From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 25-MAY-1994 21:09:30.07
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7741-7751 V45#9

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HCRQNH8M9C8Y75RB@delphi.com>; Wed, 25 May 1994 21:09:25 EDT
Date: Wed, 25 May 1994 21:00:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7741-7751 V45#9
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9405260102.AA04966@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed May 25 21:00:03 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed May 25 21:00:03 EDT 1994    Volume 45 : Issue 9

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 616  7741 23-May-1994 Steve Charlton/  All: More Marine Stuff << Thanks to Ste
 616  7742 23-May-1994 KenHagler@aol.c  High Guard design <<      The _Rhine_ c
 616  7743 23-May-1994 Steve Charlton/  All: Marines again? Give it a rest! << 
 616  7744 23-May-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Military Forces: 5FW/TCS/POT? << G
 616  7746 23-May-1994 Joseph Heck      STL drives in FFS << In TML Message # 7
 616  7747 23-May-1994 Glenn Goffin     5FW Sword Worlds forces << I've been fo
 616  7748 23-May-1994 Glenn Goffin     Grenadier miniatures sought << A long t
 617  7750 24-May-1994 CHiggin@aol.com  TCS... << From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nas
 617  7751 24-May-1994 scs@vectis.demo  Non-Humans in Traveller << One of the t
 616  7745 23-May-1994 David Johnson    TNE: Sword Worlds Technology << Gentles
 617  7749 24-May-1994 JSHiggin@aol.co  Various... << Annoying statements on a 

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: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7741
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
Date: 23 May 94 17:28:11 MS
Subject: All: More Marine Stuff

Thanks to Steve Bonnev, Peter Brenton and David Johnson for the
 responses.  Just to clarify; I have assumed that "Army" (Imperial or
planetary) is a sort of generic term that includes aerospace and wet
naval forces.  However, in situations where Imperial military might
is called for, I think that both of these elements would become
non-issues.

Don't panic yet!  Let me explain my heresy first.  In the case of aerospace
forces, an Imperial task group of whatever size would have some form
of orbital support fire, and perhaps even cover from carrier-based
space fighters.  In addition, high-tech AFVs can be classed as aerospace
fighters in many respects, maybe slower but with far more firepower.

In the case of wet navy forces, surface vessels could be directly engaged 
by orbital support fire, fighters or even grav vehicles.  A PT Boat might
be fast and agile, but would be a slug compared to a TL13+ AFV.  The
submersible threat would be more problematic, but I do remember that
the old "Fighting Ships" booklet and some of the GDW material
relating to the defense of Terra in the Solomani Rim War mentioned
that SDBs and fighters were often based in the oceans.  I would suspect
that such vessels would have some limited combat ability in the sea.  I
think lasers might be a bad idea under water, but penetrating x-ray or
maser weapons would work, as would meson weapons.  Even missiles
(direct impact) would work, with some modifications.   Of course, I was
not a physics major, so you may all stop laughing if I am wrong!  :-(

This does not mean that such vehicles would be the best solution, but
it would certainly be more cost effective to use mission-capable existing
designs than it would be to spend funds on whole new classes of vehicles.
An Imperium-wide military machine does get a tad expensive, so these
concerns are very valid.  Besides, we know the 3rd Imperium must be
cheap or broke, or else they could have afforded a less sequel-like name.

As regards Peter Brenton's ideas on a Marine Expeditionary Division,
I have used a similar concept.  The Imperial marines would certainly
need to field big units (divisions and corps), but a lot of the dirty work
could be done with the clever employment of smaller mobile units.  This
is where the distinction of Fleet Marines vs Line Marines came in.  The
ship-borne Fleet Marines might just be the ship's troops of an Imperial
"ship of the line", or they might be purpose-carried for rapid operations.
I had three classes of such units; Marine Combined Arms Teams (MCATs),
Marine Assault Forces (MAFs) and Marine Assault Brigades (MABs).  

A MCAT would consist of a combined arms company of two rifle platoons
and one armor or mechanized platoon, with a support platoon for
command and heavy weapons.  These would be ad hoc units, formed
from a MAF designated to be broken up into smaller units.   The MAF
could be divided into three MCATs.  The MCAT would be carried on a
5,000 ton starship, which would also have a pair of fighters for aerospace
support.

The MAF would be designed for longer-term field deployments, with
the intention of being at least semi-independent.  The MAF would be made
up of two rifle companies and one armored or mechanized company, with
a weapons company (MRLs) and an artillery battery (2 Meson guns) for 
fire support, an engineer platoon, a medical platoon, a port service platoon
(to handle starport operations at the local captured starport, or at
whatever landing field the engineers built) and a command and general
support company.  The MAF would be carried on a 10,000 ton starship,
which would also carry a squadron of fighters for aerospace support, and
would have orbital support weapons.

The MAB would be especially popular for extended independent
operations.  It would have one armored or mechanized battalion, two
rifle battalions, an artillery company (3 batteries), a drop
infantry/commando company, a cavalry troop (grav bikes & speeders)
an engineer company, a medical company, a port service company and
a reinforced command and general support company.  The MAB would
be carried on a 50,000 tons starship, which would carry a wing (3 
squadrons) of fighters for aerospace support, and would be well
armored and equipped with orbital fire capable weapons.

Of course, the above was using the old High Guard rules, which were
fairly lenient for space requirements.  I would suspect the tonnage of
the ships would be increased by 50% to 100% in MT or FF&S.

This does not reflect the views of my employers.  Neither does the
continuation of this in my next message.  Nuff said.


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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7742
From: KenHagler@aol.com
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 21:06:55 EDT
Subject: High Guard design

     The _Rhine_ class Fleet Tender
     
TF-1 Rhine TF-R7313F3-090100-00009-0 MCr40,390.8 100,000 tons
batteries bearing    8   Y  Crew=764.
batteries      A   Z  TL=12.
Low=382. Cargo=2,706. Fuel=33,000. EP=3000. Agility=1. Marines=300.
    Y=35, Z=50
Notes: This is a fleet battle tender. It can carry up to 40,000 tons 
worth of riders--normally four _Berlins_ or two _Provences_. Has a frozen 
watch, and fuel purification plant.

This is the original, and only known, version of the _Rhine_ class. 70 
were built for the NFN, named for rivers on Earth. This class saw action 
in the Old Islands War and the Topas War. Following the Topas War, FAdm 
Connor commented that the ships' substantial missile armament made them 
useful as 'auxiliary battleship' in some situations. In 5629, five of 
these ships were handed over to the Alliance Navy.

Many _Rhines_ were present in the Neubayern system at the beginning of 
the Second Battle of Neubayern, but they successfully escaped to St. 
Genevieve where they joined the Alliance Fleet. Many of these ships no 
longer had riders to carry, as these had been destroyed at Neubayern, and 
were handed over to the Alliance or mothballed.

The fate of the _Rhine_ was unclear since the riders were being phased 
out. The NFN had begun experiments with a class of 1000-ton laser-armed 
gunboats, but the experiment had not yet yielded any concrete results 
when the Imperials arrived. Many _Rhines_ were scrapped or hidden, but 
five were hidden on Sansterre.

When the Cluster Liberation War came, one of the _Rhines_ carried forty 
of the experimental _Thunderbolt_ class PFs, while the others carried 
various riders. Following the War, some of the _Rhines_ were reactivated 
to carry PFs, while others were used to carry disabled ships to shipyards.

Since the Alliance Navy uses _Rhines_ primarily as support ships in 
peaceful areas, those that remain in service are a very low priority for 
upgrades. As of 5650, there are no known refits of the class, although it 
has been rumoured that one ship has been modified for use as a technology 
demonstrator.


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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7743
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
Date: 23 May 94 17:56:38 MS
Subject: All: Marines again? Give it a rest!

This is a continuation of the other Marines posting from tonight.
Those bored with me, or revolted by all this militaristic talk can
skip to the next item.  The rest of us can then make fun of you at our
leisure  (just kidding)  :-).

To continue:  What good are MCATs, MAFs and MABs?  Remember
that this was all designed for a pre-rebellion campaign.  The Imperium
had its share of enemies, but much of the IN and IMC's job was
internal peacekeeping.  Small firefighting units were a major element
of Imperial military doctrine.

In general, all groups (subsector fleets) would have at least one  MAF
available, either intact or divided and deployed as three MCATs.
The Sector Fleet would have a full corps of Line Marines available at
various bases, with their large troop transports, but the fleet would also
have a number of MABs available.  In unruly sectors, there might be 5 or 6 
MABs, while a small or quiescent sector might only have one or two.

In terms of deployment, I always gave each subsector at least 1 patrol
squadron.  This would consist of about a dozen destroyers or destroyer
escorts, with one escort carrier (a 25,000 ton carrier with a reinforced
wing of fighters) and some form of light cruiser (Gionetti or Azhanti
High Ligtning, depending on my mood).    This squadron would also
have either an intact MAF or 3 MCATs attached to it.  If the subsector
had multiple patrol squadrons (pirates, illegal alien problems),  the MCATs
might be split up among the squadrons or additional MAFs assigned.

The MAF/MCAT would be used in the usual "show the flag" operation
or as a rapid intervention team to defuse critical situations.  Such a 
deployment would also alert one or more of the fleet's MABs.  If a 
situation arose requiring a full MAB, that deployment would alert the
other MABs and the Line Marines in the sector.  If those forces are sent
in, the Sector Duke would probably need to seriously consider
mobilizing the IA.  Since MCATs, MAFs and MABs all have dedicated
transports, they could respond to any situation in a week or two, while
the Line Marines and IA forces are busy locating transports and stuffing
all their gear into cargo modules.  Anybody who has watched the US Army
trying to load one armored battalion onto a train will appreciate just
how long it takes to move such forces, even if some equipment is
pre-packed or prepositioned.

Anybody have any feedback?  Come on in, the water's fine.

PS - Regarding A. Langford's quest for non-metallic guns.  Have a
          look at some books on medieval sieges.  Many of the larger 
          bombards were made of wood, bound together with brass rings.
          I also think I remember a picture of a hand gun from that period
          made of similar materials.

PPS - This month's Popular Science has an article on Fuel Cells, which
             have caused me a certain amount of grief in my current TNE
             campaign.  One problem; the technology involves hydrogen
             and oxygen freed from water or methane, but FF&S says that
             fuel cells use hydrocarbons (gasoline to us non-chemists).  Can
             anybody shed some light on this?

Again, none of the above reflects the views of my employers.  No way,
no how.


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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7744
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 20:16:02 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Military Forces: 5FW/TCS/POT?

Gentlesophonts:

The plot thickens (or the arguement broils?):

PBJuzyk <PSUAlum@aol.com> writes:

> As a Latter Day Traveller with access to *PoT* info detailing the
> military assets of a world can be found on pages 95-97 of that book
> 
> These forces are broken into four branches: wet navy, air force (inc.
> orbital & sub-orbit craft), space force, and ground forces.
> 
> Once the number of personnel in each force is established the equipment
> is determined bearing in mind only a small percentage comprise the
> actual crew with the remainder support & logistics.
> 
> These numbers seem skewed when put into use, for example:
> 
> Gram (pop 6,000,000,000; TL 11)
> 2,250,000 personnel, 750 major ships, 2250 regular ships
> 
> Someone tell me my calculations are off!!


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

> Since people originally asked about the composition of the Sword
> Worlds military, here's the lowdown from 5FW:
> 
> Note the paucity of forces available to the SW government.  It
> would seem that they aren't really prepared for much of an
> offensive campaign. 
> 
> Seditious TNE influence:  by using _PoT_ rules in a wildly 
> inappropriate way, estimated armed forces from UWP.  Ground force
> seems a bit low, but probably explainable by needing more hands 
> in space in a pre-Collapse professional military.  The SW seem to be
> a naval power, anyway.

This is some good work.  Thanks folks.

It seems we have a clear conflict here between rules sets.  The *5FW*
shows much smaller forces than both *TCS* and *POT* suggest is available.
Nevertheless, *5FW* is the only source of `official' naval and army
forces.  On the other hand, the *POT* rules meet the `most recent' criteria
*and* seem to be more comprehensive - dealing with space and planetary
forces.

The question to be resolved seems to be how do were rectify the current
rules (or *TCS* for that matter) when they suggest a world like Tizon in
the Sword Worlds could have dominated the entire battle field in the 5FW?

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7746
From: ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)
Subject: STL drives in FFS
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 23:38:47 -0500 (CDT)

In TML Message # 7732, you said:
> 
> Ok, I take back what I said about proofreading, here's a *real*
> doozy....
> 
> [bits and explanations deleted]
> 
>                   THRUST       FUEL USE  ...fuel per ton of thrust
>  Daedalus drive: 1.5 ton   0.00050 ton/hr.     0.000334 ton/hr
>  Fusion rocket   9.0 ton   0.00035[C[B ton/hr.     0.000039 ton/hr
>  HEPlaR drive:  33.4 ton   0.02917 ton/hr.     0.000873 ton/hr
> 
> [understandable rants deleted]
> 
> This also brings up another interesting point.  It seems to me
> that even accounting for the extra mass needed in the motor of
> a fusion rocket, it is more efficient than a HEPlaR drive.  This
> suggests that there may be an advantage to using fusion rocket
> designs in some cases on a military vessel, perhaps as a second
> drive system.
> 
> Any comments?  Am I reading this wrong?

Hi Steve,

I wish I could say you are... but. You aren't. When GDW-beta list was
playing around with the pre-release stuff we had on FFS (precious little)
it became clear VERY quickly that the most effecient drive that still
fit within reality was the Fusion Rocket - and aside from it's nasty side
effects is a beautiful deep-space drive. I designed a number of ships
from that system, and planetary landings aside, Fusion is the best bet.

- -- 
 joe                          (314) 882-5000
 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu    University of Missouri - Columbia  
 "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and
 imprenetrable fog!" -- Calvin
 <A HREF="http://www.phlab.missouri.edu/ccjoe_www/ccjoe.html">ccjoe</A>

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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7747
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 23:22:59 -0700
From: Glenn Goffin <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
Subject: 5FW Sword Worlds forces

I've been following the Sword Worlds discussion, but somewhat distractedly
as work carries me to the midwest and Oregon for three days a week lately.
So I have gotten behind on the mailing list (portable computer? at my job? 
ha ha ha), and I'm not sure that the counters from Fifth Frontier War are 
still needed.  Anyway, I have them.  Please email me and tell me what you need
to know exactly (if you send a separate email, I'll notice it--my apologies
for requesting special treatment; it'll go away in about a month, I think), and
I'll post it to the TML.

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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7748
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 23:26:00 -0700
From: Glenn Goffin <ggoffin@igc.apc.org>
Subject: Grenadier miniatures sought

A long time ago, Grenadier produced four lines of 25mm lead miniatures for
Traveller.  They were Alien Mercenaries, Alien Animals, Imperial Marines, and
Adventurers (I'm fairly confident that these are the right names).  I'm
looking for them, and will pay a reasonable price.  Does anyone have any
leads?                      

Thanks for your help.

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

Bundle: 617
Archive-Message-Number: 7750
From: CHiggin@aol.com
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:27:22 EDT
Subject: TCS...

From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)

>> I would be hard put to imagine that a world with Regina's yard
>> capacity and budget was restricted to 10 overgrown fighters, or that
>> 10 oversized fighters would pose a serious threat to an invading
>> fleet.
>It may be hard to imagine but it's consist with canonical material.  I
>believe there was some stuff in *JTAS* that referred specifically to the
>Regina SDBs as being the 400-ton variety (something in TNS about them
>"vectoring toward Assiniboia"?).  

    One of the things that happened after High Guard came out was a 
major change in the sizes and numbers of Naval vessels cruising about. 
For pre-High Guard CT, 10 400-ton SDBs WAS a major defense force -- 
and a 400-ton patrol cruiser was a real warship, and the Kinunir 
(1200-tons) WAS a Cruiser capable of subduing anything in the 
subsector.  Post-High Guard and "Supplement 9: Fighting Ships" (the 
REAL "Fighting Ships"), 10 SDBs was a joke, not a force.  The Kinunir 
becomes a light escort, comparable (loosely) with the Chyrsanthemum 
and Fer-de-Lance class escorts.  If you are playing in a High 
Guard/MT/TNE universe, do not take anything from early JTAS or very 
early supplements about Naval strength as "canonical".  The "canonical" 
material isn't self-consistent; it was composed over at least two 
different "world-views".  You have to decide which world-view you are 
using, and throw out the material that is inconsistent with that view.

    I have been assuming a post-High Guard+ worldview.  It is 
possible, even likely, that the apparent inconsistency between TCS 
strengths and 5FW counters relates to the shift in Naval strength 
between pre-and post-High Guard.  Did 5FW come out before or after 
High Guard?  

>It's clear from *5FW* that SDBs depend
>upon world population (although I couldn't find a clear pattern and 
>I played with the values from *5FW* and *S3:SM* for quite a while).
>I feel Imperial military doctrine doesn't call for SDBs to be a
>significant factor in a major war - that's the role of the Navy.
>SDBs are more for dealing with raiders and pirates.

    I believe that the WAR!  issue of JTAS had designer's notes for 
5FW, and how to derive your own defense batallions and SDB strengths.  
Unfortunately, I don't have it with me today to look up.  

    Many aspects of Imperial doctrine appear to have be thought up by 
someone who never played a TCS (or similar Naval warfare) campaign; 
they just don't work in practice.  For instance, after some TCS 
campaigning, it turns out that the Battlerider/Battleship controversy 
is a non-issue:  if your enemy does not have meson weapons, use 
Battleships, because the jump drive allows you to get your expensive 
hull and jump drive away when your guns and M-drive have been 
crippled, and if he does have meson weapons, use Battleriders because 
a meson hit is just as likely to cripple the J-drive as any other 
system.  With the battleships just as likely to be lost as the 
battlerider, the battlerider's ability to carry more weaponry, 
screens, armor and fighters makes a difference.  Proper doctrine 
reduces the vulnerability of the tender -- it should either be fully 
combat capable, or stay the hell away from the battlefield.  

    I think that real Imperial Naval officers, who have 10,000 years 
of space combat experience to draw on, would use doctrines based on 
that experience, that make sense; therefore, I regard most of what was 
said regarding Imperial Naval doctrine in JTAS and Challenge as so 
much hogwash.  


                        -- Cynthia Higginbotham


    "Q:  What is the difference between the BATF and the Gestapo?"
    "A:  BATF agents speak English."




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

Bundle: 617
Archive-Message-Number: 7751
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 19:06:38 GMT0BST1,M3.4.0/02:00,M10.4.0/02:00
From: scs@vectis.demon.co.uk
Reply-To: scs@vectis.demon.co.uk
Subject: Non-Humans in Traveller

One of the things which makes SF for me is Non-Humans. Despite the
number of pre-generated non-human races in Traveller (Vargr, Droyne,
Hivers, K'kree, Aslan) there seems to be no establised method of
rolling your own. Do the members of the list have any hints, tips or
suggestions on how to create a believable non-human race, for use as
either PCs or NPCs? Are there any favourites out there from the
annals of Traveller history?

P.S. Has anyone else noticed the similarities between the RCES
Marines as portrayed in Smash & Grab and the MI from Heinlein's
Starship Troopers?

P.P.S. Being a relative newcomer to the list, I would value the
input of those who chose to leave the list when TNE was launched, so
I vote for the 'temporary two lists' idea. (I have CT, MT and TNE.)

Stuart.



- ---
scs@vectis.demon.co.uk


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

Bundle: 616
Archive-Message-Number: 7745
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 21:47:57 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: TNE: Sword Worlds Technology

Gentlesophonts:

The Hans and David show continues.  :-)

Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:

> I think we've lost track of the original question.

Probably.  :-)

> As I recall it (correct
> me if I'm wrong) you started out by asking how come Gram was the leader of
> the Sword Worlds when Sacnoth was so much more powerful. 

Yes, I think that's it.

> I assumed that
> you were talking about powerful in the naval sense (since a TL or two
> dosen't mean nearly as much as the population size in the economic sense).

Okay, here's where I diverge.  I was thinking more along the lines of
`economic' strength, which I agree is tied to population, than mere naval
strength.  Keep in mind that Gram and Sacnoth are on the same order of
population (6 billion and 3 billion, respectively).  Narsil is at 20
billion but it's two TLs below Sacnoth.  Still, in a feudal technocracy,
one tech level is going to make a *tremendous* amount of difference.  (It's
like the difference between Japan and Mexico if Japan's economic power 
gave it corresponding political power in Mexico.)

> Since then I've tried to defend the notion that the economic cycles are
> _possible_. I don't say that they definitely must be, that there are no
> other possibilities. Just that they are perfectly possible. I don't try
> to prove that they exist, only that they could exist. OK? Nor did I use
> them to explain the disparity of different TLs.

I believe I've accepted that these cycles *might* exist and that if they
do they would explain Gram's leadership of the Confederation.  My concern
has been that I can't see what *causes* these `techno-economic' cycles
(since we've agreed they have no `real world' parallel) and that I don't
see how they explain the tech level disparities.

> >>(Remember, I also assume that a world can 
> >>maintain ships and equipment at least two levels above their own TL)
> > 
> >I'm not sure this is really relevant to our discussion

No, sorry, I meant I didn't think *my* rebuttal was relevant!  :-)  I get
the point you were making which was why I said:

> >Of course, you're going to say she can because her world was at TL 8 when
> >she went to trade school two decades ago.  :-)

I just disagree with you though when you say:

> But my whole point is that they _will_ have much more than a clue. The
> knowledge is there even if the industry isn't.

I feel that it takes more than just knowledge.  I don't care how much you
know about internal combustion engines, if you can't refine oil to make
gasoline and you don't have a continental highway network you're going
to have a rough time getting your Yugo or Hyundai from Houston to Detroit.
The knowledge may be there on a lower tech world but the corresponding
infrastructure isn't.

> No, it proves that the authors of a board game have different priorities
> from the authors of a role-playing game.

Now wait a minute!  :-)  What happened to:

> I really think you should try to make up an explanation that fits the known
> facts rather than to make up an explanation and change the facts to fit them.

And:

> IMO one should prefer
> the one that corresponds most closely to GDWs version.

Please, Hans, I've got a smile on my face right now and there is absolutely
no malice in it.  I'm enjoying the living daylights out of our discussions.

> Not in terms of the economy according to _Trillion Credit Squadron_. The
> GPP (Gross Planetary Product) of Gram is close to that of Sacnoth and that
> of Narsil is a lot bigger.

Well, I think we're beginning to see there are some serious conflicts
between *5FW*, *TCS* and the TNE military forces per *POT*.

> The troops are marked with TL: One brigade from
> Gram is TL 11 and one from Joyeuse is TL 10.

Hmmm, Steve Bonneville has reported:

> Note that Gram is stated to be TL 10!

Looks like there is a discrepancy *within* *5FW* between the counters (TL 11)
and the map board (TL 10).  Is this the case?

More Hans:

> The whole force is much less than the total available Sword World forces;
> the attack on the Imperium appears to be a secondary effort. Most of 
> their prime units must have gone against the Darrians. Any Gram TL 12
> units could be there.

Well, maybe, but this doesn't agree with the campaign as it was reported in
*Spinward Marches Campaign*.  According to *SMC*, the Narsil Fleet patrolled
the Darrian border (and eventually lost the disputed worlds in Querion to
the Darrians) while the Sacnoth Fleet patrolled the rimward border and
was eventually destroyed by the Imperial 214th Fleet attacking from Glisten
and occupying what became the Border Worlds.  Note the Narsil Fleet was
deployed against the lower tech Darrians rather than the Imperial Navy.

> So what the Traveller SWs owe to Piper is actually little more than
> the concept of the sword names.

Well, not exactly.  There are other similarities.  The whole feudal
technocracy thing.  The *JTAS* article on the former Sword Worlds naval
captain who's spouse/fiance was killed on their wedding day so she sold
the family estate to buy a ship and chase the killers - nothing more
than Lucas Trask in a dress!

> The societies are different in a number of
> ways too (Women accepted in 'male' roles for instance).

I think this `liberation' issue is merely a matter of when Piper was 
writing (early 60's) versus when GDW was creating Traveller (late 70's).
Remember, the GDW material makes a big deal of the `mis-treatment' of
women in the Sword Worlds.  As Steve Bonneville points out:

>  The ranking flag, Riksdattar, is
>  much like Santanocheev.  [Incidentally, if her name is formed
>  in the Icelandic manner, Riksdattar is a woman.  Just an
>  observation for the SW culture watchers.]

I think there's a great deal of similarity between Piper's Sword Worlds
and GDW's Sword Worlds on the issue of how women are portrayed/treated.

>  _Cats&Rats_ 

You mean *Solomani and Aslan*?  Ouch!  :-)

> says that they left
> Terra in -420. That they used 29 years to get to the Spinward Marches
> implies a desire to get _really_ away from it all. My interpretation is
> that they were losers in a civil war in the Old Earth Union. Not official.

This sounds like a good rationalization.

> That's just what I said. It's two different and independent bits of my
> argument. The disparate TLs indicates a close tie to economy. Economy can
> (and often does) fluctuate. Ergo TLs can fluctuate. If you postulate that 
> Sword World economy dosen't fluctuate you get stable TLs. If you postulate 
> that it does you get unstable TLs.

Okay, but why suppose these still-unexplained cycles when they're not needed
to explain the disparity?  If the different economies are merely at
different stages of development (with higher TL being an indication of
greater `advancement') there is no need of these cycles.  Then Zhodani aid,
already well established in the canonical material, explains why Gram has
lead the Confederation when one would expect more advanced (higher tech)
Sacnoth to do so.

> Certainly. The stable economy theory. But one set of UPPs isn't enough to
> say anything one way or the other about this.

Ah, but what about *all* those other worlds *outside* the Sword Worlds 
that aren't experiencing these cycles?  What `facts' suggest the Sword
Worlds should be different from the rest of the universe?

> several sets of UPPs for the Sword Worlds, but since they have world
> populations fluctuating by bilions within a decade

Billions?  Really?  Can you cite the sources?  This is interesting from
our allegiance/borders viewpoint too.

> Are the US and Europe and Japan different countries? Yet their economies
> are tightly intertwined.

No, they're not tighly entwined politically *and* economically like the
case would be in a feudal technocracy.  A better example would be, say,
California and, heck, all the other states west of the Rockies put
together.  When California wants federal water in Montana, it gets it.
Largely because of it's greater population (which also gives it a larger
economy) which gives it greater political power in the representative
democracy we have here.

> >If the economy is interstellar then political power in interstellar...
> 
> I don't see how that follows.

By definition.  In a feudal technocracy, economic power translates *directly*
into political power.  You get to be `king' because you control the largest
share of stock.

> > Sounds like the Japanese *keiritsu* to me.
> 
> Sounds like a slightly stronger European Union to me.

Yes, it does, except that in Europe representatives are chosen through a
representative democracy that places power in the hands of individuals
equally while in a feudal technocracy (and in the *keiritsu*) those
representatives are chosen by shareholders that place power in the hands
of the owners of production.

> >>Nowadays they _do_ have a politically stable Confederation.
> > 
> >Doesn't sound like it from the above quote.
> 
> Perhaps not, but it sure sound like it from the length of time the Gram
> Coalition has lasted.

I agree.  I would explain this apparent conflict (it's a fact Gram has led
for a *long* time but it's someone's opinion that the Sworld Worlds are
`unstable') as more cleverly-disguised Imperial propaganda.

[Has anyone realized how convenient this has become for GDW?  By clearly
placing some misleading information in published works (like the library
data in the *Imperial Encyclopedia* that was identified as having a SMART
bias) they (and we) can explain away just about any inconsistency at a
latter date.  Clever, or just lucky?]

> I think that is wrong. Whatever the age of an institution, the people who
> run it usualy thinks in terms of their own generation.

Good point.

> The pacification campaigns took place before even the Ante-bellum period of
> the Imperium. The 3rd frontier War took place after the Civil War and the
> Psionic suppressions. I find no problem with accepting that Imperial
> attitudes were different in those two periods.

Another good point, but it still begs the question of the Imperium not
`dealing with' the Sword Worlds.

> I must have a different definition of 'intergration' than you. I think these
> worlds all produce whatever is most profitable at any given time and sell it
> to anyone who will buy. That's not intergration in my book.

If I'm Freya Freighters of Sacnoth and I buy a controlling interest in
Loki Levitation of Gram I have not only gained economic influence on Gram
but *political* power as well.  Since, at TL 12, I'm clearly the strongest
economic power then I'm going to gain more and more of this sort of
control.  As soon as the King Harald of Sacnoth (thanks, Cynthia) buys
a controlling interest in the holdings of King Angus of Gram, Angus 
becomes Harald's *vassal*!  That's how a feudal technocracy works.

Some really good stuff, Hans.  BTW, I think you've got the *ihatei* situation
pegged exactly.

Happy Travelling,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

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

Bundle: 617
Archive-Message-Number: 7749
From: JSHiggin@aol.com
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:17:25 EDT
Subject: Various...

Annoying statements on a variety of subjects:

Mark Cook:

> Old style rebreathers used CaCO3 to absorb CO2.  Modern rebreathers
> crack the CO2 electrically and recycle the O2.  This is the same
> method used aboard nuclear subs.

        Interesting idea, but neither of the submarines I was on did this. 
We just threw the CO2 overboard, and got our O2 by splitting seawater.


Steven M Bonneville:

> Per cubic meter of maneuver drive: (in metric tons)
 
>                  THRUST       FUEL USE  ...fuel per ton of thrust
> Daedalus drive: 1.5 ton   0.00050 ton/hr.     0.000334 ton/hr
> Fusion rocket   9.0 ton   0.00035 ton/hr.     0.000039 ton/hr
> HEPlaR drive:  33.4 ton   0.02917 ton/hr.     0.000873 ton/hr

        Someone (specifically, Steven Bonneville) has misread those tables. 
Fuel usage per ton of thrust is actually:
 
                 THRUST       FUEL USE  ...fuel per ton of thrust
Daedalus drive: 1.5 ton   0.00050 ton/hr.     0.000334 ton/hr
Fusion rocket   9.0 ton   0.00035 ton/hr.     0.00035 ton/hr
HEPlaR drive:  33.4 ton   0.02917 ton/hr.     0.000873 ton/hr

> The Daedalus drive is an order of magnitude *worse* in fuel 
> efficiency than the conventional fusion rocket!!!  Combined
> with its' worse thrust-to-mass ratio, the engine is fairly
> worthless.

        Well, no.  Not really.  Actually, in terms of fuel usage, it is
SLIGHTLY better than the fusion rocket.  But it will never be used if
fusion rockets are available, unless you can live with small
fractional-G acceleration.


> This suggests that there may be an advantage to using fusion rocket
> designs in some cases on a military vessel, perhaps as a second
> drive system.  

        I thought of this a while back.  Military vessels designed by me (as
theoretical exercises, since we don't use TNE rules) have fusion rockets
INSTEAD of Heplar.


Tariq M. Rashid:

> First of all point blank range is the principal factor in determining 
> short range.  Given a barrel at 0 degree elevation and about 1.5m
> above the ground.

        I wish that whichever idiot gave GDW that definition of "point-blank
range" had kept his ignorant mouth shut...
        "point-blank range" has absolutely NOTHING to do with height of the
gun above the ground.  It has much more to do with the little known
detail that bullets, upon leaving the barrel of any gun, rise above the
line of the barrel by a small amount.  Point-blank range is the range
that the bullet has dropped BACK down to the line of the barrel after
that rise.
        Consider this, btw.  If you use GDW's definition of point-blank
range, then almost by definition, an anti-aircraft gun of a given muzzle
velocity will have a longer point-blank range than an anti-tank gun of
the same muzzle velocity (the anti-tank gun sits low to the ground
(maybe 2 ft up), while the AA gun sits higher up (typically 5-8 ft, back
when we built AA guns))...


David Johnson:

> The *RS* says that Imperial naval fleets, which are responsible for a
> single subsector, consist of "50-200 ships".  It goes on to explain
> that these are battles, cruisers, carriers and some escorts.  Given
> this I don't see it as completely unreasonable that the Sword Worlds,
> drawing from fewer than a complete subsector's worth of worlds, are
> only able to raise 42 ships.  Yes, they may be more militarized (due
> to their culture and their Imperial experience) but they are also a
> frontier that is more thinly populated than the `average' Imperial
> subsector.  Sure, they might have twice or three times that many ships
> so rather than just saying the answer *isn't* 42  :-)  please suggest
> some alternative and provide a rationale.

        More thinly populated???  The SW have around 30 gigapeople in them,
all reasonably high tech. Regina subsector can only claim about 7
gigapeople, Rhylanor about 25, Vilis less than 10...
        Plus, of course, the 50-200 ships per subsector is ridiculously low
BY TCS STANDARDS.  In my game, Neubayern had several thousand warships,
New Colchis had more like 10,000 ships.  All the Islands together
amounted to about the resource base of the SW, and collectively, they
could muster over 1000 warships in the 50,000T+ range, plus a few more
thousand in the 10,000-50,000T range, plus another bunch in the
1000-10,000T range, plus fighters (a total of over 100,000 fighters in
the Islands).
        Besides all that, if you assume only 40-odd major Sword Worlds
warships, then the SW are in the same position the Islands were in when
the game began: any squadron of Tigresses could beat up their Naval
Forces all by itself.  Frankly, any single Tigress could beat up the SW
Fleet if it is only 40 major combatants...


> It may be hard to imagine but it's consist with canonical material.

        Do yourself a favour, and learn to ignore canonical material when it
is clearly pretty stupid.  Regina may have had 10 400T SDBs, but if it
did, ask yourself "Why?"
        There is no military use for them (any of Neubayern's Flower class
escorts (of which there were more than a thousand) could take all ten
SDBs at once.
        There is no real civilian use for them (other than to let pirates
run amok through the Regina system) - remember that Regina orbits a gas
giant, and has a HUGE jump-limit to patrol - thye couldn't patrol it
adequately with ten of ANYTHING, much less SDBs that are no match for a
well-equipped pirate.
        Customs cutters?  They'd need more than ten, given that large
jump-limit, unless Regina has civilian traffic amounting to no more than
30-40 ships per day arriving/departing.  And if that is all the civilian
traffic Regina has, then Regina's starport must be smaller than the port
of New Orleans...


> It's clear from *5FW* that SDBs depend upon world population (although
> I couldn't find a clear pattern and I played with the values from
> *5FW* and *S3:SM* for quite a while).

        There were designer's notes for FFW in one of the Journals...


> Imperial military doctrine doesn't call for SDBs to be a significant
> factor in a major war - that's the role of the Navy.  SDBs are more
> for dealing with raiders and pirates.

        Au contraire, mon vieux...Impy doctrine (which is frankly idiotic)
assumes that the battle for the gas giant between the enemy fleet and
your SDBs will be the crucial part of the defense of any system.  It is
SUPPOSED to prevent the enemy from refueling before your Fleet can reach
the GG where they arrived, thus allowing you to pound them into bloody
paste before they can escape.
        Admittedly, this isn't worth a pile of warm spit in terms of Naval
Doctrine.  I point out, for those who are interested, that in only ONE
case in my TCS game did a Fleet jump in to a gas giant, rather than
arriving at the 100 diameter limit of the main world.  And that one case
came because the attacker wanted the enemy to know he was coming, so as
to cause the enemy to be deceived as to the objective of the attack.
        In all other cases, the ships jumped in using drop tanks (and aso
arrived with enough fuel to leave, if they had to), and arrived at the
100 diameter limit, thus allowing the target only an hour or two warning
before the attack began for a response to be formed...


> Yes, this is true, but I'm not sure how this would affect redeployment
> of these forces in the face of incursions.  I doubt the Regency
> admiralty would permit these forces to be destroyed needlessly trying
> to defend their home ports.  Faced with defeat at the hands of the
> *ihatei* (or other foes) I believe they would withdraw and regroup. 

        Faced with defeat by Ihatei?!?   What a concept!!!  I suppose
Regina's ten 400T SDBs might be faced with defeat by Ihatei, if the
Ihatei could get in that far, but I find it hard to believe that any
_important_ Impy force could be defeated by the Ihatei...
        Can someone out there design a TL14 ship of no more than 30,000T
that can fight off an attack by an Impy BatRon as long as there are at
least 100 of them present?  I admit that using TNE rules, this is much
more possible than it was under either HG or MT, but it is still pretty
unlikely...

                                ---Steve

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

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