From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 18-MAY-1994 21:04:22.63
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7650-7652 V45#1

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HCHYGSK55C94GY4R@delphi.com>; Wed, 18 May 1994 21:04:13 EDT
Date: Wed, 18 May 1994 21:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7650-7652 V45#1
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9405190104.AA07700@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed May 18 21:00:03 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed May 18 21:00:03 EDT 1994    Volume 45 : Issue 1

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 609  7650 18-May-1994 JohnPS1010@aol.  Hold << Could you please put me on hold
 609  7651 19-May-1994 langsl@cbr.hhcs  re: A pre-Virus/TNE list <<            
 609  7652 18-May-1994 David Johnson    All: `Imperial' Navy/Army Organization 

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: 609
Archive-Message-Number: 7650
From: JohnPS1010@aol.com
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 18:55:03 EDT
Subject: Hold

Could you please put me on hold for receiving TML for a while.  I will be
unable to receive for a time and don't want to fill up my message buffer.

Thank you


John Schweitzer


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

Bundle: 609
Archive-Message-Number: 7651
Date: Thu, 19 May 1994 10:05:25 +1000
From: langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Subject: re: A pre-Virus/TNE list


                  I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M

                                      Date:  Sent on: 19-May-1994 10:06am
                                      From:  Alistair Langsford
                                             LANGSFORD ALISTAIR
                                      Dept:  Information Services
                                      Tel No:289 7870

TO:  Remote Addressee                     ( _traveller@engrg.uwo.ca )


Subject: re: A pre-Virus/TNE list

First up:
- ---------
Thanks to those who replied with useful tips on running out of air, and 
availability of non metallic guns. Much appreciated. I'm still interested 
in more info on this if anyone has comments to make. This is one of the 
main reasons I find TML a useful thing to subscribe to: the helpful 
suggestions of others.

Re: A second Traveller List
- ---------------------------

I would prefer it if the list didn't have to split, but can cope if it 
does. My main worry (as some other posters have expressed) is that there 
may not be enough in the way of traffic on either list to keep them going 
if the list splits. Rather than debate it though I think we are just going 
to have to try it and see. 

I do think the idea of people posting Pre-TNE material to the TML is a good 
one though. It would demonstrate:
    
    (a) the amount of actual active support the separate list would get. 
    Though admittedly only from those who are still part of the TML: it 
    wouldn't show up those who left and who might come back - but will they 
    come back anyway? Do they know about what is being proposed, and has 
    someone asked them what their view is? 
    
    However, if there is enough support amongst -current- TML membership 
    then I think it is clear that the split has a good chance of working.
    
    (b) whether people actually found the 'signal to noise' ratio still 
    poor to accept even after the amount of useful signal improves.

Cynthia writes:
<   I say pre-Virus list, because like someone else here, I like the
<   TNE rules, but despise the background.  I'd like to be able to
<   discuss Pre-Virus and alternate history backgrounds, but using TNE
<   rules,too.  Am I just whistling Dixie?  Or is there a chance of
<   this happening?

I agree. I like the new generation traveller rules. My current campaign is 
set pre_Rebellion, c 1107, but uses the new rules. 

What do people think of PRE_VIRUS rather than PRE_TNE? Would this be 
acceptable to the people who wanted PRE_TNE in the first place? For me, the 
important difference between CT, MT, and TNE is their respective 
backgrounds, much more than their rules. 

<   ...but a pre-Virus TML is pointless if nobody posts on it.  I
<   think David has a point; is anyone still interested in DISCUSSING
<   the era besides me?  I have stuff I could have posted, but I
<   sensed an underwhelming amount of interest in pre-Virus material

I'm still interested in -reading- it at least. And then maybe asking a few 
stupid questions after 8-). Please post so we can all find out what 
interest exists. 

Alistair,
langsl@cbr.hhcs.gov.au



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

Bundle: 609
Archive-Message-Number: 7652
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 19:08:49 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: `Imperial' Navy/Army Organization

Gentlesophonts:

Making a fine contribution to *Shall Not Perish*, our Regency sourcebook,
Steve Charlton <scharlto@olympus.avalon.COM> writes:

> I have always had a problem with 
> GDW's ideas on Imperial military structure.  While GDW's structure is
> fairly straightforward, they forgot just how big and feudal the Imperium is

Steve then goes on with an excellent explanation of a workable, sensible
military structure for both naval and ground/planetary forces.

The question I have is just how is this different from the canonical
structure?  There are a few minor discrepancies (like subsector naval forces
organized into `groups' rather than `numbered fleets') but on the whole it
seems quite compatible with `official' military organization.  Admittedly,
it's the first time I've seen the Imperial Marines divided into Fleet,
Garrison and Line units but this is mere color.  The use of Imperial Army
forces only on an as-needed basis also seems to be consistent.  The
Imperium didn't rely upon mobile Imperial Army units to protect individual
worlds but instead left that to `indigineous defense battalions' raised
by and restricted to individual worlds.  Imperial Army forces were raised
at roughly ten percent of these levels for `Imperial' use.

My own take on the problem with Imperial military structure was the idea
of `separate' planetary forces - aerospace and `wet navy' forces - that
were distinct from the `ground' planetary forces - the `army'.  Since
distinctions between land/water/air/orbital transportation disappears
at Imperial tech levels (TL 13+?) it seems to me that military organiza-
tional distinctions should `disappear' as well.  I find it hard to believe
that the Imperial Army and Marines are not equipped for combat on a 
waterworld or have to rely upon Naval or other aerospace forces for
close-air support, inter-theater transport and the like.

An Imperial Army (or Marine) unit should contain land, water, air and
orbital elements capable of dealing with combat situations in any planetary
environment.

In the Earth Colonies campaign, I've dealt with this issue by abandoning the
traditional `army' units types - infantry, cavalry, armor, etc. - for more
generic `planetary' unit types as follows:

Anti-bombardment units consist of guns, missiles, screens or other forces
  intended to counter aerial or orbital bombardment.
Bombardment units consist of missiles, airborne bombers, ortillery or other
  forces that attack from a position removed from the battlefield.
Combat Platform units consist of battlefield weapons platforms such as armor,
  air combat, ground attack, sea attack or other forces.
Patrol Platform units consist of mobile weapons platforms used for land,
  air or sea patrol.
Platform Carrier units consist of mobile forces used to introduce Combat
  Platform units directly into remote battlefields.
Transport units consist of mobile forces used to transport other units
  between bases or battlefield rear areas.
Troop units consist of battlefield troop forces such as infantry, cavalry,
  jump troops, robotic troops or other forces.

In conventional military terms, anti-aircraft batteries and ballistic
missile defense (SDI/`Star Wars') forces would be Anti-Bombardment units;
ballistic missile, air bomber and cruise missile forces would be Bombardment
units; fighter aircraft, tanks, and attack submarines would be Combat
Platform units; AWACS aircraft, reconnaissance satellites and some surface
vessels would be Patrol Platform units; aircraft carriers would be Platform
Carrier units; airlift and sealift forces would be Transport units; and
marine infantry and air cavalry forces would be Troop units.

The concept of the battalion as the basic military unit is maintained but
the idea of `battalion' is broadened to described a particular collection
of combat forces regardless of whether the `battalion' is actually a
`conventional' collection of troops, a collection of combat aircraft,
a collection of submersibles, or whatever.

> Just some thoughts... any sort of input is welcome.

Me too.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

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