From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 11-MAY-1994 21:03:29.08
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7493-7503 V44#8

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HC86ECX2G08ZFHIW@delphi.com>; Wed, 11 May 1994 21:03:24 EDT
Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 21:00:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7493-7503 V44#8
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9405120101.AA25958@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed May 11 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed May 11 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 44 : Issue 8

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 598  7493 08-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re: Jump point determination << I just 
 598  7494 08-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re:Tl 8 space colony comments << About 
 598  7495 09-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  The final word from me on TML division 
 598  7496 09-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Mods to FFS or What I really meant to s
 598  7497 08-May-1994 james vassilako  politics and world rationalization << W
 598  7501 09-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re: The feel good message of the year <
 598  7502 09-May-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re: That really was my last word << Tha
 599  7503 09-May-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Oldtimers Life List :) << James, our au
 598  7498 09-May-1994 Andy Lilly       JUST MY OPINIONS << Hi all,
 598  7499 06-May-1994 David Johnson    Sword Worlds Technology << Gentlesophon
 598  7500 09-May-1994 Peter H. Brento  MBT Weapons (Ramblings about AFV Weapon

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The biweekly digest is currently
distributed each Wednesday and Sunday at 9:00pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7493
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 23:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Jump point determination

I just got around to reading TML from last week and noticed Stewarts 
discussion of jump point determination.  I never though about it before 
but now that I do it does make sense for Jump point to be related more to 
an objects mass, mass distribution than diameter.  As you stated, 
diameter bades computation produces huge numbers for giant stars and gas 
giants.  If gravity is indeed the thing that makes a jump into a bad day 
then the mass, density should certainly be more important.  For example a 
gas giant like say Jupiter while much more massive than terra (300x ?) 
has about 2/6 the average density.  As such grav gradient at similiar 
distances relative to the planet size will be lower with the gas giant.  
Therefore to get a similiar gradient (as 100 diameter on Terra) with Jupiter 
you would have to be closer than 100 diameter.  I havent sat down to 
check these intuitive statements and as such might be dead wrong.  
Hopefully I will have confirmed the statements before this message is posted.

In closing I must bring myself back to the point that it is sometimes 
dangerous to get into this sort of discussion in the context of an RPG 
and to remember what Stewart said, This is to make worlds orbiting large 
stars accesible.  I am sure that most people will always use the 100 
diameter rule and are perfectly correct in doing so, after all it is a 
game.  People like me forget that every now and then but afterall TML is 
for all types.

Tariq



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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7494
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 23:49:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re:Tl 8 space colony comments

About the TL 8 space colony, I agree at 470 TeraCr no single government 
could afford that.  Heck, the Imperium never built a ship that expensive 
even with the resources a whole systems to use.  I also agree with the 
designers conclusion that the mistake was designing it as a space ship.  
It would not be built as such.  Unfortunately you will have to develop 
your own sequences for space station design which you might not have the 
time/energy for.  I know that i regurlarly modify or add things to FF&S 
to produce to me what are reasonable results.  

When I tried designing that TL 8 compact car to test out the sequences I 
got a fuel consumption for a ford escort type vehicle of 8 mpg.  I 
promptly made up my own powerplant table based on information available 
to me.  I added several powerplants and modded others.  Actually Im off 
the subject, Ill save this for another submission.  Back to the Space 
Station....

Maybe TL 8 is too early but goung up a TL or two wouldnt change things 
much.  Like you say the key is figuring out how to mod the rules.  As 
soon my Mid-Terms are finished I think ill put some thought into this.
The main thing that many people may not realize is that it is very 
difficult to model multi parameter systems.  You can get equations to 
match quite well the way real systems behave..BUT..a)How many people want 
to sit playing with an equation with a half dozen terms just to figure out 
how fast your car will go.  Thus ultimately it is up to the individual to 
a certain degree to introduce the added level of detail for his/her 
satisfaction.  Altough in closing I will say that the game system 
producer is wholly responsible for not handicapping the users with 
systems that consistently produce unreasonable results (where 
unreasonable is defined by the nature of the model).  If a user has to 
write new rules then why would he/she have bought the game in the first 
place?

Tariq  (Dont worry I still have 7 hours to write my paper so you havent 
        heard the last from me)   



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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7495
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 00:07:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: The final word from me on TML division

As some of you may have noticed, I am a big fan of FF&S and have more or 
less tried all of the sequences.  I admit to being a GDW supporter but 
not because I have any inherent love for GDW, only because their products 
that I have purchased, Harpoon and Supplements, TW2000 support books, 
Megatraveller, Sands of War(speaking of which I have some Traveller related 
comments on later) and Traveller TNE stuff have consistently given me 
more than my moneys worth.  I know somebody's gonna flame me for saying 
the above and admittedly Im a relative newcomer to RPGs (only war games 
until 4 years ago) so maybe I dont have the experience or legacy for my 
opinion to count.  Well whatever........ HOWEVER........I am not one of 
those love it or leave it types.  Just as a true patriot loves his 
country so that he will not ignore its faults or rebuke those that point 
them out nor will he simply complain about how bad things are without 
doing anything to make it better; a traveller will not ignore the faults 
in the game nor will he/she harp endlessly on them without suggestion for 
improvement.  Oh well Ive waxed too much on this as I am prone to do, but 
I just dont believe that TML should be used as an environment for 
division in the traveller community at least until I graduate from 
college and get a real life! ;-}

(Next time...what I really meant to say here...or the ramblings of 
someone with an unhealthily active imagination)

Tariq




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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7496
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 00:34:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Mods to FFS or What I really meant to say

Some quick comments on FF&S
Ground Vehicle design sequences break down for very light vehicles, 
motorcylces, anything under about 1 MT,  I wouldnt mention it if this 
were a minor thing, they really break down.

I also have here some suggestions on mods to powerplants and additions.  
In general Powerplants are heavier at TL 6 and above than they are in the 
real world.  For example the TL 7 Gas Turbine in the 1970 UH-1 was about 
800 shp(0.6 MW), it weighed about 1100 lbs (0.5 MT) this is about double of 
what the tl 7 gas turbine produces per MT.  Also there is a marked 
absence of hi effecieny internal combustion engines (or even mediocre 
efficieny)  as such I have made up a table of powerplants and offer it as 
a suggestion as soon as I can dig it up.  A quick list from memory.
Details such as mass, fuel con price are forthcoming...

Additions and mods: (Mod in comments means mod to exsisting, add is obvious)
Description             Comments
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 6 Imp Int Comb       Mod/Reduce wt, reduce fuel con
TL 7 ImpEff IntComb     Add/Slightly reduce wt from above, reduce fuel con
TL 7 Hi Out IntComb     Add/Increase cost,increase MW/Kl
TL 7 LtWt A/C gas turb  Add/this is a mod to GT reduce wt/kl reduce fuel con
TL 8 HiEff IntComb      Add/hi eff late 20th cent,reduce fuel con, up price
TL 8 VHiOut IntComb     Add/porsche engine up mw/kl, dramatically up cost
TL 9 Imp MHD            Mod/Add/Up MW/KL reduce fuel con,up price
TL 10 VImp MHD          Add/Epitome of gas turbine, up around 1mw/kl,hi cost
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As stated, I will send numbers and supporting rationale as soon as I dig 
it up.  The FF&S powerplants are the same as the Megatraveller ones 
except that the detail of FF&S makes apparent the failings of the old 
table.  Also Im trying to come up with a way to factor in vehicle 
mass into fuel consumption during particularly obtuse departmental 
seminars.  I think you will agree that fuel con does not scale strictly 
linearly with powerplant volume.  I havent put much thought into this(and 
probably wont) but its something to consider.  Well Im sure youve all had 
your fill of me for tonight so until next time.....

Tariq 



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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7497
From: james vassilakos <jimv@ucrengr.UCR.EDU>
Subject: politics and world rationalization
Date: Sun, 8 May 1994 22:21:47 -0700 (PDT)

William White <whitew@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
> main objection to the UWP generation sequence,
> all considerations of culture aside, is that, economically, some
> results are hard to justify.  I don't dispute that here.  But I
> do suggest that economic behavior exists within a political
> framework -- that is, a structure of regulations, laws, and power
> struggles and imbalances.  By attempting to rationalize some
> apparently illogical results within a political economy
> framework, the referee can "flesh out" the underpinnings of a
> world or a subsector and make it more real, interesting, and fun
> for his (or her) players.

I was somewhat astonished at the timing of this article, being that
I'm currently mulling over this very subject in anticipation of
releasing yet another program (this time a sector generator, or rather
set thereof).

Anyway, a little over a year ago, we had a long discussion about
the problems in basic mainworld generation (pgs 24 and 25 of the
megatraveller ref's manual). And needless to say, I was in favor of
route #1 (change the damn system) whereas others were in favor
of route #2 (rationalize the inconsistencies). I really have nothing
new to add on this topic, except to say that I've just put a
transcript of the old discussion up for ftp. Feel free to take a
look at it, and if you do, let me know what you think.

The node: ucrengr.ucr.edu (138.23.166.21)
The directory: pub/trek
The file: tml-93feb

           _   /|       Jim Vassilakos
           \`o_O'       jimv@cs.ucr.edu
             ( )        jimv@wizards.com
              U         Riverside, California, USA


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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7501
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 12:37:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: The feel good message of the year

I have to admit that I agree with you,  I was running a pocket empire 
type campaign even in MT and it had all of the aspects of the one I'm 
doing now.  The fact is that with 11000 systems theres lots of room for 
flexibility.  But like I said, I never really developed a strong 
attachment to the Imperium,  and I certainly didnt mean to insult anyone 
by asking "where's your imagination"  I agree that people(including 
myself) have gotten a little too excited about this.  I am sending this 
to you and the TML because I want to make a call right here for a total 
cessation of conflict between fellow travellers.  I joined this mailing 
list to talk about sci fi role playing, namely traveller....somehow some 
of that got lost in all the division.  I loved Megatraveller and the 
whole traveller universe and will continue to do so (At least until I 
finish school ;-} )  So I say to everyone who reads this...before you 
write that partisanist blurb in steamy response, think back and remember 
why you joined the TML in the first place...The traveller universe exists 
throughout time in the hearts and minds of all travellers and that can 
never change.  So you CTers and MTers continue to contribute, you know 
you still love the game, you TNEers as well we need all of you.  Thus I 
call for an end to this bitter contention that has made many of us forget 
why we joined TML in the first place...I ask you to remember, forgive and 
come on back home....

Tariq
(By the way this is the feel good moment...I didnt know I could be this 
cheesy) 



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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7502
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 12:55:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: That really was my last word

That last message really was my last message on TML division
I promise...:-}

Tariq



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

Bundle: 599
Archive-Message-Number: 7503
Date: Mon, 9 May 1994 15:03:27 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Oldtimers Life List :)


James, our august TML administrator, writes:

> That familiar flash of color
>in the tree tops, or the odd squawk and squabble in the underbrush, is
>conspicuous in its absence.

Yeah, that sounds like the oldtimers I've known.  Especially the
squawking and squabbling!

I think that it's too bad that some of the long time Traveller players,
most recently Nick Sylvain, have found TNE so annoying that they've
gone away.  Nick has always had something useful to say, as have many
of the other "oldtimers" on the TML who are no longer around.

I have problems with some things about TNE, too.  Some of them fairly
major.  But heck, I had problems with "Classic" Traveller, some of
them major as well.  As anyone who ever tried to run the old adventure
"Research Station Gamma" knows, sometimes you just have to wing it.
And if something is too broken to use (like the MT "Frightning Ships"
supplement) then you don't buy it.  Some people would say TNE falls
into this category.  Their choice.  (Some people are sick of new
rules sets.  No problem there!)  Besides, I loathe GURPS. :) 

So I guess I'll be around for a while.  Of course, I reserve the right
to flee at will if things get too brain-dead.  Doesn't look like that
quite yet, though.  After all, DGP could have *published* that awful
"Baddies From The Core" outline from MTJ #4!  (Concept ok.  The
implementation outlined, no.)

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu>

  Traveller Player Since (About) Second Edition _High Guard_
  (circa 1980 for the "Why *second* edition?" (newcomer) crowd....)

  !!! *That* long?!  Yikes, sometimes I scare myself!

 
 

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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7498
Date: Mon, 09 May 1994 14:02:24 +0100
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
Subject: JUST MY OPINIONS

Hi all,

[WARNING: High Blither/Garbling level in following text]

WORLD/CORP GENERATION

Thanks to Dave Johnson for the world gen system. I did note that the Govt gen
bit doesn't allow have religious extremists or dictators - or am I
misinterpreting the oligarchies, etc.?
The Earth Colonies Corporation tables were a welcome addition.
THANKS
Kudos (to borrow Roger Sanger's terminology) to those who contributed useful
stuff this week: pocket empire ideas, regency notes, the MBT discussion, the
post-Virus ideas, colonies and interstellar politics.

****** QUIET PLEASE ******

To those who chipped in on the anti-TNE lobby, I would like to say firstly,
that I mostly agree with them with regard to TNE, the manner in which it has
been 'thrust' upon gamers, etc.
However, as pointed out by some others on TML (and refering you back to my
'cartoon' of 562/7058), harping on about TNE won't solve anything. To
paraphrase Arnold Rimmer (Red Dwarf, speaking to the others, two of whom are
armed to the teeth ready to take on a Polymorph which has horribly attacked
them all and sucked the aggression out of Rimmer's mind):
"I don't want to inflict my opinions upon anyone... just regard me as... a
'facilitator'... It seems clear that the time has come to really hit hard...
and fast... I'm talking about a really major leaflet campaign here... and if
that doesn't work... it's the T-shirts with 'Out with Polymorphs'"

1) If you don't like TNE (rules, etc.)... you don't need others to reinforce
your dislike. Just because you won't run any such games yourself - and won't
shell out for the rulebooks, et al. - doesn't mean that you're going to turn
around when your referee says "I'm gonna run a TNE game next week" and tell
him to *&^$ off (well, hopefully not - we still have AD&D 1st/2nd edition
fights here). In such circumstances you might as well at least have a go and
see just what it is like.

2) If you don't like the TNE background... keep running things in the old
Imperium. Most scenarios can be adapted for CT or MT - whether pre or during
the Rebellion. There have been quite a few discussions on TML over the last
few months saying how a post-rebellion Imperium could have reformed such that
you can run the rebellion (for a change) but still get back to stability after
a few years. There's no reason why an article about the background of a TNE
post-blitz planet can't still be used in CT/MT settings, just pretend there's
been a more-localised conflict or ignore all the war stuff and just extract
the cultural stuff, etc.

3) If you do like TNE... then it's unlikely that people harping on about its
faults is going to change your mind - all this does is irritate.

If people really feel so strongly that they have to leave the list, or refrain
from sending in CT/MT material then...

1) Previous checks of TML members have shown that at least half either don't
use TNE or don't even use the approved DGW background. So there is still a
very good audience for CT and MT material (perhaps our 'facilitator' James
could correct me if this is no longer the case).

2) So, by withdrawing your support from the forum you are 'abandoning' the
rest of us die-hards who will drain every scrap of scenario or idea for use
in their CT/MT campaigns? I don't have time to write up every detail of the
planets my players come to... I just scramble for anything I've read of late,
any scenarios (Star Trek, Star Frontiers, anything!) I've seen, and then lie
through my teeth to make it all fit my own campaign. You can practically see
the vampire teeth-marks / circular leech holes on the original material!

3) How about some constructive hints on how to convert between TNE and MT,
particularly with regard to the character skills, etc. so that articles can
be more generic between CT, MT and TNE. Okay, so someone indicated Survival
Margin might help here, but us TNE-illiterates are unlikely to buy that if we
won't buy TNE itself!

4) If people are really, really, really desperate for non-TNE support, then
should we ask our already over-burdened facilitator James to start up another
mailing list? Not specifically for anti-TNE gripers or for TNE-lovers, just
one where the acronym TNE is never heard? Frankly I think this would be a lot
more work and some of use would have a lot of trouble deciding whether to send
to one or both mailing lists and those who subscribed to both might get
duplicates of a lot of the stuff.

Everything above is my own opinion (c)1994 A. S. Lilly All Rights Reserved.
Which means when flaming back at me you are not allowed to repeat the exact
wording of anything I said. Unless I give you specific written permission to
do so. Probably... Oh what the Hell...

Let's see a continuation of the constructive scenario ideas, backgrounds and
important discussions which have been evident the past months.

SOFT SKILLS

I am assuming (quite arrogantly in fact) that Joni M Virolainen (596/7465) was
refering to me (562/7058) and Dave Johnson (560/7044) when he mentioned about
'soft' skills (Liaison, Carousing, Admin, etc.). I have some stuff in the
pipeline in that vein but it's not ready for TML quite yet. I'm sure other
referees have systems for evaluating such skills - I tend to play such off the
top of my head, using a simple feedback loop: player satisfaction is the
feedback mechanism. Feedback loops can go crazy sometimes (Player rolls
double-1 but looks so sad referee says he still managed to crack the Imperial
code computer with his Computer-0 skill)... so you have to have 'common sense'
limits.

MORE GENERALLY

My games are centred on player/referee enjoyment and the positive feedback
given after a good game. If the players enjoy talking about past events their
characters have been involved in, and the mention of specific incidents brings
a smile to their face, then you're doing it right.

INTERSTELLAR POLITICS / SPACE COLONIES / HOSTILE WORLDS

I think Bill White (597/7491) brought up an important point when considering
why some star systems don't seem to have a logical basis for the siting of
their starport, huge population on a hell-hole world, etc. The price of
interstellar travel might not seem too bad when you're a rich adventurer with
the price of several High Passages in your wallet, or a Far Trader owner
carrying weapons or jewels. But when it comes to bulk (and I mean millions of
tons) goods - ores, metals, petrochemicals, foodstuffs, etc. then in-system
transport is expensive enough, without bringing in such low-value goods from
other systems. In such circumstances I would imagine that initial colonists
would congregate around the site with the greatest natural resources. With
regard to the starport-on-a-hell-hole problem, if the hell-hole is the source
of the resources then it's going to need big port facilities to ship the stuff
elsewhere in the system. Other ports in system need only have space ports to
handle the goods. Perhaps more importantly, the F-class spaceport to handle
in-system bulk goods might well be several times larger than the 'main' A or
B class starport which serves the inter-system traffic.

BYE

Just some thoughts, sorry if they're a bit grabled. :-)
exit, quit, logoff, etc.

Andy

(Working his Model 1 bis with Computer-1 skill)
Commander Lilly, PITS (Political Intelligence Team, Scout)
Nothing I say or do in any way reflects the views of my very kind and
generous employers.


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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7499
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 20:44:28 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: Sword Worlds Technology

Gentlesophonts:

From Thursday night:

J Roberson <RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu> writes:

> I don't find variable TLs too disconcerting, so long as the TLs are
> within 2 or 3 levels of each other.

It's my sense that the sort of geographic variations you've mentioned will
tend to decrease as TL increases because one of the effects of an increase
in TL is an improvement in communications and distribution channels which
tends to facilitate or enhance technology transfer.  Current TL discrepancies,
not only within developed nations, but among developed nations and developing
nations are closing and this has increased with advances in technology.

> I don't know much about the Sword Worlds, but to me they always seemed
> very faction-based, more akin to the Peloponnesian city-states than,
> say the Roman Empire.

This is a fair assessment, IMHO, but this very view seems at conflict with
variable TLs.  Again, if Sacnoth truly is at TL 12 while the other worlds
are at TL 9-11 then it ought to quickly come to dominate the entire
Confederation.  Remember, technology is at the heart of the `feudal
technocracy' of the Sword Worlds Confederation.


Bruce Pihlamae <pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au> writes:
 
>     A tech level advance is usually a fundamental breakthrough or addition 
>     of knowledge to the society.  Other advances are simply refinements or 
>     incremental improvements on existing technology.

Again, I tend to agree with this idea but it then again seems at conflict
with the variation in TLs in the Sword Worlds.  If a particular world in a
`feudal technocracy' enjoys a fundamental advantage over the other worlds
it should quickly rise to prominence.

This idea of a fundamental advance does need to be rectified with Hans's
point that in the Imperium campaign the ease of access to higher TLs points
to an economic or sociological basis for any TL rating rather than a basis
upon technological endeavor.  If I want to build a Jump-3 starship on Gram
all I need to do is jump over to Sacnoth, buy some blueprints (or hire a
shipwright), and jump back to Gram.  Since this isn't happening (otherwise
Gram would be TL C with a class A starport) then either I can't afford to
buy the blueprints (or hire the shipwright) *or* there is some social
reason why I can't do this.  You can take it a step further to say that
Gram doesn't have the TL 12 factories needed to manufacture components for
such a ship but can't I just jump down to Sacnoth and get plans for them
to?  So, it's not about access to technical knowledge because clearly
that's available.  One sociological barrier might be a border (Japan may
have difficulty competing with US aircraft manufacturers because it can't
gain access to the knowledge) but this shouldn't be a problem *within* a
particular state (Boeing in Seattle is hiring from the same pool of
engineers and buying from the same pool of suppliers as is McDonnell-
Douglas in St. Louis).


Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> David Johnson writes:
> >>From Wednesday night, Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> >>Perhaps the Sword Worlds goes through
> >>a regular cycle of booms and recessions with acompanying TL increases and
> >>decreases?
> > 
> >Well, maybe, but that still doesn't explain the *variance* in tech levels
> >from world to world within the Confederation  - 
> 
> It does if one postulates that the individual Sword Worlds are on different
> cycles. When a world has a boom it produces TL 12 stuff and exports it; when
> it is in a depression it makes do with TL 10 or 11 stuff for the most part
> and imports what it has to.

Such variation in economic cycles from world to world would seem to suggest
that there is little integration between the economies of the Sword Worlds.
This seems unlikely to me.  Even if there is little political cooperation
there ought to be much economic cooperation or the Sword Worlds would have
fallen to the Imperium - or the Darrians - long ago.
 
> Their culture can perfectly well be homogenous in spite of TL variances of
> a couple of levels.

Well, maybe, but I find this unlikely for a `feudal technocracy'.  Technology
is a fundamental aspect of Sword Worlds culture.
 
> >Without it, one wonders why
> >Sacnoth, at tech level 12, hasn't come to dominate the Sword Worlds long
> >ago.
> 
> Two possible reasons: 1) Sacnoth has its own ups and downs and just happened
> to have an up the last time the Scouts or TAS updated their world catalogue.

Well, if this was the case, why wasn't Sacnoth the capital at that point?
Leadership clearly fluctuates among the Sword Worlds so ought not these
fluctuations be tied to any fluctuations in technology?  Again, keep in
mind the `feudal technocracy'.
 
> 2) If, as I assume, a world can maintain equipment that is not too much in
> advance of its TL, then the other worlds can maintain their own TL 12 ships
> even though their TL is only 10 or 11 (though they cannot build new ones). 
> Thus there is a balance of power.

Well, again maybe, but only if that balance of power doen't destroy any
of those precious ships.  If I were Sacnoth I wouldn't sell any other 
worlds ships, fight them to a destructive stalemate, build some new TL12
weapons of my own, and set myself up as a TED, in a sense.  If the Sword
Worlds are as fractious as it seems, even if Sacnoth doesn't do this it
seems the next world to hit the `peak' of it's cycle would.

This entire `technological cycles' idea seems to me to be more and more
difficult to rationalize.

> Well, what do you think? :-)

I can't explain it.  I think the variable TLs in the Sword Worlds are just
what you get when you do random generation with a flawed system.

>         "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

I've been meaning to say it for a long time.  I *love* this quote.  It so
wonderfully demonstrates the `provinciality' of all of us who `grew up' in the
Marches - both gamers and GDW.  Thanks, Hans.


Steve Bonneville <bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu> writes:

> Not necessarily true for Depot.  Remember, the UWP population value
> only reflects permanent citizens of the main-world.  The naval depot
> is spread throughout the system, and a fair proportion of the facilities
> won't be on the main-world.  Further, many of the "employees" at Depot
> will be naval personnel assigned there, and won't necessarily be 
> considered "permanent residents".  We also know (from the Vincennes
> article) that Depot is the main TL16 shipyard in the Domain, and 
> serves most of the military shipbuilding contracts.  Expect the tech
> to stay where it is.

I'm not so sure.  In effect, Depot is something like a contemporary
shipyard and naval facility or air base and aircraft manufacturing plant.
There are the employees and facilities of the plant and the military
personnel of the base but these folks do not produce their product in
isolation.  They are supported by a host of suppliers and contractors
at some remove from the site.  This support is maintained through the
infrasturcture of the rest of the region and nation.

If this infrastructure exists in Deneb - and essentially Vincennes is the
only source available - then Depot might continue to function.  Clearly
this would be a priority of the Domain and later the Regency.  On the
other hand, if Depot was previously supported by Imperial infrastructure
beyond the Domain then it might be more feasible to move these facilities
to Vincennes.

Remember, the entire premise of the Rebellion, Hard Times and the Viral
Collapse has been the *interdependence* of the various worlds of the
Imperium.  (My own opinion is that this has been over played, but then
I frequently find myself at odds with what is canonical.)  Thus, the
loss of much of the Imperium is going to be a severe blow even in the
Domain/Regency and this loss ought to be most severely felt on those
most technologically advanced worlds that were most closely tied to the
Imperial infrastructure - like Depot.

Finally, there is this issue of just what is measured by technology level.
The Traveller literature has long struggled with this but I believe the
most common interpretation has been that TL indicates what technology is
most commonly available in and around the world's starport.  This really
doesn't speak to me because it seems then that every world ought to be
TL 9 at a minimum by definition!  I mean *starship* are going to be the
`most common' technology at any starport.  Furthermore, this take is not
particluarly useful when interstellar commerce is interrupted and 
conditions at the starport may change much more drastically than on the
world as a whole.

My own view is that TL represents the production capability of the world.
It's the level of technology at which most indigenous goods and services
are provided.  This sometimes gets difficult to explain due to the 
variations and combinations produced by the world generations rules but
you must have guessed by now that I'm not one to abandon a rational
explanation just because it's in conflict with some ill-considered rule
published in one of the `holy books'.  :-)

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 598
Archive-Message-Number: 7500
Date: Mon, 9 May 94 11:00:17 CDT
From: Peter H. Brenton <pete@biochem.uchicago.edu>
Subject: MBT Weapons (Ramblings about AFV Weapons)

You ever get out-of-hand with a post?  well I did.

Summary: What weapons should be mounted on an MBT and why - for
results skip to the end.


From: bucsek@oo.com (John Bucsek)

>I would have to agree that a TL-8 projectile weapon will be
>outclassed by a TL-11 + energy weapon.  But to compare the two
>together at the same tech level I would think that the projectile
>weapon would cause more damage.

Seems to me damage and penetration per FF&S's authors is a function
of energy release at the point of impact.  Therefore energy efficiency
as it relates to the amount delivered to the point of impact and the
amount generated is the key.  OK, with that in mind it should definitely
be the case that a TL 8 laser is inferior to a TL 8 KEAP round.  The 
energy transfer is just much more efficient.

But what about a TL14 Laser vs a TL 14 KEAP?  By this point, it seems to me,
the laser should be more efficient at transferring energy to the target.
But is it?  Could it be the *type* of energy release?  KEAP rounds use
Kinetic energy of a very hard object hitting at very high speed to penetrate
armor, Lasers use heat energy to try to "burn" through armor or damage
components.`

I guess the point is that the laser is a "softer" penetrator.
 
{stuff deleted about FASA's Centurion}

>The lasers alone won't kill a tank since it is
>very hard to hit the same spot twice.  So the tactics usually
>demand that you fire a few shells and missiles first to thin out
>the armor, and then fire the lasers to hopefully penetrate and
>damage various internal components like ammo, fusion reactor,
>crew, and stabalizers.

So the question becomes, why mount lasers?  Is there some advantage to
using lasers to do damage instead of KEAP rounds?  and does this 
advantage outweigh the cost of the added weight and power requirements
(plus maint., spare parts, etc. etc.). 

Also let's think in terms of deployment considerations.  I want to deploy
a division of Imperial Armor via starship.  It is worth a tremendous amount
of time and resources to *not* need ammunition shipped in to supply that
division.  For this reason I'm willing to sacrifice *some* killing power
to mount a laser or other DE weapon (whose ammo is easily supplied i.e.
hydrogen) instead of a KEAP weapon whose ammo needs to be hauled six sectors
in vulnerable supply ships.


>Or we can look at OGRE/GEV from steve jackson games. Their
>rail-gun (gauss) fired tactical nuclear shells outclass every
>other weapon on the battlefield.  The background history states
>that lasers were found to be too tempermental to be used on the
>battlefield and so laser are regulated to anti-air duty. A
>definite rules simplification but one that works in that future
>history.

Tac-Nukes work great in the desert, or otherwise unoccupied areas, but 
armored fighting vehicles are also expected to take city streets and
arable land which their employers expect to use later on.  a nuke (even
a small one) might not be feasable in light of mission objectives.

I wonder what TL OGRE is?  Could the laser's delicacy have been corrected for
at higher TL?

This brings up another possibility though, using lasers as a secondary
weapon for "softer" targets and point defense work, saving the main gun
rounds for other MBTs, or perhaps substituting missile launch facilities 
for the main gun altogether.  The laser would be capable of penetrating
light armored vehicles and killing more delicate "aircraft" or "attack
grav vehicles", Missiles would come into play for harder targets.  This would 
also give non-direct fire capability to the vehicle.  It would, however,
raise the cost of each "kill" since a KEAP round has proven much cheaper
than a guided missile ever could be.  Also, I think that missiles would be
somewhat easier to counter than KEAP rounds due to their necesarily slower
speed.  In fact, the secondary laser turret would be a good tool for
"shooting down" such missiles.

{snip}

> Another technology that appears in Centurion is a
>ceramic armor that defends nicely against lasers but is normal for
>shells, meaning that you have to layer you armor in you vehicle
>designs.

>And thinking of armor, a reactive or ablative armor spaced with a harder
>material (like superdense) should help keep the weight down while still
>improving survivability.  Which give me a thought. I will have to try to
>design a Centurion type Gravtank with FF&S.  It should prove enlightening.

I think the designers of the TNE combat system were told to keep the potential
complications down (they didn't) which means leaving out heterogenous armor
combinations.  I was reading about Chobham armor recently and wondered
why Superdense couldn't be layered with some similarly hard substance, just
to get the layered effects.  

Making good old reflec or ablat an AFV armor (I still think it should be a 
personal armor option!) would complicate things, but not unduly,  a seperate
penetration value would be used for DE attacks (the first time only with ablat)
and KE attacks.  This idea is not needed, however, if lasers are not as good
penetrators as lasers.  Whay have two types of armor when conventional is 
so resistant to lasers anyway?  Perhaps on lightly armored vehicles it would
be an advantage.

OK, Just a summary and I'll stop using up space :).  MBT design for high
tech Imperial (I'm talking pre-collapse here) or other space-deployed
units would have a heavily armored (conventional) hull with dual turrets
(I like the over-under config - was that Rob Dean's idea?).  Primary
armament a large (12cm, 14cm) smoothbore ETC CPR gun, loadout primary
KEAP penetration rounds (topside turret), secondary I would put a heavy
laser (one with lightly-armored vehicle penetration capability) on the 
underside turret, and two light lasers for point defense and soft target
capability positioned to cover overhead and either side of the vehicle
(the larger laser can be pressed into underside point defense).

This way the vehicle is not dependent on ammunition supply to be useful
(a compromise, of course).  It fulfills both a support role and a self-
defendable MBT "tank killer" role.  It is orbit-deployable (oops, did I 
say it was a grav vehicle?  good old thruster plate/Magatraveller style
self propelled "we don't need no stinkin' heplar" grav vehicle), and 
a "hard target".

As the common vehicle of Imperial battalions I would set design TL as about 
TL 14 or so.  A TL 15 variant in first-line units, and TL 13 in reserve
units and local militia.

I'll try to get a design for this vehicle together to check the feasability 
of such a thing, what ammo load it could carry etc.

Pete

Peter Brenton                                      (312) 702-0030
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology        pete@biochem.uchicago.edu
The University of Chicago       

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

End of TML Biweekly
******************
