INET# Document Id: UX00a.BUX0124384
Item    3908303                 92/12/11        00:05
From:   WILDSTAR@MOENG2.MORGAN.EDU@INET#
Sub: TML Nightly - Not! (#5)

From wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu Fri Dec 11 00:36:24 1992
Received: from moeng2.morgan.edu by relay1.geis.com with SMTP
(15.11/15.6) id AA27369; Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:36:24 est
Received: by moeng2.morgan.edu (5.57/Ultrix2.4-C)
id AA27474; Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:05:10 EST
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 00:05:10 EST
From: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu (Derek Wildstar)
Message-Id: <9212110505.AA27474@moeng2.morgan.edu>
To: wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
Subject: TML Nightly - Not! (#5)


Traveller Mailing List --- NOT! (Number 5)

TML-Not! is just me, Wildstar, forwarding mail to the list of TML
subscribers.  If you have something you want to send to all of the TML
participants, just send it to me and let me know you want it forwarded,
and I will put it in the next TML-Not!.  If you want to stop receiving
TML-Not!, let me know and I will take you off my list (this will not
change your status on the real TML in any way when it comes back).  To
respond to anything in TML-Not!, simply use your mailer's "reply"
command, and indicate they you want me to forward your reply.  Because I
use "blind" carbon copies, the reply will go to me (only) and I will
include it in the next TML-Not!.

==============================================================================

From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Date: 10 Dec 92 (09:32)
Subject: trade starships

TML::>I don't believe in J-6 merchants, though Hans recently gave me an idea
   ::>that might make me start to believe.

   Some of the MT background material would seem to imply that J6 is
   EXTREMELY uncommon, if not reserved to the Imperial government.
   The one thing that strikes me as strong evidence for this view is
   that the gov't had to come up with the "stealth courier" which
   looks like a conventional J2 ship (of I forgot which class), but
   which instead has minimal cargo capabilities, with the cargo space
   being used for the increased volume for the Jdrive and the
   additional fuel needed to run it.  If J6 was common, the special
   fleet would _not_ have been the way that Norris, et alia heard
   about the assassination before the general populace in their
   domains; it would have leaked pretty fast to some areas, and once
   the unofficial version of the news gets ahead of the official
   version of the news, it _will_ stay ahead - "News always travels by
   the fastest available route."  Implication: The Imperial
   Government's J6 couriers are the fastest available route.
   Secondary implication: Commercial spacecraft with J6 do not exist.

  J/
  jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
 ~ QMPro 1.0 41-4533 ~ Your E-Mail has been returned due to insufficient voltage
--
Executive Network Information System  (914) 667-4567
International ILink Host

==========

From: BARANSKI@VEAMF1.NUSC.NAVY.MIL
Subject: RE: TML Nightly - Not!

"Come to that, didn't YOU design two ships that were J-3, but only carried
internal fuel for J-1, Jim?"

I designed ships which had J1 interior fuel tanks, and the rest of the fuel
in exterior demountable tanks, *not* drop tanks, since I don't believe in drop
tanks :-)  The difference seems to be that demountable tanks have a jump grid
on their surface, and drop tanks do not.

I designed all of my Jump Carriers to be dispersed structure, and have
demountable modules for either fuel, carried ships, or cargo.  I had three
classes of carriers, 1000 gross tons, <smallest size for the smallest spinal
mount>, and <smallest size for the largest spinal mount>.  1000 tons being the
breakpoint where economies and diseconomies of scale intersect.

I figured that  the spinal mount was the most important weapon on large ships,
and that I'd reather have more smaller ships with spinal mount, then fewer
larger ships.  I basically 'filled in' as many other missle (no energy
required) turrets and bays as as I could manage.  I configured most of my ships
with J3 with no modules, and M1 with enough carried modules to bring them down
to J1.  None of the carriers were armored, as I did not expect them to be in
the line of battle.  (did I actually have spinal mounts on carriers that I
didn't expect to fight? I don't think I did; that would have been pretty stupid)

The 1000 ton carriers were fighter or scout carriers, the larger carriers
carrying spinal mount riders which varied from large to small spinal mounts, M1
or M6, A4 or A max.  All had maximum computers and nuclear dampers.

My fighters were all configured to pack the largest punch in the smallest
package; figuring to get around the 1 turret/100 tons rule in this fashion.
So, I had Mosquito, Gnat, Wasp, Hornet, Bee & Bumble Bee fighters, ranging from
4 tons to I think 50 tons, most with M6, no armor, minimal computer and
missles.

Unfortunately, the Steve told me that I misinterpreted how large numbers of
weapons increased the weapon battery factor chart, and *all* my fighters ended
up being woe fully weak.  I think I assumed that large numbers of fighters had
a higher maximum rating.

I had also designed a series of fighters based on Fusion guns, but they ended
up being 50-100 tons, so I dropped them as too expensive.

Anyway, I never designed drop tanks.  I hoped with the dispersed structure
carriers and demountable modules to have a flexible and effective task force,
but I heard that the riders got slaughtered because they lacked jump drives.
Since there were no meson weapons to produce interior explosions, most disabled
ships with jump drives were still able to jump out when they could not do any
more.  I had given standing orders for a flight of rescue ships and prearranged
emergency departure point, but I guess Steve didn't think it would be
effective.

Jim Baranski

==========

Subject: !(TML) arrived.
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 14:25:16 CST
From: goldman@orac.cray.com (Matthew D. Goldman)

Hi Wildstar,
Could you add a volumn number to the !(TML)
mailings?  That way I could tell if I missed an issue.


[I originally assumed that I wouldn't need volume numbers, because there
would be only a couple of TML-Not! issues sent out.  I guess I was
wrong.  I keep them in numbered files here, so it's no problem to start
numbering them.  This is TML-Not! #5; the first (short) one was #0,
mailed on the 4th; #1 was on the 5th; #2, the 7th; #3, the 8th (and
resent today the 10th); #4, the 9th; and #5 the 10th.  I have been
sending TML-Not! every day except when there haven't been any messages
at all (sunday the 6th).   -- Wildstar]

==========

Subject: History of the Imperium Work Group...
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 14:47:35 CST
From: goldman@orac.cray.com (Matthew D. Goldman)

I was talking to a friend of mine last night who
mentioned the History of the Imperium Working Group.

Anyone out there know what happened to it?  Does anyone
have the archives from it?

Matt

--
Matthew Goldman              E-mail: goldman@orac.cray.com
Fax: (612) 683-3099                   Work: (612) 683-3061
      "Say George, I don't mean to interrupt, but
       there's a glowing red dot on your forehead."

==========

From: Wildstar
Subject: History of the Imperium Working Group

As far as I know, HIWG is still going fine.  According to Dave Nilsen,
HIWG members are part of a group developing a pocket empire for
Traveller: The New Era to be published in Imperial Lines.  Is anybody
out there on TML also a HIWG member?

==========

Subject: Pocket Empire...
From: gwh@lurnix.COM (George William Herbert)
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 13:15:23 -0800

Ok; who (else) bought all the materials to be able to take
worlds and run them through the rebellion?  It might make
sense to break up the area and have people do at least the
UPP changes on small groups, to make things easier on people.
Unless someone wants to donate a weekend or so...

As for the Virus, I think that we ought to get a core group
together to hash out what effects it would/should have...

I can do a mailing list for some of these if people want...

-george william herbert

==========

From: Wildstar
Subject: Pocket Empire

I have Hard Times; presumably this is all we need to take the area
through the Rebellion.  Perhaps we can get one person to do each
subsector?

A mailing list for a core group sounds like a good idea!  Please set it
up and deal me in!  I extracted some general guidelines from Dave
Nilsen, so we have some material to start things off with.

==========

Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 09:42:05 +1100
From: langsl@hhcs.gov.au
Subject: Stuff for TML-NOT

The following is based on my 'Big Picture' view of the Third Imperium.  I have
only recently returned to Traveller, so I am a bit rusty on background details,
not having re-read all my Classic Trav & MT stuff yet.

If anyone thinks existing Traveller rules contradict the view I have please
tell me - letting me know the rule, and why it shoots me down in flames would
be nice too 8-).

I'd be interested to know how close or far other people's 'Big Pictures' are
from this.  I think that TNE's success for those of us who know Classic- &
Mega- Traveller will rest in part on how well their conversion allows us to
propagate our own Big Pictures.

Drop Tanks:
===========

My impression is (note: I haven't ever designed stuff in MT, and very little in
Classic Trav) that drop tanks are cost effective if they can be reliably used -
ie the region is safe, and so the vulnerabilities caused by drop tanks simply
don't matter.

So, I would assume that in any peaceful place in the Imperium, ie most of it
in pre Rebellion times, that drop tanks were available and exploited to the
fullest.

Piracy
======

To me Piracy is either small operations on the Frontier, or big business
organised crime in anywhere better policed.  I think that there was a Journal
(ie JTAS) or early Challenge article some time back which talked about the
economics of Piracy, and how to work out where it would occur.  Anyone remember
this?

In any event it should be profitable if (a) trade is profitable and (b) the law
enforcement is sparse enough ( or inefficient enough, or corrupt enough).

MegaCorps and Regular Trade:
============================

I don't think that just because a regular trading opportunity exists that
MegaCorps like Tukera would automatically move in.  The Merchant Prince
character generation gives starport codes at which you can enlist, based on the
size of the trading organisation you wish to join. I would take this to be a
guide as to which companies typically dominate trade and travel activity at any
particular grade of starport. Note that dominate doesn't mean they have a
monopoly.

Note that from memory Free Traders can be found anywhere.  There seems to be a
niche market for them to fill even in High Traffic & Profit areas.

Also, I think that larger trading organisations have a larger overhead, are
more bureaucratic, and are often less flexible than their smaller brethren.
So they find it easier to survive in high traffic -and- high profit areas.

Lower traffic and/or lower profit areas can be exploited by the smaller
organisations.  Because of this I would also expect that Megacorps subcontract
to smaller companies so that they can truly say they offer a service
everywhere, even if it is actually done by someone else.  Some of these smaller
companies may in fact just be leaner subsidiaries of the bigger companies - but
I also assume most aren't, giving room for plenty of advancement and expansion
by other companies, including ones set up by players.

Alistair Langsford,
langsl@hhcs.gov.au,
11-Dec-92

==========

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 92 17:58:35 -0600
From: "Steve Higginbotham" <p00206@psilink.com>
Subject: drop tanks, and others

Wildstar:

>> [Trimkhana-Brilliance disaster]

>>From the Travller News Service (Journal #6):

OK, thanks.

>Presumably, if your drop tanks are supposed to drop and don't (for some
>reason) you're in trouble.  On the other hand, if you intend to carry
>them with you, you should have to treat the ship as if it were of
>volume (hull+tanks) for purposes of jump capability.  A classic
>trade-off: greater efficency versus greater safety.

Of course you should.  Which is why the Gazelle isn't worth the money
unless you have a source of drop tanks.  With the things still attached,
it's a LOUSY little warship.  Drop 'em and it's pretty good.


>The "uncivilized systems" concern with drop tanks is not a problem for
>most merchants, but can be an important consideration for player
>characters (who seem to get into far more than their fair share of
>trouble; I wonder why ;).  This means that there will be significant
>design differences between ordinary merchant ships (which can count on
>the availability of civilized support systems in every port of call),
>trade expansion/exploration ships (which have to be self-contained),
>and frontier traders (which will probably be a compromise: usually
>expect support systems, but occasionally have to do without).

Yes, the availability of drop tanks can be an important consideration
for PCs.  But they should never build a ship which depends completely on
drop tanks.  However, there IS a reasonable compromise:  build your ship
with NO internal jump-fuel.  Then install internal demountable tanks in
the cargo hold for operations away from civilization, removing them when
you are in civilized areas.  This should be a fairly common arrangement
in "frontier" systems, since it allows your common carrier to go beyond
the frontier, albeit with less cargo than normal, but gives it all the
normal advantages when it heads in toward the core worlds.


Mark Urbin:

Welcome to the TML, Mark.  Are you interested in TCS at all?  If so,
drop me a line, since I am opening up a new area for a player soon.


>  How did the Mailing list respond to TNE rumblings from GDW?  Was
>there relief that a broken system was going to be replaced or anger
>that an established system was being trashed?

Mostly the TML responded with dismay.  There are a few of us who like
the T2K2 system, but not incredibly many.  Most of us seemed to approve
of fixing the system, since the existing one is so badly broken,
though.  The dismay came from the fraction of us who figured GDW would
break the revision also...


>  Having used the TW2K rules, I wonder how GDW is going address certain
>problems that will crop up in Traveller play?  Some examples:

>Basicly I'm not real thrilled with TW2K melee combat rules.  Firearm
>combat is ok, except for three round burst fire and aimed automatic
>weapons fire is impossible under the rule set.  Ok, it's pretty good
>with holes. :->

Well, MT didn't distinguish between armour types, with the exception of
"jack", which was worthless against guns, and almost so (but not quite)
against swords and knives.

And I believe someone said that GDW was thinking about adding aimed fire
back in for automatic weapons.  I doubt it is necessary, as aiming has
never been a big part of full-auto fire...


>Ablative armor is very good against laser fire, but isn't very good
>against blades and bullets (even more so for reflec armor).  TW2K has
>lasers (ok, one laser weapon.  It's in the Infantry Small Arms book)
>but doesn't have Ablative or reflec armor.

I'm sure that GDW is bright enough to extend the TLs from T2K2 to TNE.
So this is a non-problem.  And I seem to recall that Dark Conspiracy has
already added a version of ablat to the T2K2 system.


>This last one goes back to the first problem.  Different armor types
>are good for different attacks.  Currently TW2K rules do not allow for
>this.  Armor is armor.

See above.  It's true in MT also.


Wildstar:

Thanks for the stellar data.  I don't think we have that in our database
yet...

---Steve

==========

Date:    Thu, 10 Dec 1992 18:47:58 -0600 (CST)
From: LTG3878@ZEUS.TAMU.EDU
Subject: RE: TML Nightly - Not! (re-send from Tue 8 Dec 92)

RE:  Pocket Empire.  Information on the 'Pocket Empire' in Reaver's Deep.

Reaver's Deep information can be found in:
  o  Atlas of the Imperium. - by GDW
     Barebones sector map, starport types, names of high population worlds
  o  Pilot's Guide to Drexilthar Subsector. - by Gamelords, Ltd.
     Detailed information on one of the subsectors of Reaver's Deep, including
     full Classic Trav UWP info., maps, names, page-long descriptions of each
     planet, etc.
  o  Far Traveller #1, #2 - by FASA.
     Information on two different subsectors in Reaver's Deep, including full
     Classic Trav UWP info., maps, names, adventures set in the same subsectors,
     detailed information on a few planets only.
  o  Dune Raiders. - by Gamelords, Ltd.
     Detailed adventure situation on a desert planet in Reaver's Deep.
  o  Drexilthar Quest. - by Gamelords, Ltd.
     Detailed adventure underwater on a planet in Reaver's Deep.
  o  Ascent to Anekthor - by Gamelords, Ltd.
     Detailed mountain adventure on a planet in Reaver's Deep.
  o  The Traveller's Digest #17 (I think).  Information on a fourth subsector in
     Reaver's Deep.  Full MegaTraveller UWP data (pre-Rebellion), map, names,
     etc.
  o  Double Adventure 6 Night of Conquest - detailed adventure situation during
     a revolution on a planet in Reaver's Deep.
  o  Digest Group's GENIE database.  A compilation of some of the data about the
     Reaver's Deep.  Many but not all planets named, full MegaTraveller UWP data
     (pre-Rebellion).
  I will post more information, and clarify the issue number of that Traveller's
Digest after my finals are over.  Anyone wishing to have fun with a 'pocket
empire' in the Reaver's Deep should keep in mind that GDW created this sector as
a playground for James and William Keith, and one or the other of them wrote
most of the above materials.  I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

Lewis Taylor Goss

==========

From: Wildstar
Subject: Pocket Empire

> [Information sources]

Thank you!  I have Far Traveller #1 and #2, Atlas of the Imperium, and
Double Adventure 6, as well as the GEnie star system data.  Summaries of
the data available from the other sources would be handy, whenever you
get the time.

I realize that the Reaver's Deep was created for (and to a large degree
by) the Keiths.  I like a great deal of their work, and have a lot of
respect for them; if it is possible at some point, I would even like to
know how they feel about the Reaver's Deep in the Rebellion and the New
Era.

I asked for this area in particular because I feel that it has adventure
possibilities and a detailed, interesting history second in the entire
Traveller universe only to the Spinward Marches.  With a little
imagination and a lot of work, we can make the Reaver's Deep a very
interesting and exciting place to be in the New Era.

While not official (in the sense that nothing is "official" until it is
published in one of GDW's publications), we have been specifically given
the right to develop a pocket empire in this area by Dave Nilsen, the
GDW line manager for Traveller.


wildstar@moeng2.morgan.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Science-Fiction Adventure
                                                      in the Reaver's Deep


***************
END of TML-Not!
=END=
