 6Gs, either.  Using MT design rules, a missile that could
do that will either be MUCH bigger, or MUCH more expensive and only
three or four times as big.  In any case, by the time you finish
building a missile of the correct size, you will notice that it has room
for a Minuteman RV as a warhead.
 
>> I can see other ways.  Removing all interstellar governments from the
>> scene would be a good start.  NOT reducing them in size, removing
>> them completely.  
>
>  Will it be Traveller? I've seen more persons using the Traveller
>background with other rules than the Traveller rules with other
>backgrounds so I am forced to look upon 'Traveller' as a setting more
>than a set of rules.
 
Will it be Traveller if you increase the cost of the Navy by a factor of
fifty?  For that matter, is Hard Times Traveller?  How about the
Rebellion?  
 
 
>  Deficit spending is the government spending more than what the
>government 'earns' from taxes. But taxes are just a percentage of the
>GNP, so it isn't a case of the government spending more than the GNP.
 
Actually true.  Notice that creative bookkeeping can fix that.  By
mass-producing money, and importing with this phony money before
inflation devalues the currency into trivia, the government can
certainly fake it quite well for a time.  A short time. 
However, see my opinion about the resource limits on the Imperium for my
own belifs on the matter.
BTW, I do NOT believe that this solution (deficit spending) is useful. 
I DO belive that governments throughout history have used that method of
stealing from their citizens and other countries.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3674
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Cheap Starships
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 92 10:21:59 EST

Hans Rancke-Madsen says he wants cheaper commercial vessels and
more expensive military ones.  Easy:

1) Lower the costs for architecture and construction.  Shorten
   construction and repair times.

2) *Radically* increase the costs of shipboard weapons and software.
   Especially increase the costs of installation and maintenance.
   For instance - no one will put this stuff in unless (s)he's a
   crook already and cares nto one whit about the law.  Legal installations
   require admin, bribery, (courtesan?) etc. to get through the
   legal hassles.

What you wind up with is a way merchant vessels are retired quickly,
upgrades and maintenance are reasonable, and weapons-carrying platforms
are horrendously expensive (if yer a civilian).
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com
"We've learned a great deal about how to keep the American people
pacified."   Ex-CIA director William Colby after the Church hearings

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3675
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Why Strephon was Shot
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 92 10:26:06 EST

In response to Scott's request for other ideas...

It's lunch time for the council.  Strephon asks for some cheese
to top his pizza.

Dulinor _knows_ the emperor has just let slip the secret of the
par meson -- a new totally devastating weapon, so... :=)
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Feb 13 11:23:43 1992
Received: from julian.uwo.ca by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA06708) Thu, 13 Feb 92 11:23:38 EST
Received: from relay.tek.com by julian.uwo.ca with SMTP;
	(id AA19335) Thu, 13 Feb 92 01:25:54 -0500
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA22115@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 12 Feb 92 22:05:16 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA02557; Wed, 12 Feb 92 22:06:12 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA07705; Wed, 12 Feb 92 21:00:52 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA28293; Wed, 12 Feb 92 21:00:39 PST
Message-Id: <9202130500.AA28293@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #303: Msgs 3676-3690
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 21:00:38 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: RO


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Wed Feb 12 21:00:34 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #303: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3676  08-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse Pirates and merchants and navies (oh my!) << 
3677  08-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha pirate fleets? << Baransky: >I'm excited by t
3678  08-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha Pirates and fleets again... << Hans: >Yes, th
3679  09-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai Piracy << In re: Steve's and Hans's conversat
3680  09-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Turret sized meson acclerators << Howdy, Ok, 
3681  09-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse  << Steve Higginbotham writes: > >Hans: > >>Y
3682  10-Feb-92 grue@cs.uq.oz.au  TCS << Steve: >Baransky: > >>I'm excited by t
3683  10-Feb-92 Pauli             Re: (3681) << >From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <ranc
3684  10-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       Re: turret sized meson guns << KELLOGG@ducvax
3685  10-Feb-92 PHB100@PSUVM.PSU. Re: (3665) Re: still more striker (1)... << >
3686  10-Feb-92 PHB100@PSUVM.PSU. Re: (3675) Why Strephon was Shot << >In respo
3687  10-Feb-92 Nicholas Sylvain  Barratry and Banks << >Date: Sun, 9 Feb 92 8:
3688  10-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai Barratry and Banks << <me> :>Had a group of p
3689  10-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS... << Pauli: >Steve: > >>Baransky: >> >>>
3690  10-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha tank-mounted meson guns... << Scott: >Ok, som

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3676
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Pirates and merchants and navies (oh my!)
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 92 1:25:46 MET

Steve Higginbotham:
>The surest way to destroy piracy, uncer the conditions you aim for, is
>to let Navy ships operate far from TL15 worlds.  As it stands now,
>piracy should be a major problem in Jewell Subsector (FAR form the Navy,
>so few patrols, and CLOSE to the Zhos, so a safe haven nearby), and Five
>Sisters, for similar reasons.  I know the Zhos won't want pirates in
>their systems, but as long as you are a good boy in Zho space, they
>probably won't bother fixing an Impy problem, and sure the Imperium
>isn't going to start the Sixth Frontier War just to chase a few
>moth-eaten pirates.

Halving the number of ship works better (though not well). Jump-4 ships
can get from Jewell to Rhylanor and from Iderati to Glisten in less than
six weeks. That means 3/4 of a fleet is available for patrol duty at all
times, even in Jewell and Five Sisters. And the ships going back and forth
can do a spot of patrolling on the way to and from refitting. That makes
Lanth and District 268 some of the _best_ patrolled area in the Marches!

>If you want piracy to flourish, keep the Impy ships close to home, and
>far from the frontier.  Shorten the maintenance cycle, rather than
>lengthening it.  Keep a lot of Navy ships in yards being upgraded to
>state-of-the-art.  That way they are on Glisten/Mora/Rhylanor/Trin as
>opposed to the frontiers.

Well, since I've always assumed that navy ships could refit at naval bases
(and this is also the impression one gets from other Traveller material  -
look at the piece about naval bases in _Fighting Ships_ for example), that
is one "solution" I hadn't even contemplated. I have now, and no thanks.
I'd like a half-way believable explanation, please. If I'd been satisfied
with an explanation to the effect that a tech-15 culture can't make things
that can survive more than a few months without servicing, I'd have chosen
something even easier and just as believable (like the merchant fleet uses
up nearly all the lanthanum, and there's very little left over for the
navies (how's that for a clever explanation? ;-)). An explanation that
makes naval ships _worse_ than civilian ships is no help at all...

>>Ah, but in TCS my century-old ships dose not become decrepit. That's
>>what I mean when I write that it is ostensible the same ships, but that
>>it can't really be. I repeat: TCS assumes both things.
>
>TCS ignores the question of ship aging, and MT and TCS both ignore the
>question of technological advancement.  These are defects in the
>system.  They do NOT assume both things, they merely ignore certain
>CRUCIAL elements of reality.

I think we're both arguing the same side of the issue. Wether TCS makes
a false asumption or ignores a crucial element is immaterial. Something
is wrong anyway.

>I do not believe in ANY resource limit to TL15 cultures.  One lousy
>asteroid can provide all the steel you'll need for any normal usage.
>The total complement of an asteroid belt will provide for ANY
>concievable fleet production.  Robots can be built without limit, so
>fleets can be as big as you want them to be.

Whoa there! Let's not destroy the Traveller universe completely! Forget
unlimited selfreproducing robots. If you allow them, you might as well
roll up the universe and carry it away. If that means we have to believe
an impossible thing or two more, so be it. A culture who can build self-
reproducing robots would be nice to live in (I'd be able to play games all
the time and let the robots worry about the food and rent), but it would be
a lousy place to game in. Soething like that "Safe at any speed" story by
Larry Niven. Repeat after me: "There are limits to ressources in all
Traveller societies! There are limits..."

>How about this as a solution?  Someone (who knows who?  the Shadow?)
>drops an asteroid on Ruie (no-one will care that it is missing, it has
>no effect on any campaign I have ever seen), and destroys civilization
>there.  The governments of the Imperial worlds decide that that is a
>danger, and insist that the Imperium keep enough hardware in each system
>to deal with the potential threat.  The Navy sets up skywatches in all
>Hi Pop systems, but has insufficent forces to do so throughout the
>Imperium.

If they have unlimited selfreproducing robots they just ask the robots to
build some more ships. Not that they would need to, since everybody would
be so well off that they wouldn't need to become pirates in the first place!

But changing the way the military budget is divided between System,
Subsector and Imperial Navy might help. I've been using 1/3 each, so
changing that to 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 or something could help a bit.

>Piracy was never much of a problem on pre-spaceflight Terra.  Something
>to do with the trivial cost of a ship, and the EXTREMELY high profits to
>be made from even one successful voyage.  When one successful voyage
>will replace the ship that failed to come home, piracy can remove 50% of
>all shipping without affecting shipping volume.  When a voyage brings
>home 0.25% of the cost of a ship, then even a small amount of piracy
>will be lethal to trade.

Good point. I hadn't considered that. Sigh! On the other hand, one
little merchant can keep a pirate fed for a long time, so the
pirates wouldn't need more than a very small amount of piracy...

>>>Try looking at historical examples of piracy.  Piracy as a problem
>>>appeared when there was something to steal, and vanished shortly
>>>thereafter (except during wartime, when the Navy was busy elsewhere),
>>>when the merchants forced the Navy to deal with the problem.
>>
>>We seem to have read different history books ;-) Try one about the
>>Caribbean and see how long it took from the first government attempt
>>to suppress piracy until the last pirate was caught.
>
>I know about the Caribbean pirates.  How many of them were operating
>under a Letter of Marque and Reprisal from one European country or
>another.

What has that got to do with it? At the very least there was one
government after them (Spain), and that government fleet were too
small to deal with them. And no, they didn't shelter behind another
country's fleet, because for long stretches of time neither England,
France or Holland had any warships in the Carribean at all.

I'm talking about the early period, of course, and it didn't matter
wether Spain was at war or not, the Spanish navy was unable to deal
with the Caribbean pirates. Later English, French and Dutch (and
Danish ;-) warships did roam the Carribean trying to suppress the
pirates in the intervals between wars. And they did not increase
their fleet to meet the pirate menace, they tried to control it
with what ships they had.

>In virtually every case of persistent piracy in this world,
>the "pirates" were essentially foreign warships operating against
>merchant shipping.

I have to disagree most strongly here. It's true that lots of pirates
tried to hide behind letters of marque (often having a set from each
beligerent), which tended to give privateers a bad name, but there was a
great distinction between them. Privateers that were known to stick to
privateering were tolerated by their friends and might even survive
being captured by the enemy. A pirate would be hunted down by both sides.

>>Only if the Navy can find them. The problem is that there aren't all
>>that many areas to patrol and more than enough Navy ships to patrol
>>them. Pirates can rely on disguise to keep them safe between strikes
>>(looking like innocent merchants), but that dosen't help if there's
>>warship within range when the pirate actually attacks its prey.
>
>MOST ships in MT (Jump-capable ones at least) are never more than 100
>diameters from the main world of a system.  If you check, you will find
>that 12 warships can be deployed so that that ENTIRE VOLUME can be
>brought under fire at any time.

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. That means we need to
reduce the part of the fleet that is not protecting the high-population
worlds to les than 24 ships per system (mainworld and gas giant).

>And it is hard to disguise a ship as an
>"innocent merchant" that carries a fusion plant big enough to fight off
>a Sloan.  These things are noticable by Customs inspectors, as well as
>System Defense Squadrons.

Unless the Imperium makes fusion plants above a certain size illegal,
there's not much the custom inspectors can do about it, is there?

>Again, I concede the point.  My example was from US history alone.
>There are, in fact, examples of abject stupidity in every country and at
>every time in the history of the world.

Oh, I can give you an example from US history too :-). After the War of
Independence Congress was reluctant to allow the establishment of a
big fleet for fear of creating a military caste. They thus refused
to allow any Ships of the Line and only 10 frigates. Fortunately
they forgot to specify price and dimensions, so the master shipwright
made the frigates as large as he possibly could and still call it a
frigate with scantlings more appropiate for Line-of-Battle Ship.
Nevertheless the fleet proved unable to protect American shipping
during the War of 1812.

      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3677
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 92 09:55:49 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: pirate fleets?

Baransky:
 
>I'm excited by the discussions about TCS.  Does this mean that people
>are playing it, or are interested in playing it?  Anyone want to play
>over the net?
 
Sure!  I'm willing if you are.   ---Steve.
 
 
As to your piracy comments, I agree with almost averything (for once). 
You overlooked the need for maintenance in your assertions about pirate
basing:  it doesn't matter how big space is if there are only 12 worlds
in the sector that can do annual overhaul on your ship - you'll have to
be one of those places sooner or later.
 
 
Hans:
 
>Halving the number of ship works better (though not well). Jump-4 ships
>can get from Jewell to Rhylanor and from Iderati to Glisten in less
>than six weeks. That means 3/4 of a fleet is available for patrol duty
>at all times, even in Jewell and Five Sisters. And the ships going back
>and forth can do a spot of patrolling on the way to and from refitting.
>That makes Lanth and District 268 some of the _best_ patrolled area in
>the Marches!
 
Well, if you cross Lanth in less than six weeks on the way to Jewell,
you won't patrol more than a few hours in each of three systems in
Lanth.  That isn't much patrolling.
 
 
>Well, since I've always assumed that navy ships could refit at naval
>bases (and this is also the impression one gets from other Traveller
>material  - look at the piece about naval bases in _Fighting Ships_ for
>example), that is one "solution" I hadn't even contemplated. I have
>now, and no thanks.  I'd like a half-way believable explanation,
>please. If I'd been satisfied with an explanation to the effect that a
>tech-15 culture can't make things that can survive more than a few
>months without servicing, I'd have chosen something even easier and
>just as believable (like the merchant fleet uses up nearly all the
>lanthanum, and there's very little left over for the navies (how's that
>for a clever explanation? ;-)). An explanation that makes naval ships
>worse_ than civilian ships is no help at all...
 
True.  However, halving 5,000,000 anti-piracy ships to 2,500,000 is not
really any help either.
 
 
>I think we're both arguing the same side of the issue. Wether TCS makes
>a false asumption or ignores a crucial element is immaterial. Something
>is wrong anyway.
 
Also true.  Suggestions on how to fix?
 
 
>Whoa there! Let's not destroy the Traveller universe completely! Forget
>unlimited selfreproducing robots. If you allow them, you might as well
>roll up the universe and carry it away. If that means we have to
>believe an impossible thing or two more, so be it. A culture who can
>build self-reproducing robots would be nice to live in (I'd be able to
>play games all the time and let the robots worry about the food and
>rent), but it would be a lousy place to game in. Soething like that
>"Safe at any speed" story by Larry Niven. Repeat after me: "There are
>limits to ressources in all Traveller societies! There are limits..."
 
I agree here.  Notice that I assume that society still plays monetary
games so as to ARTIFICIALLY limit resources.  Yes, I made the comment
that you responded to, but I am willing to argue a point from internal
logic without reference to Gaming logic:  It SHOULD be true at TL15.  It
makes a lousy game so it's not, but it SHOULD be.
 
 
>But changing the way the military budget is divided between System,
>Subsector and Imperial Navy might help. I've been using 1/3 each, so
>changing that to 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 or something could help a bit.
 
Check background material:  The existing split should be 70% system, 30%
split between subsector and Imperial navies, in whatever ratio is
convenient (slightly less to the Impy Navy, since TL15 ships cost less
than TL13 ships do).
 
 
>Good point. I hadn't considered that. Sigh! On the other hand, one
>little merchant can keep a pirate fed for a long time, so the
>pirates wouldn't need more than a very small amount of piracy...
 
No.  The pirate has some expensive repairs to make fairly regularly. 
His maintenance facility is not nearby, so he has to make regular LONG
transits with no income (it wouldn't do to give the Impy computers
enough data to guess where you get your ship overhauled).  The pirate
will need to make a lot of hits during the period he is on station to
make ends meet.  If he takes out one ship in three hundred, then
Imperial trade will collapse.
 
 
>What has that got to do with it? At the very least there was one
>government after them (Spain), and that government fleet were too
>small to deal with them. And no, they didn't shelter behind another
>country's fleet, because for long stretches of time neither England,
>France or Holland had any warships in the Carribean at all.
 
At the very least, it gave them a safe place to buy new cannons.  You
don't have to shelter behind their fleet, you have to shelter in their
harbors.
 
 
>>In virtually every case of persistent piracy in this world,
>>the "pirates" were essentially foreign warships operating against
>>merchant shipping.
>
>I have to disagree most strongly here. It's true that lots of pirates
>tried to hide behind letters of marque (often having a set from each
>beligerent), which tended to give privateers a bad name, but there was
>a great distinction between them. Privateers that were known to stick
>to privateering were tolerated by their friends and might even survive
>being captured by the enemy. A pirate would be hunted down by both
>sides.
 
Depends on how you define "pirate" I suppose.  The British (during the
Napoleanic Wars) did not issue Letters of Marque, and did not respect
them.  The French did.  The Americans did.  Notice that the highest
levels of piracy in history were during wars, and caused by the
privateers of one side.  Invariably the other side called them
"pirates".  The writers of Histories called them whichever their own
prejudices lent them to.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3678
Date: Sat, 8 Feb 92 09:57:53 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: Pirates and fleets again...

Hans:
 
>Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. That means we need to
>reduce the part of the fleet that is not protecting the high-population
>worlds to les than 24 ships per system (mainworld and gas giant).
 
Less than 24 ships per system.  For the Spinward Marches, that comes to
less than 6528 ships.  Trin/Mora/Glisten/Rhylanor can support (by
themselves) a force of 15000 Sloan class ships, ignoring system defense
squadrons.  BTW, all my assertions about Imperial Fleet size have
assmued the discussion was ONLY the Imperial fleet, at 0.63% of the
GWP.  System squadrons should be based on 1.26% of GWP, and so should be
twice as big as the Imperial Navy.  Getting the defensive forces down to
24 ships per system will be PRETTY TRICKY.  (I also seem to recall from
FFW, that many systems had system squadrons of 120+ ships.  Efate and
Louzy and Rhylanor and Porozlo had thousands apiece.  So the Navy can
let the population 8+ systems patrol themselves, and just worry about
the frontiers.  Yet another obstacle... (*sigh*)
 
 
>>And it is hard to disguise a ship as an
>>"innocent merchant" that carries a fusion plant big enough to fight
>>off a Sloan.  These things are noticable by Customs inspectors, as
>>well as System Defense Squadrons.
>
>Unless the Imperium makes fusion plants above a certain size illegal,
>there's not much the custom inspectors can do about it, is there?
 
Sure, they can call the Navy and tell them, and the Navy can send a
cruiser around to escort them while in system.  They can check the black
box for tampering, and arrest them if the black box sn't clean.  They
can use all those obscure regulations that no one ever pays attention to
to harass them, and look for any escuse possible to put them away. 
Remember that Al Capone was busted for tax-evasion.  They can find
SOMETHING to get these guys on.
 
 
>Oh, I can give you an example from US history too :-).
 
So can I.  Look at the US Navy after the Civil War, and the US army
after WW1, and ...
Unfortunately, no-one has a monopoly on stupidity.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3679
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Piracy
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 92 8:13:30 EST

In re: Steve's and Hans's conversation:

Had a group of players about ten years ago, who it seemed, wanted
nothing more than to get hold of subsidized vessels (mechants,
retiring scouts, etc)..and then skip on the payments.  By the time
all the "forms" had been observed (serving notice, forclosure, and 
so on) the ship had been renumbered, repainted, and sold ofr a *VERY*
tidy profit.

On to next victim.  Seems like there is not nearly so much profit 
in stealing cargo as there is in stealing ships.
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3680
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 1992 10:40 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Turret sized meson acclerators

Howdy,

Ok, somebody said that the tank sized meson guns were a myth...

Striker Book 3 P-39
Meson Accelerator:  Weight=15tons, Volume=15KL, Power=250MW, Cost=10MCr
		    Crew=6, Burst=10cm

Sorry, I'm not really familiar w/ Striker, maybe someone can convert 10cm
to meters?

Scott Kellogg
"What IS it Man??"  -Ren Hork

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3681
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: 
Date: Sun, 9 Feb 92 20:59:13 MET

Steve Higginbotham writes:
>
>Hans:
>
>>Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I was unclear. That means we need to
>>reduce the part of the fleet that is not protecting the high-population
>>worlds to less than 24 ships per system (mainworld and gas giant).
>
>Less than 24 ships per system.  For the Spinward Marches, that comes to
>less than 6528 ships.

As you pointed out elsewhere, you could need a 1000 ships to guard a gas
giant. That would help, right? Not to mention the trip from the gas giant
to the mainworld. Especially if there is an asteroid belt between them.

>                                          (I also seem to recall from
>FFW, that many systems had system squadrons of 120+ ships.  Efate and
>Louzy and Rhylanor and Porozlo had thousands apiece.  So the Navy can
>let the population 8+ systems patrol themselves, and just worry about
>the frontiers.  Yet another obstacle... (*sigh*)

Well, I've always regarded population 8+ worlds as off limit to piracy
anyway (provided they have a reasonable tech level, natch). Still, with
only one planet in six being pop. 8+ there's still lots of systems for
pirates to haunt. The problem remains the regular and reserve navies.

>[About the problems of disguising a pirate as a merchant]

I still think that part is not such a great problem. Still, even if you're
right, there's nothing to stop the pirates _being_ merchant ships and then
hunting in packs. The pirate ships would individually be as weak as the next
merchant, but a group of 4 or 6 could still capture it (in fact, in some ways
they would be better suited than a single large ship).

>True.  However, halving 5,000,000 anti-piracy ships to 2,500,000 is not
>really any help either.

I admitted it didn't work well, didn't I? ;-)

>>I think we're both arguing the same side of the issue. Wether TCS makes
>>a false asumption or ignores a crucial element is immaterial. Something
>>is wrong anyway.
>
>Also true.  Suggestions on how to fix?

I'm working on something. I'll get back to you on this in a
couple of weeks.

>>But changing the way the military budget is divided between System,
>>Subsector and Imperial Navy might help. I've been using 1/3 each, so
>>changing that to 1/2, 1/4, 1/4 or something could help a bit.
>
>Check background material:  The existing split should be 70% system, 30%
>split between subsector and Imperial navies, in whatever ratio is
>convenient (slightly less to the Impy Navy, since TL15 ships cost less
>than TL13 ships do).

Unfortunately I don't have Striker although I did borrow it
from a friend once. Thanks.

>If [the pirate] takes out one ship in three hundred, then
>Imperial trade will collapse.

Are you sure about this? I remember once trying to work out the annual
return on a subsidized liner, and I got the figure of 3%. Not that I
mightn't've worked out my sums wrong, I admit. But didn't we decide a few
months ago that the 2000 Cr per week overhead on occupied cabins were
silly? That will help the budget a bit. And then there's speculative
trade. My own experience with speculative trade was with the basic
book 2 rules, so things may be different with MegaTraveller, but I
remember myself and 3 fellow players making ourself billionaires in just
3 evenings play. It was all a matter of having enough capital. Mind you,
the referee played strictly by the book and let us get away with quite
ridiculous things (hey, we were young back then ;-). His initial
mistake, for example, was to allow us to unload 89 computers at 300%
on a population 4 planet. I've often wondered what they wanted the
things for... (No, come to think of it, his very first mistake was to
offer us as many computers as we could afford at 30% standard price
when we had the cash to buy two; we then took a small loan with our
ship as collatteral and bought as many as our hold could hold :-).

Be that as it may, my impression is that you can make some pretty hefty
profits with a starship if you have the capital. Has this all changed
with MegaTraveller?


      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3682
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 09:54:38+1100
From: grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Subject: TCS

Steve:

>Baransky:
> 
>>I'm excited by the discussions about TCS.  Does this mean that people
>>are playing it, or are interested in playing it?  Anyone want to play
>>over the net?
> 
>Sure!  I'm willing if you are.   ---Steve.

Count me in too if you can figure out a decent way to play (why do I subject
myself to too much extra workload?).




        						Pauli

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Uni of Queensland       | JANET:           grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          grue@cs.uq.oz
                        | UUCP:           uunet!munnari!cs.uq.oz!grue
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     grue@cs.uq.oz.au

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3683
Subject: Re: (3681)
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 16:57:23 +1100
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

>From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>

>As you pointed out elsewhere, you could need a 1000 ships to guard a gas
>giant. That would help, right? Not to mention the trip from the gas giant
>to the mainworld. Especially if there is an asteroid belt between them.

Just to throw another spanner in the works...wouldn't a system that lacked
the 1000 ships/gas giant get around the problem by defining a few jump points
around the GG that were protected by ships.  Thus, any merchant that desired
some kind of safety could use the official jump points and be quite safe all
the time they were in system.  Ships jumping into the system had better
make sure that they jump in quite close to the recoginised points.  I assume
that jumps that precise are possible --- how else would jumps in formation
be possible???  Using this system would also make the job of the customs
people easier.  Board random ships that arrive normally.  Board all ships that
arrive elsewhere.  Shoot down all ships leaving abnormally :-)
IMHO, customs people boarding ships is silly.  Inspect them after they land
and if they attempt to land away from a starport, blow them away.  You might
have guessed that I believe in quite draconian methods of law enforcement.




        						Pauli

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Uni of Queensland       | JANET:           grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          grue@cs.uq.oz
                        | UUCP:           uunet!munnari!cs.uq.oz!grue
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     grue@cs.uq.oz.au

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3684
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: turret sized meson guns
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 11:33:00 GMT

KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu writes:
> 
> Striker Book 3 P-39
> Meson Accelerator:  Weight=15tons, Volume=15KL, Power=250MW, Cost=10MCr
> 		    Crew=6, Burst=10cm
> 
> Sorry, I'm not really familiar w/ Striker, maybe someone can convert 10cm
> to meters?

I believe Striker is intended for use with miniatures, and operates on a
scale of 1/1000.  Ranges, burst sizes etc. are always given in cm as
measured on the game table.  So that burst size translates as 100m.

Why didn't they just give all ranges in mm (game), which would be equal
to m (real)?  :-(

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3685
Date:    Mon, 10 Feb 92 09:44 EST
From: <PHB100@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: (3665) Re: still more striker (1)...

>> >  Yes, but real world ships don't have to pull 6G. There were some talk
>> >about the inertial compensators removing the inertia that would tear
>> >the ship up during 6G manuevers, but that sounds like a TL11 version of
>> >lifting oneself in ones hair.
>>
>> So, you disbelieve in inertial compensators when you find them
>> inconvenient, but use them when they support your opinions?
>
>  If I believed in them in the second way (cancel all inertia of the whole
>ship even structural components) any ship in the Imperium would go like
>greased lightning if they put normal (chemical or fusion) rockets on them:

Wait!  If you cancel all inertia, wouldn't you get light pressure effects?  I
can see it now...your grav tank is cruising along on the night side of a planet
when it crosses the terminator and suddenly it's going slower than it was!
Then as you get closer and closer to noon, you get forced closer to the ground!
Of course when the sun is behind you, you speed up!

I seem to recall Heinlein's _Methuseleh's Children_ (sp) using this as an STL
drive...Dive toward the sun, turn it on, and presto, change-o, you are
instantly going the other direction at just under c (I never could figure out
why they weren't going _at_ c).

- ----------
In the dark no one can hear the color of your eyes.
Disclaimer:  This is me.  Do I sound like anyone else?

Paul Baughman          PHB100 @ psuvm.bitnet
                       baughman @ gis.psu.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3686
Date:    Mon, 10 Feb 92 09:53 EST
From: <PHB100@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: (3675) Why Strephon was Shot

>In response to Scott's request for other ideas...
>
>It's lunch time for the council.  Strephon asks for some cheese
>to top his pizza.
>
>Dulinor _knows_ the emperor has just let slip the secret of the
>par meson -- a new totally devastating weapon, so... :=)

Ouch, Richard, that *HURT*!  8+))))))
I'm going to send that one in to the Imperial Society Against Really Bad Puns
(ISARBP).  So don't be suprised if you receive a visit from the Secret
Imperial Pun Police (SIPP).

(...Hey, its the best I could do!  I'm not good at thinking up puns!)

>- --
>Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com
>
- ----------
In the dark no one can hear the color of your eyes.
Disclaimer:  This is me.  Do I sound like anyone else?

Paul Baughman          PHB100 @ psuvm.bitnet
                       baughman @ gis.psu.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3687
Date:         Mon, 10 Feb 92 10:34:53 EST
From: Nicholas Sylvain <NPSYLV%WMVM1.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      Barratry and Banks

>Date: Sun, 9 Feb 92 8:13:30 EST
>From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
>Subject: (3679) Piracy
>
>Had a group of players about ten years ago, who it seemed, wanted
>nothing more than to get hold of subsidized vessels (mechants,
>retiring scouts, etc)..and then skip on the payments.  By the time
>all the "forms" had been observed (serving notice, forclosure, and
>so on) the ship had been renumbered, repainted, and sold ofr a *VERY*
>tidy profit.

You must have been a very lenient referee, Richard. I see things haven't
changed that much in ten years. :->

Seriously, that just begs the question, just how stupid ARE the banks that
are responsible for the loans on these criminal capital machines? (With the
related question, if they were that stupid, why are the banks still in
business? Hmm. Sounds like another Hard Times reason. Everybody got bored
and greedy, applied to each other's banks for subsidized ships, then they
all skipped out and sold the ships.... Hmmm...)

Anyway, I would refer you to JTAS#16: "Giving the Bank a Fighting Chance."
I quote: "Banks finance ships knowing the risks involved, and *they do
everything possible to push the odds over into their favor.*" It goes on
to detail some easy preventative measures (credit checks, collateral,
full background review, intended use plan) as well as some more effective
measures (a timer built into the ship's computer which must be reset by
a bank official after each payment has been made). "Most banks, however,
find it simpler to deny the loan application in the first place."

This is in addition to the difficulty inherent in tampering successfully with
a black box and the computer anyway. The subsidized ships aren't THAT much
alike so that you can't tell them apart. Besides, even if they DID sell
the ship, they should have hordes of bank personnel and bounty hunters hot
on their trail, unless they repainted and renumbered themselves too! :->

Plus, if I were the bank, I would repo first and tend to the formalities
later (which would be legally justifiable given the high value and mobility
of a starship).

- ---
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
 the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
                   -- United States Constitution, Amendment 2

Nicholas Sylvain (npsylv@wmvm1.cc.wm.edu)
Marshall-Wythe School of Law
College of William and Mary

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3688
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Barratry and Banks
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 8:55:02 EST


<me>
:>Had a group of players about ten years ago, who it seemed, wanted
:>nothing more than to get hold of subsidized vessels (mechants,
:>retiring scouts, etc)..and then skip on the payments.  By the time
:>all the "forms" had been observed (serving notice, forclosure, and
:>so on) the ship had been renumbered, repainted, and sold ofr a *VERY*
:>tidy profit.
:
<Nick Sylvain>
:You must have been a very lenient referee, Richard. I see things haven't
:changed that much in ten years. :->
:
:Seriously, that just begs the question, just how stupid ARE the banks that
:are responsible for the loans on these criminal capital machines? (With the
:related question, if they were that stupid, why are the banks still in
:business? Hmm. Sounds like another Hard Times reason. Everybody got bored
:and greedy, applied to each other's banks for subsidized ships, then they
:all skipped out and sold the ships.... Hmmm...)
:
:Anyway, I would refer you to JTAS#16: "Giving the Bank a Fighting Chance."
:I quote: "Banks finance ships knowing the risks involved, and *they do
:everything possible to push the odds over into their favor.*" It goes on
:to detail some easy preventative measures (credit checks, collateral,
:full background review, intended use plan) as well as some more effective
:measures (a timer built into the ship's computer which must be reset by
:a bank official after each payment has been made). "Most banks, however,
:find it simpler to deny the loan application in the first place."
:
:This is in addition to the difficulty inherent in tampering successfully with
:a black box and the computer anyway. The subsidized ships aren't THAT much
:alike so that you can't tell them apart. Besides, even if they DID sell
:the ship, they should have hordes of bank personnel and bounty hunters hot
:on their trail, unless they repainted and renumbered themselves too! :->
:
:Plus, if I were the bank, I would repo first and tend to the formalities
:later (which would be legally justifiable given the high value and mobility
:of a starship).

Funny you should mention that.  It was a (player character) bounty hunter
that did in that particular party.  Took a long time, (about a year real
time) and the (original) survivors were pretty jumpy before they figured 
out why people kept not returning from shore leave.  

This campaign was part of my original attempts at double-blind GM'ing.
The player really liked it, but it was too much work for me.  I burned
out for a few years.
- -- 
Richard Johnson     richard@agora.rain.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3689
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 11:10:08 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS...

Pauli:
 
>Steve:
>
>>Baransky:
>> 
>>>I'm excited by the discussions about TCS.  Does this mean that people
>>>are playing it, or are interested in playing it?  Anyone want to play
>>>over the net?
>>
>>Sure!  I'm willing if you are.   ---Steve.
>
>Count me in too if you can figure out a decent way to play (why do I
>subject
>myself to too much extra workload?).
 
Ok, that's three of us.  Any more out there interested?  I have long
wanted to do the kind of campaign where I can test Naval Design Doctrine
to the Breaking Point.  This may be our big chance to take our Naval
Discussions out of the realm of theory, and try some of them out.
 
Later...
 

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3690
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 11:12:21 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: tank-mounted meson guns...

Scott:
 
>Ok, somebody said that the tank sized meson guns were a myth...
>
>Striker Book 3 P-39
>Meson Accelerator:  Weight=15tons, Volume=15KL, Power=250MW, Cost=10MCr
>             Crew=6, Burst=10cm
>
>Sorry, I'm not really familiar w/ Striker, maybe someone can convert
10cm
>to meters?
 
So it does.  Apologies for the misinformation...
That seems to pretty much render the high armour tank meaningless at
TL15+.
It also renders the whole line of discussion meaningless, since a
meson-gun armed tank ignores armour, so armour protects not at all. 
Neither does NOE, since both neutrino sensors and densitometers ignore
LOS, and the meson gun does too.  So what does that leave for TL15
combat?    There is no real defense from a meson gun equipped with point
defense fire-control, and no real reason not to use one, since it avoids
the problems of fusion guns (very easy to spot and pinpoint the firing
position of a fusion gun).
 
Hmmm...
This will definitely require some thought to come up with an adequate
doctrine that doesn't sound like MAD.
 
Oh yeah... 10cm in Striker is 100 meters.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Feb 17 00:19:29 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA10470) Mon, 17 Feb 92 00:19:12 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA01887@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:49 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA21651; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:01:51 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA24637; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:23 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA08634; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:18 PST
Message-Id: <9202170500.AA08634@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #304: Msgs 3691-3705
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:17 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: RO


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Feb 16 21:00:12 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #304: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3691  10-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha gas giant refueling... << Hans: >>Less than 2
3692  10-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha merchants and pirates and merchants... << Han
3693  11-Feb-92 eric@cc.uq.oz.au  PBeM TCS & FFW << >>>I'm excited by the discu
3694  11-Feb-92 Eric Edward Moore Fwd: Returned mail: Service unavailable << Ni
3695  11-Feb-92 Eric Edward Moore Re: (3691) gas giant refueling... << Steve_Hi
3696  11-Feb-92 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: Pancakes on Strike! << > From: Steve_Higg
3697  11-Feb-92 d9bertil@dtek.cha Re: fleets revisited, again... << > From: Ste
3698  11-Feb-92 sasmjw@unx.sas.CO Weenie merchant characters << In V33#14 Steve
3699  11-Feb-92 zonker@ihlpf.att. More Striker << >Why didn't they just give al
3700  11-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI" Pirates & TCS << RE: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>
3701  12-Feb-92 Pauli             Re: (3690) tank-mounted meson guns... << >Fro
3702  11-Feb-92 krupke.com!gwh@lu Gas Giants analysis... << Quick question ... 
3703  11-Feb-92 Joe Block         Re: (3689) TCS... << I'm up for it. I think I
3704  12-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS PBEM... << Baranski: >RE: TCS & FFW > >I 
3705  12-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha merchants and pirates and navies... << Eric: 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3691
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 11:15:37 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: gas giant refueling...

Hans:
 
>>Less than 24 ships per system.  For the Spinward Marches, that comes
>>to less than 6528 ships.
>
>As you pointed out elsewhere, you could need a 1000 ships to guard a
>gas giant. That would help, right? Not to mention the trip from the gas
>giant to the mainworld. Especially if there is an asteroid belt between
>them.
 
You probably won't bother to defend the gas giant...
 
If you don't like mathematical analyses of role-playing events, skip
this message.  --Steve
 
I asserted without proof last year that it is more profitable to buy
fuel at the starport than to do wilderness refueling at a gas giant. 
Here is the proof:
 
Assumptions:
 
1)  The main world is not orbiting the gas giant.
2)  The gas giants are in the outer system.
3)  For the sake of discussion, the solar system is typical of solar
systems in general (I am not going to locate every gas giant in the
Imperium to prove the point.  I am going to use the solar system's gas
giant's to demonstrate the point)
4)  I will use a free trader, and a fat trader as example ships, because
I am too lazy to dredge up figures for every merchant type written up,
and those two are convenient.
5)  Mean time in Jumpspace = seven days.
6)  Mean time in port = seven days.
 
Average time to make a single trip (one way) is 14 days.
A ship can make 25 trips per year.
Unrefined fuel bought at a starport costs Cr4389 per trip (free trader)
or Cr7497 per trip (fat trader).
 
Time required for a one way transit to (or from) Jupiter: 155+ hours.
 
Assume a ship arrives at Jupiter, refuels, and transits to Terra (based
on a mean time to skim a gas giant from SOM).  The time required to do
so is about 162 hours, with a slight risk of loss of ship (5/1944).
 
Therefore, a ship which uses wilderness refueling adds about 1 week to
the cycle time for a single one way trip.
 
A three week trip cycle means the ship will only make 17 jumps per year
(if the crew feels safe about skimping on maintenance, 16 if not).
 
So, the ship saves immediate out of pocket expenses of Cr109,725 (free
trader) or Cr187425 (fat trader).  
A ship will lose, by not jumping, a minimum of the income from a cargo
hold full of consignment freight.  Therefore a free trader will lose
Cr655,344 by making only 17 jumps per year (MINIMUM).  A fat trader will
lose MCr1.5984 under the same conditions.
 
Since the loss of revenue exceeds the cost of unrefined fuel at the
starport by a factor of 6 for a free trader, and 8+ for a fat trader,
using wilderness refueling at a gas giant is an idea whose time passed
the first time a merchant got hold af a calculator, which was probably
11,000 years ago (the Vilani LOVE profit/loss examinations).
 
Therefore gas giant refueling is irrelevant to a merchant, and defending
the gas giant superfluous (except from enemy fleets).
 
Objections to the proof:  
 
Some main worlds orbit gas giants.  True.  If you don't mind the risk of
losing your ship, refueling at a gas giant is useful (in that specific
case).  Chance of losing a ship during gas giant refueling, over the
lifetime of the mortgage: greater than 82%.  How many banks are going to
finance a deal THAT risky.  That chance of loss assumes 17 trips per
year, all refueled at a gas giant.  Over the (80 year) lifetime of the
ship, chance of loss exceeds 96%, assuming the same.  Mean time to lose
your ship id gas giant refueling is SOP : 15.8 years.  Good luck, you'll
need it.  You'll also need to pay for your ship in 15 years if you even
HOPE to break even.  Good luck on that, too.
 
Some gas giants are closer than Jupiter.  Also true.  Some are farther
away.  A gas giant as close as Mars would add about 90 hours to your
turnaround time.  This reduces flights per year from 25 to 20 (or less).
This reduces lost income from the listed figures to Cr409,590
(Cr999,000).  This is still considerably higher than the cost of the
fuel.  Notice that the revenue from a full hold is higher than the cost
of a year's supply of fuel for a fat trader:  a fat trader should never
do wilderness refueling where the time required is great enough to cost
even ONE jump per year.  That condition applies if the gas giant is more
than 2.0736 Million Km away.  Therefore, by MT rules, a fat trader
should use gas giant refueling only in the case of a main world orbiting
the gas giant, or a gas giant in a captured orbit no more than 0.014AU
distant from the main world.  A free trader loses if it cannot make two
jumps, so the gas giant can be farther away, and still be remotely
useful.  The breakpoint for a free trader is 17.465 million Km
(0.117AU).
 
So effectively, no gas giant the main world is not orbiting is useful
for wilderness refueling, unless the ship captain doesn't mind losing
money.
 
BTW, it can be shown that the transit from jump arrival point to a gas
giant is long enough that a free trader/fat trader loses money by going
to a main world that orbits a gas giant.  Transit from Jupiter's jump-in
point to any of it's major satellites is about 20 hours, and Jupiter is
a SMALL gas giant by Traveller standards.  That would add two days to
your turnaround, and knock two jumps off your year's schedule, with
appropriate loss of revenue.
 
SO, defending the gas giant is largely unnecessary, and wasteful of
ships unless in a war situation (Navies don't care from money).
 
So, you only need a dozen ships per system to deal with pirates, and
twelve ships as small as a Sloan are NOT hard to come by.  Twelve ships
as small as an SEH aren't hard to come by either.  By TCS rules, a world
with population over about 38 million could support the latter, and
perhaps 10 million for the former.  Trin could buy enough for the whole
Spinward Marches.  
 
It's still a LONNNG way to making piracy safe in the Marches.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3692
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 92 11:18:50 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: merchants and pirates and merchants...

Hans:
 
>>[About the problems of disguising a pirate as a merchant]
>
>I still think that part is not such a great problem. Still, even if
>you're right, there's nothing to stop the pirates _being_ merchant
>ships and then hunting in packs. The pirate ships would individually be
>as weak as the next merchant, but a group of 4 or 6 could still capture
>it (in fact, in some ways they would be better suited than a single
>large ship).
 
Does the word "convoy" ring a bell?
Besides, if the pirates are merchants in a pack, your original
assumption that the pirates are too tough for the Navy to deal with goes
by the wayside.  Then Gazelles will be sufficient for anti-piracy
patrols, and the problem will still be solved.
 
 
>I'm working on something. I'll get back to you on this in a
>couple of weeks.
 
Good.  I appreciate that...
 
 
>>If [the pirate] takes out one ship in three hundred, then
>>Imperial trade will collapse.
>
>Are you sure about this? I remember once trying to work out the annual
>return on a subsidized liner, and I got the figure of 3%. Not that I
>mightn't've worked out my sums wrong, I admit. But didn't we decide a
>few months ago that the 2000 Cr per week overhead on occupied cabins
>were silly? That will help the budget a bit. And then there's
>speculative trade. My own experience with speculative trade was with
>the basic book 2 rules, so things may be different with MegaTraveller,
>but I remember myself and 3 fellow players making ourself billionaires
>in just 3 evenings play. It was all a matter of having enough capital.
>Mind you, the referee played strictly by the book and let us get away
>with quite ridiculous things (hey, we were young back then ;-). His
>initial mistake, for example, was to allow us to unload 89 computers at
>300% on a population 4 planet. I've often wondered what they wanted the
>things for... (No, come to think of it, his very first mistake was to
>offer us as many computers as we could afford at 30% standard price
>when we had the cash to buy two; we then took a small loan with our
>ship as collatteral and bought as many as our hold could hold :-).
>
>Be that as it may, my impression is that you can make some pretty hefty
>profits with a starship if you have the capital. Has this all changed
>with MegaTraveller?
 
An annual return of 3% represents 25 voyages.  If a ship makes 3% per
year, then if more than 3% of the ships were lost every year things
would collpase.  3% losses per year translates to one ship in every 821
in any given two week period.
 
And, yes, it is all a matter of starting capital, which is why none of
my characters buys a ship till he has MCr3 more than the required down
payment.  I just buy cargo and ship it on someone else's ship till then.
That way my ships always make gobs of money, and my characters typically
are multimillionaires.  Right now, one has a net worth rather more than
a billion, and one slightly less.  The newest one is worth more than the
other two combined.
 
BTW, to change the subject (almost) entirely, I would like to suggest a
new topic for discussion on the List.
 
   How do any GM's who feel like commenting deal with the tendency of
people with expensive, new ships to want to keep their ship in a safe,
money-making situation?  That is, how do you get the guys who just
bought a merchant ship on Rhylanor to leave the Rhylanor-Porozlo run,
which is arguably the safest and most profitable place to stay?  How do
you convince your players to go out into the frontiers where money is
hard to come by, and foreclosure is all too close?  Notice that GDW,
over the years, has suggested a great many adventures where the final
reward doesn't even make expenses, and at least one (the Traveller
Adventure) where Barratry is a way of life for the adventurers.  The
only adventure I recall where the effort was worth the reward was
"Prosperity for the Taking" which went a little overboard in the other
direction.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3693
From: eric@cc.uq.oz.au (Eric Halil)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 09:40:22 +1000
Subject: PBeM TCS & FFW


>>>I'm excited by the discussions about TCS. [...] Anyone want to play
>>>over the net? -- Baransky
  
>>Sure!  I'm willing if you are.   ---Steve.

>Count me in too if you can figure out a decent way to play (why do I subject
>myself to too much extra workload?)  -- Pauli

A TCS PBeM would be great!  A campaign game (as in the TCS rulebook) would be 
the most challenging and fun (especially incorporating the "fog of war" rules)!

Pauli and I discussed this a little bit ages ago.  Combat seemed very
difficult to resolve in any simple manner (if you wanted to say true to
High Guard anyway).  I think optimally for playing speed you'd need to
resolve all combat in a single PBeM turn and this is where the problem
arises.  There doesn't seem to be any easy way to simplify combat so
that most combat options are available.  (In very early discussions we
looked at you'd have to supply the combat orders for your fleet without
knowing what was on the other fleet was composed of!  Needless to say
this was quickly discarded as an option.)

On the positive side someones done it!  I did see an ad for a commercial
PBM based on TCS in Challenge.  Has anyone had any experience with it??

Another game with great potential for a PBeM would be Fifth Frontier War with
players representing various fleet admirals and also using "fog of war" rules
from TCS.  Combat here would be much easier to handle.  I'd even to willing to
GM it myself and have often thought of converting it to PBM format.  Only thing
stopping me is that I've never been able to get a copy ;-(  Has anyone else
run a PBM FFW?  Maybe people with the rules can suggest how easy it would be
to do.

Eric (eric@cc.uq.oz.au)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3694
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 00:47:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Edward Moore <em21+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Fwd: Returned mail: Service unavailable


Nicholas Sylvain <NPSYLV%WMVM1.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> writes:
> Seriously, that just begs the question, just how stupid ARE the banks that
> are responsible for the loans on these criminal capital machines? (With the
> related question, if they were that stupid, why are the banks still in
> business? Hmm. Sounds like another Hard Times reason. Everybody got bored
> and greedy, applied to each other's banks for subsidized ships, then they
> all skipped out and sold the ships.... Hmmm...)

The banks are still in buisness because the make lots of money buying
virtually new spaceships with wet paint and papers, and selling them
at a huge profit.  You think the PLAYERS are money machines, they have
to sell at loss on the black market....

But really, I'd just put a transponder in that needs updates from a
bank office every 3 months or it starts scraming STOLEN STOLEN
STOLEN...  Go ahead, skip, see if I care.  If you disable the
transponder, naval ships have this bad habit of blowing up your ship.
(OK so my views on law enforcement are draconian too...)


	-Love, Kisses, and a Neutron Bomb
		-Eric the Finn

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3695
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 1992 00:58:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Eric Edward Moore <em21+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: (3691) gas giant refueling...

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham) writes:

> So, you only need a dozen ships per system to deal with pirates, and
> twelve ships as small as a Sloan are NOT hard to come by.  Twelve ships
> as small as an SEH aren't hard to come by either.  By TCS rules, a world
> with population over about 38 million could support the latter, and
> perhaps 10 million for the former.  Trin could buy enough for the whole
> Spinward Marches.  

Is the Sloan an SDB?  if not, why are we paying for jump drives?  I
always remember paying through the nose for jump drives, and if we're
staying in-system, why would we want jump drives?  Hell we can save
$$$$ on the hull we don't need for the jump fuel alone.  With planets
that have populations in the tens of billions, navies just get BIG.

	-Love, Kisses, and a Neutron Bomb
		-Eric the Finn

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3696
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: Pancakes on Strike!
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 12:30:03 MET

> From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3672) "pancakes" and other Striker...
> 
> An odd picture, but perfectly true, all the same.  I concede the point. 
> However you inadvertently made MY point:  that it is safer to be at
> altitude than at NOE.
  
  I know, and there is perhaps one way of evading the low hit probabilities 
for all weapons, and that is to use missiles with sensor suites as forward
observers that transmit targetting data back to the launching platform.
  
> BTW, the pncake has one serious flaw:  curvature of the planet limits
> the effective side of the pancake to no more than 5 or so Km, unless the
> tanks are operating at altitude.  So the "pancake" doesn't actually
> exist except in theoreticians' minds>

  The maximum range on which a radar can get a clear line of sight over
flat altitude 0 terrain between two grav-tanks on 1850m altitude is 350km
The reason behind the funny altitude is that I got this figure from the
revised LOS chart for Harpoon:)
  
> You are showing your track-layer prejudices again.  If you can fly, you
> can choose an altitude where your shot falls at the most advantageous
> (to you) angle.  Then armour sloping becomes much more problematic, and
> design theory would probably consist of determining optimum slope to
> convince your enemy to move to a position (relative to you) that makes
> HIm more vulnerable.  Sounds like fun... 

  I had an idea for a gravtank looking somewhat like a sharp saucer with
a thickness to diameter ratio of 1:10. From tha altitudes and ranges one get
with the pancake theory this would mean a gain in armour thickness in
90% of the cases due to the (to put it mildly) radical slope.

> Power to weight ratio (though MT loves teh concept) is meaningless.  The
> correct concept is "power to MASS ratio".  Even if weight is zero, mass
> is still there.

  Isn't the purpose of inertial compensators to remove the effects of
accelerations by removing inertia (and thus mass)? I know that I wrote
weight but I wasn't totally awake when I wrote it:)
  
> I noticed the HUD problem myself last night on the
> Vargr ships in Rebellion Sourcebook.  I suspect this has something to do
> with the fact that the various controls DON'T DO ANYTHING other than
> contribute to CP totals.

  The reason for the strange number of HUDs is that it is that one HUD per
panel is the most optimum combination to get a high number of CPs. I think 
it was Paul Dale that discovered this.

> Something needs to be done (at least
> informally) to regulate the use of controls of various types.  No more
> than one HUD per workstation, or whatever.

  There were some ideas about putting a max number of HUDs at 1/bridge
crew, 1/2command, 1/2engineers on the TML (or was it in a private email?
I didn't save it, unfortunately)

> For that matter, why can't a
> ship have large numbers of computers, so ships don't need to be limited
> by Computer CP limits?

  I've done this once of twice for low-tech defensive ships.
  
> Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3697
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: Re: fleets revisited, again...
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 13:22:17 MET

> From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
> Subject: (3673) fleets revisited, again...
>
> The "jumppoiny is a myth.  Properly, it is the surface of a sphere of
> radius 100 planetary diameters.  It would take considerably more than
> one ship to defend same (perhaps 12, as I said earlier (for a world, a
> gas giant would require thousands).

  Ok. I'll multiply the number of ships needed by ten for each world and
1000 for each GG. This gives 3030 ships per system as an estimate.

> Sigh... TCS already sets crew and basing costs at 99% of the Naval
> Budget.  Which is where the 10% base comes from.

  Well, I've never even seen a copy of TCS in real life so I think I might
be forgiven some blundering about it, but I still think that it is too low
to assume that a ship, crewed, serviced and based will cost just 10% of its
budget each year.

  I'm basing my comments upon Mercenary where it said that a mercenary
force will have to pay 10% equipment cost each year on maintainance and
replacements, and on top of that the wages and exceptional expenses are 
added.
  
> Actually, a "suitable" ship is the 5000 ton fleet escort at about GCr4.
> Multiply ship availability by 7.75 again.

  Ok, but the number of ships goes up to, so the new better figures would
be 33 MShips (Ah! A new unit!:) needed for anti-piracy duty. Using the
pure 10% figure for spending on ships, a 100% of GNP defence budget and 
100% anti-piracy percentage each one of those 33 MShips can cost GCr66.
This is the absolute maximum upper limit on an 33 MShip navy.
  If we reduce defence spending to a more resonable level of the GNP, say
30% and anti-piracy percentage to 25%, each ship could cost GCr5. The cost
of them are GCr4, so lets just double cost and see the ships disappear:)

> And if we make automobiles fifty times as expensive, people will stop
> buying them.

  Hmm, have you been talking to some politicians here in Sweden? :)

> Of course, the pirates will then cost fifty times as much,
> too.  If they don't, then they are built like merchant ships, and a
> Naval vessel that could fight them could be built that way, too.

  Why fight them on their own terms and risk a loss?
  
> >  And when the pirates are gone, trade will commence again and so on.
>  
> No.  If you are forced by "other concerns" to build a grav unit factory
> on your own planet, then when the pirates are gone, why would you shut
> it down and start importing them?

  I'm assuming that while everything can be produced everywhere, the
production costs vary quite heavily from system to system. And when the cost
of making them on Cheapo/Massilia plus the cost of transporting them to
Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses (including losses to piracy) is lower than the
cost of making them on Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses some shrewd businesssophont
(3 's'?) on Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses will start importing them again,
undercutting the local production. First the local Not-so-cheapo government
will impose taxes and stuff and travel to Cheapo/Massilia to persuade them
to impose voluntary quotas, and if the profit is big enough smuggling will
appear. Sooner or later Not-so-cheapo will discover that many can play
that game, and discover that they as a whole will gain from free trade,
and remove the tariffs. And trade will start up again.

> Once your indigenous industry can
> build something, importing it becomes a waste.

  I'll refrain from providing real-life examples:)

> In any case, by the time you finish
> building a missile of the correct size, you will notice that it has room
> for a Minuteman RV as a warhead.

  This will cause missile turrets to take up more space, making them less
attractive to merchants as a byproduct:)
  
> is Hard Times Traveller?

  That is debatable.

>  How about the
> Rebellion?  
 
  That is also debatable.
  
> Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

- -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3698
From: sasmjw@unx.sas.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 09:48:07 -0500
Subject: Weenie merchant characters

    In V33#14 Steve Higginbotham says:
       How do any GM's who feel like commenting deal with the tendency of
    people with expensive, new ships to want to keep their ship in a safe,
    money-making situation?  That is, how do you get the guys who just
    bought a merchant ship on Rhylanor to leave the Rhylanor-Porozlo run,
    which is arguably the safest and most profitable place to stay?  How do
    you convince your players to go out into the frontiers where money is
    hard to come by, and foreclosure is all too close?  Notice that GDW,

Have you tried the Lunion-Ianic run?  That's the first jump my players
made with their many-years-to-pay Far Trader, and they did in fact
make a profit on it.  They were fairly lucky...Ianic has a bureaucracy
like you wouldn't believe, and it took a lot of bribery to get by the
import tariffs (which would have made the run a severe loss) and to
bribe the customs officers who searched the ship (fortunately they had
yet to build the fermentation vats and the still)...and then the
ship's doctor asked for a map to the city, and after being shuffled
around the various bureaus for about four hours discovered it was a
state secret and was deported at gunpoint.  The Lunion-Ianic run
doesn't look at all attractive now...
    Basically the mix of characters is sufficiently diverse that
sitting on one safe route is anathema to them.  The merchant himself
wouldn't mind it, but the scouts would object, as would the ex-Navy
folks, all of whom are needed to run the new ship they "found."  Now
they're fully caught up in doing the job of that ship's previous
owners and are two sectors to spinward of the Spinward Marches, and I
don't think they're going to find many safe routes there.
    If enough non-merchants are on the ship, as is (I believe) likely
with yer average player-character merchant (ex-Navy guys are a dime a
dozen, and don't interfere with how you run your commerce), character
motivation should drive them from the safe and easy.  After all, it
wouldn't be Traveller if they didn't Travel, would it?

Martyn
- -------------sasmjw@unx.sas.com----(Martyn J. Wheeler)----DoD #293------------
SAS Institute, Inc: (919) 677-8000 ext.7954    H: (919) 839-0092 (Raleigh, NC)
    "I'm going to float up into the air and see who's shooting at us"
            - Grand Admiral Sir Bridgehead, Retd. (and recovering nicely)


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3699
From: zonker@ihlpf.att.COM
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 10:08 CST
Subject: More Striker

>Why didn't they just give all ranges in mm (game), which would be equal
>to m (real)?  :-(
Originally Frank wanted to do just that and let the players use what ever
they wanted for a meter (which you can still do pretty easily).  But we
talked him out of it.  The only praticial measurement to use in a game
situation is a mm and this is too fine a measurement for a wargamer (most
argue/fudge when measuring to the nearest inch :^) and trying to ajudicate
mm level disputes was not a pleasant thought to those of us who run games).

					The Wild Ducks are quite afraid
					Because we have the RAM grenade,
						Tom Harris

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3700
Date: 11 Feb 92 12:17:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: Pirates & TCS

RE: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

'systems defined jump points make things easy'

True...  However, in my opinion, not all systems are organized enough to have
jump points defined, published and guarded.  Cretainly and A or B starport
will, but maybe not C, and probably not D or E.

Then again, how many people will rather not use a defined jump point for
secrcy, privacy, skuldugery, and whathaveyou.  Possibly 10%.  Some people will
want to avoid your pleasant customs agents, etc.

I don't see a jump point being a precise point in any case.  While a group of
ships can jump in formation from the same place and time to the same place and
time, using shared data and linked computers, it is not a routine task to
complete with complete success (all ships ending up exactly where they are
supposed to).  Different pilots and ships and departure points and times makes
arriving at a same point all the time *very* difficult.  Also, do you want
*everybody* jumping into the same place?  How long before two ships jump at the
same time?  It's much more likely that the jump point would be a rather broad
'zone'.  How broad you make it depends on how the referee wants to play it.

RE: 'gas giant refueling loses money'

Nice analysis...

I figure most people gas giant refuel when there is no refined fuel available.
Certainly that was the main reason that I liked having a refinery, because lots
of places I went to didn't have refined fuel.  Then again, there are those
people who would rather refuel anonamously at the gas giant then line up at the
pump. See above.

RE: TCS & FFW

I have both sets... but not at work.  I'd love to play some time with anyone in
New England.  I'm down in Norwich CT.  As for on the net, it's been a while
since I've looked at them, so I need to read them over to see how to run it. I
won't volunteer to run it just yet, but I would like to play a campaign game,
with combat resolved on a turn by turn basis, where combat turns are about a
day apart.  Maybe less if the combatants and ref can turnaround messages during
the day, maybe more on weekends.  Campaign turns should probably be two or
three days.  Perhaps we could have a campiagn referee, and a combat referee to
make life easier.  I'd like to have it as realistic as possible; IE:  You don't
know what other people/systems are doing unless you have a ship there, although
someone can tell you what is going on if they are there.  Lots of Diplomacy.
All dice are rolled by the referee.

I'd prefer to play TCS, as I think it's requires less setup and bookkeeping;
it's a smaller campaign.

So Far, as interested parties we have...

Jim Baranski, NUWC, New London CT, BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@NL.NUSC.NAVY.MIL
Eric Halil, U Queenland, Australia, eric@cc.uq.oz.au
Steve Higginbotham, New Orleans LA, Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US
Pauli Grue, U Queenland, Australia, Grue@cs.uq.oz.au

Care to start discussing who starts out with what worlds?  If I remember
correctly, There are two sides in the Campaign listed in the book.  Would it be
more fun in an unknown setting where you had to explore and make contact?

In choosing who starts with what, I suggest that we state our preferances and
bid for them X number of victory points to be subtracted from your final score
to even out any precieved advantages.

What do you think is the best?

Jim Baranski


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3701
Subject: Re: (3690) tank-mounted meson guns...
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 10:38:04 +1100
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

>From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
>Scott:
>>Striker Book 3 P-39
>>Meson Accelerator:  Weight=15tons, Volume=15KL, Power=250MW, Cost=10MCr
>>             Crew=6, Burst=10cm

>So it does.  Apologies for the misinformation...
>That seems to pretty much render the high armour tank meaningless at
>TL15+.

Nope, they still might have to fight against lower TL vehicles.  Or would
the military design and build several different kinds of vehicles depending
upon the TL of the enemy?  This may not be such a bad idea, the TL15 tank
designed to kill TL10 ones would be very different to one designed to kill
TL15 ones.


>It also renders the whole line of discussion meaningless, since a
>meson-gun armed tank ignores armour, so armour protects not at all. 
>Neither does NOE, since both neutrino sensors and densitometers ignore
>LOS, and the meson gun does too.  So what does that leave for TL15
>combat?    There is no real defense from a meson gun equipped with point
>defense fire-control, and no real reason not to use one, since it avoids
>the problems of fusion guns (very easy to spot and pinpoint the firing
>position of a fusion gun).

Ummm, there is a defence.  Meson screens exist.  True, rules don't cover
how they effect the above mentioned meson gun but meson screens have existed
for a long time (since HG!).  Also, under MT vehicles are designed using the
same (broken) rules as starships and no system restrictions are imposed.

Looking at my ref's guide, I see that a UCP 4 Meson screen occupies the least
volume (215kL, TL=14, Power=0.6mW/kL, 160Tons, MCr40).  Probably a little on
the heavy side for tank based usage.  However, a UCP 1 screen should be a little
better refined at TL=15 than at TL=12 (as is listed in the guide).  My suggested
TL improvement (as submitted to the TDR vehicle design sub-group) listed a
UCP 1 meson screen at TL=15 as 0.01mW/kL, 45kL, 40Tons, MCr5.  This would be
getting into the feasible range for a small craft.  I'd be willing to introduce
a UCP 0 screen specifically for operations against the tank mounted gun.


>Hmmm...
>This will definitely require some thought to come up with an adequate
>doctrine that doesn't sound like MAD.

A meson screen might just be workable, a black globe would be much more
fun, but would be much too big and expensive to warrant mounting on a small
vehicle.



        						Pauli

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Uni of Queensland       | JANET:           grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          grue@cs.uq.oz
                        | UUCP:           uunet!munnari!cs.uq.oz!grue
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     grue@cs.uq.oz.au

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3702
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 16:45:25 PST
From: krupke.com!gwh@lurnix.lurnix.COM (George W Herbert)
Subject: Gas Giants analysis...


Quick question ... I thought Jupiter was a large GG in MT terms.  Confirm,
somebody? 8-)  (Jupiter and Saturn are large, Uranus, Neptune small, pluta
pardon Pluto an ice planet. 8-)

- -george

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3703
From: Joe Block <jpb@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Subject: Re: (3689) TCS...
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 92 21:58:05 EST


I'm up for it.  I think I may know a couple or three other people who
would be up for it also. 

jpb

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3704
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 08:54:01 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS PBEM...

Baranski:
 
>RE: TCS & FFW
>
>I have both sets... but not at work.  I'd love to play some time with
>anyone in New England.  I'm down in Norwich CT.  As for on the net,
>it's been a while since I've looked at them, so I need to read them
>over to see how to run it. I won't volunteer to run it just yet, but I
>would like to play a campaign game, with combat resolved on a turn by
>turn basis, where combat turns are about a day apart.  Maybe less if
>the combatants and ref can turnaround messages during the day, maybe
>more on weekends.  Campaign turns should probably be two or three
>days.  Perhaps we could have a campiagn referee, and a combat referee
>to make life easier.  I'd like to have it as realistic as possible;
>IE:  You don't know what other people/systems are doing unless you have
>a ship there, although someone can tell you what is going on if they
>are there.  Lots of Diplomacy. All dice are rolled by the referee.
>
>I'd prefer to play TCS, as I think it's requires less setup and
>bookkeeping; it's a smaller campaign.
>
>So Far, as interested parties we have...
>
>Jim Baranski, NUWC, New London CT,
>          BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@NL.NUSC.NAVY.MIL
>Eric Halil, U Queenland, Australia, eric@cc.uq.oz.au
>Steve Higginbotham, New Orleans LA,
>          Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US
>
>Pauli Grue, U Queenland, Australia, Grue@cs.uq.oz.au
>
>Care to start discussing who starts out with what worlds?  If I
>remember correctly, There are two sides in the Campaign listed in the
>book.  Would it be more fun in an unknown setting where you had to
>explore and make contact?
>
>In choosing who starts with what, I suggest that we state our
>preferances and bid for them X number of victory points to be
>subtracted from your final score to even out any precieved advantages.
>
>What do you think is the best?
 
Sounds good to me.  I would like to play, but I'll referee if everyone
else wants to play.
BTW, can you send me a copy of the text of the TNS article on the
General Products Shipyard explosion (from the FFW rules)?  Cynthia wants
it.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3705
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 08:57:18 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: merchants and pirates and navies...

Eric:
 
>Is the Sloan an SDB?  if not, why are we paying for jump drives?  I
 
The only reason for a Jump drive is that we were discussing the
employment of the Imperial Navy on worlds near the frontier (read: no
system squadrons)
 
 
Bertil:
 
>  The reason for the strange number of HUDs is that it is that one HUD
>per panel is the most optimum combination to get a high number of CPs.
>I think it was Paul Dale that discovered this.
 
Actually, optimum under MT rules is to use only large HoloDisplays. 
Then you don't need panels at all.
 
 
>> Sigh... TCS already sets crew and basing costs at 99% of the Naval
>> Budget.  Which is where the 10% base comes from.
>
>  Well, I've never even seen a copy of TCS in real life so I think I
>might be forgiven some blundering about it, but I still think that it
>is too low to assume that a ship, crewed, serviced and based will cost
>just 10% of its budget each year.
>
>  I'm basing my comments upon Mercenary where it said that a mercenary
>force will have to pay 10% equipment cost each year on maintainance and
>replacements, and on top of that the wages and exceptional expenses are
>added.
 
Consider yourself forgiven:)
Crew and service costs for a US Navy submarine (annually, excluding
shipyard visits for refits) is less than 5% of cost.  Basing is a whole
different ballgame, but the last Navy budget that I saw published had
about 40% to maintain existing bases.  The remainder was new
construction, which tells you how long its been since I've seen one.
 
 
>> And if we make automobiles fifty times as expensive, people will stop
>> buying them.
>
>  Hmm, have you been talking to some politicians here in Sweden? :)
 
:)
 
 
>> Of course, the pirates will then cost fifty times as much,
>> too.  If they don't, then they are built like merchant ships, and a
>> Naval vessel that could fight them could be built that way, too.
>
>  Why fight them on their own terms and risk a loss?
 
If the choice is fight them on their terms, or let them run amok, then
the Navy will fight them on their terms.  Check history.  They may not
succeed, but they will try.
 
 
>  I'm assuming that while everything can be produced everywhere, the
>production costs vary quite heavily from system to system. And when the
>cost of making them on Cheapo/Massilia plus the cost of transporting
>them to Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses (including losses to piracy) is lower
>than the cost of making them on Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses some shrewd
>businesssophont(3 's'?) on Not-so-cheapo/OldExpanses will start
>importing them again, undercutting the local production. First the
>local Not-so-cheapo government will impose taxes and stuff and travel
>to Cheapo/Massilia to persuade them to impose voluntary quotas, and if
>the profit is big enough smuggling will appear. Sooner or later
>Not-so-cheapo will discover that many can play that game, and discover
>that they as a whole will gain from free trade, and remove the tariffs.
>And trade will start up again.
 
Assuming you don't use MT concept of trade, anyway.  Under MT rules,
cost of transporting something is a high enough fraction of cost of
goods that moving something more than 2 jumps is prohibitive.  Assuming
you use Lo Ni Po Ba goods Crwhatever.  If you want a real economic
system, where goods are priced according to type of goods, then you will
find that transport fees are reasonable for high value/low bulk goods,
and start moving them.
But if there is a significant price difference between various Imperial
planets, do you let PCs buy ships from the cheap places?  Or do price
variations only apply to NPCs?
 
 
>> In any case, by the time you finish
>> building a missile of the correct size, you will notice that it has
>> room for a Minuteman RV as a warhead.
>
>  This will cause missile turrets to take up more space, making them
>less attractive to merchants as a byproduct:)
  
But the Navy will LOVE them...
 
 
Baranski:
 
>True...  However, in my opinion, not all systems are organized enough
>to have jump points defined, published and guarded.  Cretainly and A or
>B starport will, but maybe not C, and probably not D or E.
 
In the Imperium, they do.  That's what the Scout Service does.  Note
that I don't believe in Jump points, but id=f they were there, the
Scouts would have maped them 600 years ago.
 
 
>Then again, how many people will rather not use a defined jump point
>for secrcy, privacy, skuldugery, and whathaveyou.  Possibly 10%.  Some
>people will want to avoid your pleasant customs agents, etc.
 
And your pleasant customs people will be most curious about a ship that
arrived on planet without using a Jump point.  A planetary sensor system
should be able to track any ship within 100 diameters, wherever it
arrives.  I believe NORAD can do that now, By TL9 it should be geedunk.
 
 
>RE: 'gas giant refueling loses money'
>
>Nice analysis...
>
>I figure most people gas giant refuel when there is no refined fuel
>available.  Certainly that was the main reason that I liked having a
>refinery, because lots of places I went to didn't have refined fuel. 
>Then again, there are those people who would rather refuel anonamously
>at the gas giant then line up at the pump. See above.
 
Notice that I assumed unrefined fuel refined on board.  And if your
people don't mind losing money and anonymity at the same time, that's
their privilege.  Remember that their are SDBs lurking in gas giants,
and they probably notice people refueling there...
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Feb 17 00:29:02 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA10482) Mon, 17 Feb 92 00:28:03 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA01889@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:01:00 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA21662; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:02:02 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA24640; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:32 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA08649; Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:26 PST
Message-Id: <9202170500.AA08649@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #305: Msgs 3706-3725
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:00:25 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: RO


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Feb 16 21:00:22 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #305: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3706  12-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha more TL15 grav tanks... << Paul: >Nope, they 
3707  12-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha Jupiter... << George Herbert (Wells?): >Quick
3708  12-Feb-92 Robert S. Dean    Striker Comments << I've been watching the di
3709  12-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au How big is a HUD? << A fair question in my op
3710  12-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au What exactly does a Fusion/Plasma gun DO? << 
3711  12-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai Re: NOE or airborne << What was the name of t
3712  13-Feb-92 Pauli             Re: fleets revisited << Bertil writes, > The 
3713  13-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse TL 15 ship maintenance << About there being o
3714  13-Feb-92 eric@cc.uq.oz.au  More PBEM TCS & FFW << Looks like there's a f
3715  13-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S pirates, again... << One other thing to consi
3716  14-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS PBEM... (again) << Eric: <about TCS campa
3717  14-Feb-92 richard@agora.rai FGMP and PGMP are *NASTY* << Scott Kellogg as
3718  14-Feb-92 Arthur Green      FFW by mail << Eric - I'm interested (as long
3719  14-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha NAvies, Meson guns, pirates... << Rob Dean: >
3720  14-Feb-92 James T Perkins   PBEM/TML: Extra Extra! UWO down for the count
3721  14-Feb-92 lurnix!krupke!gwh Re: small vs. large GG's << >>Quick question 
3722  14-Feb-92 zonker@ihlpf.att. Star Viking << I have been involved in one of
3723  12-Feb-92 Robert S. Dean    Extra-Planetary Governments << Upon considera
3724  14-Feb-92 Brian G. Vaughan  New worlds to conquer (LONG) << Many people h
3725  15-Feb-92 metlay@minerva.ph What plasma weapons do. << Scott Kellog and R

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3706
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 08:59:05 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: more TL15 grav tanks...

Paul:
 
>Nope, they still might have to fight against lower TL vehicles.  Or
>would the military design and build several different kinds of vehicles
>depending upon the TL of the enemy?  This may not be such a bad idea,
>the TL15 tank designed to kill TL10 ones would be very different to one
>designed to kill TL15 ones.
 
Probably...
 
 
>                                                    I'd be willing to
>introduce a UCP 0 screen specifically for operations against the tank
>mounted gun.
 
I wouldn't.  I notice that the meson gun (battlefield) is also perfect
for mounting on a merchant ship for anti-piracy defense.  Sounds like an
idea to forget as soon as possible.  Based on the fact (?) that no meson
guns at TL14- are less than 650Kl, I suspect that the battlefield meson
gun is one of those things that Traveller introduced because it was a
"neat idea", not because it fit the system.
 
 
Bertil:
 
>> BTW, the pncake has one serious flaw:  curvature of the planet limits
>> the effective side of the pancake to no more than 5 or so Km, unless
>> the tanks are operating at altitude.  So the "pancake" doesn't
>> actually exist except in theoreticians' minds>
>
>  The maximum range on which a radar can get a clear line of sight over
>flat altitude 0 terrain between two grav-tanks on 1850m altitude is
>350km.  The reason behind the funny altitude is that I got this figure
>from the revised LOS chart for Harpoon:)
  
Which is a fine example of operating at altitude.  What is the max range
at sea level on those charts?  I get 19nm for an effective height of
19m, which is rather taller than most tanks.  This give a Pancake
diameter of 70.4Km.  A 5m tank should not be detectable at more than
25Km.
 
 
>  I had an idea for a gravtank looking somewhat like a sharp saucer
>with a thickness to diameter ratio of 1:10. From tha altitudes and
>ranges one get with the pancake theory this would mean a gain in armour
>thickness in 90% of the cases due to the (to put it mildly) radical
>slope.
 
Sounds good.  A little weak against orbital fire, but quite effective in
the pancake.  It would also be weak in dogfights, since it's vulnerable
angles are large, but if you kept your enemies at long range, this
should not be a problem.
 
 
>  Isn't the purpose of inertial compensators to remove the effects of
>accelerations by removing inertia (and thus mass)? I know that I wrote
>weight but I wasn't totally awake when I wrote it:)
 
No.  Inertial Compensators are anti-Jerk fields (jerk= first derivative
of acceleration).  They produce a grav field which compensates
internally for changes in the local acceleration field.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3707
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 09:01:24 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: Jupiter...

George Herbert (Wells?):
 
>Quick question ... I thought Jupiter was a large GG in MT terms. 
>Confirm, somebody? 8-)  (Jupiter and Saturn are large, Uranus, Neptune
>small, pluta pardon Pluto an ice planet. 8-)
 
Under original rules, yes.  Under new rules, Large Gas Giants are size
105 to 245+ (thousands of miles diameter).   Small GG are size 15 to
105.  Jupiter has a radius of 69758 Km (plus or minus), ahich translates
to size 86.7.  Well within the Small GG range.
 
These rules are, of course, the World Builders Handbook, by DGP.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3708
Date:     Wed, 12 Feb 92 10:44:41 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Striker Comments

I've been watching the discussion for the last two weeks, and finally have
the time to stick my nose in again.

Meson Gun tanks:  There's one thing to consider about the meson gun tank, if
you are going to play using the Striker rules--it's considered to be an
indirect fire weapon, due to the difficulty of adjusting the meson speed
to decay at the exact target point (and other scientific double-talk).  We
could debate whether or not this is reasonable, but it is the rule.  The 
suggestion of a tank sized meson screen is not without merit, especially
when you consider that the the batlefiel meson accelerator is equivalent
to a Meson Gun-1  (I seem to recall that ship mounted meson guns get a
10cm/size burst radius), which means that you wouldn't need much screen
power to foul it up.

Armor thickness: I recently came to the conclusion that you were only to
worry about armor volume in Striker as far as weight and density were
concerned--just consider the enclosed volume to be the volume inside the
armor walls.  The only thing such an assumption has an effect on is the
final volume of the vehicle, and if you are feeling really account-like
(and the armor is thick compared to the size of the vehicle) you can add the
armor thickness to the basic dimensions, so that, for example, a tank with
a meter of frontal armor and four centimeters of rear armor, and a nominal
length of 6 meters would have a length of 7.04m for calculation of shipping
volume (and target modifier, if you think it would make a difference.).

Rob Dean
(KISS)

Tom Harris: Are you involved with the Space Viking miniatures rules testing?
Got any insider scoops on the project?


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3709
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1992 11:31 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: How big is a HUD?

A fair question in my opinion...

Folks have been mentioned how it seems logical that no one crew member can
operate more than one HUD at a time.  Therefore ships with more HUDs than
crew members seems to be a real design idiocy.

But consider the alternatives, one HUD per crew member, and control panels to
suppliment the total until the ships total CP's are accounted for.

It seems to me that it would be more logical to have a crew member monitor
a HUD that is twice it's normal size (ie. 2 HUDs) than one HUD plus a hundred
control panels!  Doing so is more expensive, but saves space in a ship.
My experience in the air tells me it would be a LOT easier to look at one HUD
than monitor a slew of dials.  (Ok so I never had a HUD in a Cessna 152, but
even monitoring the 12 or so gauges is a chore)

Thus a HUD twice standard size seems MUCH preferable.  The rule in 101 vehicles
that one crew member can monitor TWELVE CUBIC METERS OF PANELS is truely a
nightmare!

Scott Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3710
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1992 11:48 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: What exactly does a Fusion/Plasma gun DO?

Dumb question right?

Well, I'd just like to try and clarify the blast effects in my mind.  GDW and
DPG are less than helpful in describing what a plasma bolt does.

I have seen references where a PGMP-12 was fired in an enclosed room and the
contents of the entire room were fried.  (Annic Nova)

I have also seen references where an FGMP-15 was fired in an enclosed room
it hits a robot who is standing next to human characters and all that happens
is the robots arm gets blown off.  No one else is injured.  (trav Digest #8)

My reading of MegaTrav is that it does damage more akin to the former
description, but I have seen this vary from referee to referee.
I personally, would blow up the room.  But in the PBEM, at
'Leadfoot's Last Stand' a fusion gun was used without doing so.  (I think)

Perhaps the current PBEM ref's have different ideas about the performance of
the humble fusion gun than Richard does.  If so, I think the security team
should know just in case they feel footloose with such a weapon while standing
next to MY character... :-)
	(Mark?  Metlay?  Richard?  Comments?)

I also kinda wonder about the PGMP-14 and FGMP-15 grav recoil set ups.  If
they were used outside of the 10 diameter limit of a world, would the firer
only get half his recoil compensated for?

Scott Kellogg

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3711
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: Re: NOE or airborne
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 92 9:50:03 EST

What was the name of the French field marshall who said in 1911 that
the airplane was a neat contraption, but had no military value whatsoever?

<lessons from the history files...>
- -- 
Richard Johnson   richard@agora.rain.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3712
Subject: Re: fleets revisited
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 92 10:17:38 +1100
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

Bertil writes,
>  The reason for the strange number of HUDs is that it is that one HUD per
>panel is the most optimum combination to get a high number of CPs. I think 
>it was Paul Dale that discovered this.

I don't think I should be awarded this honour(?).  It is pretty obvious that
that is the best way to do things when the rules impose no restrictions.


>> Something needs to be done (at least
>> informally) to regulate the use of controls of various types.  No more
>> than one HUD per workstation, or whatever.

>  There were some ideas about putting a max number of HUDs at 1/bridge
>crew, 1/2command, 1/2engineers on the TML (or was it in a private email?
>I didn't save it, unfortunately)

I think it was via email.  I didn't save it either but I added it to my
ship design program.  Looking there, the allocation of active crew positions
was:
	Bridge		100%
	Gunners		100%
	Command		85%
	Engineers	50%
	Maintenance	0%
	Flight Crew	0%
	Ship's Troops	0%
	Stewards	0%
	Frozen Watch	0% (surprising huh)
	Medical		0%

What these figures represent, is the percentage of crew members from each
section who is considered to be actively using the ship's controls.  It
is these who are allowed to use heads-up displays etc.  This places a limit
upon the number of such control add ons that may be placed into a ship.  I
don't consider it a hard limit in that a small excess won't hurt.  Also
for large holotanks, I try to limit myself to 2 or 3 in a large ship (how
many could be effectively used?).


>> For that matter, why can't a
>> ship have large numbers of computers, so ships don't need to be limited
>> by Computer CP limits?

I've always assumed that no matter how many computers you have, only the 'best'
one gets used for control calculations.  Remember TL=8 (?) is supposed to have
massively parallel computers (from book 8???).  Thus providing more computers
in parallel shouldn't give any advantage. (because the parallelism is already
there)




        						Pauli

Paul Dale               | Internet/CSnet:            grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Dept of Computer Science| Bitnet:       grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uunet.uu.net
Uni of Queensland       | JANET:           grue%cs.uq.oz.au@uk.ac.ukc
Australia, 4072         | EAN:                          grue@cs.uq.oz
                        | UUCP:           uunet!munnari!cs.uq.oz!grue
f4e6g4Qh4++             | JUNET:                     grue@cs.uq.oz.au

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3713
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: TL 15 ship maintenance
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 92 1:16:51 MET

About there being only 4 places in the Spinward Marches where
TL 15 ship maintenance can be performed: I'm going to let naval
bases be capable of maintaining ships in any case, but looking
through _World Builder's Handbook_ I realized that things aren't
quite that bad. There is a very good chance (5/6) that worlds
with an A or B starport will have a Space Technology Level that
is at least 1 higher than the High Common TL (which is the one
shown on the listings). That gives us three more worlds in the
marches that can help out. Furthermore, worlds with A or B
starports have a better chance of being xenophilic, and
xenophilic worlds has a good chance of having a STL _two_
higher than their HCTL, so some of the TL 13 worlds may be able
to help out too. Perhaps the three with naval bases (Efate,
Lunion and Strouden)?

(The flip side is that TL 15 planets have a good chance of being
an STL of 16 or 17 and a small chance of having one of _18_!!!
And some of the TL 16 planets of Massila Sector could have one
of 19...
Not in my universe, though, as I don't allow any Imperial planet
to be more than borderline TL 16 with anything mass-producable.)



      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3714
From: eric@cc.uq.oz.au (Eric Halil)
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1992 15:34:17 +1000
Subject: More PBEM TCS & FFW

Looks like there's a few people interested.  Thats great!  I see there
being a couple of options we can take:

TCS)      Basically just play a TCS campaign pretty much straight out of
the TCS rulebook.  If you have each and every turn (including all High
Guard combat turns) being played as individually PBM turns then there
isn't much of a problem going to a PBM format.  This seems to be what
Jim Baranski has suggested in a previous post.

FFW)	Have a simplified TCS style campaign using FFW rules for combat, 
building, movement and so on.  I guess this is just playing FFW with a 
different background :-)  Here I really mean just using the FFW rules and not
running the complete game.

In both games players would be individual fleet admirals and we would have
"fog of war" rules.  Jim Baranski sums up "fog of war" well as:

Jim Baranski:
>I'd like to have it as realistic as possible; IE:  You don't
>know what other people/systems are doing unless you have a ship there, although
>someone can tell you what is going on if they are there.  Lots of Diplomacy.

I'd much prefer FFW for a couple of reasons.

* 	I think there'd be more people interested if there isn't a need for
a High Guard background.  And the more the merrier.  With fairly simple combat 
and build rules anybody could pick it up quickly.  Doing turns would also be 
much much simpler.

*	It's possible for TCS to bog down if all the players aren't really
dedicated.  The need for daily turns for combat is really a necessity if you
want the campaign game to progress at a decent rate.  With FFW you should able
able to play a complete campaign turn in a single PBM turn (including all
combat).

*       I'm more interested in the "strategic" aspect and not the nitty
gritty of "tactical" High Guard combat.  General fleet movements,
co-ordination, capturing planets, not really knowing whats going
on..... I really want to play just for the feel of the "fog of war" or
blind system of play.  The simplest system we can place on top of that
and maintain a Traveller universe the better.

Do people have a particular preference?  Comments??

Jim Baranski:
>Would it be more fun in an unknown setting where you had to explore and make 
>contact?

Yes!  I like this idea.  Just give people a map and they have to explore it.
This is definitely the way to go.

I am willing to GM a FFW style game.  Like I mentioned--one small problem... :-)
Anychance of getting a photocopy the rules (and sending them Down Under)?

Eric (eric@cc.uq.oz.au)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3715
Date:    Thu, 13 Feb 1992 22:01:18 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: pirates, again...

One other thing to consider about pirates: they might not want (or need) to
take the ship they are plundering. I suppose most people out there are aware of
the tremendous costs and construction times of new ships? So why would pirates
capture frighters unless they really needed the ships, or unless they really
had no time to offload the valuable part of the cargo? You could (and would)
end up with a situation where the pirates were literally taking the ships
faster than planets could manufacture them. This WOULD put an end to piracy,
as there would be no prey left.



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

Archive-Message-Number: 3716
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 10:01:11 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS PBEM... (again)

Eric:
 
<about TCS campaign>
 
>I'd much prefer FFW for a couple of reasons.
>
>*   I think there'd be more people interested if there isn't a need for
>a High Guard background.  And the more the merrier.  With fairly simple
>combat
>
>and build rules anybody could pick it up quickly.  Doing turns would
>also be much much simpler.
>
>*   It's possible for TCS to bog down if all the players aren't really
>dedicated.  The need for daily turns for combat is really a necessity
>if you want the campaign game to progress at a decent rate.  With FFW
>you should able able to play a complete campaign turn in a single PBM
>turn (including all combat).
>
>*       I'm more interested in the "strategic" aspect and not the nitty
>gritty of "tactical" High Guard combat.  General fleet movements,
>co-ordination, capturing planets, not really knowing whats going
>on..... I really want to play just for the feel of the "fog of war" or
>blind system of play.  The simplest system we can place on top of that
>and maintain a Traveller universe the better.
 
I would prefer MT ship design.  I don't like the idea of being locked
into GDW's picture of future warfare.  I'd like to try my own ideas
out.  As t the strategic level, TCS is slightly more complex than FFW,
but slightly more realistic, too.  The referee helps out a lot.
 
>Jim Baranski:
>>Would it be more fun in an unknown setting where you had to explore
>>and make contact?
>
>Yes!  I like this idea.  Just give people a map and they have to
>explore it.  This is definitely the way to go.
 
I can live with this, as I have played games like that.  More work for
the referee, but life is like that.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3717
From: richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson)
Subject: FGMP and PGMP are *NASTY*
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 9:05:30 EST


Scott Kellogg asks:
: What exactly does a Fusion/Plasma gun DO?
....
:I have seen references where a PGMP-12 was fired in an enclosed room and the
:contents of the entire room were fried.  (Annic Nova)

Probably depends on the size of the room, but sounds about right.


:I have also seen references where an FGMP-15 was fired in an enclosed room
:it hits a robot who is standing next to human characters and all that happens
:is the robots arm gets blown off.  No one else is injured.  (trav Digest #8)

Ugh.  I disagree, unless it was a clean miss and the robot was sideswiped.
(Or some other fiction to save the GM.)


:My reading of MegaTrav is that it does damage more akin to the former
:description, but I have seen this vary from referee to referee.
:I personally, would blow up the room.  But in the PBEM, at
:'Leadfoot's Last Stand' a fusion gun was used without doing so.  (I think)

Actually one of the engineering rooms _WAS_ fried.  Also turned radioactive.
Also everything loose was thrown around like rag dolls.  The robot was
damaged considerably, as were all of the room occupants.  Heat and radiation
spilled out into the adjoining corridor.

My reading is that in origininal Traveller the FGMP and PGMP were really
crew-fed weapons, like mortars or really light field artillery.  This means
the things are slow, hard to set up, and incredibly devastating in small
areas.  I've always treated the PGMP as an "improved" FGMP without the
hard radioactivity, but more heat and blast effects.

The Traveller computer game "Zhodani Conspiracy" treats the PGMP like a
truly expensive carbine with great penetration and damage.  And this 
game is authorized by GDW...


:Perhaps the current PBEM ref's have different ideas about the performance of
:the humble fusion gun than Richard does.  If so, I think the security team
:should know just in case they feel footloose with such a weapon while standing
:next to MY character... :-)
:	(Mark?  Metlay?  Richard?  Comments?)

I'd like to know this too, considering the current state of affairs in our
quiet little expedition.  

As a rule of thumb, I use 1m _radius_ (not diameter) for full blast and
heat effects, 2m radius-->50% 3m radius-->25%  4m radius-->10%  (not
truly the profile of a blast, but easy to do on the fly).  Penetration
falls off together with blast.  Walls contain blast, but only half the 
heat.  (In a small room, you might set the next compartment afire.)
Walls do nothing against radioactivity unless they are armor or bulkhead
or otherwise clearly superior to cloth and paper.

Balls of plasma are ballistic, and have really high drag.  That is, they
don't go line-of-sight, like lasers, and they don't go a long ways, like
bullets.  But for 10m out there, they sure beat grenades.

I still speculate as to the wisdom of using an FGMP inside engineering
of a starship in jumpspace... :=)  Orders is orders, though.
- -- 
Richard Johnson      richard@agora.rain.com
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3718
Date: 14 Feb 92 15:32:18 GMT
From: Arthur Green <ARTHUR@cclana.ucd.ie>
Subject: FFW by mail

Eric - I'm interested (as long as the pace isn't too hectic :-) and I
also have a copy of the game. Unfortunately I don't really have the
time to referee such a game, but I can upload the rules and pass them
on to you.

Hope this helps ...
 -  Arthur Green
    University College Dublin Computing Services
    Email: arthur@cclana.ucd.ie     Tel: +353 1 705-2005

    "Documentation is like sex: when it's good it's great. When it's
    bad it's better than nothing"


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3719
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 10:05:38 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: NAvies, Meson guns, pirates...

Rob Dean:
 
>Meson Gun tanks:  There's one thing to consider about the meson gun
>tank, if you are going to play using the Striker rules--it's considered
>to be an indirect fire weapon, due to the difficulty of adjusting the
>meson speed to decay at the exact target point (and other scientific
>double-talk).  We could debate whether or not this is reasonable, but
>it is the rule.  The suggestion of a tank sized meson screen is not
>without merit, especially when you consider that the the batlefiel
>meson accelerator is equivalent to a Meson Gun-1  (I seem to recall
>that ship mounted meson guns get a 10cm/size burst radius), which means
>that you wouldn't need much screen power to foul it up.
 
According to Striker Book 2 (which I finally re-located), a meson gun is
indirect fire because it can hit targets behind obstacles, and because
precise ranging is needed for it's use.  Also, according to Striker,
indirect fire weapons CAN be used in direct fire mode, if the
appropriate fire-control system is available.
As to the Meson Gun - 1, I find no evidence that it exists in MT or High
Guard.  It seems to start at Meson Gun-3.  A meson gun-3 does have a
danger space about that of the battlefield meson gun, but requires
25000MW, as opposed to 250MW for the battlefield version, and occupies
650Kl, as opposed to 15Kl.  They are both TL15.  Odd, that these
differences should be...
My problem with a tank-sized meson screen is that a meson screen
generator has minimum size of 215Kl at TL15- (or 108Kl at TL16), which
is rather large for a tank.  And if they can be made smaller, what is to
keep ships from mounting them?
 
 
>Armor thickness: I recently came to the conclusion that you were only
>to worry about armor volume in Striker as far as weight and density
>were concerned
 
DOn't forget that the armour volume is based on the EXTERNAL dimensions,
not the internal ones.  So armour mass would need to be calculated using
external dimensions.
 
 
Richard Johnson:
 
>What was the name of the French field marshall who said in 1911 that
>the airplane was a neat contraption, but had no military value
>whatsoever?
 
And Vannevar Bush said (in 1946 or 1947): "There has been a great deal
said about a three-thousand-mile rocket.  In my opinion such a thing is
impossible for many years.  I think we can leave that out of our
thinking."
 
 
Hans:
 
>About there being only 4 places in the Spinward Marches where
>TL 15 ship maintenance can be performed: I'm going to let naval
>bases be capable of maintaining ships in any case, but looking
>through _World Builder's Handbook_ I realized that things aren't
>quite that bad. There is a very good chance (5/6) that worlds
>with an A or B starport will have a Space Technology Level that
>is at least 1 higher than the High Common TL (which is the one
>shown on the listings). That gives us three more worlds in the
>marches that can help out. Furthermore, worlds with A or B
>starports have a better chance of being xenophilic, and
>xenophilic worlds has a good chance of having a STL _two_
>higher than their HCTL, so some of the TL 13 worlds may be able
>to help out too. Perhaps the three with naval bases (Efate,
>Lunion and Strouden)?
 
You overlook that there is a random role in there.  Spaceship TL can be
up to SIX levels lower than the "average".  However, when we generated
Efate for our campaign, it built TL15 starships, and turned out to be
THE main fleet base during the FFW.  It also will be the reason that the
Vargr won't make much progress against Regina and Aramis subsectors,
when that part of the Rebellion hits our campaign (late this summer, I
expect).
 
 
>(The flip side is that TL 15 planets have a good chance of being
>an STL of 16 or 17 and a small chance of having one of _18_!!!
>And some of the TL 16 planets of Massila Sector could have one
>of 19...
>Not in my universe, though, as I don't allow any Imperial planet
>to be more than borderline TL 16 with anything mass-producable.)
 
In ours, Vincennes can build TL18 spacecraft (at prototype stage so
far), and it's R&D is producing experimental TL18 ships with TL19
weaponry.
 
 
Brandon Cope:
 
>One other thing to consider about pirates: they might not want (or
>need) to take the ship they are plundering. I suppose most people out
>there are aware of the tremendous costs and construction times of new
>ships? So why would pirates capture frighters unless they really needed
>the ships, or unless they really had no time to offload the valuable
>part of the cargo? You could (and would) end up with a situation where
>the pirates were literally taking the ships faster than planets could
>manufacture them. This WOULD put an end to piracy, as there would be no
>prey left.
 
What a silly idea (leaving the ships behind).  The ship is almost
invariably worth more than the cargo is.  Take the ship, and leave the
cargo, if anything.
 
And any individual pirate is NOT going to think in terms of leaving the
prey alive for the next bunch to come along.  If a pirate steals a few
ships, he gets rich, Rich, RICH.  Then he retires when the merchant traffic
dries up.  Why should he care about other pirates' problems?

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3720
Subject: PBEM/TML: Extra Extra! UWO down for the count!
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 11:25:59 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


Hi Folks,

Please abstain from using both the TML PBEM Aliases, and the
sunbane.engrg.uwo.ca TML ftp archive sites, until at least noon
Thursday, February 20th, 1992.  The CAT mailing list (cat@engrg.uwo.ca),
on the other hand, is okay - please feel free to use it.

An entire hard disk has gone very flaky at the UWO TML Archive/PBEM
Aliases site.  Dan Corrin, our accomodating Systems Administration
contact at UWO, has temporarily got the disk online again, but it is
spitting out drive errors left and right, so he is going to pack it up
and ship it off today for repair.

Barring any unforseen circumstances, it should be back the middle of
next week and normal service will be restored by Thursday.  If those
circumstances do happen, it could be a little longer than that.

I can say from experience that hardware failures frequently turn nice,
friendly computer systems folk into gruff, testy computer triage
specialists.  The users get demanding: Chicken Little with an attitude.
Dan has been admirably patient and accomodating despite this -- Thanks!

I think we should all view this as an opportunity to relax and
contemplate the non-PBEM aspects of our lives.  It is Valentine's Day
after all :-).

Thanks all,

James
PBEM alias admin
TML list admin
Email scatologist

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3721
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 11:45:14 PST
From: lurnix!krupke!gwh@uunet.UU.NET (George W Herbert)
Subject: Re: small vs. large GG's

>>Quick question ... I thought Jupiter was a large GG in MT terms.
>>Confirm, somebody? 8-)  (Jupiter and Saturn are large, Uranus, Neptune
>>small, pluta pardon Pluto an ice planet. 8-)
>
>Under original rules, yes.  Under new rules, Large Gas Giants are size
>105 to 245+ (thousands of miles diameter).   Small GG are size 15 to
>105.  Jupiter has a radius of 69758 Km (plus or minus), ahich translates
>to size 86.7.  Well within the Small GG range.
>
>These rules are, of course, the World Builders Handbook, by DGP.

Oh nooooo..... someone give these people an astronomy lesson 8-(

There's a theory (currently accepted as "presumed to be true" within the
community) that a gas giant won't get significantly bigger than Jupiter.
As the mass goes up, the density will increase fast enough that the size
won't change much at all.  I think that this theory predicted that
anything bigger than about a hundred thousand miles will be a sun.

Thus, _every_ gas giant in the real world will be small in DGP's eyes 8-(

That actually is ok.  Marc Miller's claim for "what's official for MT" was
that it was "Everything GDW has published for it except Challenge",
thus excluding DGP.  We're saved, those aren't the official rules 8-)

- -george william herbert
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.lurnix.com


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3722
From: zonker@ihlpf.att.COM
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 15:43 CST
Subject: Star Viking

I have been involved in one of the two playtests that I know Frank has run.
At that time he was using 25mm figures because they were so nice to look
at.  He has since gone to 1/285 scale since the 25mm limited the forces
deployable in each area to about a company (a battalion seems more
necessary for game purposes).  The setup was that you divided a world into
areas (about five or six areas the rules for doing this were very vague
since this was a combat system test ).  Between each area was a geographic
obsticle (usually a hill).
   The various areas were rated by what you could loot out of them.  We
had a city, a desert, a forest, and two areas of farmland (or something
like that).  Most areas had a town or bonus objective (the desert had a
nuclear plant).  The defender placed his forces into the areas based on
how he wanted to defend them.  The Space Vikings then landed in various
areas of their choice.  To move between areas you move onto the obstacle
and depending on your movement catagory moved off sometime later.
Essentially foot took a long time and everybody else was a turn or two.
Both sides ran the full specturm of unit types from high tech to cyberpunk.
The battle was close, but leaned toward the Space Vikings.
   After the second 25mm playtest (and my purchase and painting a unit,
sigh) Frank switched to 1/285 scale (can't complain too much since it was
my idea originally).  He also is going to make the rules more Command
Decision like (they were more like our miniatures version of First Battles
during the first playtest).
						Tom Harris
	

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3723
Date:     Wed, 12 Feb 92 16:13:35 EST
From: Robert S. Dean  <rsdean@crdec8.apgea.army.mil>
Subject:  Extra-Planetary Governments

Upon consideration of the fleet problem, if we ran a game using the Traveller
rules system without the Imperium, it would probably resemble Lois McMaster
Bujold's universe, with a wide range of independent planetary governments
allying or occasioanlly ruling over more backward worlds.  Hope Steve Jackson
buys the rights to this one and published it soon...

Rob Dean


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3724
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 92 21:49:41 -0800
From: Brian G. Vaughan <bvaughan@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: New worlds to conquer (LONG)


     Many people have expressed their discontent with the fact
that the Third Imperium is surrounded by other interstellar
empires, leaving it no direction in which to expand.  As a
result, there are no completely untouched worlds for the Scouts
to explore, and very little chance for first contact with a
sophont race, except perhaps for sophonts of Tech Level 0 who
live in networks of burrows forty kilometers beneath a planet's
surface.  As this sort of stuff is a mainstay of science fiction,
and the very sort of thing we'd expect to find Scouts doing, this
lack of new worlds is very much a problem.
     There are a few obvious solutions to this problem, though
they are not very satisfying.
     The simplest is that we can assume that any world that is
not a High Population world is only incompletely explored, and
that any world that is a Low Population world has barely been
explored at all.  This idea appears to be the one usually assumed
by GDW and DGP (remember Tel Duramon, who spent his career in the
Scouts exploring Seven Sisters Subsector?), but it does may leave
one to wonder what the IISS Exploration Branch has been doing for
the last eleven centuries.  Of course, the Imperium does contain
a great deal of territory, and it would take a long time to
explore it all.  After all, it is only in the last few centuries,
out of ten thousand years of recorded history, that we have
thoroughly explored the Earth.
     Another solution to the problem is to roleplay members of an
interstellar empire that does have unexplored worlds on its
borders.  The Vargr and the Aslan are both in this position.  The
Solomani are, as well, and it should be fairly straightforward to
roleplay their situation.  But this solution has the strong
disadvantage of leaving our Imperials completely out of the
picture.
     There is one other solution, one which I think could be very
interesting, although it is much more problematic, and I propose
that we spend some time discussing it on the TML.
     We know that the Zhodani will launch another Core Expedition
"soon," but I have not heard a specific date mentioned.  We know
that relations between the Consulate and the Domain of Deneb have
warmed considerably.  What if, as a diplomatic gesture of
goodwill, or perhaps simply on a whim, the Consulate invites the
Domain to participate?
     Obviously, Scouts from the Domain could only play a minor
role.  The Domain of Deneb, struggling with Vargr and Aslan
incursions and a serious economic recession, could not really
match the performance of the large, harmonious, and prosperous
Zhodani Consulate.  But perhaps the Domain could scrape together
a "base ship" and a flotilla of Scout/Couriers and Surveyors.
     The Imperial contingent would, presumably, be asked to
explore systems peripheral to the main thrust of the Core
Expedition.  The Zhodani would not want the Imperials to know
what they were really after.  This enigma, and the tensions
inevitable between Zhodani and Imperials, would serve well as
background for the exploration of worlds.
     The greatest problem I see in this scheme is that it would
seem unlikely for the Imperials to interpret the Core Expeditions
as anything but the preliminary explorations for future Zhodani
expansion.  Perhaps someone else can see a way around this.
     This, then, is my suggestion.  Do with it as you will.
 
                              Brian G. Vaughan
                              bvaughan@ocf.berkeley.edu

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3725
From: metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (metlay)
Subject: What plasma weapons do.
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 0:53:23 EST

Scott Kellog and Richard Johnson, et alii, raise comments on the 
damage wrought by plasma and fusion weapons. This is a pet peeve of 
mine, as it appears to be very sloppily handled by just about everyone.

In Traveller as I've run it, plasma and fusion guns can, do, and SHOULD
elicit an immediate response from all concerned (PCs and NPCs alike) of
"OH SHIT HE'S GOT A PLASMA GUN! RUN! HIDE! SCREAM! FAINT! DISHONOR YOUR
TROUSERS!" They have been made easier to handle and use in successive
versions of Traveller, to the point where people are now quite cavalier
about handing them out. Which is, of course, bilge.

Having worked with a REAL plasma gun, I have a good feel for what the
man-portable weapons of the future can do. Let's run down the list
in no particular order.....

First off, radiation. There won't be any in a plasma burst; hot
hydrogen is hot hydrogen. The feasability of "containing the reaction
until fusion begins to occur" (as the description of fusion guns goes)
makes me a little queasy, as someone who kicked around going into
Tokamak development and aneutronic fusion but gave the idea up as
being too silly. If there IS appreciable fusion going on in a fusion
gun blast, the weapon becomes several orders of magnitude more
dangerous than a plasma gun, and a prime candidate for ejection from
TDR. I don't allow them in my games and am tempted to simply rule that
they're idiotically impossible. The figures for neutron flux from a
fusion burst are so high that they should be against the Imperial
Rules of War unless one's aim is to stir-fry entire infantry units in
a hurry and leave the gear behind. Recall the Pons and Fleishman
debacle-- one of the first indicators that they had not gotten cold
fusion (a different mechanism but the neutron numbers are Ok to 
within two orders of magnitude) to actually work is because the whole
state of Utah should have been rendered lifeless by the neutron blast.

Second, heat. This is THE primary way plasma does damage, because
there's so damn much of it. The blast zone of a plasma gun comes from
the plasma impacting and spattering, which it does with a relatively
isotropic shape (no one direction is strongly favored for spatter
under normal circumstances). Because the metastable conditions for
the plasma state are broken at emission and REALLY broken on impact,
the time of flight being considered small if not negligible with 
respect to the relaxation time of the system, the plasma ceases to 
be a plasma on impact, and merely becomes a puff of hot hydrogen gas
rather than some mysterious glowing glob of damnation spattering 
everywhere. This lack of romantic imagery doesn't change the fact that
as it epxands and cools, that "mere gas cloud" is dangerous as hell.

Third, light and noise. Both will be EXTREME, in a fashion I don't 
think anyone fully appreciates. A plasma burst is as bright as the Sun
in apparent magnitude, and looking straight at a PGMP going off should
carry the risk of blindness. The displacement of air by the expanding 
hydrogen cloud will produce a truly convincing thunderclap, loud
enough to rupture eardrums. The collateral heat from the plasma stream
will be enough to cook flesh instantly at a range of about 10 cm from
the plasma, so even a near miss will set clothing on fire and cause
horrible burns. What this means is that designing a PGMP or FGMP that
can be used by someone in comabat armor is OK, just barely, but going
beyond that to put them in the hands of individuals without armor at
all is ludicrous. That'd be like firing a flamethrower barehanded,
staring into the Sun with a telescope and firing a howitzer without
ear protection simultaneously several times per minute. No thanks.

Fourth, I feel that I should comment on the fact that no one has ever
addressed the problem of maintainance for such weapons over the long
term. Replacing parts, refurbishing and recharging would require a lot
more support machinery and special skills than slug throwers would.

Does it sound like I don't think much of plasma and fusion guns? Yup.
I can see why they're popular-- they extend the killing ability of
the individual soldier into the realm of battle dress. But to MY mind,
they'll always be squad support weapons for use on the high-tech
battlefield, and someone using one under civilian conditions would be
like seeing a gang member in the streets of LA haul out an M79 and
start firing 40mm grenades at random-- OK for a Schwarzenegger movie
but a bit tough to swallow for reasonable games.

It's much harder to think up reasons why people shouldn't carry around
Gauss versions of the General Electric gatling used in PREDATOR and 
TERMINATOR 2, whose official designation escapes me. You could pack
10,000 rounds in a fanny pack and have an ROF capable of chewing up
a building, and a lot less collateral noise flash etc. than a PGMP.
The weapon itself would be light and easy to carry, and VERY deadly.

But then, I've always been a sucker for Vasquez.... |->

- -- 
Mike Metlay                             metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Atomic City                   P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh,PA 15217-0675

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

a lFrom jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Feb 20 00:52:53 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA15272) Thu, 20 Feb 92 00:52:30 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA13169@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:01:13 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.0)
	id AA09927; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:02:02 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA07883; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:00:26 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA17091; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:00:20 PST
Message-Id: <9202200500.AA17091@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #306: Msgs 3726-3737
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:00:19 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Wed Feb 19 21:00:14 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #306: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3726  15-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S pirates: leaving the ships behind << Leaving 
3727  15-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse Zhodani Conspiracy << Richard Johnson writes:
3728  15-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse Navy bases << Steve Higginbotham writes: >Han
3729  15-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse Ancient astrography << I'm working on a grand
3730  15-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S more pirates << Some more stuff about my hono
3731  16-Feb-92 d9bertil@dtek.cha What miniguns do (Re: What plasmaguns do) << 
3732  16-Feb-92 bonnevil@stolaf.e A Jump-Capable Starport << Do "Tigress"-class
3733  16-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha Starship TL, and ancient maps... << Hans: >Ov
3734  16-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha FGMPs and PGMPs... << I don't think anyone in
3735  16-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha pirates and targets... << Brandon Cope: >Leav
3736  17-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       FFW by PBEM << Alright, I'm calling everyone'
3737  17-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       Re: combat, big and small << richard@agora.ra

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3726
Date:    Sat, 15 Feb 1992 11:44:39 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: pirates: leaving the ships behind

Leaving the ship behind is NOT a silly idea. It may be worth more than the
cargo, but the cargo doesn't take a year or more to build. Let's say you have
a subsector that builds 300 merchant ships a year. This come out to 25 a month.
It will take 25 successful pirating missions a month to get all the ships built
that year. Spread that over about 15-20 inhabited systems, and you get a 
system being hit about 1 to 1.5 times a month -- not a very high number. Also,
taking the ship has other problems -- you have to have a place to keep it
until you get rid of it, and you have to split your crew to man it, and you
still have the problem of selling it. I could see them taking the ship if (a)
their ship was too badly damaged, (b) if the crew was splitting up, going
seperate ways, and needed another ship, or (c) the pirates were real
scum-of-the-earth. The disagreement we have here is based on the perception of
pirates -- I use the early ones (about 1650-1700) as the basis for mine:
relatively honorable, and not intrested in the personal wealth of the crewmen
or passengers (unless of course such a person was worth a great deal of money
in ransom -- like a princess). Even when such pirates took the ship, they made
sure that the crew and passengers were put on a small boat (longboat or
smaller) and provisioned well enough so that they could reach land. The early
pirates were not common murderers or robbers. Not taking a ship mean that they
could steal from it again (and often did).


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3727
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Zhodani Conspiracy
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 22:50:14 MET

Richard Johnson writes:
>The Traveller computer game "Zhodani Conspiracy" treats the PGMP like a
>truly expensive carbine with great penetration and damage.  And this
>game is authorized by GDW...

Is it possible to extract any new information about the Marches
from "Zhodani Conspiracy"? I mean like the listings only tells us
that Traltha is governed by a selfperpetuating oligarchy but the
game might mention that the oligarchs are called The Waterlords,
or perhaps that the capital of Quopist is named Oofle or that
Palique is the fief of the Imperial Baron Osborne von Travesty.


      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3728
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Navy bases
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 23:16:07 MET

Steve Higginbotham writes:
>Hans:
>>                  There is a very good chance (5/6) that worlds
>>with an A or B starport will have a Space Technology Level that
>>is at least 1 higher than the High Common TL (which is the one
>>shown on the listings). That gives us three more worlds in the
>>marches that can help out. Furthermore, worlds with A or B
>>starports have a better chance of being xenophilic, and
>>xenophilic worlds has a good chance of having a STL _two_
>>higher than their HCTL, so some of the TL 13 worlds may be able
>>to help out too. Perhaps the three with naval bases (Efate,
>>Lunion and Strouden)?
>
>You overlook that there is a random role in there.  Spaceship TL can be
>up to SIX levels lower than the "average".

Overlook? That's why I wrote that there was a 5/6th chance. And
the lowest Space TL for a tech 13 world is 12. The lowest for a
tech 15 world is 15.

>However, when we generated
>Efate for our campaign, it built TL15 starships,

Well within the World Builders rules too. What is not within
the rules is *Regina* building TL 15 ships, yet according to
_Kinunir_ they do!  ;-)


      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3729
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Ancient astrography
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 92 23:28:12 MET

I'm working on a grand scale adventure for my Traveller group,
and would, among other things, like to give them an Ancient map
of the Spinward Marches with one or two subtle clues included.
Thus I can't just describe the map ("It's a 300.000 year old
starmap with FLASH FLASH FLASH PAY ATTENTION NOW the following
odd features: ..." :-), I have to draw it. Unfortunately I know
very little about astronomy. Wouldn't the individual star
positions have changed during those 300.000 years? Or would the
stellar drift for stars in such a relatively small area as a
sector be the same for them all, thus maintaining the same
relative positions? Might some of the stars have changed type
in so short a while? Could anyone with some real astronomical
knowledge work out how the Spinward Marches looked 300.000
years ago?


      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3730
Date:    Sat, 15 Feb 1992 16:45:56 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: more pirates

Some more stuff about my honorable pirates:

If pirates are know to steal the ships and space the crews, then virtually no
merchant ships (company or private) are going to surrender if they know they
will die anyway. Fights like this are what (sane) pirates avoid. If crews know
that if they surrender, the only thing have to lose is their cargo, they will
tend to surrender (provided their other choice is a fight with no mercy). Yes,
honor is silly to some people, but it has been around for quite awhile (even
u-boats in early WWI gave freighter crews a chance to get off the ships before
they torpedoed the ship; freighters started mounting suns and firing on the
subs as soon as they surfaced to give warning, forcing the u-boat commanders to
torpedoe ships without warning; the British (and other countries) then had the
gall to say that Germany was acting dishonorably!). There is also historical
presedence (from the Carribean) for a Brotherhood amongst pirates -- they would
not lie, steal, or cheat each other. In such a case, a pirate crew WOULD care
about the repurcussions of its actions on other pirates, unless it was a rogue
(ie, non-Brotherhood) ship.

		

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3731
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: What miniguns do (Re: What plasmaguns do)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 11:38:46 MET

> From: metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (metlay)
> Subject: (3725) What plasma weapons do.
> 
> It's much harder to think up reasons why people shouldn't carry around
> Gauss versions of the General Electric gatling used in PREDATOR and 
> TERMINATOR 2, whose official designation escapes me.

  Even a gauss minigun would have an obscene recoil. I've forgotten exactly
what the recoil is for the 5.56 minigun, but it is in the order of tens of
kilos *average* pressure when fired on full ROF. 
  But it is possible to use it while standing: There is a low (600 r/m type)
setting designed for this, which is what I suspect they used in the movies:
'Low' auto on the gun and fast auto on the soundtrack. One can see this quite
clearly in Aliens for example where for each muzzle flash there is two to 
five shots on the soundtrack.
  
  The recoild would however be of lesser importance if we are talking about 
people in battle dress, but I'm not sure it would be low enough even in that
case to allow walking around spraying wildly like in Simmons 'Hyperion'.

  The way to go (I think) is laser gatlings. Using the 3G^3 rules it is 
possible to do a TL9 laser gatling with an ROF of 5000 and a punch about
equivalent to a heavy pistol (.357M or .44M) that weighs around 10kg and have
a powerpack of about as much. At higher TL is becomes possible to do even
nastier rapid fire lasers.

> Mike Metlay                             metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
 
 -bertil-
- -- 
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3732
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 16:16:26 CST
From: bonnevil@stolaf.edu (Steven Bonneville)
Subject: A Jump-Capable Starport

  Do "Tigress"-class battleships bore you?  Does your system have six trillion
extra credits burning a hole in its' collective pocket?  Do you have perpetual
problems with maintaining subsector fleets away from home?  Perhaps you need
a base ship that is really a base. 
  Worry no more.  A solution has been found.  Courtesy of the Imperial
Ministry of Public Works, we present the....

    
"Odyssey"-class Modular Mobile Starport

   The "Odyssey"-class modular mobile starport began as a feasibility study
created by the same naval architects who designed the "Plankwell"-class
battleship.  The entire ship is designed on a modular basis, and these
modules are connected together by means of a centralized spinal keel.
Although this design philosophy has been treated with skepticism, the
success of the "Plankwell"-class seems to have spoken for itself.  
   The actual construction of _Odyssey_ and later, _Gasuurpagu_, was ordered
by Emperor Paulo III in the late 1060s as a public works project to help
relieve slack economic conditions in the mid-worlds.  Due to the modular
design, the construction efforts could be spread among several worlds, and
the completed units hauled by jump transport to a single location for final
assembly.  The experimental Model/11 computers aboard the "Wayward"-class
jump transports were provided by worlds in Massilia and Deneb Sectors.
   The "Odyssey" combines a orbital class-A starport facility with support
units for some 2 million residents, a 200 million net metric ton propulsion
unit, and a "Wayward"-class heavy jump transport.  This allows a major refit
and repair facility to be moved some four parsecs rapidly, to whatever
location needs it most.

An "Odyssey" consists of the following components:
  * 1 Modular Support Spine        1,500,000 disp-tons
  * 4 LifeMod Spin Brackets          550,350 disp-tons ea.
  * 1 Starport Module              4,000,000 disp-tons
  * 1 Habitat Module               4,000,000 disp-tons
  * 2 Agricultural Modules         4,000,000 disp-tons ea.
  * 1 Main Engineering Unit          220,000 disp-tons
  * 1 "Wayward"-class transport   10,000,000 disp-tons

  Typical operation for a "Odyssey" involves locating it in an asteroid belt
from which it has easy access to raw materials, and giving the jump transport
a chance to refuel.  Ships severely damaged in battle can be hauled as cargo
to the port by a BattleRider carrier for repair, inspection, or salvage.
Placement in a deep space hex, for instance as a rift station, involves more
preparation in order for the "Wayward" to be removed from the site, or for
the "Odyssey" to be sited deeper into the rift.  Plans exist for expansion
of a new "Odyssey" ship into a large, static refueling station as keystone
for a chain of rift-crossing fuel caches, but the Rebellion has temporarily
halted these plans.  Typically, a naval "Odyssey" ship will be deployed with
a BatRon as port defense / escort.  _Gasuurpagu_ and her associated BatRon
are the entirety of the Imperial 303rd Replenishment Fleet.
  _Odyssey_ herself is currently operated by the IISS as a base ship for
distant exploratory missions.  Her class-A starport is ideal for repair,
maintenance, and refit of a large number of small scouting craft.
  The "Odyssey" ships must be able to support their local population without
recourse to their host systems.  Two agricultural modules supply food for the
station's two million inhabitants.
  Crucial to the continued mobility of the "Odyssey"-class is proper
maintenance, especially of the "Wayward" transport's Model/11 computer.  All
required parts and technical experts are included in the ship's manifest to
allow this to be done on site.  The Model/11 computer is doubly-backed up
in case of problems with the experimental system.   
  The statistics below reflect the ship as delivered.  Often the inhabitants
will use part of their pay to improve their stateroom systems, bit by bit,
using local equipment while in jump space.

CraftID: Modular Mobile Sparport, Type SZ, TL15, MCr 5778341 (n/i port cost)
   Hull: 27000000/67500000, Disp = 30000000, Config = 0M, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 106649350 tons, Loaded = 225339598 tons
  Power: 6750/13500, Fusion = 1822518 MW, Duration = 30/90
         3070/6140, Fusion = 829000 MW, Duration = 14/42
         (800/1600, Fusion = 216100 MW, Duration = 30/90) x 4
         (5/10, Solar = 595 MW, Duration = inf.) x 4
         (2/4, Solar = 214 MW, Duration = inf.) x 4
         1/2, Solar = 140 MW, Duration = inf.
   Loco: 100000/200000, Jump = 4
         69808/139616, FusionRkt = 0.9G/204188400 tons, Power = 4083768 MW,    
         Duration = 14/42, Agility = 0
         34904/69808, FusionRkt = 0.45G/102094200 tons, Power = 2041884 MW,
         Duration = 14/42, Agility = 0
  Commo: Maser = Distant x 16, Maser = System x 5, Radio = System x 7
         (in addition to port equipment)
Sensors: EMSPassive = Interstellar x 3, EMSActive = FarOrbit x 3
         Densitometer = HiPow (1km) x 2, Neutrino = 10kW x 2
         ActObjScan = Rout      ActObjPin = Rout
         PasObjScan = Rout      PasObjPin = Rout
         PasEngScan = Simp      PasEngPin = Rout
         (in addition to starport equipment)
    Off: --
    Def: DefDM = +9
Control: Assess on individual module basis.
  Accom: Crew = 1 x 30000 (Bridge = 138, Engrg = 2939, Maint = 179,
         Command = 541, Steward = 107, Medic = 31), Residents = 2 million,
         SmStateroom = 2002319, Roomy = 193, Adequate = 1423
         SubCraft = Modified "Shuglikki" x 7 (n/i starport equipment)
  Other: Fuel = 104783522 kL, PortFuel = 27000000 kL, Cargo = 1246021, 
         Hydroponics = 108000000kL, Starport-A = 27000000 kL
         ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Strong.


DESIGN NOTES:
I got the idea for this monster from recent discussion about the difficulty
of maintaining fleet ships away from home.  Yeah, it's frivolous, but it's 
INTERESTING and frivolous! :)  I estimated the starport size from an old
JTAS article on space habitats, which put a class-A starport in a spherical 
habitat with a 5km radius.  Since most of that habitat was air, I estimated
the starport size at about 2 million tons-d for the equipment and docks, and
tried to figure out a way to move it and its' support facilities around. 
  I also discovered that there is no logical reason to use gravitics in
unstreamlined naval vessels.  Fusion Rockets are smaller, cheaper, and
actually help increase your agility just by operating.  Local worlds might
not like a ship that tried to *land* using fusion rockets, though.
  The Model/11 was required because the "Wayward's" large jump drive required
about 650 million CP input to the computer, overwhelming even a Model/10!
If the jump drive was shrunk down, it might be possible to use a smaller
computer instead.  The other systems are negligible in comparison.
  I needed a large tanker to act as fuel shuttle for the "Wayward", so I 
modified Bertil Jonell's old design of the "Shuglikki" fleet replenishment
ship into a interplanetary tanker, saving considerable time.  (Besides, the
Navy would probably like keeping some standard class ships in the inventory.)
I hope you don't mind my variant, Bertil!


***************
* THE MODULES *
***************

"Wayward"-class Heavy Jump Transporter 

The "Wayward"-class heavy jump transporter was originally designed especially
for the Odyssey Project.  It is the most powerful jump carrier in the arsenal
of the former Imperium, perhaps the single greatest human feat of jump
engineering.  "Wayward" was designed to carry a total payload of twenty million
displacement-tons (NOT including itself) up to four parsecs through jump space.
   Central to this vessel is its' highly experimental Model/11 computer system,
necessary to complete the massive calculations required by the jump drive.
Some examples of this hull have been built to carry lower payloads, allowing
smaller computers to be used.  A great deal of expansion space remains on the
"Wayward" for installation of more fusion rockets or for weapons systems.
  
Jump Capacity vs. Maximum Range:
  * 21.4 million tons-disp at jump 6
  * 25.0 million tons-disp at jump 5
  * 30.0 million tons-disp at jump 4
  * 37.5 million tons-disp at jump 3
  * 50.0 million tons-disp at jump 2
  * 75.0 million tons-disp at jump 1

CraftID: Heavy Jump Transporter, Type CH, TL15, MCr 4943108
   Hull: 9000000/22500000, Disp = 10 Mtons, Config = 7USL, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 52411439 tons, Loaded = 60790678 tons
  Power: 6750/13500, Fusion = 1822518 MW, Duration = 30/90
   Loco: 100000/200000, Jump = 6
         34904/69808, FusionRkt = "0.68G"/102094200 tons, Power = 2041884 MW,
         Duration = 14/42, Agility = 0
  Commo: Radio = System x 2, Maser = System x 2
Sensors: EMSPassive = Interstellar x 2, EMSActive = FarOrbit x 2
         Densitometer = HiPow (1km) x 2, Neutrino = 10kW x 2
         ActObjScan = Rout      ActObjPin = Rout
         PasObjScan = Rout      PasObjPin = Rout
         PasEngScan = Simp      PasEngPin = Rout
    Off: --
    Def: DefDM = +9
Control: Comp = 11x6, LgHolo = 487, HoloHUD = 4, Holodyn = 96
  Accom: Crew = 1 x 10000 (Bridge = 108, Engrg = 1757, Maint = 41, Command =    
         317, Stewards = 77, Medic = 19), SmStaterm = 2319
         SubCraft = Modified "Shuglikki" x 7
  Other: Fuel = 101902506 kL, Cargo = 1246021 kL
         ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Strong
         Inertial Comp only active when FusionRkt active.


Modified "Shuglikki" Insystem Fuel Ship:

   The "Shuglikki" class fleet supply ship is a standard design
that has been in operation for many years.  Its' original purpose was to
travel with BatRons as a long-term resupply source, protected by its'
cruiser escorts.  In this variant on the design, the vessel has been 
converted to a streamlined interplanetary fueler, with as much of the
vessel as possible having been converted to LHyd tankage.
   This variant is most notably in use as fuel shuttles for the
"Wayward"-class heavy jump transport.  Typical operations involve each
shuttle making some fourteen runs over several days to refuel the transport
and themselves.  They manage this rate of refueling by transferring all
but a small reserve of their fuel to the vast tanks of their parent vessel.
   The hull is shaped as a streamlined cone, with seven connected cylinders
laying side by side.  Aft of this is the engine assembly and in front
is a bulbous area containing the living quarters and the bridge. 

[This ship converted from a very useful design originally by Bertil Jonell.]

CraftID: Insystem Fuel Tanker, Type TP, TL15, MCr 12314.358
   Hull: 90,000/225,000, Disp=100000, Config=2SL, Armor=40G, 
         Unloaded = 443536 tons, Loaded = 868157 tons
  Power: 4350/5800, Fusion=782100MW, Duration=30/90
   Loco: 6700/9000, Manuever=2, Cruise=750, Top=1000, Agility=0
  Commo: Radio=System x 3, Laser=System x 2, Maser=System x 2
Sensors: PassiveEMS=Interstellar x 2, ActiveEMS=FarOrbit 
         Neutrino=10kW, Densitometer=LoPen/250m
         ActObjScan=Routine   ActObjPin=Routine 
         PasObjScan=Routine   PasObjPin=Routine
         PasEngScan=Simple    PasEngPin=Routine
    Off: BLasers=x09, Batt=45, Bear=32
    Def: DefDM=+7, NukeDamper=8, SCasters=xx9, Batt=55, Bear=39
Control: Computer=9fibx3, Panel=Holodynamic link x 1438, 
         Special=HoloHUD x 25, LgHoloDisplay x 10, Environ= basic env, 
         basic ls, extended ls, grav plates
 Accomm: Crew=1 x 100 (Bridge=13, Engineering=40, Maint=1, Gunnery=55, 
         ShipTroops=25, Command=27, Steward=5, Medic=1), Staterooms=85     
  Other: Fuel=1134264kL, Scoops, PurificationPlant=23h, ECP
         ObjSize=Large, EMLevel=Strong
         No Inertial Compensators.


Modular Support Spine:

The Modular Support Spine connects the various elements of the "Odyssey"
into a single integrated starship.  Inspired by early TL-8 modular starship
design philosophies, the spine allows all units connected to it to draw on
the resources of the other units, and facilitates transportation of materials
and personnel from module to module.

CraftID: Modular Frame, Type VX, TL15, MCr 16541
   Hull: 1350000/3375000, Disp = 1500000, Config = OM, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 203280 tons, Loaded = 203280 tons
  Power: --
   Loco: --
  Commo: --
Sensors: --
    Off: --
    Def: --
Control: --
  Accom: --  
  Other: ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Faint.  
         

LifeModule Spin Bracket:

The "LifeMod" or spin bracket is the support unit for the "Odyssey"'s
standardized four million displacement-ton modules.  It allows the modules 
that require internal gravity to spin without resorting to spinning the 
entire "Odyssey".  It is virtually an integral part of its associated module, 
providing basic functions such as life support, crew service, and power 
generation.  It also contains the inertial compensators for the 
module/bracket complex, although it depends on other parts of the tender 
power grid to supply the energy to activate them.  If all other supports 
are cut off, a bracket and its module can survive for a month on internal 
power.  (I really didn't feel like installing a 2.7 terawatt fusion generator 
for each module just so things would stick to the floor!)

CraftID: Auxiliary Tender (module), Type QT, TL15, MCr 47657
   Hull: 495315/1238288, Disp = 550350, Config = OUSL, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 4374387 tons, Loaded = 4447500 tons
  Power: 800/1600, Fusion = 216100 MW, Duration = 30/90
         2/4, Solar = 214 MW, Duration = inf.
   Loco: --
  Commo: Maser = Distant x 2, Radio = System
Sensors: --
    Off: --
    Def: --
Control: Comp = 9fibx3, LargeHolo = 70, HoloHUD = 8, HoloDyn = 29
         Enviro = BasEnv, BasLS, ExtLS, Inertial Comp  
  Accom: Crew = 1 x 550 (Bridge = 24, Engrg = 8, Maint = 128, Command = 26, 
         Steward = 6, Medic = 1), Roomy x 193
  Other: Support Structure = 2700000 kL, Fuel = 1044480 kL
         ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Strong.           
         Life support for LifeMod controls only and full Habitat supplied.
         Controls sufficient for LifeMod and attached Habitat.
         Inertial Compensators sufficient for LifeMod and attached Habitat.
         Power insufficient for operation of Inertial Compensators.


Agricultural Module:

The Agricultural Module has no controls or accommodations, or sufficient
power on its own, and depends on the tender for environmental support. 
Gravity is provided by spin on the mounting bracket.  A maser communicator 
is provided in case the control lines fail for some reason.  A single 
AgriMod can support one million inhabitants indefinitely.

CraftID: Agriculture Module, Type QU, TL15, MCr 47563
          (incl. MCr200/metric ton for Hydroponics)
   Hull: 3600000/9000000,  Disp = 4 Mtons, Config = 0USL, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 231059 tons, Loaded = 54231059 tons
  Power: 5/10, Solar = 595 MW, Duration = inf.
   Loco: --
  Commo: Maser = Distant x 2
Sensors: --
    Off: --
    Def: --
Control: --
  Accom: --
  Other: Hydroponics = 54000000 kL, ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Faint
         Dependent on the tender and the module's "LifeMod".


Habitat Module:

The "Habitat" can provide residences for two million shipboard residents.  
All services (most power, LS, control) are provided by the tender or the
mounting bracket.  The mounting bracket also allows the module to spin to 
generate non-gravitic "artificial gravity".  SmStaterooms were used to cut
costs: an even mix of Staterooms and SmStaterooms would have added 
MCr 260000 to the unit's cost.

CraftID: Habitat Module, Type QU, TL15, MCr 116763
   Hull: 3600000/9000000,  Disp = 4 Mtons, Config = 0USL, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 4231059 tons, Loaded = 4231059 tons
  Power: 5/10, Solar = 595 MW, Duration = inf.
   Loco: --
  Commo: Maser = Distant x 2
Sensors: --
    Off: --
    Def: --
Control: --
  Accom: Residents = 2 million, SmStaterooms = 2 million.  
  Other: ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Faint.  
         Dependent on the tender and the module's "LifeMod".


Starport Module:

The port facility module is designed slightly differently than the other 
modules.  Unlike the Habitat and AgriMod types, it does not spin on its 
LifeMod, and it is designed as a dispersed structure in order to speed 
docking of vessels.  Half of the module consists of the port's fuel supply, 
some 2 million displacement-tons of refined hydrogen.  The remainder of the 
module consists of the facility itself.  The costs of the starport facilities 
are NOT included in the price of this module, and the statistics for the 
facility (except mass) are not either.  The port itself, when installed in 
the module, depends on the LifeMod for LS and inertial dampening only.

CraftID: Starport Module, Type SX, TL15, MCr 36777 (cost of starport N.I.)
   Hull: 3600000/9000000,  Disp = 4 Mtons, Config = 7USL, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 27415906 tons, Loaded = 29305906
  Power: 5/10, Solar = 595 MW, Duration = inf.
   Loco: --
  Commo: Maser = Distant x 2
Sensors: --
    Off: --
    Def: --
Control: --
  Accom: --
  Other: Starport-A = 27000000 kL, Fuel = 27000000 kL.  
         ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Faint.
         Dependent on the tender and the module's LifeMod.
         Mass figure assumes 1kL Starport = 1 metric ton.


Main Engineering Unit:

The main engineering unit contains the main fusion rocket drive system and 
also the power generation equipment that in conjunction with the solar power 
system, runs four modules worth of inertial compensators when the ship is 
under thrust.  Fourteen days of thrust fuel for the ship is provided by this 
section.  This section can operate independently for a day or two and skim 
fuel for itself if necessary, but normally the crew lives on the tender.

CraftID: Heavy Tug, Type UH, TL15, MCr 379398
   Hull: 198000/495000, Disp = 220000, Config = 2SL, Armor = 40G
         Unloaded = 4428000 tons, Loaded = 4556557 tons
  Power: 3070/6140, Fusion = 829000 MW, Duration = 14/42
         1/2, Solar = 140 MW, Duration = inf.
   Loco: 69808/139616, FusionRkt = "43G"/204188400 tons, Power = 4083768 MW,    
         Duration = 14/42, Agility = 6
  Commo: Maser = System x 3, Radio = System
Sensors: ^EEMSPassive = Interstellar, EMSActive = FarOrbit
         ActObjScan = Rout     ActObjPin = Rout
         PasEngScan = Simp
    Off: --
    Def: DefDM = +13
Control: Comp = 9fibx3, LargeHolo = 315, HoloHUD = 6, HoloDyn = 85
         Enviro = BasEnv, BasLS, ExtLS, InertComp (control areas only)
 Accomm: Crew = 7 x 220 (Bridge = 6, Eng = 1174, Maint = 10, Command = 198,
         Steward = 24, Medic = 11), Adequate = 1423
  Other: Fuel = 1836536 kL, Scoops, PurifPlant (24 hrs)
         ObjSize = Large, EmLevel = Strong.

******

That's all of it!

- --Steve Bonneville
<bonnevil@stolaf.edu>


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3733
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:30:19 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: Starship TL, and ancient maps...

Hans:
 
>Overlook? That's why I wrote that there was a 5/6th chance. And
>the lowest Space TL for a tech 13 world is 12. The lowest for a
>tech 15 world is 15.
 
Why, so I did.  I misread the limits when I read the Tables.  I thought
the lower limit was (upper/3), not (upper - 3).
 
 
>Well within the World Builders rules too. What is not within
>the rules is *Regina* building TL 15 ships, yet according to
>_Kinunir_ they do!  ;-)
 
Maybe they used imported parts.
 
 
<about Ancient starmaps and stellar positions>
 
I wish I could help, but I can't in any meaningful way.  Stellar
velocities vary depending on their orbits about the galactic center. 
Barnard's Star is moving fast enough to have crossed several sectors in
300,000 years.  Sol is moving about 12Kmps relative to most of our
immediate neighbors, and so would have moved about 4 parsecs in 300,000
years.  
Basically, you can (and should) rewrite the sector map any way you
want.  Keep in mind that the Ancients probably did NOT use Imperial
mapping conventions, so a map of the "Spinward Marches" would be
slightly unreal.  Make the map one of some largely arbitrary area, say
45.341 parsecs by 61.202 parsecs.  Avoid Imperial conventions like the
plague - mark each star separately, including "distant companions". 
Don't treat all stars in a given parsec hex as the same system.  And
don't mark one main world per system, mark as many as are appropriate.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3734
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:36:28 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: FGMPs and PGMPs...

I don't think anyone in any of our campaigns (since Traveller came out) has
ever SEEN an FGMP or PGMP outside of military service.

But...

You are letting your prejudices interfere again, Bertil.  There is not any
good reason why you can't use a VERY SMALL amount of plasma, and so keep
the sound/light/shock/heat effects (relatively) small.
There is also little reason to believe you cannot fuse a SMALL amount of
hydrogen.  That should suffice to limit the radiation effects.
Whether this would matter to a man outside of the nearest set of combat
armour is debatable.  Notice that the rules do not state that a man can use
either a PGMP or FGMP without armour, just without POWERED armour.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3735
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 92 21:28:40 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: pirates and targets...

Brandon Cope:
 
>Leaving the ship behind is NOT a silly idea. It may be worth more than
>the cargo, but the cargo doesn't take a year or more to build. Let's
>say you have a subsector that builds 300 merchant ships a year. This
>come out to 25 a month.
>It will take 25 successful pirating missions a month to get all the
>ships built that year. Spread that over about 15-20 inhabited systems,
>and you get a system being hit about 1 to 1.5 times a month -- not a
>very high number. Also, taking the ship has other problems -- you have
>to have a place to keep it until you get rid of it, and you have to
>split your crew to man it, and you still have the problem of selling
>it. I could see them taking the ship if (a) their ship was too badly
>damaged, (b) if the crew was splitting up, going seperate ways, and
>needed another ship, or (c) the pirates were real scum-of-the-earth.
>The disagreement we have here is based on the perception of
>pirates -- I use the early ones (about 1650-1700) as the basis for
>mine: relatively honorable, and not intrested in the personal wealth of
>the crewmen or passengers (unless of course such a person was worth a
>great deal of money in ransom -- like a princess). Even when such
>pirates took the ship, they made sure that the crew and passengers were
>put on a small boat (longboat or smaller) and provisioned well enough
>so that they could reach land. The early pirates were not common
>murderers or robbers. Not taking a ship mean that they could steal from
it again (and often did).
 
A novel set of theories.  It ignores one or two fairly relevant points:
 
  1)  Pirates probably do not care whether the victims can be robbed
again and again.  Take one Tukera liner home, sell it, and retire.
 
  2)  Probably more relevant to your picture - in the 15th and 16th
centuries, the cargo from a ship was frequently worth more than the
ship.  Sometimes A LOT more.  In MT, most cargos are worth no more than
a small fraction of the value of the ship.
 
  3)  There is also a lot of room between taking the ship and killing
the crew.  Neither especially implies the other.  You can put the crew
out in vacc suits, and they could probably be rescued in plenty of time. 
They are, after all, within a few million Km from the main world (unless
they are stupid, or somehow unable to add).
 
  4) As to selling the ship, that's where the Vargr come in.  I doubt
the Vargr care from clean papers.  Selling a ship in the Extants should
be a matter of listing it in the classifieds, and waiting a bit.
 
  5)  As to the crew difficulties, notice that pirates traditionally
carried large crews for that very purpose.
 
My own opinion of pirates is that they are in it for the money, and not
likely to worry about leaving ships behind to be robbed again.  There is
more money in carrying the ship to the Extants to sell than there is in
leaving it behind.  For that matter, the amount of damage (in Cr) that
can be done by fairly trivial resistance costs more to repair than most
cargos are worth.  Keep in mind that one triple laser turret costs MCr3
to replace if destroyed (fairly likely if using merchant weaponry), and
the cargo from a free trader is worth maybe MCr6 at most.  Take two
hits, and the profits evaporate.  Take the ship, and it can pay for your
repairs (unless you take good hits.  Notice that a J-drive hit will
probably cost MCr10 or so to repair).
 
 
>Some more stuff about my honorable pirates:
>
>If pirates are know to steal the ships and space the crews, then
>virtually no merchant ships (company or private) are going to surrender
>if they know they will die anyway. 
 
SO why space them?  Take their ship and let the crew live to run home. 
Then they can surrender another ship to you later.
 
>                                                   There is also
>historical presedence (from the Carribean) for a Brotherhood amongst
>pirates -- they would not lie, steal, or cheat each other. In such a
>case, a pirate crew WOULD care about the repurcussions of its actions
>on other pirates, unless it was a rogue (ie, non-Brotherhood) ship.
 
Sounds like you have been reading GURPS Swashbucklers.  I notice that
those pirates (Brethren of the Coast) usually took the ships, and
marooned the crews in small boats.  Obviously THEY didn't worry too much
about robbing the ships repeatedly.

BTW, why do pirates care how long it takes to build a ship?
And why use an impoverished subsector that can only build 300 ships per
year?  Efate probably builds 5000+ per year by itself.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3736
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: FFW by PBEM
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 11:33:53 GMT

Alright, I'm calling everyone's bluff.  If there's a refereed game, please
can I join?  If not, I challenge anyone here to a PBEM game of Fifth Frontier
War.  I shall play against the person who replies first.  If several replies
arrive here at the same time, I shall accept the one whose header shows it to
have been sent earliest.

Without a referee, each player is going to have to trust the other completely.
Fog of war will not be possible, as both players will need to know where the
other side's forces are in order to set up the map correctly, and to keep
accurate track of movements.  The game will be strictly by the book, unless
we agree on modifications to the rules.

I shall work out full details of how we shall run the game if or when I get
an opponent, but basically each turn, we send each other a list of all
movements.  That includes all fleet movements and assignments, all pickup
and dropping of troops, and the change in status of any Ine Givar guerillas.
Once we have exchanged moves, we exchange a list of all places where we
think combat occurs.  I have yet to work out full details of how combat will
be resolved, because it will depend on how quickly we want the game to
progress vs. how closely we want to adhere to the rules.

The gauntlet is thrown.  Any takers?

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3737
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: combat, big and small
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 12:18:01 GMT

richard@agora.rain.COM (Richard Johnson) writes:
> 
> Scott Kellogg asks:
> : What exactly does a Fusion/Plasma gun DO?
> ...
> :I have seen references where a PGMP-12 was fired in an enclosed room and the
> :contents of the entire room were fried.  (Annic Nova)
> 
> Probably depends on the size of the room, but sounds about right.

That's what I would expect, too.  The last time I played Traveller, my
character preferred lasers (preferably TL13+) to PGMP's and FGMP's, as lasers
are much more useful in confined spaces.  I also figured that a PGMP's recoil
made it less capable of doing snapshots - even in battledress, you have to
assume a correct aiming posture, and while you're doing that, I'm just 
pointing and firing.

> The Traveller computer game "Zhodani Conspiracy" treats the PGMP like a
> truly expensive carbine with great penetration and damage.  And this 
> game is authorized by GDW...

So?  I don't expect so-called computer role-playing games like that to
accurately represent reality, even the fictional "reality" of Traveller.  It
was probably a lot easier for the programmers to treat a PGMP as described
above, than to write a special piece of code for it.  Anyone who thinks he
can do better, please do!  (Then I might buy it.)

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham) writes:

> Rob Dean:
>  
> >Meson Gun tanks:  There's one thing to consider about the meson gun
> >tank, if you are going to play using the Striker rules--it's considered
> >to be an indirect fire weapon, due to the difficulty of adjusting the
> >meson speed to decay at the exact target point (and other scientific
> >double-talk).
>  
> According to Striker Book 2 (which I finally re-located), a meson gun is
> indirect fire because it can hit targets behind obstacles, and because
> precise ranging is needed for it's use.  Also, according to Striker,
> indirect fire weapons CAN be used in direct fire mode, if the
> appropriate fire-control system is available.

But because of the nature of a meson gun, direct fire-control is not
possible, therefore not available.  So I think that vehicle-mounted
meson guns would be TL15 self-propelled artillery, not tanks.  Thus
they would be lightly armoured, as self-propelled artillery often is,
and as someone else said they would be in another message.  But there
would still be TL15 tanks, heavily armoured and equipped with energy
weapons (fusion guns and/or lasers), point defense and perhaps meson
screens.

> My problem with a tank-sized meson screen is that a meson screen
> generator has minimum size of 215Kl at TL15- (or 108Kl at TL16), which
> is rather large for a tank.

Then again, perhaps not.

> Richard Johnson:
>  
> >What was the name of the French field marshall who said in 1911 that
> >the airplane was a neat contraption, but had no military value
> >whatsoever?

If he was a time-traveller, and came from a high-tech world with grav-tanks,
he was probably right.  :-)

> And Vannevar Bush said (in 1946 or 1947): "There has been a great deal
> said about a three-thousand-mile rocket.  In my opinion such a thing is
> impossible for many years.  I think we can leave that out of our
> thinking."

He had just read the minimum size for a meson screen.  I also think that
a three-thousand-mile long rocket is not something we will see for many
years.  :-)

> Brandon Cope:
>  
> >One other thing to consider about pirates: they might not want (or
> >need) to take the ship they are plundering. I suppose most people out
> >there are aware of the tremendous costs and construction times of new
> >ships? So why would pirates capture frighters unless they really needed
> >the ships, or unless they really had no time to offload the valuable
> >part of the cargo?

Well, if I were a pirate and had enough spare crew for boarding parties, I
would certainly capture the ships.

> What a silly idea (leaving the ships behind).  The ship is almost
> invariably worth more than the cargo is.  Take the ship, and leave the
> cargo, if anything.

That's assuming that you can sell the ship to someone who won't ask too
many questions about where you got it.  (Which a character of mine did.
Our GM was quite lenient at the time, and anyway we were operating in
Vargr space.)  But even without the prospect of selling the ship, you
probably do not have much time to offload the valuable part of the
cargo.  In fact, you might not have much time to _find_ the valuable
part of the cargo.  If the ship sent out a distress signal, you want to
be out of that piece of space as soon as possible.  Besides, if you take
the ship, you can take more cargo - you only use your own ship's cargo
hold if the freighter's crew succeeded in disabling the freighter before
you captured it.

I would not kill the freighter's crew, unless they had done something to
deserve it (e.g. disabled the ship).  I would want to get a reputation
for showing mercy to the crew if they co-operated, in the hope that the
next ship would be more co-operative.  If I got a reputation for giving
no quarter, the next ship would be quite likely to fight, and possibly
self-destruct, before I could capture it.  After all, if they know they're
going to die anyway, what do they have to lose?

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Feb 20 00:44:52 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA15262) Thu, 20 Feb 92 00:44:38 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA13168@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:01:09 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.0)
	id AA09933; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:02:10 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/7.1)
	id AA07887; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:00:35 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA17106; Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:00:30 PST
Message-Id: <9202200500.AA17106@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #307: Msgs 3738-3749
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 21:00:28 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Wed Feb 19 21:00:25 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #307: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3738  17-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S pirates, my final chapter (?) << > 1) Pirates
3739  17-Feb-92 "Anderson, Richar On the Oddessy << All I can say, Steve, is "w
3740  17-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S miniguns, PGMP/FGMP << >> It's much harder to
3741  17-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TL8 prejudices... << Retraction time: It was 
3742  17-Feb-92 rwmira01@vlsi.ct. RE: (3724) New worlds to conquer (LONG) << > 
3743  17-Feb-92 gsw@whservd.att.C GAMES FOR SALE (2) << Sorry for the delay. I 
3744  18-Feb-92 Pauli             PBeM TCS << Steve Higginbotham writes: >>I'd 
3745  18-Feb-92 metlay@minerva.ph TL8 Prejudices? << Many thanks to Steve Higgi
3746  18-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI" Guarded Jump Points << RE: TCS/FFW I'll be gl
3747  18-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI" TCS/FFW PBEM << RE: PBEM TCS/FFW I'd *much* r
3748  18-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse A Traveller Frontier << Rob (rwmira01@vlsi.ct
3749  18-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha striker, meson guns, etc... << Adrian Hurt: >

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3738
Date:    Mon, 17 Feb 1992 9:02:59 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: pirates, my final chapter (?)

 
>  1)  Pirates probably do not care whether the victims can be robbed
>again and again.  Take one Tukera liner home, sell it, and retire.
 
	I use a sector set about 500 years after the Rebellion, where there is 
precious little in the way of luxury resources. What liners there are small and
have a low resale value (they tend to be of spartan comforts and of the 'it'll 
get you from point A to point B' mentality).

>  2)  Probably more relevant to your picture - in the 15th and 16th
>centuries, the cargo from a ship was frequently worth more than the
>ship.  Sometimes A LOT more.  In MT, most cargos are worth no more than
>a small fraction of the value of the ship.
 
	Along with the above, most merchant vessels are under 500 tons,
meaning they will not carry trivial cargo; whatever they carry IS valuable

>  3)  There is also a lot of room between taking the ship and killing
>the crew.  Neither especially implies the other.  You can put the crew
>out in vacc suits, and they could probably be rescued in plenty of time. 
>They are, after all, within a few million Km from the main world (unless
>they are stupid, or somehow unable to add).
 
	Yes, but if an independant merchant knows that he is going to lose his
ship, there is less of a chance he will surrender, since it will be difficult
for him to easily get another.

>  4) As to selling the ship, that's where the Vargr come in.  I doubt
>the Vargr care from clean papers.  Selling a ship in the Extants should
>be a matter of listing it in the classifieds, and waiting a bit.
 
	The Vargr, unfourtunately, do not exist as a racial entity in my
campaign.

>  5)  As to the crew difficulties, notice that pirates traditionally
>carried large crews for that very purpose.
 
 	I usually have 2 sets of crewman and an equal number of 'marines'
on board my pirate vessels

>Sounds like you have been reading GURPS Swashbucklers.  I notice that
>those pirates (Brethren of the Coast) usually took the ships, and
>marooned the crews in small boats.  Obviously THEY didn't worry too much
>about robbing the ships repeatedly.

	Well, true, but the ships they hit tended to be either owned by the
Spanish government, or belonged to large trading companies. In my campaign,
over 90% of the merchants are independant. So, some changes had to be made...
 
>BTW, why do pirates care how long it takes to build a ship?
>And why use an impoverished subsector that can only build 300 ships per
>year?  Efate probably builds 5000+ per year by itself.

	Well, I guess by MT standards, my campaign sector is impoverished,
but considering it's in the rebuilding stages nearly 500 years of Dark Years,
you couldn't expect a great deal more. Anyway, the 300 ships a year are
merchant vessels built at civilian ship yards. It does not include non-merchant
civilian ships, or military and exploration vessels (which have their own 
ship yards). The central 'empire' of my sector consists of about 20 systems,
and cranks out about 600-700 ships a year (excluding small craft that are not
jump capable). Pirates end up having to care about ship construction times since
if they start taking ships left and right, they will put a severe dent into
available ships to plunder (see also below).
	Perhaps my pirates wouldn't function in an 'official' Traveller 
universe (whatever that may be now...), but they work well in mine. Most 
pirates in my campaign fall into two groups. The first are those who get their
ships and maintainence from independant worlds in return of a share of the loot
(more or less privateers). The second group is old, semi-obsolete military 
vessels with second line or reserve crews employed by a empire pretty much 
ruined by my main one (though they aren't pirates in the conventional sense 
either). Retaliation against the first group, if the threat gets bad enough,
is simple: about 20% of the empire's fleet is sent to the world backing the
privateers with the job of wrecking any starships they find, and of destroying
all shipyards. The second group is much harder: the natives of the vanquished
empire are too fimly entrenched and militarily equipped for such action. While
no longer a real military threat, they can, at best, only be reacted to when
their raiders appear (the Navy has deployed a great deal of Q-freighters in
systems on that section of the sector).

>Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Cope                               ! "Every way I turn my eyes
Student Consultant, Stephen F. Austin State!  Shadows pass in the night
A_COPEAB@ccsvax.sfasu.edu                  !  Haunted by reality
Z_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU                  !  Living out of dreams
- -------------------------------------------!  Nothing is the way it seems"
a generous and sadistic DM	           !        Alan Parsons Project      
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3739
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 10:20:21 est
From: "Anderson, Richard" <ANDERSOR%DICKINSN.bitnet@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject: On the Oddessy

All I can say, Steve, is "wow", and "Where can I get one!"

RHA

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3740
Date:    Mon, 17 Feb 1992 9:36:02 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: miniguns, PGMP/FGMP

 
>> It's much harder to think up reasons why people shouldn't carry around
>> Gauss versions of the General Electric gatling used in PREDATOR and 
>> TERMINATOR 2, whose official designation escapes me.
>  Even a gauss minigun would have an obscene recoil. I've forgotten exactly
>what the recoil is for the 5.56 minigun, but it is in the order of tens of
>kilos *average* pressure when fired on full ROF. 
>  But it is possible to use it while standing: There is a low (600 r/m type)
>setting designed for this, which is what I suspect they used in the movies:
>'Low' auto on the gun and fast auto on the soundtrack. One can see this quite
>clearly in Aliens for example where for each muzzle flash there is two to 
>five shots on the soundtrack.
 
	The minigun in Predator might have been the 5.56mm NATO XM-214.
However, the minigun from T2 looked more like the 7.62mm NATO version found in
choppers (amongst other vehicles). Remember, Arnie was a lot stronger and
heavier than a normal human. Also, the weapons (esp. barrels) did not look
the same.
	I'm curious as to what the smart gun from Aliens actually is (the
novel didn't go into any detail). The guesses around here are:
(1) gauss (unlikely)
(2) caseless ammo using electricity rather than a firing pin (possible)
(3) caseless ammo in a chain-gun (more likely -- a 7.62mm chain gun weighs
under 35 pounds unloaded today)
	A lower rate of fire is a must for a man-portable weapon, since on
full auto the XM-214 eats up about 4000 rounds per minute which means ammo 
shortages would abound (this is, IMHO, even a worse problem than recoil).

>Whether this would matter to a man outside of the nearest set of combat
>armour is debatable.  Notice that the rules do not state that a man can use
>either a PGMP or FGMP without armour, just without POWERED armour.

In Book 4: Mercenary, of the 3 PGMP and 2 FGMP, only 2 of them require the
user to wear battle dress (the highest tech level versions of each use grav
compensators to cut down the recoil, and the lowest tech PGMP is already
stated as having a horrible recoil (and a poor rate of fire because of it)).
The only one of these weapons I let PCs get their hands on was the PGMP-12,
and only one per party (they were rarely used, since they are illegal just about
everywhere (law level -1 anyone?...)).

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3741
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 10:03:03 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TL8 prejudices...

Retraction time:  It was Metlay showing his TL8 prejudices, not Bertil.
My apologies to both of them...

Thanks, Bertil.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3742
Subject: RE: (3724) New worlds to conquer (LONG)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 13:18:50 -0500
From: rwmira01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu


>     Many people have expressed their discontent with the fact
>that the Third Imperium is surrounded by other interstellar
>empires, leaving it no direction in which to expand.  As a
>result, there are no completely untouched worlds for the Scouts
[Deleted]

I whole heartadly agree with this.  My groups have complained of this
frequently or dropped big hints that it would be fun.  

>     There are a few obvious solutions to this problem, though
>they are not very satisfying.

There is yet another solution.  You could back off of the GDW officialness 
of the rebellion a little (not much mind you).  There is room spinward of
the Spinward Marches where the Zhondani have not expanded rimward and the
Aslan have not expanded coreward.  Right next to the Marches, that corridor
is quite thin, however it does open up some a few sectors out.  (Look at the
adventure Laviathan (sp) for references).  There has been plenty of unexplored
turf to mess with.

The real problem that I have is with the world generation.  It is built on 
assuming that a thriving interstellar community exists.  A little creative
thought can go a long way in interpreting the data from the UWP.  High TLs
and starports are hard to justify, but could.

The other factor that can be used is the fact that a majority of the worlds
outside of the Imperium were mapped from long range by the IISS during the
first grand survey and that information may not be completly accurate.

Just some thoughts.

Rob  

D
The real problem I have wi

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3743
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 92 14:15 EST
Subject: GAMES FOR SALE (2)

Sorry for the delay.  I know I promised this a while ago, but work
pressures have kept me too busy.

Due to the volume of requests I received, I have decided to post prices
rather than haggling over every item.  I listed prices after each game.
If you think a price is unreasonable and want to offer less, that's
fine, although if someone else offers full price you will lose out.

Prices don't include shipping.

I have included almost all of my games in this listing.  As before, a
few of the more-used games have broken boxes (labelled "box broken") --
some of these boxes may actually be missing.  Otherwise, most of the
games are in pretty good shape.  Descriptions follow the major headings.
- --------------------
CLASSIC TRAVELLER - in general well used but very well kept.  The
 Judges Guild material I got used from a friend and is not in as
 good condition.

Rules:
Book 0: $5
Book 1-8: $10 each
All Supplements except 5 (from Azhanti High lightning): $8 each
Alien modules 2 (K'Kree) & 6 (Solomani): $6 each
101 Robots: $6

Boxed sets:
Triplanetary: $8
Imperium: $8
Azhanti High Lightning: $18

Campaigns/sector data:
Atlas of the Imperium: $10
Glimmerdrift Reaches (Judges Guild): $8

Modules:
Habor Parn (Group One), Marinagua (Group One), Nithus (Group One),
Geptorem (Group One): all for $5
Drakne Station (Judges Guild): $8
Adventures 1 (Kinunir), 4 (Leviathan), 5 (Trillion Credit Squadron),
           6 (Expedition to Zhodane), 7 (Broadsword), 8 (Prison Planet),
           10 (Safari Ship), 11 (Murder on Arcturus Station), 13 (Signal GK):
           $6 each
Double Adventures 1 (Shadows/Annic Nova), 2 (Across the Bright Face/Mission on
           Mithril), 3 (Death Station/The Argon Gambit), 5 (The Chamax Plague/
           Horde), 6 (Divine Intervention/Night of Conquest): $6 each
The Stazhlekh Report/The Harrensa Project (Fasa): $6

15mm Ship plans:
I.S.P.M.V. Fenris (Fasa): $7
I.S.C.V. King Richard (Fasa): $7
I.S.P.M.V. Tethys (Fasa): $7
Starships and Spacecraft (Judges Guild) (missing some sheets): $6
Large set of 15 mm counters (Seeker): $1 with other purchase

Homemade:
Numerous ship designs, deckplans, robot designs, and characters: free
 to largest buyer
- --------------------
MEGATRAVELLER - not very used and in good shape.  I believe I have
 a few other books around.

Basic set (box broken), Errata sheets: $10
Rebellion Sourcebook: $5
- --------------------
TRAVELLER:2300 - hardly used and in excellent condition.

Traveller:2300: $10
2300:Star Cruiser: $10
- --------------------
CAR WARS - well used but well kept.

Car Wars rules: $4
Armadillo Autoduel Arena: $3
Truck Stop: $4
Sunday Drivers: $3
Autoduel Champions: $4
Car Wars Compendium: $8
Autoduel Quarterly, Vol 1 No 3, Vol 2 No 1: $2
Uncle Alberts (number 1 - 2035 catalog): $3
AADA vehicle guide: $3
AADA Road Atlas Volumes 1 (The East Coast), 2 (The West Coast): $3 each

Lots of custom cars and tracks: free to largest buyer
- --------------------
OGRE - again all well kept (although I'm not certain about the Microgame
rules which were given to me by a friend).

Ogre rules (Steve Jackson): $4
Original Ogre rules (Microgame): $3
GEV (x2): $4 each
Battlesuit: $3
The OGRE Book: $4
- --------------------
GURPS - in excellent (almost new) condition, except original
 basic set, which has a broken box.

Rules:
Basic boxed set (box broken): $5
Basic Set (3rd edition): $10
High Tech: $5
Supers: $6
Autoduel: $5
Horseclans: $5
Fantasy: $6
Bestiary (x2): $5 each
Japan: $5
Orcslayer: $3
Humanx: $5
Space: $6
Magic: $6
Swashbucklers: $5
Horror: $6

Adventures:
Car Warriors (Autoduel): $3
Zombietown USA (Horror/Autoduel): $3
Harkwood: $3
The Old Stone Fort (x2) (Horror): $3 each
Unnight (Space): $3
Space Atlas (Space): $3
Conan Beyond Thunder River: $3

Extras:
Hex sheets: $4
Blank Maps: $4
- --------------------
ROLEMASTER - been around for a while, but in decent shape.  No box, but
 I don't believe these came in one.

Character Law, Arms Law, Claw Law, Spell Law, Campaign Law: $10 for all
- --------------------
MARVEL SUPERHEROES - in decent condition.

Marvel Superheroes boxed set: $8
Adventures  MH-1 (The Breeder Bombs), MH-2 (Time Trap), MH-SP1 (Secret Wars):
$2 each
Supplements MH-AC2 (Avengers Assembled), MH-AC3 (Adventure fold-up figures):
$3 each
- --------------------
STAR FRONTIERS - in decent condition

Star Frontiers boxed set (box broken): $10
Knight Hawks (box broken): $10
Referee's screen: $4
SF AC-1 Character sheets (x2) (some have been used): $3
Adventures SF1 (Volturnus, Planet of Mystery), SF2 (Starspawn of Volturnus),
           SF3 (Sundown on Starmist), SFKH1 (Dramune Run), SFKH2 (Mutiny on
           the Eleanor Moraes): $3 each
- --------------------
PARANOIA - in excellent (mostly new) condition.

Paranoia boxed set: $15
Hill Sector Blues: $4
DOA Sector Travellogue: $4
Send in the Clones: $4
Clones in Space: $4
Excessory pack w/Gamemaster's screen: $5
Acute Paranoia: $6
- --------------------
MISCELLANEOUS - these are in order by condition.

New:
Universe (boxed set) (w/2 copies of Delta Vee): $15
Top Secret/SI boxed set, Top Secret G4 File: Guns, Gadgets, and Getaway Gear:
 $15 for both

Excellent:
Champions 4th edition: $15
DC Heroes boxed set: $10
Gamma World, 2nd edition boxed set: $10

Good/Very Good:
Steve Jackson's Sorcery series (1-4 plus spell book): $10
Lost Worlds books Barbarian w/2-handed sword, Halfling w/sword and shield:
 $8 for both
Original Illuminati (w/expansion sets 1, 2, and 3): $15

Decent:
Toon, Son of Toon, and Toon Silly Stuff: $10 for all
Hardcover Fantasy Wargaming book: $5
Ars Magica (binding broken) w/The Broken Covenant & Whimsy cards: $15

Well Used:
Thieves World adventure pack (boxed set): $7
Villians and Vigilantes boxed set (box broken): $5
- --------------------
MISCELLANEOUS BOARD GAMES/WAR GAMES (all boxed sets) - these
 are in general in excellent shape.  Some are unused.

The Arab-Israeli Wars: $7
Starship Troopers: $8
Kingmaker: $10
Onslaught: $7
Sword Lords: $5
Titan: $8
Elric (Young Kingdoms Adventure Game): $7
Star Fleet Battles volumes 1 and 2 plus supplement 1: $20 for all
Mystic Wood: $7
Freedom in the Galaxy: $8
Wizards: $8
Tales of the Arabian Nights: $8
Original Dungeon: $5
The Last Starfighter: $4
Cosmic Encounter (West End) (box breaking): $5
Image (don't know condition): $2
Moonstar (don't know condition): $2
- --------------------
MAGAZINES - The older Dragon magazines (mostly before 70) were given to me
 by a friend and some of the covers are falling off and such.  Most of the
 other magazines are in excellent condition.

Best of Dragon: 1-5: $4 each
Dragon: 45, 51, 54 (no cover), 55, 56, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 68(x2), 70(x2),
       74-78, 81, 83-88, 91-105, 108(x2), 109, 114-127, 130, 135, 136,
       139-142, 144-170: $2 each
Traveller's Digest: 4, 6-14: $2 each
Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer: 81: $2
White Dwarf: 50, 113, 114: $2 each
Campaign: 94: $2
White Wolf: 16: $2
Challenge: 28, 31, 34: $2 each
- --------------------
DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS - The immortals rules are in pretty good shape.  The
 rest are well worn.

Original Basic rules book (x2): $2 each
Expert rules book: $2
Set 5: Immortals Rules (box broken): $5
Modules: B1 (In Search of the Unknown) (x2), B2 (The Keep on the Borderlands)
         (x2), O2 (Blade of Vengeance): $1 each
- --------------------
ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS - The first three are well worn.  Most items
 are in very good condition, though.

Dungeon Master's Guide: $9
Players Handbook: $9
Monster Manual: $9
Fiend Folio: $9
Deities and Demigods (original): $9
Deities and Demigods (w/o copyright violations): $8
Monster Manual II: $9
Unearthed Arcana: $9
Oriental Adventures: $9
Manual of the Planes: $9
Dungeoneer's Survival Guide: $9
Wilderness Survival Guide: $9
Dragonlance Adventures: $9
The World of Greyhawk (box broken): $9
The World of Greyhawk (original): $9
Battle System boxed set: $10
Accessories: REF1 (Dungeon Master's Screen), Original Dungeon Master's Screen,
             REF3 (The Book of Lairs), Dungeon Master's Adventure Log: $4 each
Modules: A1 (Slave Pits of the Undercity), A2 (Secret of the Slavers Stockade),
         A3 (Assault on the Aerie of the Slave Lords), A4 (In the Dungeons of
         the Slave Lords), C1 (The Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan) (x4),
         DL1 (Dragons of Despair), EX1 (Dungeonland) (x2), EX2 (The Land Beyond
         the Magic Mirror), G1 (Steading of the Hill Giant Chief), G2 (The
         Glacial Rift of the Frost Giant Jarl), G3 (Hall of the Fire Giant
         King), I1 (Dwellers of the Forbidden City), I2 (Tomb of the Lizard
         King), L1 (The Secret of Bone Hill), L2 (The Assassin's Knot), M1
         (Blizzard Pass), M2 (Maze of the Riddling Minotaur), N1 (Against the
         Cult of the Reptile God), S1 (Tomb of Horrors), S2 (White Plume
         Mountain), S3 (Expedition to the Barrier Peaks), S4 (The Lost Caverns
         of Tsojcanth) (x2), T1 (The Village of Hommlet),  U1 (The Sinister
         Secret of Saltmarsh), U2 (Danger at Dunwater), U3 (The Final Enemy),
         UK1 (Beyond the Crystal Cave), UK3 (The Gauntlet), UK6 (All That
         Glitters), UK7 (Dark Clouds Gather), WG5 (Mordenkainen's Fantastic
         Adventure): $3 each
Campaign Modules: Lankhmar City of Adventure, G1-2-3 (Against the Giants),
                  OP1 (Tales of the Outer Planes), T1-4 (The Temple of
                  Elemental Evil): $6 each
- --------------------
ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS, 2ND EDITION - these are all in excellent
 condition

Player's Handbook: $10
Dungeon Master's Guide: $10
Greyhawk Adventures: $10
The Complete Fighter's Handbook: $6
The Complete Priest's Handbook: $6
The Complete Thief's Handbook: $6
The Complete Wizard's Handbook: $6
The Complete Psionics Handbook: $6
The Castle Guide: $6
Battlesystem miniatures rules: $8
Monstrous Compendium, volume 1, volume 2, and Dragonlance appendix: $18 for all
Monstrous Compendium, Outer Planes appendix: $4
Dungeon Master's Screen: $4
- --------------------
SPELLJAMMER - these are in excellent condition

Spelljammer boxed set: $10
Module SJA2 (Skull & Crossbows): $3
- --------------------
MICROGAMES AND SUCH - these are in good condition

Hydra boxed set: $3
Saga: $3
Trailblazer: $3
Invasion of the Air Eaters: $1
Warp War: $3
Black Hole: $2
Sticks and Stones: $1
A Circle of Witches (short paperbook about witch's rituals): $1
- -------------------- $1730
I also have a whole bunch of lead miniatures, in varying conditions, mostly
unpainted.  Most are Grenadier.  Two boxed sets are for Traveller, the rest
are for Dungeons and Dragons/fantasy games.

I recently uncovered a few other microgames which I also have not listed yet.
- --------------------
If you are interested in any of these items, please contact me
by e-mail.  You can reach me by phone, but my answering machine
has been losing messages recently.  I am not making a business
out of this -- I just hope to get back some of the small fortune
that I put into these games.

Jerry Williams
gsw@whservd.att.com
(908)953-0551

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3744
Subject: PBeM TCS
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 13:49:43 +1100
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

Steve Higginbotham writes:

>>I'd much prefer FFW for a couple of reasons.
>>
>>*   I think there'd be more people interested if there isn't a need for
>>a High Guard background.  And the more the merrier.  With fairly simple
>>combat
>>and build rules anybody could pick it up quickly.  Doing turns would
>>also be much much simpler.
>>
>>*   It's possible for TCS to bog down if all the players aren't really
>>dedicated.  The need for daily turns for combat is really a necessity
>>if you want the campaign game to progress at a decent rate.  With FFW
>>you should able able to play a complete campaign turn in a single PBM
>>turn (including all combat).
>>
>>*       I'm more interested in the "strategic" aspect and not the nitty
>>gritty of "tactical" High Guard combat.  General fleet movements,
>>co-ordination, capturing planets, not really knowing whats going
>>on..... I really want to play just for the feel of the "fog of war" or
>>blind system of play.  The simplest system we can place on top of that
>>and maintain a Traveller universe the better.

>I would prefer MT ship design.  I don't like the idea of being locked
>into GDW's picture of future warfare.  I'd like to try my own ideas
>out.  As t the strategic level, TCS is slightly more complex than FFW,
>but slightly more realistic, too.  The referee helps out a lot.

MT design is too complex.  Trying to reduce a MT design to something where
the ref could handle large combats would be a major pain.  If the players
discovered that the ref was ignoring avionics totally, they would no longer
include them.  MT combat is much too tactical to convert for an e-mail
medium.  Ideally, combat should be resolved in a single turn for each
player.  In reality, the players would submit move turns and the ref would
send back some details about the enemy fleet encountered (e.g. 4 large, 10
medium, 20 small and about 200 fighters).  The players would then submit combat
turns and the fights would be resolved.

My current ideas for combat involve a line of battle (list the ships in some
order) and a tactic selection (e.g. Retreat, ship on ship, suicide fighter
screen, ... [ any suggestions ]).  The player's tactics are compared and
damage / destruction is assigned to each side.  The player can also specify
a retreat threshold and upon taking that many casualties the player's fleet
attempts to retreat from the enguagement.

The combat will no long be HG or MT but it should be workable.  The ship
designs could still be HG (I wouldn't use MT) or even book 2.  I'd also
split the ships into 4 classes (Battleship/cruiser/destroyer/fighter).  The
split would probably be by volume not weaponary.  Also, if the TL is kept down,
you only have to worry about lasers/missiles/sand casters.  PA spinal mounts
can be treated specially targeting a single ship and rolling to damage/destroy
it.  Meson spinals (if they are available) would roll to destroy.  Fusion/plasma
weapons could be converted into extra beam batteries.


Any comments/suggestions?


>>Jim Baranski:
>>>Would it be more fun in an unknown setting where you had to explore
>>>and make contact?

>I can live with this, as I have played games like that.  More work for
>the referee, but life is like that.

Turning into a variation of empire!  I don't object to exploration and contact
but initially at least it might be better to have a relatively small cluster
of systems at low TL.  I think starting each player with a few systems which
has recently discovered jump drives might be workable.  The player would know
some general information about the neighbouring systems but not all the
specific details.  Of course, all sides would think that all the others are
child murdering commie scum ;-}






        						Pauli

Paul Dale                       | grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science  | +61 7 365 2445
University of Queensland        |
Australia, 4072                 | The virus has infected my signature,
                                |     copy it to yours too.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3745
From: metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (metlay)
Subject: TL8 Prejudices?
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 9:51:37 EST

Many thanks to Steve Higginbotham for correcting the mistaken identity
in his post. I could rebut his arguments in a number of areas, including 
a post of thermal output vs. neutron flux figures that prove that any
fusion burst small enough not to do overwhelming neutron damage will 
carry a negligible thermal impact (i.e. fusion becomes deadly as a 
neutron source LONG before it can fry anything), but I'd prefer to 
stand on philosophical arguments this time around....

Of COURSE I'm showing my TL8 prejudices. I live in a TL8 society and
Traveller is a TL8 roleplaying game. Any attempts to run it otherwise
catapult us into the black hole foam within a very short time. I find
it simpler to eject a device which is idiotic than to justify it if the
game doesn't rely on it and it offends me. I'd love to see your arguments
for why people should be running around with Light Sabres, too.

- -- 
Mike Metlay                                 metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Atomic City                      P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3746
Date: 18 Feb 92 11:16:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: Guarded Jump Points

RE: TCS/FFW

I'll be glad to have someone else moderate.  I'd prefer to play TCS, including
the high gaurd ship designing.  That's half the fun...  I'd also prefer to play
(the first game at least) in the published TCS background

I suggest that we bid for the Capital planets in the Island Subsectors:

New Islands Subsector:

Zuflucht      0101 C445720 8 N P
Wellington    0105 C8B0263 A      Controlled by Esperanza No Ocean Refueling
Esperanza     0106 A674ABC B N PG
St. Hilaire   0110 B579763 A N    Controlled by Esperanza
Nebelwelt     0210 C879425 5    G
Gloire        0303 C764567 9    G Controlled by Serendip Belt
Serendip Belt 0503 A000959 C N PG Asteroid Belt
New Colchis   0507 A8959AA C N    Industrialized
Herzenslust   0606 E995765 6    G Controlled by New Colchis
Orphee        0609 X885600 0   P  Interdicted
Topas         0702 D120899 5    G
Elysee        0705 B502532 9 N P  Ice Capped
Besancon      0706 C201341 9 N  G Ice Capped
Berlichingen  0801 D600437 7
Joyeuse       0808 A7899B9 C N  G

Old Islands Subsector:

Sturgeon's Law 0104 DAC1451 6    G Ocean refueling is allowed
Quichotte      0109 E576667 6 N  G Controlled by Joyeuse
Neubayern      0202 A7889C9 C N P
Schlesien Belt 0303 C000367 B N PG Asteroid Belt, Controlled by Neubayern
New Home       0305 A565857 D N PG Rich World
Colchis        0406 B676898 9 N  G
St. Genevieve  0503 C460100 A    G Desert World
Acadie         0605 C868563 9      Controlled by Amondiage
Sansterre      0702 A87A943 C N PG Water World
Achille        0704 E101335 9   P  Ice Capped
Amondiage      0705 A5629A9 C N  G
St. Denis      0803 D735764 7 N PG Controlled by Sansterre

More information later...


RE: Jump Points

Baranski: True...  However, in my opinion, not all systems are organized enough
to have jump points defined, published and guarded.  Cretainly and A or B
starport will, but maybe not C, and probably not D or E.
 
Steve: In the Imperium, they do.  That's what the Scout Service does.  Note
that I don't believe in Jump points, but id=f they were there, the Scouts would
have maped them 600 years ago.

The Scout Service may have mapped/defined them, but my point is does everyone
actually use them?  Is there anyone hanging around in the lesser systems to
guard them and enforce use of them?  Maybe, Maybe not...

Steve: And your pleasant customs people will be most curious about a ship that
arrived on planet without using a Jump point.  A planetary sensor system should
be able to track any ship within 100 diameters, wherever it arrives.  I believe
NORAD can do that now, By TL9 it should be geedunk.

Given enough resources, you can hide from any scanner.  Also, a Captain needing
privacy would most likely file a flight plan that he was doing some intrasystem
exploring/trading/prospecting, fly past the range of any given sensors, jump
out, do their business, jump back in somewhere in the system, but out of sensor
range, and just motor back to the planet.  There are always ways to get around
customs.
 
Jim Baranski


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3747
Date: 18 Feb 92 12:06:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: TCS/FFW PBEM

RE: PBEM TCS/FFW

I'd *much* rather play TCS then FFW (this time), and *much* rather use High
Guard then MegaTraveller, which I know nothing about.

Steve: My current ideas for combat involve a line of battle (list the ships in
some order) and a tactic selection (e.g. Retreat, ship on ship, suicide fighter
screen, ... [ any suggestions ]).  The player's tactics are compared and damage
/ destruction is assigned to each side.  The player can also specify a retreat
threshold and upon taking that many casualties the player's fleet attempts to
retreat from the enguagement.

This is about how I hope things will work out in practice, although I don't
rule out individual turns.  I expect people involved in combat to do a turn a
day or more, and resolve a combat in a week at most.  That sounds fast enough
for me, and still possible to capture most of the detail of the combat.

Steve: I'd also split the ships into 4 classes (Battleship/ cruiser/ destroyer/
fighter).  The split would probably be by volume not weaponary.  Also, if the
TL is kept down, you only have to worry about lasers/missiles/sand casters.  PA
spinal mounts can be treated specially targeting a single ship and rolling to
damage/destroy it.  Meson spinals (if they are available) would roll to
destroy.  Fusion/plasma weapons could be converted into extra beam batteries.

Why do you think this is necessary?

Jim.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3748
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: A Traveller Frontier
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 22:17:32 MET

Rob (rwmira01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu) writes:
>
>>  Many people have expressed their discontent with the fact
>>that the Third Imperium is surrounded by other interstellar
>>empires, leaving it no direction in which to expand. As a
>>result, there are no completely untouched worlds for the Scouts
>[Deleted]
>
>I whole heartadly agree with this. My groups have complained of this
>frequently or dropped big hints that it would be fun.

Yes, I consider this the major flaw in the Traveller background
(as opposed to the Traveller rules which has some much worse ones ;-)

>There is yet another solution. You could back off of the GDW officialness
>of the rebellion a little (not much mind you). There is room spinward of
>the Spinward Marches where the Zhondani have not expanded rimward and the
>Aslan have not expanded coreward. Right next to the Marches, that corridor
>is quite thin, however it does open up some a few sectors out. (Look at the
>adventure Laviathan (sp) for references). There has been plenty of unexplored
           Leviathan
>turf to mess with.
>
>The real problem that I have is with the world generation. It is built on
>assuming that a thriving interstellar community exists. A little creative
>thought can go a long way in interpreting the data from the UWP. High TLs
>and starports are hard to justify, but could.

In my copious spare time I'm working on redoing Beyond and Far Frontiers
sectors, but it's a lot of work if you aren't satisfied with completely
random data. I like my universe to make a bit of sense (although I'm not
a fanatic; I'll take playability and the proper ambience over realism any
day ;-), so it's slow going. Is there anyone out there that might be
interested in working together with me in creating several small interstellar
communities an a large honest-to-goodness nobody-knows-for-sure-what's-at-
the-next-star unexplored frontier?



      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3749
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 20:14:09 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: striker, meson guns, etc...

Adrian Hurt:
 
>But because of the nature of a meson gun, direct fire-control is not
>possible, therefore not available.  So I think that vehicle-mounted
>meson guns would be TL15 self-propelled artillery, not tanks.  Thus
>they would be lightly armoured, as self-propelled artillery often is,
>and as someone else said they would be in another message.  But there
>would still be TL15 tanks, heavily armoured and equipped with energy
>weapons (fusion guns and/or lasers), point defense and perhaps meson
>screens.
 
It's not??? In Striker, any weapon that fires in a straight line has a
direct
fire control.  Just buy the one for the TL in question, and mount your
meson
gun in a turret of at least 20Kl.
 
>> My problem with a tank-sized meson screen is that a meson screen
>> generator has minimum size of 215Kl at TL15- (or 108Kl at TL16), which
>> is rather large for a tank.
>
>Then again, perhaps not.
 
Mighty big tank, eh?  16 tons for the meson screen, 1+ for the gun, 2+ for
the power plant, more for crew, armour, drives, sensors.  Probably 25+
tons.  The
M1 Abrams is rather less than 6 tons displacement.
 
As to the question of a smaller meson screen generator, the MT rules set
the 
smallest one at about 2.5 tons (at TL21).  Since MT provides us a look at
the 
technolgical improvement in meson screen technology for the next 6000
years, it
is probably safe to say a smaller one can't be built at TL15.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Feb 24 00:51:46 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA20865) Mon, 24 Feb 92 00:51:29 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA22705@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:46 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.0)
	id AA21811; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:01:58 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/8.0)
	id AA09795; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:26 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA23374; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:20 PST
Message-Id: <9202240500.AA23374@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #308: Msgs 3750-3763
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:19 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Feb 23 21:00:15 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #308: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3750  18-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha merchants and pirates and economies... << Bra
3751  19-Feb-92 eric@cc.uq.oz.au  PBEM FFW/TCS (yet again) << Adrian Hurt: >Alr
3752  18-Feb-92 Brian G. Vaughan  Scouts in the Zhodani Core Expedition << I ap
3753  19-Feb-92 Pauli             TCS << Jim writes, >I'll be glad to have some
3754  19-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       Re: meson guns << Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.n
3755  19-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha new frontiers... << Hans: >In my copious spar
3756  19-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TL8 prejudice and scifi... << Metlay: >Many t
3757  19-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha neutron flux... << I notice in one of my phys
3758  19-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS PBEM << Okay, no-one else seems intereste
3759  19-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha smugglers blues... << >RE: Jump Points > >Bar
3760  19-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Low Tech Battle Dress << Hey Gang! A while ag
3761  19-Feb-92 Martyn J. Wheeler Re: (3742,3724) New worlds to conquer << From
3762  19-Feb-92 gsw@whservd.att.C Neutron sources? (Re: (3745) TL8 Prejudices?)
3763  19-Feb-92 TML Administrator TML admin away for a couplea << TMLers, I'm g

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3750
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 20:17:28 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: merchants and pirates and economies...

Brandon Cope: 
 
>>  1)  Pirates probably do not care whether the victims can be robbed
>>again and again.  Take one Tukera liner home, sell it, and retire.
> 
>     I use a sector set about 500 years after the Rebellion, where there
is 
>precious little in the way of luxury resources. What liners there are
small
>and have a low resale value (they tend to be of spartan comforts and of
the 
>'it'll get you from point A to point B' mentality).
 
The most valuable part of a starship is not the "luxuries".  It is the
drive 
section:  Free Trader TL15 MCr36.915 : M-drive MCr2.8, J-drive MCr12, 
P-plant MCr11.  Total drive section is MCr25.8, which is 55.9% of the value
of the ship.  The hull adds another MCr10.494 t that, which means the hull
and drives amounts to 78.7% of the total value of the ship.  {the
percentage 
values WERE adjusted to take into account the 20% discount for mass 
production included in the ship price}
And, before you say that you don't allow TLs higher than ?? (12?), let me 
point out that the drive section of a TL12 free trader would run 85.5% of
the value of the ship, since low tech fusion plants cost more than high 
tech ones, which increases the relative value of the drives {a TL12 990MW
fusion plant costs MCr33, a TL 15 one costs MCr11}.
 
 
>>  2)  Probably more relevant to your picture - in the 15th and 16th
>>centuries, the cargo from a ship was frequently worth more than the
>>ship.  Sometimes A LOT more.  In MT, most cargos are worth no more than
>>a small fraction of the value of the ship.
> 
>     Along with the above, most merchant vessels are under 500 tons,
>meaning they will not carry trivial cargo; whatever they carry IS valuable
 
Hmmm... 
For that TL12 free trader, a cargo worth more than the ship would have a
value of about KCr54.679 per Kl (KCr738.167 per ton disp.).  Assuming MT
cargo rules, there ain't no such animal.  Assuming classic Traveller cargo
rules, the only things that meet the bill are Machine Tools (KCr750 per
ton), 
Radioactives(KCr1000 per ton), Gems (KCr1000 per ton), or Computers 
(Kcr10,000 per each).  Gems and radioactives come in lots under 81Kl, which

leaves 92% of your cargo hold empty, and leaves the value of cargo at 11%
of
the value of the ship (maximum).  Machine tools (the best cargo from old 
Traveller) come in lots of up to 405Kl, which leaves your hold less than
half 
full, and your cargo value at 41% of your ship (maximum).  Computers are
kind
of iffy.  If the computers were 10 tons or less, and you had a cargo hold 
full of them, then the cargo would be worth more than the ship.  But I
doubt
you can run an interstellar trade for long on cargos of computers alone.
Especially since the frequency they turn up is one trip in 36.
 
 
>>  3)  There is also a lot of room between taking the ship and killing
>>the crew.  Neither especially implies the other.  You can put the crew
>>out in vacc suits, and they could probably be rescued in plenty of time. 
>>They are, after all, within a few million Km from the main world (unless
>>they are stupid, or somehow unable to add).
> 
>     Yes, but if an independant merchant knows that he is going to lose
his
>ship, there is less of a chance he will surrender, since it will be
difficult
>for him to easily get another.
 
No insurance in your campaign?  Has LLoyds of London lived in vain?  And,
for most
people, the choice between their property and their life is an easy one. 
If
ships are THAT hard to come by, how did they come by the first one, anyway?
 
 
>>  4) As to selling the ship, that's where the Vargr come in.  I doubt
>>the Vargr care from clean papers.  Selling a ship in the Extants should
>>be a matter of listing it in the classifieds, and waiting a bit.
> 
>     The Vargr, unfourtunately, do not exist as a racial entity in my
>campaign.
 
NO Vargr?  Do you have criminals?  I am sure that anyone wanting to join
the
pirate business needs a ship.  I also suspect that there are wars, in which

case, one side or the other will pay handsomely for captured ships.  That's
what Prize Courts are all about.
 
 
>    I usually have 2 sets of crewman and an equal number of 'marines'
>on board my pirate vessels
 
Sounds like a personal problem.  Historically, the Yankee privateers
carried
enough men to man ten prizes, if they could get the men.  There was a lot
of
competition between various privateers for the available seamen.
 
 
>    Well, true, but the ships they hit tended to be either owned by the
>Spanish government, or belonged to large trading companies. In my
campaign,
>over 90% of the merchants are independant. So, some changes had to be
made...
 
Well, false.  The ships belonged to merchants and nobles.  The Spanish 
government just chartered them.
 
 
>    Well, I guess by MT standards, my campaign sector is impoverished,
>but considering it's in the rebuilding stages nearly 500 years of Dark
Years,
>you couldn't expect a great deal more. Anyway, the 300 ships a year are
 
Have you noticed how long it took the real world to industrialize? 
Slightly 
less than 200 years, I believe.  You suppose that 20 worlds couldn't reach
that
point in 500 years?  Remember that we had to do it the hard way: we didn't
know
in advance that it could be done.  Your post_Rebellion people already know
that
it works, since their ancestors had it.
 
>non-merchant civilian ships, or military and exploration vessels (which 
have their own ship yards). The central 'empire' of my sector consists of 
>about 20 systems, and cranks out about 600-700 ships a year (excluding 
 
This implies (using TCS guidelines) a total population for your little
polity
of slightly less than the USA.
Hmmm...
Didn't the world's population rise by a factor of 50 in the last century? 
Does that mean that your 20 world empire started with about 2 people 500
years ago?
 
>small craft that are not jump capable). Pirates end up having to care 
>about ship construction times since if they start taking ships left and 
>right, they will put a severe dent into available ships to plunder (see 
>also below).
 
This assumes the pirates are "environmentally sound".  If they are in it 
for the money, then one good ship sets them up for life, and any given 
pirate  can, and should, ignore ship production rates - that can be his 
successor's problem.
 
>     Perhaps my pirates wouldn't function in an 'official' Traveller 
>universe (whatever that may be now...), but they work well in mine. Most 
>pirates in my campaign fall into two groups. The first are those who get
their
>ships and maintainence from independant worlds in return of a share of the
>loot (more or less privateers). The second group is old, semi-obsolete
military >vessels with second line or reserve crews employed by a empire
pretty much 
>ruined by my main one (though they aren't pirates in the conventional
sense 
>either). Retaliation against the first group, if the threat gets bad
enough,
>is simple: about 20% of the empire's fleet is sent to the world backing
the
>privateers with the job of wrecking any starships they find, and of
destroying
>all shipyards. The second group is much harder: the natives of the
vanquished
>empire are too fimly entrenched and militarily equipped for such action.
While
>no longer a real military threat, they can, at best, only be reacted to
when
>their raiders appear (the Navy has deployed a great deal of Q-freighters
in
>systems on that section of the sector).
 
I know this may sound silly, but why do your empire's enemies go out of
their
way to preserve the shipping of your empire?  If they destroy that
shipping, thenthey have defeated your empire?  If they let it live, and
just siphon off a little, then they will never win their little guerrilla
action.  Check out histories
of guerrilla wars to find out how guerrillas work, and what it takes to
succeed
as a guerrilla.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3751
From: eric@cc.uq.oz.au (Eric Halil)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 16:54:52 +1000
Subject: PBEM FFW/TCS (yet again)

Adrian Hurt:
>Alright, I'm calling everyone's bluff.  If there's a refereed game, please
>can I join?

I'm willing to GM a PBEM based on FFW rules.  I've been thinking that the
full campaign may be a bit much to play out initially, and am interested in
playing a TCS style campaign using FFW rules as a basis.  When I get the
rules (thanks Arthur!!) I will put forward a more definite proposal though
Pauli in another article has some good ideas to start with.  You might be
interested in putting forward some ideas for how combat would work in a 
PBEM format (since at least you know the rules :-)

Eric (eric@cc.uq.oz.au)

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3752
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 22:59:24 -0800
From: Brian G. Vaughan <bvaughan@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Scouts in the Zhodani Core Expedition


     I apologize for omitting the discussion of Far Frontiers
Sector.
     However, let me ask again.  Does anyone think there are
possibilities in my idea of a Denebian Scout contingent partici-
pating in the upcoming Zhodani Core Expedition?  Or is the idea
too unworkable to merit consideration?
 
                              Brian G. Vaughan
                              bvaughan@ocf.berkeley.edu
 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3753
Subject: TCS
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 18:32:39 +1100
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

Jim writes,

>I'll be glad to have someone else moderate.  I'd prefer to play TCS, including
>the high gaurd ship designing.  That's half the fun...  I'd also prefer to play
>(the first game at least) in the published TCS background

Eeeek, that background is a little on the large side for play testing purposes.
I'd be willing to offer to moderate assuming that a reasonable set of rules
(for combat) can be arranged.  I'd want to limit the number of players and
the sizes of the fleet they'll be using to something I can handle in my spare
time.


>More information later...

I'll be interested to see this stuff...



>I'd *much* rather play TCS then FFW (this time), and *much* rather use High
>Guard then MegaTraveller, which I know nothing about.


	It wasn't Steve who wrote this, it was me.
 vvvvv
>Steve: My current ideas for combat involve a line of battle (list the ships in
>some order) and a tactic selection (e.g. Retreat, ship on ship, suicide fighter
>screen, ... [ any suggestions ]).  The player's tactics are compared and damage
>/ destruction is assigned to each side.  The player can also specify a retreat
>threshold and upon taking that many casualties the player's fleet attempts to
>retreat from the engaugement.

>This is about how I hope things will work out in practice, although I don't
>rule out individual turns.  I expect people involved in combat to do a turn a
>day or more, and resolve a combat in a week at most.  That sounds fast enough
>for me, and still possible to capture most of the detail of the combat.

I rule out individual turns as soon as the players are located in different
continents.  The time zone shifts are going to kill daily turns.  So far, we've
got potential players from the US (-7 hours GMT?), England (GMT) and Australia
(+10 hours GMT).  If somebody from either the US or Australia GMs it will
take more than one day to receive/reply to mail.  (I haven't worked out the
time shifts for an English GM).  I can give lots of examples from the current
PBeM game where I've arrived in to work only to discover that heaps of things
have happened and I have had no chance to react to any of them. (e.g. I
received the warning that the PBeM turn was about to close well after midnight
time).  Turns every two days is the fastest possible rate we can reasonably
sustain and slower than that would be even better, players have to think about
what they are going to do.  Once things like flakey mail connections are taken
into account fast turns become an impossibility.


>Steve: I'd also split the ships into 4 classes (Battleship/ cruiser/ destroyer/
>fighter).  The split would probably be by volume not weaponary.  Also, if the
>TL is kept down, you only have to worry about lasers/missiles/sand casters.  PA
>spinal mounts can be treated specially targeting a single ship and rolling to
>damage/destroy it.  Meson spinals (if they are available) would roll to
>destroy.  Fusion/plasma weapons could be converted into extra beam batteries.

>Why do you think this is necessary?

I'll try to explain my reasoning, please bear in mind that my intention is to
allow combat to be resolved in a single turn (and also that the combat will
initially be resolved manually).  The spinal mounts are pretty much a kill or
miss suite of weapons so they will require some special handling (target them
on a class of ships or the largest surviving ship).  I haven't worked out
details of this special handling but it should not be too difficult to do in a
reasonable manner.  The reason for classing ships into the four groups I
mentioned are:

1) Simplifies shot allocation (the player specifiec a class not a specific
	ship to shoot at).
2) Doesn't require the exact nature of the enemy fleet to be revealed, thus
	increasing the fog of war (which must be good clean fun ;-)
3) Simplifies the tactics effects on the combat (e.g. the fighter screen
	tactic might increase the defence of the large ships at a cost
	to the fighters defence).
*) I'm sure I could think of several other reasons if I tried hard.

I was also toying with the idea of reducing ships to a few numbers (just
like in the game Imperium which has beam/missile/defence though probably not
quite so sever as that).  What is really necessary for a ship?
Armour, Laser attacks, Missile attacks, Sand casters, Jump factor and
possibly Agility.  There are most likely some others that should be included.
I am sure people will help out and tell me all about them.

Since everything will be run initially by a single person, simplifications like
this must be made.  It might be possible to allocate combat resolution to a
third party player who would have to be trusted by the ref and the combatants. 
In this case, the combat system could be made more involved.


Hopefully the orders will end up looking something like:
- -------------------------------8<-------------------------------
BEGIN TURN
<Tactic choice>
<damage before retreat attempt>
For each ship:
	<ship ID> <target class> [spinal target class] {special orders}
END TURN
- ------------------------------->8-------------------------------


Where the stuff in []'s only applies if the ship has a spinal mount.  And the
stuff in {}'s is yet to be defined in a reasonable manner.  The ships would
probably be listed in the line of battle order (on a per class basis?)




        						Pauli

Paul Dale                       | grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science  | +61 7 365 2445
University of Queensland        |
Australia, 4072                 | The virus has infected my signature,
                                |     copy it to yours too.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3754
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: meson guns
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 10:11:12 GMT

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham) writes:
> Adrian Hurt:
>  
> >But because of the nature of a meson gun, direct fire-control is not
> >possible, therefore not available.
> > ...
> >							    But there
> >would still be TL15 tanks, heavily armoured and equipped with energy
> >weapons (fusion guns and/or lasers), point defense and perhaps meson
> >screens.
>  
> It's not??? In Striker, any weapon that fires in a straight line has a
> direct fire control.

But most weapons that fire in a straight line are effective for the whole
length of that straight line.  True, with slug throwers (CPR and gauss
weapons) range does have some effect, but not as much as it does on a
meson gun.  You have to know the exact range to the target so that you can
control the mesons' velocity, so that they will go off inside the target.
Perhaps the meson gun's fire control would not be exactly the same as a
standard indirect fire control, but it would resemble an indirect fire
control more than it would resemble a direct fire control.

> >> My problem with a tank-sized meson screen is that a meson screen
> >> generator has minimum size of 215Kl at TL15- (or 108Kl at TL16), which
> >> is rather large for a tank.
> >
> >Then again, perhaps not.
>  
> Mighty big tank, eh?

Yes.  That "perhaps not" was contrasting with the "... and perhaps meson
screens" in my list of what a TL 15 tank would carry.  In view of that
minimum size, I was accepting that the TL 15 tank would probably not
carry them.  Incidentally, what radius does the screen have?  Does it
just protect the hull of the vehicle which owns the screen, or can one
vehicle mounting a big screen cover an area, in which several other
vehicles would sit protected?

In any case, I would expect that the vehicle with the meson gun would sit
well back, out of harm's way.  Smaller, cheaper vehicles, perhaps drones,
would go into the forward battle area, trying to find enemy assets (vehicles,
troops, interesting buildings, etc.) and provide targetting information for
the meson gun.  Because of the requirement for precise ranging, I would
expect a meson gun to be less accurate than a laser, so if a tank with a
meson gun met a tank with a laser, the laser tank would have a better chance
of scoring the first hit.  So why risk the meson gun unnecessarily?

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3755
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 08:12:14 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: new frontiers...

Hans:
 
>In my copious spare time I'm working on redoing Beyond and Far Frontiers
>sectors, but it's a lot of work if you aren't satisfied with completely
>random data. I like my universe to make a bit of sense (although I'm not
>a fanatic; I'll take playability and the proper ambience over realism any
>day ;-), so it's slow going. Is there anyone out there that might be
>interested in working together with me in creating several small
interstellar
>communities an a large honest-to-goodness nobody-knows-for-sure-what's-at-
>the-next-star unexplored frontier?
 
Sounds like a good idea to me.  How do we get started?

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3756
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 08:16:46 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TL8 prejudice and scifi...

 
Metlay:
 
>Many thanks to Steve Higginbotham for correcting the mistaken identity
>in his post. I could rebut his arguments in a number of areas, including 
>a post of thermal output vs. neutron flux figures that prove that any
>fusion burst small enough not to do overwhelming neutron damage will 
>carry a negligible thermal impact (i.e. fusion becomes deadly as a 
>neutron source LONG before it can fry anything), but I'd prefer to 
>stand on philosophical arguments this time around....
 
SO, what's the neutron flux from a 50 GW fusion plant?  Can it be shielded
from with less than 2500 metric tons of shielding?  If not, then kiss MT
fusion
plants goodbye, too.
 
 
>Of COURSE I'm showing my TL8 prejudices. I live in a TL8 society and
>Traveller is a TL8 roleplaying game. Any attempts to run it otherwise
>catapult us into the black hole foam within a very short time. I find
>it simpler to eject a device which is idiotic than to justify it if the
>game doesn't rely on it and it offends me. I'd love to see your arguments
>for why people should be running around with Light Sabres, too.
 
Why do you assume that if it can't be built now, then it can't be built
ever?
I find the fusion gun ridiculous for other reasons:  it costs too much for
what it does.  If a RAM grenade will do it for Cr20, why spend KCr300 to do
it?  I do NOT believe that we (today, here on Terra) have learned all there
is to learn about the universe's workings, and I arbitrarily reject any
argument that assumes that what we know now is all there is.
People have objected to grav technology in MT for a variety of reasons,
almost
all coming down to a variation of "it doesn't agree with physics as we know
it".
Some people said that about Einstein's work, and some said it about quantum
physics later (Einstein, for one).  SOme even said it about Newton's work.
I see no reason to believe that physics has now reached the pinnacle of
knowledge,
or that ANYTHING in science fiction is impossible.  I will reserve
judgement
until it happens.  I DO assume that if the picture presented is INTERNALLY
consistent that there is no reason to mess with it.
 
Notice that MT assumes that TL14+ technology can build a fusion plant of
100
liters (and 300Kg).  It follows that they have methods of shielding against
neutrons that we don't.  If we reject fusion guns as feasible in MT, then
we 
should also reject fusion plants smaller than 1GW (I doubt we could build 
one that light today), nuclear dampers, meson technology, superdense
materials, 
jump drive, grav technology, maneuver drive (replace with chemical rockets
or 
NERVA, which we know work, all else is guesswork), personal lasers, battle 
dress (we can't make batteries that small), etc, etc.  If you eliminate the

science fiction elements, why play a science fiction game?  If you keep any

science fiction elements, why throw out things that are, at least,
internally
consistent?
 
I have found that all the MT (and Traveller) campaigns I have played in
have
managed to avoid paying attention to FGMPs and PGMPs by paying attention to
Law Levels.  If the solution is that simple, why bother with anything else?
And if your PCs flout the law a lot, feel free to have the SWAT teams blow 
them away till they get the hint.
 
 
And if you really can't stand FGMPs, drop them, but don't try to explain it
as "impossible".  It probably isn't.  (at MT prices, it probably isn't
WORTH doing, but it is probably possible to do,if one had a reason and 3000
years of prior research).

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3757
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 08:30:00 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: neutron flux...

I notice in one of my physics books that neutron flux in a proton-proton
reaction is zero.  Or is proton-proton fusion "impossible"?

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3758
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 10:13:29 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS PBEM

Okay, no-one else seems interested in using MT ship design sequence, so I
guess I will referee, since I have no interest in playing TCS without MT
ship design. {I would like to work with Naval design doctrine, and High
Guard design theory would not be valid with MT}

Anyone interested can bid on worlds within the Island Clusters.  Don't
bother selecting Esperanza.  That world has been arbitrarily removed from
the game.
{I played this once before.  Esperanza outproduces all the other worlds
combined by a factor of 1.5.  In the game I played in, Esperanza proceeded
to conquer it's neighbors, then everyone else inside 10 years.  Even a
(short-lived) alliance between all the other players didn't slow down their
progress in any meaningful way}.  Assume Esperanza is B-6748BC-9, and that
they have no off-planet holdings for campaign planning.

New Home IS acceptable, however.  That will leave you a fairly severe
handicap in production, but the Tech Level should make up the difference.

I don't plan to handicap the game, so send me your three top choices, and
I'll try to find you something acceptable.
Game length is 100 years, or until the Island Clusters are under a single
government.  Victory is determined by population controlled, if the game
lasts till the century mark.

If you decide to start fleet design early, use standard TCS guidelines, but
NO MESON TECHNOLOGY IS AVAILABLE.  The starting condition is "peace".

Later, later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3759
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 10:28:02 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: smugglers blues...

>RE: Jump Points
>
>Baranski: True...  However, in my opinion, not all systems are organized
>enough
>to have jump points defined, published and guarded.  Cretainly and A or B
>starport will, but maybe not C, and probably not D or E.
> 
>Steve: In the Imperium, they do.  That's what the Scout Service does. 
Note
>that I don't believe in Jump points, but id=f they were there, the Scouts
>would
>have maped them 600 years ago.
>
>The Scout Service may have mapped/defined them, but my point is does
everyone
>actually use them?  Is there anyone hanging around in the lesser systems
to
>guard them and enforce use of them?  Maybe, Maybe not...
 
Notice that I don't even believe in them, so their enforcement is academic,
as far as I am concerned.
 
 
>Steve: And your pleasant customs people will be most curious about a ship
that>arrived on planet without using a Jump point.  A planetary sensor
system
>should
>be able to track any ship within 100 diameters, wherever it arrives.  I
>believe
>NORAD can do that now, By TL9 it should be geedunk.
>
>Given enough resources, you can hide from any scanner.  Also, a Captain
>needing
>privacy would most likely file a flight plan that he was doing some
>intrasystem
>exploring/trading/prospecting, fly past the range of any given sensors,
jump
>out, do their business, jump back in somewhere in the system, but out of
>sensor
>range, and just motor back to the planet.  There are always ways to get
around
>customs.
 
Given enough resources, you can build a sensor that cannot be hidden from.
I doubt that the average ship captain-PC has more resources than the
average 
planetary government.  As to going beyond sensor range, I suspect that any
world higher than TL8 will have system range sensors that track everything 
in the system.  In which case, you'll spend a LOONG time getting beyond
sensor range.  I also suspect that when your transponder stops sending a 
detectable signal (just after you jump), they'll realize you jumped (or
were
destroyed), and be waiting with a fleet of Customs people when you return.
I also suspect that transponders and flight recorders are checked
frequently,
and anything you do had better have a faked transponder/recorder record
that
won't be cracked when the daily report of traffic in nearby systems is 
brought in by X-boat.  Or by Courier, in systems off the X-boat routes.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3760
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 11:45 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Low Tech Battle Dress

Hey Gang!

A while ago, folks were talking about trying to build the equivalent of the
Battle tech monsters in MegaTrav.  Well, if you ask me they would be sitting
ducks for any high tech A-10 equivalent, and probably even the good ol A-10
would give em a run for their money if it were equipped with specially
designed missiles.  But that is only my opinion.

However smaller stuff might be usable in close combat type situations.
Thus here are some Low Tech models of battle dress.

The problem with building these things (And all of the MegaTrav Robots)
is their lack of upper body strength.  For instance, the AB-101 robot has
a strength of 15 and a weight of several hundred Kilos.  He could never
be expected to be able to haul himself up by his arms.  And if you ask me,
if he were knocked down, I doubt he could stand up without a crane to assist
him.  These units suffer the same problems.  But then again, maybe AB was
designed with some sort of booster specifically for the action of standing
up after a tumble.  If so, then these would have the same booster.

Maximum dexterity is limited to the normal dexterity of the user, but is
normally lower.  Use the formula:
Dexterity=(TL-8) + Dexterity of User/5 + Battle Dress Skill.

I did not include a computer in this, but the rules in 101 vehicles do allow
for this.
Some have pointed out a while ago that Fuel Cells are available only at TL 10.
Well, we can build them today actually, (Mercury?, Gemini, Apollo)
Thus I don't think it unreasonable to have one at TL 9.  Still, for the purists
I made a TL 9 version with a Fuel Cell and one with batteries.
Closed cycle operation would reduce duration to 20 days for the Fuel celled
versions.

Control of the unit is maintained by a HUD in the helmet.  Touch sensors
mounted inside the suit will sense the movement of the user and so articulate
the suit.

I kinda pictured these as armed and armored versions of the cargo lifter from
Aliens:  Big, Strong, Nasty, but on the clumsy side.

Have fun!

Scott Kellogg

CraftID:	Battle Dress, TL 9 Cr 159,538
Hull:		(1/1) Disp=.093, Config=Contoured, Armor=18D
		Unload=752Kg, Load=838Kg
Power:		(1/1) Batteries=828Kw-hr Dur=42hrs
Loco:		(1/1) Legs=2, Road=35kph, Offroad=25kph
Comm:		Radio=Reg, LaserCom=VDist
Sensors:	Advanced Image Enhance, Passive IR, Audio=Dist*2, EMM*2
Off:		RAM Auto Grenade Launcher
Def:		Smoke*1, Anti-Laser Aerosol*1
Control:	HUD, Touch Sensors
Accom:		Seat=None, BasicEnv, BasicLS
Other:		Cargo=30liter, Strength=163,
		ObjSize=Small, EMLevel=None
		Dexterity=1+User's/5+Battledress Skill

CraftID:	Battle Dress, TL 9 Cr 108,638
Hull:		(1/1) Disp=.093, Config=Contoured, Armor=18D
		Unload=644Kg, Load=730Kg
Power:		(1/1) FuelCell=20Kw, Dur=30/90
Loco:		(1/1) Legs=2, Road=40kph, Offroad=28kph
Comm:		Radio=Reg, LaserCom=VDist
Sensors:	Advanced Image Enhance, Passive IR, Audio=Dist*2, EMM*2
Off:		RAM Auto Grenade Launcher
Def:		Smoke*1, Anti-Laser Aerosol*1
Control:	HUD, Touch Sensors
Accom:		Seat=None, BasicEnv, BasicLS
Other:		Fuel=108liter, Cargo=30liter, Strength=163,
		ObjSize=Small, EMLevel=None
		Dexterity=2+User's/5+Battledress Skill

CraftID:	Battle Dress, TL 10 Cr 99,620
Hull:		(1/1) Disp=.093, Config=Contoured, Armor=18E
		Unload=608Kg, Load=699Kg
Power:		(1/1) FuelCell=20Kw, Dur=30/90
Loco:		(1/1) Legs=2, Road=41kph, Offroad=29kph
Comm:		Radio=Reg, LaserCom=VDist
Sensors:	SynthVision, Passive IR, Audio=Dist*2, EMM*2
Off:		RAM Auto Grenade Launcher
Def:		Smoke*1, PrisaticAerosol*1
Control:	HUD, Touch Sensors
Accom:		Seat=None, BasicEnv, BasicLS
Other:		Fuel=108liter, Cargo=30liter, Strength=163, Dex=(User-2)
		ObjSize=Small, EMLevel=None
		Dexterity=2+User's/5+Battledress Skill

CraftID:	Battle Dress, TL 11 Cr 99,620
Hull:		(1/1) Disp=.093, Config=Contoured, Armor=18E
		Unload=608Kg, Load=699Kg
Power:		(1/1) FuelCell=20Kw, Dur=30/90
Loco:		(1/1) Legs=2, Road=46kph, Offroad=32kph
Comm:		Radio=Reg, LaserCom=VDist
Sensors:	SynthVision, Passive IR, Audio=Dist*2, EMM*2
Off:		RAM Auto Grenade Launcher
Def:		Smoke*1, PrisaticAerosol*1
Control:	HUD, Touch Sensors
Accom:		Seat=None, BasicEnv, BasicLS
Other:		Fuel=108liter, Cargo=30liter, Strength=163,
		ObjSize=Small, EMLevel=None
		Dexterity=3+User's/5+Battledress Skill

CraftID:	Battle Dress, TL 12 Cr 97,820
Hull:		(1/1) Disp=.093, Config=Contoured, Armor=18E
		Unload=572Kg, Load=662Kg
Power:		(1/1) FuelCell=20Kw, Dur=30/90
Loco:		(1/1) Legs=2, Road=53kph, Offroad=37kph
Comm:		Radio=Reg, LaserCom=VDist
Sensors:	SynthVision, Passive IR, Audio=Dist*2, EMM*2
Off:		RAM Auto Grenade Launcher
Def:		Smoke*1, PrisaticAerosol*1
Control:	HUD, Touch Sensors
Accom:		Seat=None, BasicEnv, BasicLS
Other:		Fuel=108liter, Cargo=30liter, Strength=163,
		ObjSize=Small, EMLevel=None
		Dexterity=4+User's/5+Battledress Skill

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3761
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 13:46:49 -0500
From: Martyn J. Wheeler <sasmjw@unx.sas.COM>
Subject: Re: (3742,3724) New worlds to conquer


    From: rwmira01@vlsi.ct.louisville.edu (Rob):
    
    >There is yet another solution.  You could back off of the GDW
    officialness of the rebellion a little (not much mind you).  There
    is room spinward of the Spinward Marches where the Zhondani have
    not expanded rimward and the Aslan have not expanded coreward.
    Right next to the Marches, that corridor is quite thin, however it
    does open up some a few sectors out.  (Look at the adventure
    Laviathan (sp) for references).  There has been plenty of
    unexplored turf to mess with.

I take the official Imperium maps as ending at the edges of the Atlas
of the Imperium, and have indeed selected the very area you mention
for an unexplored region.  There is (in my maps) a thread of systems
(forming a Jump-2 main) running to spinward from Darrian/Five Sisters,
which puts a big enough gap to coreward to avoid any Zhodani
influence, and a similar one to rimward to keep the Aslan out.  This
thread leads to a sector with a dense cluster of worlds which are
unexplored by humans, which is where my players are right now.

I have totally backed off the rebellion, as I find that setting a game
at the fall of a civilisation, with lots of warring factions, to be
restrictive to the players (and the GM).  To me, Traveller is a
setting where the characters can do pretty much whatever they want,
and can move from being simple merchants to investigating intrigue to
being agents for the Imperium explorers to fighting in an interstellar
war (not involving the Imperium directly) to being pirates raiding
alien merchant traffic, to take my current campaign as an example.  I
think that having a strong stable Imperium behind them drives the
characters to much more interesting development than if they were
pawns in petty squabbles between Imperial nobles.

Why was there no rebellion?  Easy.  There was no Fifth Frontier War to
spark egos and power struggles among the nobles.  Archduke Norris came
to power in the Spinward Marches as a result of his actions in
preventing war, using evidence of advance preparations by the Sword
Worlds and the Zhodani to get them to back down.  (Yes, characters in
a previous campaign discovered that evidence, investigating ship
losses in the Zaibon system.)  Relations (and mutual respect) with the
Zhodani have improved greatly since then, again due greatly to the
diplomacy of Norris, while the Sword Worlds have returned to their old
internal conflicts and are no longer a useful ally for anyone.

So it is now 1118, and the Imperium is as strong as ever.  This moves
the focus of adventurous characters from internal conflict to
exploring the bounds of the Imperium.
    
    >The real problem that I have is with the world generation.  It is
    built on assuming that a thriving interstellar community exists.
    A little creative thought can go a long way in interpreting the
    data from the UWP.  High TLs and starports are hard to justify,
    but could.

I solve this the same way I do many other consistency problems one
comes across in a long campaign: I wing it.  I generate the star
systems and world data (based on World Builders Hbk) with a SAS
programme, print out the whole sector, stick it in a binder and
scribble all over it in pencil when I disagree with the data.  I have
quite frequently taken a high population system and declared it to be
uninhabited.  Since I also have made _Hard Times_-like changes to
systems in a war zone (again, winging it rather than using any
specific system, based on what I "know" about what has happened in the
system) this process is essential to my campaign.
    
    >The other factor that can be used is the fact that a majority of
    the worlds outside of the Imperium were mapped from long range by
    the IISS during the first grand survey and that information may
    not be completly accurate.

And in many cases was not done at all.  The J2-main from Darrian to
spinward, for example :-).

Martyn
- -------------sasmjw@unx.sas.com----(Martyn J. Wheeler)----DoD #293------------
SAS Institute, Inc: (919) 677-8000 ext.7954    H: (919) 839-0092 (Raleigh, NC)
    "Nuke 'em!" Captain Delaney of the Merchant Cruiser _Anastasia_


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3762
From: gsw@whservd.att.COM
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 14:05 EST
Subject: Neutron sources? (Re: (3745) TL8 Prejudices?)

> From: metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (metlay)
> Subject: (3745) TL8 Prejudices?
> 
> Many thanks to Steve Higginbotham for correcting the mistaken identity
> in his post. I could rebut his arguments in a number of areas, including 
> a post of thermal output vs. neutron flux figures that prove that any
> fusion burst small enough not to do overwhelming neutron damage will 
> carry a negligible thermal impact (i.e. fusion becomes deadly as a 
> neutron source LONG before it can fry anything), but I'd prefer to 
> stand on philosophical arguments this time around....

I don't claim to be up on the current thinking of physicists, but why is
fusion such a huge a SOURCE of neutrons?  I thought that the basic type
of fusion we've been talking about was 2 D -> 1 He or 1 T + 1 H -> 1 He
or some similar reaction where a hydrogen isotope is converted into
helium.  Since there's a lot more hydrogen than deuterium or tritium, I'd
think that if anything the fusion process would need EXTRA neutrons.  Is
it really a neutron SINK (for lack of a better term)?

Jerry Williams

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3763
Subject: TML admin away for a couplea
From: TML Administrator <traveller-request@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 12:09:05 PST


TMLers, I'm going to be away from my computer until Monday, getting a
rain-tan at the beach.  See you all Monday.

__   __/         /   /	    Internet Traveller Mailing List, Administrator
    /     /  /  /   /	   James T. Perkins in Beaverton, Oregon, USA
 __/   __/__/__/ _____/   traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com

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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Mon Feb 24 01:11:18 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA20880) Mon, 24 Feb 92 01:10:56 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA22707@relay.tek.com>; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:56 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.0)
	id AA21819; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:02:09 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/8.0)
	id AA09797; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:35 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA23389; Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:31 PST
Message-Id: <9202240500.AA23389@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #309: Msgs 3764-3777
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:00:29 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Sun Feb 23 21:00:25 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #309: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3764  20-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       PBEM TCS and FFW << Warning - this is long. J
3765  20-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI" TCS, Pirates << Steve, It's fine for me for i
3766  20-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha meson tanks and core expeditions... << Brian 
3767  20-Feb-92 metlay@minerva.ph Ha! I've run rings around ya logically! (re n
3768  20-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au Notes on The Low Tech Battle Dress << Hey Gan
3769  20-Feb-92 KELLOGG@ducvax.au The TML Trillion Credit Squadron game << Howd
3770  20-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse A _Traveller_ Frontier << I wrote: >>In my co
3771  21-Feb-92 Pauli             Re: TML nightly: Msgs 3764-3770 V34#3 << Scot
3772  21-Feb-92 "Lord Krieg"      TCS game << I'm interested in participating i
3773  21-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI" FFW, TCS << RE: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot
3774  21-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S detection ranges and nailing pirates << Remem
3775  21-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha FGMPs and other odds'n'ends... << Baranski: >
3776  21-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS PBEM (mine, anyway)... << New Islands Sub
3777  21-Feb-92 gwh@lurnix.COM    Revised Low Tech Thrust Based Engines table <

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3764
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: PBEM TCS and FFW
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 10:44:02 GMT

Warning - this is long.  James, you might want to put this at the end of
the digest.

eric@cc.uq.oz.au (Eric Halil) writes:
> Adrian Hurt:
> >Alright, I'm calling everyone's bluff.  If there's a refereed game, please
> >can I join?
> 
> I'm willing to GM a PBEM based on FFW rules.  I've been thinking that the
> full campaign may be a bit much to play out initially, and am interested in
> playing a TCS style campaign using FFW rules as a basis.  When I get the
> rules (thanks Arthur!!) I will put forward a more definite proposal though
> Pauli in another article has some good ideas to start with.  You might be
> interested in putting forward some ideas for how combat would work in a 
> PBEM format (since at least you know the rules :-)

Assuming FFW rules, here is my initial idea for how things could work.
Each turn consists of:

1.  Reinforcement Selection Phase.  The GM tells each player what
reinforcements have become available this turn.  Each player then
tells the GM what he is doing with his replacement points.  In a
non-refereed game, each player sends the other a list of what
reinforcements and replacements are entering play this turn.

2.  Movement Phase:
 A. Discretionary Movement.  Both players inform the GM of their
 discretionary moves (X-boats, scouts, fleets led by admirals with
 plotting factor 0).  In a non-refereed game, one player sends the
 other all his discretionary moves, then the second player sends
 the first player his list of discretionary moves.  Either the players
 take it in turns to go first, or they agree not to read the message
 with the title "Discretionary moves" until they have sent their own
 such message.

 B. Plotted Movement.  Both players inform the GM, or each other if
 there is no GM, of their plotted movements for this turn.

3.  Combat Phase:
 A. Black Globe Step.  If the optional black globe rules are being
 played, players owning fleets containing only black globe squadrons
 tell the GM, or each other, what special actions (if any) those fleets
 are carrying out.

 B. Space Combat.  This is the tricky one, if disengaging from a combat
 is to be allowed.  I suggest that for each round of space combat, each
 player sends the GM, or the other player, a list of 4 die rolls.  The
 GM or player will then have a list of 4 rolls for each side.  These
 rolls are used as the rolls for the corresponding side on the combat
 tables.  A fleet may disengage when all 4 rolls have been applied, or
 on the round that a set of rolls results in the fleet's firepower being
 shifted down by one column on the table.  The battle ends when one side
 has been destroyed or has disengaged.  For quicker battles, more than
 4 rolls can be sent per message; for more precise resolution, fewer rolls
 can be sent.  The number of rolls must be agreed on before the battle
 commences.  For the sake of speed, all space combats occurring in a turn
 can be run in parallel.

 C. Interface combat.
  a. System Defence.  The defending player tells the attacker, and the
  GM if present, if the system's SDB's are active this turn.  If so,
  the combat between them and the attacking fleet is resolved the same
  way as Space Combat above.
  b. Surface Bombing.  The player who owns any squadrons or SDB's in a
  system sends either the bombing rolls for this turn, or a message
  saying "No bombing" or something to that effect.  Again, all bombing
  on all worlds is resolved in the same message exchange.
  c. Space-Surface Transfers.  Players exchange messages with the GM, or
  with each other, stating what troops are being loaded/unloaded on all
  worlds.

 In any system, only one side will be able to do bombing, and only that
 side will be able to do transfers.  Thus, the message containing bombing
 results can also contain the space-surface transfers.

 D. Surface combat.  On all worlds containing troops from both sides,
 one die roll is made for the combat occurring that turn.  All die rolls
 can be sent in the same message.
 
4.  Plotting and Reorganisation Phase.
Players do not tell each other about their plotting and reorganisation.
They tell the GM, if there is one.  The status of guerillas is declared
to the other player, and to the GM.

5.  End of turn.  There are no secrets in victory points, so everyone
can calculate them.  If someone thinks he has an automatic victory, he
says so.  If not, tough.  Just to give everyone an incentive to get out
their calculators, I suggest that if a player does not claim an automatic
victory, he does not get it, and the GM is not obliged to point it out -
just to check and enforce or reject the claim.  Otherwise, the Zhodani
player may claim a unilateral armistice; or either player may ask the
other for an armistice, which may be rejected.  If there is no automatic
victory or armistice, go back to phase 1.

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3765
Date: 20 Feb 92 10:09:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: TCS, Pirates

Steve, It's fine for me for if you want to moderate...

I assume the bidding is open bidding so that we can counter bid to make it
expensive to get a juicey planet.

I'll put a bid in for New Colchis...

Why no meson technology?

Pauli: I rule out individual turns as soon as the players are located in
different continents.

That will make life difficult, but I plan on doing checking my mail on off
hours, especially if I'm involved in combat.

Pauli: I'll try to explain my reasoning, please bear in mind that my intention
is to allow combat to be resolved in a single turn

I'm against the goal of resolving combat in a single turn.  It makes ship
design and tactics a moot point.

RE: Pirates
 
Steve: As to going beyond sensor range, I suspect that any world higher than
TL8 will have system range sensors that track everything  in the system.  In
which case, you'll spend a LOONG time getting beyond sensor range.  I also
suspect that when your transponder stops sending a  detectable signal (just
after you jump), they'll realize you jumped (or were destroyed), and be waiting
with a fleet of Customs people when you return. I also suspect that
transponders and flight recorders are checked frequently, and anything you do
had better have a faked transponder/recorder record that won't be cracked when
the daily report of traffic in nearby systems is  brought in by X-boat.  Or by
Courier, in systems off the X-boat routes.

Sure, some systems will do this, but systems which have a C or less starport
will more likely not.  What is the range of a transponder, anyway?  I'm
assuming the transponder range is less then interplanetary.

X Boat???  We're talking about different animals here.  The only xboats the
planets I'm talking about see are ones that misjump.

Sure, 'civilized' systems will have systems traffic control, but many won't.

Jim Baranski


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3766
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 08:26:37 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: meson tanks and core expeditions...

Brian Vaughan:
 
     >However, let me ask again.  Does anyone think there are
>possibilities in my idea of a Denebian Scout contingent partici-
>pating in the upcoming Zhodani Core Expedition?  Or is the idea
>too unworkable to merit consideration?
 
I suspect the Zhodani consider their core expeditions too secret to
let  the Imperium help out, even if the Imperium wanted to.
 
 
Adrian Hurt:
 
>> It's not??? In Striker, any weapon that fires in a straight line has a
>> direct fire control.
>
>But most weapons that fire in a straight line are effective for the whole
>length of that straight line.  True, with slug throwers (CPR and gauss
>weapons) range does have some effect, but not as much as it does on a
>meson gun.  You have to know the exact range to the target so that you can
>control the mesons' velocity, so that they will go off inside the target.
>Perhaps the meson gun's fire control would not be exactly the same as a
>standard indirect fire control, but it would resemble an indirect fire
>control more than it would resemble a direct fire control.
 
??? Laser range finders can do wonders for your ranging shots.  And a meson

gun has an area of effect of 100m diameter, which means a high degree of
accuracy is not required.  If you can see the target, you can obliterate
it.
 
 
>Yes.  That "perhaps not" was contrasting with the "... and perhaps meson
>screens" in my list of what a TL 15 tank would carry.  In view of that
>minimum size, I was accepting that the TL 15 tank would probably not
>carry them.  Incidentally, what radius does the screen have?  Does it
>just protect the hull of the vehicle which owns the screen, or can one
>vehicle mounting a big screen cover an area, in which several other
>vehicles would sit protected?
 
Correction noted.  I misunderstood.  A meson screen has any area you want 
it to, if you have the power available:  0.015MW per factor per Kl.  That 
works out to 15TW per Km^3.  Impractical to protect the battlefield, and
requires a BIG fusion plant to provide protection for even a company.
 
 
>In any case, I would expect that the vehicle with the meson gun would sit
>well back, out of harm's way.  Smaller, cheaper vehicles, perhaps drones,
>would go into the forward battle area, trying to find enemy assets
(vehicles,
>troops, interesting buildings, etc.) and provide targetting information
for
>the meson gun.  Because of the requirement for precise ranging, I would
>expect a meson gun to be less accurate than a laser, so if a tank with a
>meson gun met a tank with a laser, the laser tank would have a better
chance
>of scoring the first hit.  So why risk the meson gun unnecessarily?
 
That's a reasonable mission profile for any high tech AFV.
However, unless the meson gun has a very long cycle time, it can bounce a 
ranging laser off the target and snapfire (using a point defense fire 
control) as fast as the laser tank can, and far more lethally (especially 
if the meson tank is also heavily armoured).
 
I notice that the battlefield meson gun was removed from the list of 
available weapons in MT.  Someone may have decided it didn't fit their
picture.  Someone may have just forgot, too.
 
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3767
From: metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu (metlay)
Subject: Ha! I've run rings around ya logically! (re neutron flux)
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 12:42:55 EST


Sorry, Steve, you walked right into that one. |-> The problem with FGMP
neutron flux is NOT shielding-- we must assume, BTW, a much smaller 
fusion plant than the minimum one allowed by the rules if we're going
to put it on a man's back, but I digress-- as we HAVE in fact postulated
a containment for fusion neutron flux that is light and efficient. (I,
for one, believe that a spherical focussed gravitic generator might make
a nifty bottle-- it uses SF science that we've already forgiven. I have
NOT tried to work out the power required to generate a grav field capable
of neutron deflection etc etc etc CYA CYA, but there are ways to handwave
around this without damaging the rules.)

The problem with FGMPs is that while the fusion vessel is shielded nicely
from hurting anyone, it then proceeds to gob fusing plasma on whomever it's
pointed at when GI Joe pressed the red button marked "MAKE DEAD". And if 
fusion is still going on at that point, THEN you get a massive release of
utterly unshielded neutrons causing all sorts of subcellular mayhem.

And no, the proton-proton chain, if 100% efficient, does not release any
neutrons. But D-T fusion, as used in Traveller, releases TONS of them.
This drags us back to the TDR discussion-- what do Traveller fusion 
reactors FUSE? The HIWG says one thing, other people say another, and
I personally favor a third....

- -- 
Mike Metlay                                 metlay@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu
Atomic City                      P.O. Box 81175, Pittsburgh, PA 15217-0675

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3768
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 12:02 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: Notes on The Low Tech Battle Dress

Hey Gang,

A few notes on the Low tech battle dress I sent in last night.

Those models are more like space capsules than battle dress.  That is, you
don't 'put them on' you climb into them.  I allowed 200+ liters for the
operator.  The average human being about the density of water (Ok, Ok, I'm so
skinny I SINK!) And the average human is WAY under 200 Kg.  Thus it's not
a tight fit.  I envisioned a strap in type set up like on the cargo loader in
aliens with clamshell armored plates to cover the occupant.
	The joints must be adjusted to the user to allow for different limb
lengths, torso size etc.  These adjustments are rather simple with the
'cook book' instructions, and can be fitted to different users in fairly short
order by non-experts.  (Battle Dress-0)  All that really gets adjusted are
a few clamps so that the arms and legs telescope to the proper length.
The unit's mechanical hands are linked to the operators hands, but not directly
so no major difference in hand size is a problem.  Because of this, it is
nearly IMPOSSIBLE to determine the sex of the wearer, unless the visor is up
(And even then it can be trouble)  (Unless of course somebody decides to paint
their battle dress pink or blue...)

	The magazine and fuel tank are constructed like a shaped charge.  If
they became ignited the force of the explosion is directed away from the
occupant.  This is similar to the way magazines are constructed on our current
tanks.

Scott Kellogg
"Prepare to surge to Sub-Light speed!" -- Commander Hork

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3769
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1992 12:30 CDT
From: KELLOGG@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: The TML Trillion Credit Squadron game

Howdy Gang,

A few people may have been surprised, (I sure was) when I didn't pick up the
gauntlet to play Trillion Credit Squadron.  Sorry, I don't have the time now,
but I'd sure like to try it sometime against all of you!

I was sort of pleased to see that you chose High Guard over MegaTrav.
Otherwise I was seeing all sorts of problems for you.

I once got started in a TCS campaign with MegaTrav and it never got very far.
(sigh)

Announcing Kellogg's Law!
The larger the design system, the easier it is to find NASTY loopholes in it.
The MEgaTrav design system is pretty Large!

The trillion cred Squadron I was gonna build was gonna revolve around the
Indianapolis Fighter and the Wolf II fighter carrier.  (TL 11)

The Indianapolis fighter (for those of you who don't remember it) is an
incredibly cheap (Under 10 MCR if memory serves) COACC designed fighter
using a Fusion Rocket.  It's acceleration was around 12G's with a full
armament load.  She carried 60 anti-ship missiles which would be fired in
two battery rounds.  Thus she had the equivalent of a factor 7 missile battery.

At the speeds these things go, they could streak into range, fire the first
salvo, then fly along with the missiles and fire the second salvo.  Then
streak out of range before the enemy had much time to fire on them.
(also with agitlity 6 and a model 5 computer and the +2 size DM they were hard
to hit!)

THus the enemy had not one round of missiles coming in, but 2 rounds which
would come in on the same round and swamp the defending batteries.

The fighters could then fly back to the carriers (Which were WELL out of range)
and reload.

The cheapness of these fighters was one of their biggest advantages.  with
a few thousand of them in the air, they could dish out damage in a HURRY.

It's true, against nuclear dampers and heavy armor, they mightn't fare as well,
but remember that a non penetration hit still registers as hull damage.
(YEah! Those silly numbers we NEVER use!)  And think, a thousand fighters
fire 60 thousand missiles...  I don't care if you've got armor 200H!  It's
still gonna hurt ya!

Now, I hear the gentlemen in the back row making noise...
But Hey!  It's allowed under MegaTrav Rules!

So... be GLAD you've got High Guard to save you from me and my big mouth!

But someday when I'm not taking quantum physics, I'd like to see what some of
you can turn out in a MegaTrav or High Guard Fleet, just to test out what I
can turn out!  Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh! Heh!

Scott
"You fat bloated sack of protoplasm!"  -- Commander Hork

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3770
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: A _Traveller_ Frontier
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 92 21:35:38 MET

I wrote:
>>In my copious spare time I'm working on redoing Beyond and Far Frontiers
>>sectors, but it's a lot of work if you aren't satisfied with completely
>>random data. I like my universe to make a bit of sense (although I'm not
>>a fanatic; I'll take playability and the proper ambience over realism any
>>day ;-), so it's slow going. Is there anyone out there that might be
>>interested in working together with me in creating several small
>interstellar
>>communities and a large honest-to-goodness nobody-knows-for-sure-what's-at-
>>the-next-star unexplored frontier?

Arthur Green writes:
>Hans - I'm interested.

And Steve Higginbotham:
>Sounds like a good idea to me.  How do we get started?

Perhaps I should start by outlining what I've already done, and
what I hope to finish up with in the end.

I've taken the Beyond and Vanguard Reaches starmaps (from the
Paranoia Press publications) and thrown out practically
everything except the star positions and a few of the names. I
then took the starmap in _Vilani & Vargr_ and enlarged Foreven
Sector enough to make out which hex what star belongs to. I'm
sure I've made some mistakes, but hopefully not all that many
(One sub-sector  -  Urnian, the one directly spinwards of Five
Sisters  -  I had made up randomly years earlier, so that one
dosen't correspond to GDW's version at all).
I then worked out the political boundaries shown on the V&V map
as best I could. There's one fairly big realm stretching across
5 or 6 subsectors that is called 'Die Weltbund' (German for
'Federation of Worlds') by Paranoia Press. I decided to make
that my 'staging area', the civilized provider of technology,
R&R and patrons. Most of what I've done till now has been in
connection with Weltbund. I have a rough idea of the first 3
centuries of settlement (2nd to 4th after the Imperial Calendar),
a sketchy timeline, names and UPPs for some of the worlds and
some ideas about the dominant culture (the Navy is sorta like
the Napoleonic Era English Navy with German sounding ranks ;-).

As for the unknown, I've retroactively wiped out the governments
of roughly 7 subsectors of Vanguard Reaches and Beyond and inflicted
THE NOMADS (drumroll, please) on them:

Library data:

"NOMAD DOMAIN:  Area roughly comprised of subsectors H, K and L
of VANGUARD REACHES and subsectors E, F, G and I of BEYOND. The
area is dominated by a unique starfaring nomadic culture. Seven
_hordes_ have divided the area's systems between them and lives
by exhorting what they need from the planetary populations.  If
they  encounter  resistance  they  bomb a part of the offending
planet down to TL 0, which usually makes the rest of the planet
toe  the  line.  They  stay  for  a year or two in each system,
and  then  continue on to the next system.  Before they leave a
system they destroy as much of the local manufacturing capacity
as  possible,  to  ensure  that the system will not grow strong
enough to defy them when they return in 15 or 20 years.  Rumour
has  it  that  in the few cases where a planet has succeeded in
keeping  a  horde  at bay,  word have been sent to other hordes
which  thereupon have sent their own forces to help,  resulting
in the complete defeat and rape of the planet in question."


I plan to open up the Domain by having Weltbund (aided by the Imperium)
trap and destroy most of the nomad fighting ships. Sufficient ships will
survive to be able to trouble Weltbund and PCs for many a year, but the
intrepid merchant (or survey team) will be able to penetrate where no
non-nomad has flown for a millennium. Furthermore, the nomads have been
a barrier to contact with the systems on the other side (the rest of
Vanguard Reaches). Some knowledge has seeped around the edges, of course,
but those systems are pretty much terra (or terras :-) incognita. With the
breaking of the nomads, merchants suddenly become interested in knowing
about them. Exploration parties could be sent out, but I have no particular
ideas about what's there.

What I would like is to expand this sketchy outline into a full-fledged
campaign background. My ideas about how are rather vague. Perhaps each
of us interested parties could select one bit of the whole to work on
and I could coordinate the efforts?

I could e-mail the timeline and the world names and UPPs that I have so
far, but there's already a fair amount of data, so I don't think I should
post it.

Scott Kellogg:
>Well, I don't have a lot of time to help you develop an unknown sector,
>but I'd sure like to give what small help I can.

>A while ago, I made up a sector of my own, composed of a lot of worlds stolen
>from published adventures that had no location in the Spinward Marches.
>Basically I pieced Foreven sector together, with odds and ends and some
>original stuff.

>I can dig out my notes of what original stuff I came up with if you are
>interested.  All the worlds I was dealing with were limited to TL 12 maximum
>though with a few TL 14 planets inside the Zhodani Consulate.

Sounds good.

>There were a few interesting ideas:
>A minor K'kree race.  They had been left on the planet by the Ancients and
>had developed into a very different culture because of it.  For one, all the
>plant life on the planet was inedible to them.  Therefore they had to eat the
>local herbivores in order to survive.  Also present on that world were the
>G'naak carnivores that the K'Kree had exterminated on Kiruir.

I've already developed Weltbund to a point where these wouldn't fit, but
there's plenty of room for them elsewhere on the Frontier. I like the idea.

>I had 2 races at war with each other. One race could only live on planets
>with dense atmospheres, the other could only live where gravity was pretty
>heavy. Thus, they were after the same planets for totally different reasons.

Sounds neat too. But my problem isn't so much neat ideas (though you can
never have too many of those :-) as sheer time to work out the tedious
details (No wait, that didn't come out right: the details aren't tedious,
but working them out can be; I don't enjoy ship design too much, for
example, but I love having deckplans to show my players).

>There were some other ideas, but I need to check my notes.  Let me know if
>you are interested.

Oh, I am, I am...



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "This gives a possible range of 56 to 178 starships
         total  in the three Terran starport facilities,  a
         believable quantity for such a star system."

        "We have a maximum of 178 ships in port, and (as it
         is a busy star system)  we will say that there are
         70 docking berths at the Phoenix facility."

                        ---Journal of the Traveller's
                           Aid Society # 18

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3771
Subject: Re: TML nightly: Msgs 3764-3770 V34#3 
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 18:47:26 +1100
From: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>

Scott Kellogg writes,

>A few people may have been surprised, (I sure was) when I didn't pick up the
>gauntlet to play Trillion Credit Squadron.  Sorry, I don't have the time now,
>but I'd sure like to try it sometime against all of you!

What all of us at once?  You must be mad!  We'll out buy you five or six
to one and then I don't really care how much better you designs are or how
much better you play them.  You must lose.  You'll run out of craft first!




Jim Baranski writes,
>I assume the bidding is open bidding so that we can counter bid to make it
>expensive to get a juicey planet.

>Why no meson technology?

Meson guns are too much like fun!  Players are not supposed to enjoy
themselves.  I think spinal meson guns detract from the combat quite a lot.


>Pauli: I rule out individual turns as soon as the players are located in
>different continents.

>That will make life difficult, but I plan on doing checking my mail on off
>hours, especially if I'm involved in combat.

24 hours a day?  I for one am unable to check my mail on my off hours very
often.  The time shifts make life pretty dismal.  I'm willing to try and
see how things turn out though.


>I'm against the goal of resolving combat in a single turn.  It makes ship
>design and tactics a moot point.

The design isn't quite moot, the combat tactics are.  You are still going to
have to trade things off in the design stages since you can never afford
everything you want.




        						Pauli

Paul Dale                       | grue@cs.uq.oz.au
Department of Computer Science  | +61 7 365 2445
University of Queensland        |
Australia, 4072                 | The virus has infected my signature,
                                |     copy it to yours too.


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3772
Date: 21 Feb 92 01:37:00 PST
From: "Lord Krieg" <cvadsaav@CSUPomona.Edu>
Subject: TCS game

I'm interested in participating in the TCS game.  Here are my three choices
for home planet, in order of preference:
Amondiage
Neubayern
Serendip Belt

Some questions and comments:
I assume we will be using statistical combat resolution.  Even this could be
lots of work for the referee--for this reason, as well as the time lag 
mentioned before, perhaps one turn every other day might be better?

Will unclaimed planets with Class B ports have navies for self defence?

Can players purchase/capture/conquer ships from a higher tech level than what
they started with?  This will undoubtably be of great concern for New Home.

I would prefer not to have any restrictions on classes of ships or over-
simplification of combat system.  This would detract too much from ship design
and tactical decisions.

To resolve combat in one round of messages, everyone should give standing 
orders for their fleets that Steve could use to resolve what would happen in
battle.  For instance, when to retreat, what weapons to use on what type of
target, etc.  New orders would be transmitted by courier ship, thus encouraging
players to get it right the first time!
                            
                                    Lord Krieg

Internet:  cvadsaav@csupomona.edu
America Online:  Empr Krieg


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3773
Date: 21 Feb 92 09:14:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: FFW, TCS

RE: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: (3764) PBEM TCS and FFW

Basically, you want to play FFW...  (not TCS).  That's fine, if that's what you
want, but (again, no hard feelings, but I want to keep my oar in) I'd rather
play TCS (first) then FFW.  I really don't want to play some mix of them before
I've managed to complete a game of either.  If we can't get a TCS game going, I
will play FFW if we can find a referee...

FFW is mostly a two person game, also

RE: Mark Kellog

Come, on, TCS won't take *that* much of your time...

RE: NOMADS

Interesting idea...  Sounds like Space Vikings...

Anyone ever have a Traveller game with something like Fred Saberhagen's
Berserkers in it?

Jim Baranski


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3774
Date:    Fri, 21 Feb 1992 9:57:13 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: detection ranges and nailing pirates

Remember, just because you can detect it doesn't mean you can defend against
it...

A while back, someone mentioned something about a dozen ships being adequate
to cover a planet. However, I cannot remember the distance at which these ships
were supposed to be operating from the planet. I am going to assume a distance
of 10 planetary diameters for this discussion, for three reasons: (1) ships
coming into the system will be 100 or more diameters out, so the protective
ships will be between the intruders and the planet, (2) ships leaving the
system will be unlikely to jump until they get at least that magical 10
diameters out (unless really foolhardy or desperate), so the protective ships
have time to intercept the target ships (such ships are usually smugglers or
escaping criminals), and (3) with 'x' ships, it means that the ships have less
of an area to cover, thus improving effectiveness, than if they were at 100
diameters. With this being said, with an earth-sized world, it will take a 6G
fighter over *2 hours* to get from the 10 to 100 diameter ranges. This is more
than enough time for the hostile ship to do what it wants way out there. A few
'first-line-of-defense' ships at 100 diameters might help, but unless you have
half the Sector Navy at hand, you won't be able to put more than a token number
of ships at the 100 diameter range (of course, a few Q-freighters would help).
 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3775
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 09:26:04 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: FGMPs and other odds'n'ends...

Baranski:
 
>Sure, some systems will do this, but systems which have a C or less
starport
>will more likely not.  What is the range of a transponder, anyway?  I'm
>assuming the transponder range is less then interplanetary.
 
Don't WE have a C or less starport?
I assumed he transponder range was system, at least.
 
>X Boat???  We're talking about different animals here.  The only xboats
the
>planets I'm talking about see are ones that misjump.
 
Hmmm... So we are.
 
 
>Sure, 'civilized' systems will have systems traffic control, but many
won't.
 
I play in uncivilized systems so seldom that that aspect had never occurred
to me as relevant.  After all, the big bucks are to be had in the civilized
places. ;-)
 
 
Metlay:
 
>The problem with FGMPs is that while the fusion vessel is shielded nicely
>from hurting anyone, it then proceeds to gob fusing plasma on whomever
it's
>pointed at when GI Joe pressed the red button marked "MAKE DEAD". And if 
>fusion is still going on at that point, THEN you get a massive release of
>utterly unshielded neutrons causing all sorts of subcellular mayhem.
 
Hmmm... It NEVER occurred to me that fusion might still be going on after
the plasma stream (DON'T cross the streams.  It wuold be bad.) left the
weapon.  I always assumed the fusion took place for a nanosecond or so in
the barrel, then stopped when the stream left the containment of the
barrel.
 
 
>And no, the proton-proton chain, if 100% efficient, does not release any
>neutrons. But D-T fusion, as used in Traveller, releases TONS of them.
>This drags us back to the TDR discussion-- what do Traveller fusion 
>reactors FUSE? The HIWG says one thing, other people say another, and
>I personally favor a third....
 
Where does it say Traveller does D-T fusion?  This would definitely affect
certain ongoing processes in our campaign.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3776
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 10:25:20 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS PBEM (mine, anyway)...

New Islands Subsector                                                 PBG
 
  Zuflucht          0101 C445720-8 N                                  800
  Wellington        0105 C8B0263-A                                    800
  Esperanza         0106 C6748BC-9 N                                  303
  St. Hilaire       0110 B579763-A N                                  500
  Nebelwelt         0210 C879425-5                                    612
  Gloire            0303 C764567-9      controlled by Serendip Belt   924
  Serendip Belt     0503 A000959-C N                                  502
  New Colchis       0507 A8959AA-C N                                  920
  Herzenslust       0606 E995765-6      controlled by New Colchis     103
  Orphee            0609 X885600-0      interdicted                   100
  Topas             0702 D120899-5                                    904
  Elysee            0705 B502532-9 N                                  200
  Besancon          0706 C201341-9 N                                  502
  Berlichingen      0801 D600437-7                                    700
  Joyeuse           0808 A7899B9-C N                                  404
 
 
Old Islands Subsector                                                 PBG
 
  Sturgeon's Law    0104 DAC1451-6                                    815
  Quichotte         0109 E576667-6 N    controlled by Joyeuse         413
  Neubayern         0202 A7889C9-C N                                  610
  Schlesien Belt    0303 C000367-B N    controlled by Neubayern       111
  New Home          0305 A565857-D N                                  704
  Colchis           0406 B676898-9 N                                  911
  St. Genevieve     0503 C460100-A                                    404
  Acadie            0605 C868563-9      controlled by Amondiage       400
  Sansterre         0702 A87A943-C N                                  222
  Achille           0704 E101335-9                                    100
  Amondiage         0705 A5629A9-C N                                  102
  St. Denis         0803 D735764-7 N    controlled by Sansterre       803
 
PBG - Population multiplier, # planetoid belts, # gas giants
 
As you probably notice, Esperanza has been removed from the list of 
starfaring powers.  The list of eligible worlds is limited to those with
A starports, but if you really like a challenge, I have no objection to
you playing St. Hilaire or Colchis.  For purposes of this game, you will
be the "High Command" of whichever world you get, and your location IS 
relevant.  Any orders given will be from whatever point you are determined
to be at when the order is given, and appropriate time delays till the
order
is received will be applied.  
You will be required to build a fleet using standard TCS guidelines for
"peace".  No meson technolgy is initially available.  You  must provide me
with a complete fleet listing (in High Guard terms).  80% of that force,
to include all the (TL-1) ships, will be included in initial information to
all other players.  80% of their forces will be known to you.  You may 
indicate WHICH ships are to included in that listing.  Any further 
information must be acquired during play.  Communication between players
must go through me, and will be delivered at the appropriate time.
 
Each player should provide me a short (less than 1000 words) description
of his Naval Doctrine (how do you want your fleets to behave in a fight?).
Combats between forces you are not present at will be decided by me, and 
results will be sent to you at the appropriate time.  You may change Naval 
Doctrine at any time, but the change will be disseminated to your forces at
the appropriate times.  They will continue to use old Doctrine until that 
time.
 
"Appropriate time" will be determined by time required to make jumps from 
the location an event occurs at to the relevant locations (you to your
fleets,
your fleets to you, other worlds to you, etc.).
 
There are no "bidding guidelines".  Choose the three worlds you would most 
prefer to operate from.  I will try to keep everyone as happy as possible.
The sooner you get a request in, the more likely you are to get your first 
choice, though.

To answer questions already asked - 80% is by tonnage, not by cost.
I am you comptroller.  Any budgetary errors or overrruns will be reported
at the "appropriate time".  Deficit spending is disallowed, funds will
awarded annually (every 50 turns).
Worlds listed as having a Navy Base have planetary defenses other in
addition to fleets (this, of course, applies only to non-player worlds. 
Players can do what they like about planetary defenses).  ANY world with
sufficient resources may have a fleet (mostly quite small).  These ships
will be assumed to be produced at the tiny little local yards, or bought
surplus from one of the great powers.  This IS a method that can be used to
dispose of obsolete ships you no longer wish to carry on the fleet list. 
50% of funds so acquired will go to the Navy budget for the following year,
the remainder to the General Fund (it pays the Comptroller's salary ;-)).

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3777
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 92 13:23:53 PST
From: gwh@lurnix.COM (George W Herbert)
Subject: Revised Low Tech Thrust Based Engines table



A few weeks ago I mentioned that I was working on fixing the Hard Times
and One Small Step engine design tables.  I've completed the hard
part of this.  It's not all done, but the game-design parts are.
Notably missing are costs and power in and out and several items
such as Ion engines I haven't had a chance to evaluate completely
yet.  (Ion and MPD in particular may be a bitch to handle properly
for reasons that would take an article of itself to explain).

What's here is usable to design things.  Go forth and enjoy 8-)

Without further ado, the table:
 
 Revised Hard Times Table 5.1 LOW TECH THRUST BASED PROPULSION
 
  TL  Type        TT    Mass  Vol  Fuel  F_Typ     P_Req.  P_Out.  MCr
  3   Solid       20    1.0   1.0  -     Solid     -       -       ?
  4   Resistojet  0.005 1.0   1.0  1.0   Water     0.1     -
  4   Solid       30    1.0   1.0  -     Solid     -       -
  5   Hyp Liquid  30    1.0   2.0  720   Hyp Liq
  5   Liquid      35    1.0   2.0  545   Liquid
  5   Solid       35    1.0   1.0  -     -
  6   Hyp Liquid  35    1.0   2.0  700   Hyp Liq
  6   Liquid      40    1.0   2.0  605   Liquid
  6   Solid       40    1.0   1.0  -     -
  7   Hyp Liquid  40    1.0   1.5  685   Hyp Liq
  7   Liquid      45    1.0   1.5  570   Liquid
  7   LH Liquid   40    1.0   2.0  1050  LH Liq
  7   Solid       45    1.0   1.0  -     -
  7   Hybrid      40    1.0   1.0  515   Liquid*
  7   Ion
  7   Mass Driver
  7   NTR         5     10.0  4.0  350   LH
  8   LH Liquid   50    1.0   2.0  1200  LH Liq
  8   MPD
  8   NTR         10    10.0  4.0  570   LH
  8   Xptl F Rkt. 150   10.0  1.0  150   LH
  8   Mass Driver
  9   Fusion Rkt. 200   4.0   1.0  205   LH
 
Fuel Types:
   Type        Weight  Cost (Cr/KL)  Comments
   Water       1.0     negl.         Usually free
   Solid        -      Cr50,000      Really the engine, not the fuel
   Hyp. Liquid 0.75    Cr150         Baseline: Hydrazine + Nitrogen Tetroxide
   Liquid      0.95    Cr50          Kerosene / LOX
   LH  Liquid  0.35    Cr70          Liquid Hydrogen / LOX
   Ionizates   1.5     Cr100         Liquid Xenon etc.
   Liquid Hyd. 0.07    Cr??          Per Ref Manual
   Rock        1.0     negl.         for Mass Driver
 
Abbreviations and Acronyms, and more info:
  Hyp     : Hypergolic, where two fuels burn on contact with one another.
             Hypergolic fuels are extremely toxic
  LH      : Liquid Hydrogen
  Liquid  : Liquid Oxygen & Kerosene (baseline)
  Hybrid  : LOX / Solid Fuel rocket.  * while fuel is actually solid rubber or
             similar material, the fuel for Hybrids should be treated as Liquid
             as it has nearly identical characteristics
  NTR     : Nuclear Thermal Rocket.  Can be designed to run on another fuel
             such as Water.  In this case, the volume of fuel used is the same
             but the thrust increases to x8 base thrust.
 
Reviser's Notes:
I've broken liquid fuel engines into three categories:  "normal" liquid
fuel engines, running on some hydrocarbon (usually kerosene or a rough
equivalent) and Liquid Oxygen (LOX), "hypergolic" liquid fuel engines,
running on something like Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrazine, and "Liquid
Hydrogen" rockets, runnong on LOX and Liquid Hydrogen.
 
Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.  Normal liquids are reliable
and cheap and low-tech.  Liquid Hydrogen improves performance at the cost
of reliability, something which I'm striving to write some rules for.
Hypergolics are the most reliable (and cheapest, engine wise), but the
fuels are excessively toxic and hard to handle (remember that Titan silo
that blew up around 1985 ?).
 
I've added Hybrids, where a liquid oxidizer and a solid fuel are burned in
a thrust chamber sort of like a solid rocket engine.  These need more
work, and I'm doing it, but right now a real-world hybrid engine rocket
design of mine is eating my time and such 8-) so don't expect it soon.
 
All of the listed values correspond with known specific impulse, barring
mathematical error while I was calculating them (I spot checked a few and
they're right, so they in general are pretty close).

Enjoy. 8-)

- -george william herbert
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.lurnix.com



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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

From jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com Thu Feb 27 01:17:36 1992
Received: from relay.tek.com by engrg.uwo.ca;
	(id AA28219) Thu, 27 Feb 92 01:17:14 EST
Received: by relay.tek.com id <AA04120@relay.tek.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:01:05 -0800
Received: from wrgate.wr.tek.com by tektronix.TEK.COM (4.1/8.0)
	id AA11133; Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:02:21 PST
Received: by wrgate.wr.tek.com (5.51/8.0)
	id AA20344; Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:00:25 PST
Received: by metolius.WR.TEK.COM (4.1/7.1)
	id AA04856; Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:00:19 PST
Message-Id: <9202270500.AA04856@metolius.WR.TEK.COM>
To: dan@engrg.uwo.ca (Dan Corrin), bfwong@ocf.berkeley.edu (Raven Blackburn),
        anthony@cs.pitt.edu (Michael Anthony Kapolka),
        mcknight@f104.n170.z1.fidonet.org (Chuck McKnight),
        jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com (James T. Perkins)
Subject: TML Bundle #310: Msgs 3778-3794
Reply-To: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 92 21:00:17 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com>
Status: R


TML Bundles come from the archives of the Traveller Mailing List,
maintained by James Perkins, traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com.

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

Date: Wed Feb 26 21:00:12 PST 1992
From: traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com (TML Administrator)
Subject: TML Bundle #310: Table of Contents

-AMN- --Date--- --Sender--------- --Subject-----------------------------------
3778  22-Feb-92 Hans Rancke-Madse FFW/Pirates and stuff << Jim Baranski: > > FF
3779  22-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS PBEM (more answers) << More answers to mo
3780  22-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha planet defense squadrons... << Brandon Cope: 
3781  23-Feb-92 A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.S weapons ranges << 500,000 km range? That woul
3782  23-Feb-92 KELLOGG@DUCVAX.AU The 4.5 Frontier War: Coming soon to a TML ne
3783  23-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha low tech rockets... << William George Herbert
3784  23-Feb-92 rogopp@rogopp.Aut TCS Rules << Argh! Numerous TCS by email game
3785  23-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha TCS PBEM... << Well, I still need some player
3786  23-Feb-92 PPUGLIESE@PimaCC. JTAS << Does anyone know where I can get the 
3787  24-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       Imperials in Zhodani Core Expeditions << Stev
3788  24-Feb-92 Adrian Hurt       Re: FFW << "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.
3789  24-Feb-92 "VSDEC::BARANSKI" TCS << RE: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au> "24 hours
3790  24-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha weapon ranges... << Brandon Cope: >500,000 km
3791  24-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha 1000 Km range weapons... << Looking once agai
3792  24-Feb-92 Steve_Higginbotha pirates in MT... << BTW, if you REALLY want p
3793  24-Feb-92 James T Perkins   James P, TML mail delivery changes << This pe
3794  18-Feb-92 George William He Revised One Small Step / Hard Times engines t

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3778
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: FFW/Pirates and stuff
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 16:39:46 MET

Jim Baranski:
>
> FFW is mostly a two person game, also

One of my friends ran a FFW pbm game for about 10 people by
making them the top five Imperial and the top five Zhodani
admirals respectively. The rest of the admirals were run
by him. He imposed the obvious information time lag, but the
player admirals were not required to plot ahead, of course.
He used the whole Spinward Marches map, but I can't recall
wether he introduced more squadrons for the rimward subsectors.
I wasn't involved myself, unfortunately, but he and several of
his players have told me that it worked well and was a lot of
fun.


I've been contemplating doing something similar when my campaign
reaches 1116 (When that will be is anybody's guess. Current time
is 1113 and I've had to suspend the campaign for lack of time :-( ).
What I'd like to do is to get 16-20 people involved: 2-3 top
political and 4-5 top naval characters for the Domain, one each
to run the Darrians, Sword Worlds, Border Worlds and Federation of
Arden, 3 or 4 aslan clan chiefs (_rival_ Aslan clanchiefs ;-)), the
Zhodani Governor of Chronor and whoever else I can think of (one
Imperial would definitely be the admiral of the Five Sisters forces).
Vargr forces would be handled by a semi-referee, not a regular player.
Interaction would be diplomatic as well as military.

Sigh! There's no earthly or unearthly chance that I'll ever have the
time to actually run such a monster, but I can dream, can't I? :-)


> RE: NOMADS
>
> Interesting idea...  Sounds like Space Vikings...

Yes, a little. Primarily they are a plot device to keep a sizable
slice of space incommunicado until the PCs can get a chance to
explore where no-one they've ever heard of has gone before.

Steve Higginbotham:
> I assumed the transponder range was system, at least.

That makes sense. However, in my universe the authorities are
not quite as hysterical about transponders as they are in the
official one. There's just too many legitimate corporations
that wishes to keep some of their business secret from
competitors for the authorities to get too hardnosed about it.
Transponders can be switched off (official excuse: so as not to
reveal our presense to pirates) and will often, Imperial
regulations to the contrary notwithstanding, be switched on only if
you are within range of an official ship or expect to be before
you jump out of the system (that is, you're going to land on
the planet). The penalty for having a switched-off transponder
is often only a fine, especially for first offenders. Mind you,
the authorities will propably enforce the regulations a lot
more leniently for a megacorporate ship than for a suspected
smuggler.

Mike Metlay:
>And no, the proton-proton chain, if 100% efficient, does not release any
>neutrons. But D-T fusion, as used in Traveller, releases TONS of them.
>This drags us back to the TDR discussion-- what do Traveller fusion
>reactors FUSE? The HIWG says one thing, other people say another, and
>I personally favor a third....

One thing that would help pirates survive would be to be able to hide
more effectively. Could we reduce the effectiveness of neutrino
detectors? After all, how _do_ you detect the direction of a neutrino?
The presense of more than can be accounted for by background radiation,
sure, but the direction to the source? I suspect that you'd need
statistical analysis of readings from widely scattered detectors. And
even then you'll be quite handicapped the moment you get more than a
couple of fusion plants in the system. How does a 12 ship squadron
detect a 13th ship halfway across the system? Then too the pirate can
reduce output from his power plant. One more thing: could you use a
nuclear damper to screen neutrino emissions? (Look, my knowledge of
nuclear physics is not  --  how shal I put this?  --  not Nobel Prize
level ;-)



      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

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3779
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 12:39:12 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS PBEM (more answers)

More answers to more questions: 
 
Serendip Belt is not listed as having asteroid belts because (1) I do not
count "main worlds" in the PBG listing, and (2) I overlooked the typo:-)
 
As to acquisition of higher tech ships or components:  that is between you
and the source.  If New Home wants to sell you TL13 ships/computers/weapons
then they can.  They must be installed in New Home's yards, and so will 
affect the New Home production for their own use.  Whoever decides to play
New Home should sell whatever anyone else wants, at a HORRENDOUS markup.
If no-one wants to play New Home, it will be run that way by me, as a 
neutral power.
YOU MAY NOT ASSUME ANY SUCH IN YOUR INITIAL FLEETS.
 
Couriers:  If you don't buy them, courier service will be provided by the
merchant marine, at a fairly significant speed penalty.
 
Planetary defenses:  If you don't build them, you won't have them.  I am
not
using much abstraction for the planetary assault parts of the game.  It
will
be abstract as far as you are concerned, since it will be handled at the
field
level, as opposed t High Command.  Army type units are not your concern, as

their budget comes from other sources, but transport for ground units IS 
within your zone of interest.  Merchant Marine transport will be available
in
nearly limitless quantities, AFTER the war zone ceases to be a war zone.
 
Doctrine:  Make it as long as necessary.  Keep in mind that you can issue
special orders to individual fleets/squadrons/ships, so your doctrine need
not cover EVERY situation imaginable.  Just most of them ;-)
 
SO far, everyone can have their first choice (you know who you are, and
what 
the choices are.  I need a few more players before we can get started,
since
I don't want to inflict MY idea of future war by neutrals on you.
 
Oh, yeah.  IN this campaign, B starports have yard capacities 50% of an A 
starport, but they can build only non-Jump capable stuff, or Jump capable
ships under 5000 tons (to a limit of 10% of their yard capacity).
 
Keep in mind that fleets acting independently are being run by high-grade
morons.  They can make tactical decisions, but no strategic decisions 
not based in their orders.
 
ANd ONe more thing:  I'm doing an extended system writeup for all systems
(I've needed one for these systems in our own game).  You'll have to defend
(and attack) complete solar systems, not just one gas giant and your 
main world.  System writeups for your systems will be provided in a few 
days, system writeups for any other systems will be provided on request
(probably pkzipped, and UUencoded, so if you can't handle that, let me
know).
 
Baranski: I can't get through to you with
BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil
Can you mail me a mailing address that I can reach.
 
 
Later...
 
 

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3780
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 15:07:42 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: planet defense squadrons...

Brandon Cope:
 
>Remember, just because you can detect it doesn't mean you can defend
against
>it...
>
>A while back, someone mentioned something about a dozen ships being
adequate
>to cover a planet. However, I cannot remember the distance at which these
>ships
>were supposed to be operating from the planet. I am going to assume a
distance
>of 10 planetary diameters for this discussion, for three reasons: (1)
ships
>coming into the system will be 100 or more diameters out, so the
protective
>ships will be between the intruders and the planet, (2) ships leaving the
>system will be unlikely to jump until they get at least that magical 10
>diameters out (unless really foolhardy or desperate), so the protective
ships
>have time to intercept the target ships (such ships are usually smugglers
or
>escaping criminals), and (3) with 'x' ships, it means that the ships have
less
>of an area to cover, thus improving effectiveness, than if they were at
100
>diameters. With this being said, with an earth-sized world, it will take a
6G
>fighter over *2 hours* to get from the 10 to 100 diameter ranges. This is
more
>than enough time for the hostile ship to do what it wants way out there. A
few
>'first-line-of-defense' ships at 100 diameters might help, but unless you
have>half the Sector Navy at hand, you won't be able to put more than a
token
>number
>of ships at the 100 diameter range (of course, a few Q-freighters would
help).
 
Hmmm...
I said that about twelve ships defending a planet.
The assumed positions were at 50 diameters.  The average imperial world is
size 5, which means that 50 diameters is 400,000 Km.  Since shipboard 
weaponry has a range of 500,000 Km, all twelve ships could bring low 
planetary orbit under fire.  Presumably six ships could bring any point
in low planetary orbit under fire.  In addition, at least one ship could 
bring any point at 100 diameters under fire.  At least eleven ships could
fire on any point at the ten diameter limit.
 
Therefore, these defensive installations do not have to intercept any ships
appearing at the 100 diameter limit.  They just blow away any ship that 
does not comply with traffic control orders.  SO, yu act like a pirate
with-
in 100 diameters, between one and twelve LARGE ships blow you away 
immediately.  Intercept time, rather than being several hours, is only 
1.7 seconds.
 
It does not pay to forget that ship weaponry can target you at a range of 
500,000Km, which is 62.5 diameters of the average world, and 30+ diameters
of even the largest world.
 
In the case of a larger world, I assume that you would deploy a few more 
ships.  Using the basic assumptions I used,  a size 'A' world requires 
96 ships to achieve the same coverage.
 
This defensive force is, of course, not suitable for dealing with enemy 
fleets, but will serve admirably against anyone so foolish as to commit
piracy nearby.
 
In fact, we have noticed that in heavily trafficked systems (Efate, 
Rhylanor,Trin, Mora come immediately to mind) that the normal merchant
traffic is dense enough that any pirate attack inside 100 diameters would
come under fire from as many as 200 merchant ships within range at any 
given instant (under Imperial laws requiring all vessels to render 
assistance).  At ranges much less than 100 diameters (ten say), that 
number would rise to perhaps 5000 ships capable of firing on any pirate.
Not counting any naval vessels in system at the time.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3781
Date:    Sun, 23 Feb 1992 12:29:25 -0600 (CST)
From: A_COPEAB@CCSVAX.SFASU.EDU (Brandon Cope)
Subject: weapons ranges

500,000 km range? That would explain things. I will note that I don't use such
atrociously long ranges, at least not for energy weapons (think more like 1000
km). I have no problems with missiles used at that range, but remember that by
the time that they get there (flight time will be on the order of several
minutes), the ship being targeted, assuming that they pick up the missiles,
will be in jump-space by the time the things arrive. 500,000 km may be
technically possible for energy weapons in vaccum (I'm talking about accurate,
not maximum, range), but from a game point I find it rather undesirable. 

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3782
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 1992 13:48 CST
From: KELLOGG@DUCVAX.AUBURN.EDU
Subject: The 4.5 Frontier War:  Coming soon to a TML near you!

Hey Gang,

Well, I threatened to do so before, and soon I will actually start putting up
a Traveller story I have been working on.  James suggested I put it out in 20K
chunks about once a week.  This may go on for a while...
(I'll probably put it up on weekends.  That seems to be the time when traffic
is at its lowest)

The 4.5th Frontier War
- ----------------------

Just a few notes about background in the story:
Date:  1102.  Well before the 5th Frontier War.  Back in the old days of
Classic Trav :-)

Setting:
Iakr sector.  Foreven to you Imperials.  Just spinward of the Spinward Marches.
As far as I know, there never has been offical sector data for that sector.
The map I have is one I partially generated, and partially stole.  At the time,
I was finding a lot of worlds in Amber Zone articles that were not in the
Spinward Marches.  Thus I took all I could find and stuffed them in Foreven.
I took entire subsector maps from FASA & others.  Alien races were transported
lock stock and barrel from other sectors.
The Dynchia (JTAS 24?) are supposed to be on the other side of the Imperium!
Noteable stuff that got stolen:  Jungleblut subsector from FASA.  Horltheur
is a world that was outlined in Dragon Magazine.  Other subsectors got
mysteriously transported in from Reaver's Deep.  At least one world went
through a worm hole and came all the way from the Solomani Rim.

Characters:
Primarily Zhodani.  The other ref in our group had us constantly fighting the
Zho's.  I decided it was time for the Zho's to fight back. :-)

House Rules:  Psionic Variants
Not all my psionic rules quite mesh with standard Trav.  I made the
determination that a Teleport of exceptional strength can carry another person
on a teleport.  It's tiring, but it can be done.
	Also, if a character is trained in telepahy, awareness, and has some
medical training, that character can induce regeneration in another.  It costs
more, but it can be done.  The reasoning:  Well, the healer knows how to take
total control of their own body.  They can also read and send thoughts into
another mind.  Thus it seems acceptable that they could induce regeneration in
that person if the person was amenable to the psi contact.
	A person with awareness training can, given time, can change their
body by regeneration.  Thus, they could change their eye color, the length of
their legs, their fingerprints, their retinal patterns, etc. etc.  BUT, that
person can not suddenly regrow an arm in the blink of an eye.  Regrowth of
limbs takes special diets of protiens and stuff, and TIME.
	Also, awarness is a Very nice skill to find in ones lover...  Intimate
contact has a tendancy to funcion as a psi-boost in that it will allow psi
points to recover faster (though it does tend to reduce endurance slightly...)
(With psionic enhanced endurance in such situations, one runs into near
violations of the second law of thermodynamics...  Perpetual motion...)

Inconsistancies:
Well, I started writing this four years ago.  Since then, articles have been
published which contradict some of the assumptions I made in the writing.
Where possible I have tried to make corrections.  Where an assumption was
important to the plot or the make up of the characters, I did NOT change it.
For instance:  in 1988, as some have pointed out there are NO good drawings of
Vargr females.  I remeber a discussion on the list about that particular
point.  And I point out that at the time of writing, there was only ONE drawing
that was of a Vargr female that showed the rib cage at ALL.  It was not clear
what was there.  I will NOT re-write the story on that subject.
	Another thing, I know is inconsistant:  when the Darrians Alien
Module came out, it gave guidelines on creating Darrian-Aslans.  All it said
was to change the physical stats.  It said nothing about an Aslan subculture.
Thus (though it doesn't make MUCH difference in this story) I always assumed
that the Darrian-Aslans acted like Darrians.  There is no provision for male
Aslan who gets female skills.  It is not mentioned AT ALL.  I therefore assumed
that these Aslan had been TOTALLY caught under Darrian culture.  This was a
LOT of fun when I ran a male Aslan who carried a hand computer and was an
engineer with a strong interest in science!  He also was something of a
gambler, things got REALLY interesting when he got into a traditional Aslan
duel and made a wager on the outcome...  Traditional Aslan found him
Quite Strange.  (Zdeldi appears here in a very Minor role)
	Now, Cats & Rats says Darrian-Aslan follow the traditions of the Aslan.
(Sigh)

Undoubtedly, there are other things that don't quite click with MegaTrav as
we have come to know it.  Well... Tough!  But if any of you all find something
I haven't spotted, lemme know.

Thanks,
Scott Kellogg

Question:	Why did the Imperium collapse?

Answer:		Mark Miller left Stimpy the cat guarding the history eraser
Happy!  Happy!  Happy!  Joy!  Joy!  Joy!

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3783
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 16:29:35 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: low tech rockets...

William George Herbert: 
 
<about his revised low tech rockets>
 
You give a TL8 LH rocket a specific impulse of about 428.  Why?  The
SSME has a specific impulse of 450+.
 
The resistojet has a specific impulse of 18 here.  Again, why?  There is
not really any upper limit to such with enough power, and according to my
steam tables, the steam at 232C should have a specific impulse approaching
190, depending on the nozzle design.
 
Your fusion rocket (experimental) has an Isp of 51,400+.  Your TL9 version 

has an Isp of 50,100+.  Why does the production version have LOWER Isp
than the experimental?  And why are the performances so low?  Admittedly, 
a fusion rocket is pretty open-ended as far as performance, but I have
seen studies that concluded that a fusion rocket could have an Isp in
the range of 1,000,000 or more.
  
And why are you using liquid Xenon and such for your ion drives, instead   

of cadmium, which has a density of 8.65?
 
For that matter, why do you assign a density of 1.0 for rocks?  Very few
rocks float, even fewer have neutral bouyancy.  Most seem to have a 
density in the range of 2-3.
 
Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3784
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 20:02:26 MST
From: rogopp@rogopp.Auto-trol.COM (Roger Opperman)
Subject: TCS Rules


Argh!  Numerous TCS by email games are starting and I can't find my
copy of the rules -- Fifth Frontier War, yes; Lightning Class
Cruisers, yes; Striker, yes; TCS, no.  I've got High Guard and vaguely
recollect that TCS is mainly about economics and ship construction.

Is it possible to post a comprehensive enough rules summary to play?
If so, would some kind soul please do so?  Email is okay also.  

If not, anybody got a copy they want to sell?  I'm certain it is out
of print.

Thanks.


Roger Opperman, who used to be REALLY certain that he owned every
Traveller book ever printed ...
rogopp@auto-trol.com

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3785
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 21:52:03 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: TCS PBEM...

Well, I still need some players to get this off the ground.  Anyone else
interested, or should I start looking locally?

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3786
Date: Sun, 23 Feb 92 22:30 MST
From: PPUGLIESE@PimaCC.Pima.edu
Subject: JTAS

Does anyone know where I can get the following JTAS issues?

  1,4,5,11,18,19,20,22,23,24 (I think 24 was last before Challenge started
                              but if not I need any that came after)

thanks, PHIL

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu ----- InterNet -----

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3787
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Imperials in Zhodani Core Expeditions
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 9:45:09 GMT

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham) writes:
> Brian Vaughan:
>  
>      >However, let me ask again.  Does anyone think there are
> >possibilities in my idea of a Denebian Scout contingent partici-
> >pating in the upcoming Zhodani Core Expedition?  Or is the idea
> >too unworkable to merit consideration?
>  
> I suspect the Zhodani consider their core expeditions too secret to
> let  the Imperium help out, even if the Imperium wanted to.

Perhaps the Zhodani would not let a full Imperial squadron participate.
However, I can not believe that I am the only one who read the adventure
supplied with the old Zhodani Alien Module.  In that, Core expeditions
were heavily influenced by "visions" which some suitably psionically
gifted Zhodani had received, these "visions" being effectively messages
from the Ancients.  One of these "visions" specifically showed humans,
i.e. Imperial type humans.  So a Zhodani noble went and kidnapped a few
Imperials to bring along.  The "vision" did not show the humans as
prisoners - in fact, it showed them having a significant role in the
expedition.  Translation into game terms: the PC's are grabbed and
taken along, and allowed as much freedom as possible.

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3788
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: FFW
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 10:13:54 GMT


"VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil> writes:
> RE: Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>
>					If we can't get a TCS game going, I
> will play FFW if we can find a referee...

As I hope I showed, a PBEM FFW game should be possible even without a
referee (although not as good, since "fog of war" would not be possible).

Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> One of my friends ran a FFW pbm game for about 10 people by
> making them the top five Imperial and the top five Zhodani
> admirals respectively.
> ...
> 
> What I'd like to do is to get 16-20 people involved: 2-3 top
> political and 4-5 top naval characters for the Domain, one each
> to run the Darrians, Sword Worlds, Border Worlds and Federation of
> Arden, 3 or 4 aslan clan chiefs (_rival_ Aslan clanchiefs ;-)), the
> Zhodani Governor of Chronor and whoever else I can think of (one
> Imperial would definitely be the admiral of the Five Sisters forces).

If you do, please count me in!  I ought to be able to handle Admiral
Santanocheev reasonably accurately. :-)  (For those of you who have
FFW, he's one of the ones with Plotting Factor 4, Tactical Factor -1.
For those of you who don't have FFW, this means the fleet is better
off with no admiral than with this one.  He also has the authority to
take command of any fleet that makes the mistake of coming near him.  :-)

Seriously though, I would be interested in such a game.  I would
probably be better as one of the minor characters (a lesser Imperial
admiral, or an Aslan or Vargr warlord), because of email lag times
due to me being in the U.K., and me not being next to a terminal 24
hours a day.

- -- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3789
Date: 24 Feb 92 10:16:00 EST
From: "VSDEC::BARANSKI" <BARANSKI%VSDEC.decnet@nl.nusc.navy.mil>
Subject: TCS

RE: Pauli <grue@cs.uq.oz.au>
"24 hours a day?  I for one am unable to check my mail on my off hours very
often.  The time shifts make life pretty dismal.  I'm willing to try and
see how things turn out though."

Not 24 hours a day, but during the evening at least.  I think the point is
moot, though, as Steve wants all the communications to go through him.

"The design isn't quite moot, the combat tactics are.  You are still going to
have to trade things off in the design stages since you can never afford
everything you want."

If your fleet is evaluated to a number used to resolve the combat in one fell
swoop, how you design or fight the ship is irrelevant.

Steve:

"Don't WE have a C or less starport?  I assumed he transponder range was
system, at least."

Yeah, but we can't/don't track everything everywhere in the system...
We might be able to find a given object/transponder if we were looking for it.
Space is big, really BIG.  System control 'could' keep track of every ship in
the system, but many uncivilized systems don't bother.
 
"I play in uncivilized systems so seldom that that aspect had never occurred to
me as relevant.  After all, the big bucks are to be had in the civilized
places. ;-)"

To each his own.


RE: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: (3776) TCS PBEM (mine, anyway)...

Is there any other TCS PBEM going on?

Like I said, I'll take New Colchis, Serendip Belt, or New Home.

Since you've changed Esperanza, how will you handle it if somebody captures it?
How will you handle planet captures in general?  Will we be able to build ships
on captured planets, or use their revenue to build ships?

I assume we start out in control of our colony planets?

What Jump factor are you assuming for communications delay?  

Are we required to have ships in a system to get information from the system?

Jim Baranski


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

Archive-Message-Number: 3790
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 10:48:49 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: weapon ranges...

Brandon Cope:
 
>500,000 km range? That would explain things. I will note that I 
>don't use such atrociously long ranges, at least not for energy 
>weapons (think more like 1000 km). I have no problems with 
>missiles used at that range, but remember that by the time that 
>they get there (flight time will be on the order of several minutes), 
>the ship being targeted, assuming that they pick up the missiles, 
>will be in jump-space by the time the things arrive. 500,000 km may 
>be technically possible for energy weapons in vaccum (I'm talking 
>about accurate, not maximum, range), but from a game point I find it 
>rather undesirable. 
 
I'd like to point out that we have demonstrated greater than 1000Km
accurate range on Earth.  We have, in fact, demonstrated that we can
hit a stationary target on the moon with a laser.  We did not show we
could make a weapon against ships then, but if you can do it at TL7, 
doing it at TL12+ should be geedunk.
I personally doubt a missile accurate at that range.  6Gs for 500,000Km
requires a deltaV of 245Km/s.  Which I suggest is impossible for a non-
grav powered missile.  Using W.G. Herbert's solid fuel guidelines from
this weekend, a missile with a twenty Kilogram warhead would mass about
160,000,000,000 solar masses.  Using grav the missile would mass 3333Kg, 
and cost MCr1.3525.  At higher TLs, the missile could be brought in under  
100Kg (as long as guidance masses 0), but at a cost of KCr50 or so.  At
still higher TLs, you can finally build the generic Traveller missile:
It only masses 50Kg (INCLUDING guidance package), but costs KCr185+.
In the above calculations, I rounded in favour of the consumer:  these 
missiles would actually be larger and more expensive than indicated (by
10-30%, depending on which missile you look at). Notice also that the 
proper mass  for a MT missile warhead is 30Kg, not 20Kg.  If you want
to actually produce an MT missile, increase all of the above by 50%.
And don't forget the guidance package on all but the last.
 
I personally believe in missiles having a relatively short range, with
a lot of bang (nuclear).  I prefer lasers and particle beams for long
range work.  It's easier to build a laser that can reach that far than 
a missile that does so within MT's specs.
 
PS.  flight time to 500,000Km for a missile is closer to an hour plus.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3791
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 12:34:13 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: 1000 Km range weapons...

Looking once again at the 1000Km range ship weapons, I noticed something of
interest to all those pirates out there:  

Imagine you are a pirate hanging around the 100 diameter limit of a size 5
world.  You detect a merchant leaving orbit.  His course is 30 degrees away
from your position.  You ignore him, since it would take longer for you to
match course and velocity than it takes him to reach the 100 diameter
limit.

Later on, a merchant ship leaves orbit, heading 20 degrees away from your
position.  Your eyes light up.  THIS one you can catch.  Well, you could
have if he hadn't left orbit two minutes before you noticed him.  oh well,
better luck next time.

Then, it happens! A merchant leaves orbit pointing STRAIGHT AT YOU!  This
one you may be able to catch!  You leave your position, and accelerate
toward a meeting.  After three hours of maneuvering which looks like
nothing so much as a pirate trying to match course, you match course with
your target.  Well, you WOULD have matched course, if he hadn't detected
you one hour into your maneuvers.  Actually, he changed course and returned
to the starport to get an escort.  Better luck next time, eh?

You cudgel your tiny little brain for some advantage that will let you
catch the next merchant.  The LIGHT dawns!  You need a 6G ship!  This one
can be converted with a few months in a shipyard, so you slip away to have
the conversion done.  It'll only cost MCr110 to complete the conversion. 
Hmmm....
Maybe we should think of some other way to do this?  Deceptive maneuvering?
No, your ship can barely catch them if you race straight at them, much less
maneuver to make it less obvious.  EMM??? Costs only MCr27, but still a
little
pricy, seeing as how you haven't scored in months.  Move to a size 1 world?
That would work!  Of course there are only 23 of them in the Spinward
Marches, and only 4 of those have enough traffic to pay expenses.  Well,
maybe the other pirates will let you work one of those systems.  Of course,
there are 1700 pirates preying on each of those systems, so you'll have to
take a number and wait your turn, but you should have something for your
pains in a year or two, when your turn comes.

Notes: 
1)  It takes 3.5 hours to reach 100 diameters from a size 5 world, if you
do not decelerate to a stop (which makes very little sense, anyway).
2)  From a point directly ahead of a target's course, it takes three hours
at three gees to match course and position within 1000Km.
3)  This gives you ten minutes to decide to attack, and then one combat
turn of attacks before your target jumps away.
4)  Normal starship sensors can detect a ship far enough away to make sure
that it won't EVER catch you, if you just have to reach 100 diameters, or
the starport (whichever is most convenient).
5)  A starship trying to match course like that is UNMISTAKABLY trying to
match course.  It would require considerably more than three gees to give
it time for deceptive maneuvering.  Even so, it would take over an hour of
maneuvering within easy view of the target (and everyone else) to match
position.  That entire hour of maneuver would be an obvious attempt to
match course, and could be met by a jump at more than ten diameters, if
necessary.
6)  so, a pirate will never accomplish anything with weapons like that.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3792
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 12:46:42 CST
From: Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US (Steve Higginbotham)
Subject: pirates in MT...

BTW, if you REALLY want pirates to be an important part of a Traveller
campaign, here's what you need to do.  

Go through yur rules books.  Find every mention of minimum jump distances.
Add a zero to the end.  Change 10 diameters to 100.  Change 100 to 1000.
Don't forget solar diameter in figuring jump points.  Using this system,
Sol's
jump point would be out near Saturn's orbit.  
Go through again.  Increase the effective sensor ranges by a factor of ten,
too.  If you don't no pirate will ever FIND a target out there in the deep
dark.
Go through yet again.  Divide cost of ship components, other than
jump-drive, by ten.  That way, a pirate can afford a ship that can catch a
target before the target jumps away

Now, your pirates should work.  If they're clever, and the merchants are
not.

Later...

- -- Via DLG Pro v0.985b

Steve_Higginbotham@agwbbs.new-orleans.LA.US

I have learned to use the word "impossible" with the greatest caution.
                                    --W. von Braun

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3793
Subject: James P, TML mail delivery changes
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 92 11:37:18 PST
From: James T Perkins <jamesp@metolius.WR>


This peice of mail can be safely ignored, but is being presented anyway
as a community service for the TML and PBEM.  Also, Dan Corrin may want
to pay careful attention so as to change my CAT mail address.

The Tektronix Logic Analyzers mail system is changing slightly! While
the existing addresses will continue to work fine for the forseeable
future:

	PBEM Administration:	pbem-request@engrg.uwo.ca
	TML Administration:	traveller-request@metolius.wr.tek.com
	TML Submissions:	traveller@metolius.wr.tek.com
	Personal Mail:		jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com

There is now a new, easy-to-remember mailbox alias for my personal mail,
that you may choose to use or ignore:

	Personal Mail:		James.T.Perkins@tek.com

All mail sent to this new address gets automatically resent to my real
mailbox, jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com.

Note that the above is case-insensitive, so james.t.perkins@tek.com or
JAMES.T.PERKINS@TEK.COM will work equally well.  The only gotcha is that
in using the new simpler form, additional hosts handle the mail on the
way here and mail takes a few more minutes to reach me; on the other
hand, it's conceptually cleaner.

				* * *

Also, outgoing mail from my account here will soon have the "From" line
rewritten as it goes out, so that it appears to come from a host named
"wrgate.wr.tek.com" instead of "metolius.wr.tek.com".  So, don't be
surprised if you start receiving mail from jamesp@wrgate.wr.tek.com in a
few weeks.

Once this begins happening, mail sent to jamesp@wrgate.wr.tek.com will
also be re-sent automatically to my regular account,
jamesp@metolius.wr.tek.com.

James

 ___    ___   ___
|   \  / _ \ / __|  James Perkins, James.T.Perkins@tek.com, (503)629-1149
| |> || |_| |\__ \  Logic Analyzers, DAS 9200 Engineering, Tektronix, Inc.
|___/ |_| |_||___/  MS 92-725, PO Box 4600, Beaverton, OR 97076

This package is sold by weight, not by volume.  Some settling of contents may
have occurred during shipping and handling.

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

Archive-Message-Number: 3794
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 92 23:03:34 -0800
From: George William Herbert <gwh@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Revised One Small Step / Hard Times engines table


A few weeks ago I mentioned that I was working on fixing the Hard Times
and One Small Step engine design tables.  I've completed the hard
part of this.  It's not all done, but the game-design parts are.
Notably missing are costs and power in and out and several items
such as Ion engines I haven't had a chance to evaluate completely
yet.  (Ion and MPD in particular may be a bitch to handle properly
for reasons that would take an article of itself to explain).

What's here is usable to design things.  Go forth and enjoy 8-)

Without further ado, the table:
 
 Revised Hard Times Table 5.1 LOW TECH THRUST BASED PROPULSION
 
  TL  Type        TT    Mass  Vol  Fuel  F_Typ     P_Req.  P_Out.  MCr
  3   Solid       20    1.0   1.0  -     Solid     -       -       ?
  4   Resistojet  0.005 1.0   1.0  1.0   Water     0.1     -
  4   Solid       30    1.0   1.0  -     Solid     -       -
  5   Hyp Liquid  30    1.0   2.0  720   Hyp Liq
  5   Liquid      35    1.0   2.0  545   Liquid
  5   Solid       35    1.0   1.0  -     -
  6   Hyp Liquid  35    1.0   2.0  700   Hyp Liq
  6   Liquid      40    1.0   2.0  605   Liquid
  6   Solid       40    1.0   1.0  -     -
  7   Hyp Liquid  40    1.0   1.5  685   Hyp Liq
  7   Liquid      45    1.0   1.5  570   Liquid
  7   LH Liquid   40    1.0   2.0  1050  LH Liq
  7   Solid       45    1.0   1.0  -     -
  7   Hybrid      40    1.0   1.0  515   Liquid*
  7   Ion
  7   Mass Driver
  7   NTR         5     10.0  4.0  350   LH
  8   LH Liquid   50    1.0   2.0  1200  LH Liq
  8   MPD
  8   NTR         10    10.0  4.0  570   LH
  8   Xptl F Rkt. 150   10.0  1.0  150   LH
  8   Mass Driver
  9   Fusion Rkt. 200   4.0   1.0  205   LH
 
Fuel Types:
   Type        Weight  Cost (Cr/KL)  Comments
   Water       1.0     negl.         Usually free
   Solid        -      Cr50,000      Really the engine, not the fuel
   Hyp. Liquid 0.75    Cr150         Baseline: Hydrazine + Nitrogen Tetroxide
   Liquid      0.95    Cr50          Kerosene / LOX
   LH  Liquid  0.35    Cr70          Liquid Hydrogen / LOX
   Ionizates   1.5     Cr100         Liquid Xenon etc.
   Liquid Hyd. 0.07    Cr??          Per Ref Manual
   Rock        1.0     negl.         for Mass Driver
 
Abbreviations and Acronyms, and more info:
  Hyp     : Hypergolic, where two fuels burn on contact with one another.
             Hypergolic fuels are extremely toxic
  LH      : Liquid Hydrogen
  Liquid  : Liquid Oxygen & Kerosene (baseline)
  Hybrid  : LOX / Solid Fuel rocket.  * while fuel is actually solid rubber or
             similar material, the fuel for Hybrids should be treated as Liquid
             as it has nearly identical characteristics
  NTR     : Nuclear Thermal Rocket.  Can be designed to run on another fuel
             such as Water.  In this case, the volume of fuel used is the same
             but the thrust increases to x8 base thrust.
 
Reviser's Notes:
I've broken liquid fuel engines into three categories:  "normal" liquid
fuel engines, running on some hydrocarbon (usually kerosene or a rough
equivalent) and Liquid Oxygen (LOX), "hypergolic" liquid fuel engines,
running on something like Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrazine, and "Liquid
Hydrogen" rockets, runnong on LOX and Liquid Hydrogen.
 
Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.  Normal liquids are reliable
and cheap and low-tech.  Liquid Hydrogen improves performance at the cost
of reliability, something which I'm striving to write some rules for.
Hypergolics are the most reliable (and cheapest, engine wise), but the
fuels are excessively toxic and hard to handle (remember that Titan silo
that blew up around 1985 ?).
 
I've added Hybrids, where a liquid oxidizer and a solid fuel are burned in
a thrust chamber sort of like a solid rocket engine.  These need more
work, and I'm doing it, but right now a real-world hybrid engine rocket
design of mine is eating my time and such 8-) so don't expect it soon.
 
All of the listed values correspond with known specific impulse, barring
mathematical error while I was calculating them (I spot checked a few and
they're right, so they in general are pretty close).

Enjoy. 8-)
- -george william herbert
gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu  gwh@lurnix.lurnix.com



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

End of TML Bundle
*****************

