From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 29-MAY-1994 21:03:52.07
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7785-7789 V45#14

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca) by delphi.com (PMDF V4.2-14
 #6563) id <01HCXBN46ULC96WIYA@delphi.com>; Sun, 29 May 1994 21:03:49 EDT
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 21:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7785-7789 V45#14
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9405300102.AA01176@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun May 29 21:00:04 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun May 29 21:00:04 EDT 1994    Volume 45 : Issue 14

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 620  7785 26-May-1994 Steven M Bonnev  Just Detected -- RCEG (Review) << The _
 620  7787 24-May-1994 Jeff Zeitlin     74:20/7740 RICE Paper dis << Subject: 7
 621  7789 26-May-1994 Andy Lilly       Various << DEMOCRACY?
 620  7786 26-May-1994 CHiggin@aol.com  TCS, Rebellion Sourcebook,class << As u
 621  7788 26-May-1994 JSHiggin@aol.co  More bickering over TCS and RS << David

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: 620
Archive-Message-Number: 7785
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 09:54:09 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
Subject: Just Detected -- RCEG (Review)


The _Reformation Coalition Equipment Guide_ has hit the stores.

Quick comments and first impressions:

* The art in TNE is really beginning to irritate me.  Nearly every
  page has some space wasted with the rococo and worthless TNE
  pseudo-computer borders.  There's a @#$*#$& POWER SWITCH at the
  top of a lot of the pages, and I just wish it were functional so
  I could turn off the damn art.

  There's also an 8 page color spread in the middle with the, IMHO,
  mediocre to bad drawings of RCES going about their "duties", as
  so often seen in Challenge.  IMHO, a waste of four-color ink.
  A better choice would have been something like the color vehicle
  paint drawings in the T:2000 vehicle supplements, which were far
  superior in artistic merit and were useful and relevant to the
  supplement, and often enlightening in themselves.

  Some of the equipment drawings are useful.  A bright spot in the
  book's art design are the drawings of two TL14 Ithkluri weapons.
  The Hiver ships shown look like shoeboxes.  I'm trying to forgive
  in the interest of promoting alien psychology in ship design,
  but the picture of the Hiver Utility Vehicle landed on a moon
  looks very unrealistically bad.  I can deal with boxes in the
  vaccuum of space, but where's the landing legs?  The Schalli
  battle-dress looks like it escaped from _Battletech_.  Stats
  for an _Aliens_ style cargo handler are given on a battle
  dress page, but it's easy to miss because there's no art for
  it, and it's in a corner.  Shame, shame -- major art and 
  marketing oversight, IMHO, here.  (How do I know?  One of the
  color plates shows an odd variant of it.)

* The subtle and not so subtle Imperium-bashing can get a bit
  heavy for old-timers who remember what it was like even at
  it's worst.  I get the impression that the RC thinks that
  it is desigining equipment that was overlooked by the fallen
  civilization (the Imperial idiots!).  I may be reading more
  into this than is really deliberately there.

* Some new FFS rules are introduced.  The RC seems to be somewhat
  confused about the difference between a grav belt and a G-tube
  or grav bike.  Also, grav belt propulsion by ducted propellor
  somehow bothers me -- I liked the grav belt on the cover of the
  MT _Imperial Encyclopedia_.  There is no such thing as a "two
  man grav belt" -- that thing is a bedframe grav bike.  Some
  interesting musings on how gravitic fields work, and what
  happens when you stick a weapon or your arm outside the grav
  belt's field.

* Every time they say that independents have trouble getting RC
  body sleeves, I ask, "Why would they want one?"  I miss the 
  IISS TL15 uniform vacc suits, which made the IISS look more
  like professionals, IMHO, and less like superheros in their
  long-johns.  There's a very comic book feel to TNE in the RC,
  and if I wanted to play in the comic books, I'd play _V&V_ or
  _Champions_ or the like.  I don't.  This goes back to art.
  Ditto for the battle dress -- especially the light model that
  looks like the poor fool is wearing a corset.  Now Imperial,
  Solomani, or Zhodani battle dress from MT and previous -- 
  those are much more interesting. 

* The info included seems more useful.  There are some equipment
  designs, a lot of weapon designs with associated rounds and
  magazines, and a fair number of vehicle and starship designs.
  Modules for the _Auroras_ are included.  A TNE _Trepida_ is
  included, designated by the RC as _Intrepid_ (they thought
  the Imperial designation was inappropriate.)  The companion
  _Astrin_ APC is not included, nor the ballistic vehicle 
  re-entry system the IMC used, which seems like it would be
  a good candidate for inclusion, considering the uses intended
  for this supplement.  (Admittedly, we haven't seen that system
  spelled out in stats yet in the game.)  A MT-era Solomani design
  for a "grav tank" called the _Chariot_ is included, here called
  the _Pyrrhus_ since it isn't really a MBT grav tank, and if
  used like one....  The art used for it is familiar, but I
  don't know if the _Chariot_ was in DGP's _101 Vehicles_, or
  if they're just reusing the picture for, say, the Gram grav
  tank.

  Also, comments in the text indicate that the Hive Federation
  is able to equip its' Ithkluri Marines at TL 14 already, and
  that they are *exporting* TL 13 parts to the RC.  DGP stated
  that the Federation was at TL 15/16 before the Rebellion
  (marginally superior to the Imperium), and since the only
  damage they suffered was due to the Collapse itself, I suspect
  the Federation is well on its' way to becoming the pre-eminent
  technological and trading power in Charted Space.

Summary.  I'm still a bit unsettled about this one.  If I get it,
it will only be to strip out the useful stuff and chuck the bizarre.
I've never seen a book so putatively realistic that gave me such
a sense of unreality.  Your milage may vary -- I'd like to hear
other people's opinions, especially the newer players.  


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


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

Bundle: 620
Archive-Message-Number: 7787
Subject: 74:20/7740 RICE Paper dis
From: nntp!execnet.com!jeff.zeitlin@uu5.psi.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 19:02:00 -0500

Subject: 74:20/7740 RICE Paper discussions

 ::>a little too tongue-in-cheek? :-)  Can anyone post a RICE paper?

 Sure.  I was thinking that consistency of textual material would 
 be a Good Thing, but since these things _are_ done by different 
 field reporters, they would actually reflect the different styles.  
 The only thing that I would suggest is that the XUWP be kept in 
 the standard format as presented in RICE Paper #0000, modified as 
 discussed below, and that no lettered RICE Paper be published 
 until the numbered RICE Paper that it is associated with has been 
 published.  Also, since under this scheme there is a possibility 
 that multiple RICE Papers may get published simultaneously, I 
 would recommend NOT assigning a number, but instead using the TML 
 number of the message that contains the RICE Paper.  Of course, if 
 a lettered Paper is being published, _that_ one gets an assigned 
 number based on the appropriate numbered Paper.

 Also, RICE was just a fortuitous acronym.  I almost changed it 
 when I saw what it led to, but decided that I liked it...  The DCE 
 and DTE were deliberate, though... I wonder how many people caught 
 the pun...

T::>> Appendix A:  The Extended UWP
 ::>>
 ::>> The extended UWP appears as follows:
 ::>>
 ::>> Line 1:  Name of planet, followed by subsector name, sector name,
 ::>>          and sector coordinates, in parentheses

T::>What with the uncertain timelines and all maybe it would be a good idea
 ::>to include a `date' for when the RICE paper was written that ties it to
 ::>the source for the basic UWP data?

 Absolutely, good thought.  I'll add that in RICE Paper #0001 (or 
 whatever number it turns out to be, per the revised method of 
 numbering ).  As it stands, Spinward Marches except Regina 
 Subsector is per Imperial Chamber of Commerce issues as of 1116 or 
 thereabouts (Megatraveller Imperial Encyclopedia); Regina 
 Subsector is per Regency Board of Economic Development issues as 
 of about 1200 (Traveller: The New Era).  I know I have Deneb 
 Sector somewhere, and I think it's of the 1116 issue, but I'm not 
 sure.  If someone has "accurate" info, contact me off the list so 
 that we can arrange appropriate information transfer...
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
- ---
 ~ QMPro 1.52 ~ Racism hurts everyone.

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

Bundle: 621
Archive-Message-Number: 7789
Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 10:02:27 +0100
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
Subject: Various

DEMOCRACY?

Re 616/7745 djohnson:
> ...in Europe representatives are chosen through a representative democracy
> that places power in the hands of individuals equally while in a
> feudal technocracy those representatives are chosen by shareholders that
> place power in the hands of owners of production.
(Any spelling errors are mine, not Dave's)

Hmm. Perhaps ideally... :-) It might be fairer to note that the 'elected' 
representatives only get where they are by lying, back-handers, use of the 
media to portray them as 'nice people', etc. [allegedly]. They rarely think 
for themselves, preferring to tow the 'party line'. In the case of a certain 
current European government within a few miles of myself, the strings are, 
in reality, pulled totally by the owners of production, who ensure the 
politicians vote as they desire in order that they can maintain their high 
profits and so that the politicians can become directors when they retire 
from politics. Perhaps not so different from a feudal technocracy? :-) or 
should it be :-( ?

THE SWORD WORLDS 'DEBATE'
A lot of the problem seems to be over someone having TL11 and not having as 
good starships as a TL12 world, etc. Given the World Builder's Handbook, for 
TL11, maximum TL for a particular facet (power, ships, domestic, etc.) is 11 
+ (11/5) = 13. So in theory the world might be rated TL11 but actually still 
retain (or have built up to) TL12 or TL13 in their starship production. This 
might well be the case if the world was particularly worried about being 
able to defend itself from attack. Perhaps the TL12 ship production is 
military only, so all other ships (traders, etc.) are only TL11. Perhaps the 
domestic economy (if you play TL as a reflection of economy) has suffered to 
make up for this input into the military such that the populace only has TL9 
or worse facilities. Just some thoughts...

WHY DOESN'T EVERYONE HAVE THE BOMB?
New Scientist once carried an article describing how to make a nuclear bomb 
in your own home. It did point out that you'd die of radiation poisoning but 
that if the exercise was being carried out by a terrorist this might not 
matter. Given the theory that plutonium is available by cash or manufacture, 
how does one get it? Obvious answer is to go and TAKE it. That's what 
terrorists could do. If your own country isn't suitable, pop across to a 
nearby dissolving multi-state ex iron-curtain country, tip some guards a few 
credits and walk off with a preprepared warhead. Hell, take the whole 
missile. :-)

To apply this to a wider range of products, even should your own world be 
TL11 and unable to supply TL12 replacements for your bought-in TL12 
thingummy-jigs, there's no reason why you shouldn't buy, steal or smuggle 
such from other worlds. If it's important enough then I would assume a 
government would be quite willing to go many jumps and deal with less than 
scrupulous worlds in order to obtain what they want. You only have to look 
at today's arms trade.

"What's this consignment of pipes for Iraq?"
 "Oh, just some plumbing for a water refinery."
"And these huge pointed bullet-like cylinders."
 "I think they go along inside the pipes - for cleaning... probably..."

alternatively...

"So you never did see this memo mentioning this firm selling 
gun-manufacturing machinery to this country?"
 "I have so many pieces of paper passing across my desk I can't possibly read
 every one. Anyway the machinery was marked as for industrial use."
"But that's because your own government department tipped them off that if 
they made any implication the machinery could make weapons they'd be refused 
an export permit."
 "Er..."

or even...

Foreign gentleman:
"About this dam you've been so kind to invest in..."
Govt trade rep:
 "Oh yes old chap?" (knowing smile)
"Just happen to have a few contracts for your military boys..."
 "Oh, how jolly nice of you."
"Nothing to do with the dam of course..."
 "Of course not. How silly. Incidentally, do you need any 'investment' anywhere
 else?"

GREEN VIRUS
Thanks Steve and Cynthia. Anyone else care to play?

Enough for now...

Andy
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: 620
Archive-Message-Number: 7786
From: CHiggin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 11:01:50 EDT
Subject: TCS, Rebellion Sourcebook,class


As usual, most of my arguments are with Dave Johnson... :-)

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

>I think this acceptance of air, sea and land forces and the subsequent
>focus on land forces (which goes all the way back to *Mercenary*) is
>way too much 20th Century thinking and not enough 57th(?) Century
>thinking.  

    Yep.  Blame GDW...  they could have modeled Classic Traveller on 
Star Wars, or Star Trek, both of which show signs of thinking 
"futuristic", but instead went with "1970s with Starships"...  

>The next time you think 20th Century experience is relevant
>for Traveller planetary combat ask yourself how well a Prussian cavalry
>officer might envision a carrier battle group hunting for attack
>submarines.

    He would quite rightly suggest that it was the province of the 
Navy, not the cavalry, to envision such things...  

    If you think the modern or future world has nothing to learn from 
the military geniuses of the past, why is Sun Tzu's "Art of War" 
required reading for U.S.  Marine officers?  (I have read Sun Tzu; 
much of his commentary is timeless.)  


>Yes, but again we are limited by our own concepts of submarines.  The

    I'm not; I watched "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" as a kid.  
:-) I still think the Flying Sub was neat...  

>This is fine with me.  So what do we do now?  What is the rationale for
>accepting the *TCS* or other `tactical' part of the canon *over* the *RS* or
>other `strategic' part of the canon?

    A) personal preference.
    B) TCS is based on world economies directly; given X people at 
Techno-Economic Level Y, you get X*Y*C credits to play with.  Make up 
and apply a good thumb-rule for translating credits to number of hulls 
at Z tons each, based on known prices of ships as listed in the rules.  
Poof, you have a number of ships per region (sub-sector, sector, 
square foobars) that is consistant with the rest of the rules (i.e., 
makes sense).  The Rebellion Sourcebook stuff seems to be a lot of 
"we'll pull an even number out of thin air and write it down...".  

    On the other hand, for poltical reasons, the Imperium may be 
building a lot fewer ships than it is capable of...  (a) most of its 
yard production may be in mercantile shipping (the "phantom" bulk 
haulers once discussed on the TML), (b) member worlds may be 
exploiting the advantage of being in a large Imperium:  an Imperium 
needs fewer ships to defend its borders than the sum of the ships each 
member world would need to defend itself.  Therefore, member worlds 
need spend much less tax money and build fewer non-producer
(military) vessels than an independent world would.  Note that both
arguments assume that both TCS & RS numbers are valid in the same
universe.
    The objection to this argument is that if argument (b) is true, 
the Imperial economy should be booming...  so why do we have so many 
worlds with the Techno-economic levels of banana republics?  And, the 
numbers given in 5FW and RS sources are *TOO* low to defend the 
borders of the Imperium, even with the size advantage -- not when one 
independent world can produce a big enough fleet to seriously threaten 
the entire Spinward Marches, IF the Spinward Marches fleets are as 
small as suggested in RS.  

    You could also argue that *only* 5FW & RS numbers are valid; I 
simply cannot stomach that.  When GWP (Gross World Product) CAN be 
estimated based on listed population and required standards-of-living 
from the MegaTraveller rules, and ship construction costs are known 
from the same rules (likewise, both facts can be ascertained in CT 
rules), IT MAKES NO SENSE for worlds to build a tiny fraction of the 
Navy they are capable of building, especially when their "lives, 
fortunes and sacred honor" are threatened by (pick one) Imperial 
conquest, Zho conquest, Sword World raiders, Vargr raiders, Solomani 
conquest, K'kree militant vegetarianism, etc, etc, etc.  

>> 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.

>You know someone with 10,000 years of space combat experience?  :-)

    You're being silly.  I can go to my bookcase and pull out two 
military works by generals dead over 2000 years, both from Empires 
that have undergone worse "Dark Ages" and worse Tech Level losses than 
space-faring humanity ever did in Traveller...  The Vilani have been 
spacefaring for 10,000 years, and fighting other spacefarers for a 
signficant fraction of that.  Add in Aslan military history (2000 
years), Terran military history (3000+ years), Zhodani, Vargr, and 
K'kree military history (several more thousands of years), and you 
have one hell of a huge body of "Theory and Practice of Interstellar 
Warfare".  

    I quote you:  "way too much 20th Century thinking and not enough 
57th(?)  Century thinking."  You are forgetting the sheer weight of 37 
centuries... for Terran humanity alone.  How much have we (Real World)
learned about the Art of War in 3700 years?  A lot.  How much have we 
forgotten?  None.  In a Dark Age, the Art and Technology of War is the
one thing that advances, rather than declining...


>We've already established this.  Again, what is the rationale for
>accepting `tactical' figures from places like *TCS* over `strategic'
>figures from *RS* and the like?

You asked this already.  In the same letter.  See above.

>What I'm asking is why you choose to accept *TCS* data over *RS* 
>data?

I understand that.  Read this letter.

>What do we have here?  The Cult of the Trillion Credit Squadron?
>:-) I'm not trying to argue what *TCS* says.  What I want to know is
>*why* I should ignore *5FW* and *RS* in favor of *HG* and *TCS*?

    There is *at least* a one-day "jump lag" between you posting a 
letter, and all the responses to it coming in.... and you asked this 
question already.

>More Cult dogma?  The *Rebellion Sourcebook* clearly indicates that 
>most of Glisten subsector as well as portions of District 268 and 
>Trin's Veil subsector fell at one point to the *ihatei*.  Once again
>we see that the `strategic' viewpoint conflicts with a `tactical' 
>one. How do we choose, rationally, between the two?  Can we reconcile
>them at all?

    You've seen Hans' opinions about the Ihatei doing anything in 
Glisten or Trin's Veil...  his opinion is similar to ours.  To be 
kind, most of GDW's Rebellion-era material is not the highest quality 
they've ever produced.  Also, don't 5FW counters (including the SDBs) 
represent Squadrons and Fleets, rather than individual ships?

>    Finally, I've got a question for all you *TCS* cult members.  Is
>there any clear way to identify ship types or classes based upon
>tonnages?  In other words, is there some breakdown like:

>Battles          100,000+
>Cruisers         40,000 - 100,000
>Destroyers       5000 - 40,000
>Etc.?
>    What about types/classes themselves?  Is there some finer
>breakdown than battles, cruisers, carriers, escorts, etc.?

    Yes. Tonnages are approximate, based on classes from Supplement 9,
and from memory.  Classes are usually based on size and intended use.

Primary function: slug it out with other large ships; has
spinal mount; jump capable; aka "Capital ships".

100,000+ tons           - Battleship
70,000 - 100,000t       - Heavy Cruiser, Battlecruiser
40,000 - 60,000t        - Cruiser
20,000 - 40,000t        - Light Cruiser, Cruiser

Primary function: as above, not jump capable.

over 5,000t             - Rider, BattleRider

Primary function: carry small combatants (fighters, SDBs)

any size            - Carrier
add armor           - Armored Carrier
add spinal mount    - Strike Carrier

Primary function: carry large combatants (Riders)

any size            - Tender
add armor, weapons  - Battletender (?)

Primary function: escort capital ships and carriers, engage SDBs, 
light riders, badly-designed fighters and mop up damaged capital 
ships.

1000-3000 tons      - Escort, Light Escort
3000-10,000 tons    - Destroyer, Destroyer Escorts
10,000-20,000 tons  - rarely seen for some reason. (Frigate ?)


Primary function: commerce raiding, anti-piracy patrols, customs 
cutters.

300-1000 tons       - Close Escort, Patrol Escort("Patrol Cruiser")
1000-3000 tons      - Escorts as above, on independent or convoy duty.


Primary function: engage similar combatants or cruisers, travel in 
large battle groups of same type. (My own designation, based on an 
extra-Imperial nation with non-standard doctrine).

3000-20,000 tons    - Corvette or Frigate

Primary function: small non-jump combatants, delivered in swarms to 
battlezone, or used for commerce raiding.

50-200 tons         - heavy fighter, small SDB. If well-designed, can
                    disable capital ships if in large numbers.
20-50 tons          - fighter.  Commerce raider.  Cannon fodder.
6-20 tons           - light fighter, interface fighter. Cannon fodder.

>    Is there a way to tell a frigate from a destroyer, etc. 
>(besides what the designer choose to call it)?

    Beats the hell out of me.  Depends if you are using classic 
European usage or modern American usage for the term "frigate".  The 
former means a large ship, not quite as big as a "ship of the line".  
(the USS Constitution was a frigate) Modern equivalent would be heavy 
cruiser or cruiser.  The latter usage means a small escort, smaller 
than a destroyer with slightly different duties.  
    American frigates were formerly called "Destroyer Escorts".  The 
purpose of the Destroyer is clearer if you remember that the name is 
short for "Submarine Destroyer".  As a carrier group or battlegroup 
escort, the destroyer's job is anti-submarine warfare; the frigate's 
job is manning the radar pickets (listening for enemy aircraft, ships 
or missiles in coming) out there at the edges of the fleet.  Ideally, 
the frigate is between the Carrier (or Battleship) and its 
accompanying cruisers and the enemy, and will "see" (and handle 
fire-control against) the enemy before the enemy can "see" the core of 
the Carrier Group.  Or something like that.  
    And I have no idea what a Traveller Frigate would be good for 
(spatial equivalent?)  In any case, the type names are chosen by the 
military based on intended use, not by the designer.  The U.S. Navy 
has changed the type names of several ships during their lifespans, as
they were refitted and given different duties.

                            -- Cynthia

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

Bundle: 621
Archive-Message-Number: 7788
From: JSHiggin@aol.com
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 16:10:55 EDT
Subject: More bickering over TCS and RS

David Johnson:

>> 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.

> Not necessarily the case.

    Necessarily.  If you don't have orbital control, your guys won't ever
get to the ground (at least I haven't been able to think of a way to get
more than a small fraction of an assault force down to a defended planet
while an enemy fleet existed insystem).


> What kind of forces is the Regency going to use to chase that Vampire
> Fleet from behind the Black Curtain back across Corridor, mopping up
> or `cleansing' worlds along the way?

    They'll use lots of large nuclear warheads...:-)


>> 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.

> How long does it take if I have contragravity?  :-)

    Probably just as long.  Civilians don't have a good appreciation of
just how much STUFF an Army needs to move to function.  It's not just
tanks and APCs and howitzers and men.  The tanks and APCs and howitzers
amount to only a small part of any military force larger than a company.



> The `1000 ships per sector' and `50-200 ships per numbered [subsector]
> fleet' figures are from the *Rebellion Sourcebook*, a MegaTraveller
> reference.  It was these numbers that I used to estimate the Sword
> Worlds naval forces at 42 ships.

    This is for the IMPERIUM ONLY!  Not for ANYONE else...


>>  Plus, of course, the 50-200 ships per subsector is ridiculously low
>> BY TCS STANDARDS.

> We've already established this.  Again, what is the rationale for
> accepting `tactical' figures from places like *TCS* over `strategic'
> figures from *RS* and the like?

    So let's ask another question:  What makes you think *RS* qualifies
as "strategic"?  Big picture is NOT the same as "strategic", fyi.


>> Frankly, any single Tigress could beat up the SW
>> Fleet if it is only 40 major combatants...

> Even if it had several 200,000 ton battles?  Is this a tech level issue?

    Yes.  Even if it had 40 1,000,000T battleships.  This, like all
military issues, is a TL issue.  TL dominates tactics in Trav, it
dominates operations, it dominates strategy.  It even dominates
logistics...
    If you ignore TL, then EVERYTHING you say about the military situation
in Trav is meaningless drivel...


>>  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?"

> What I'm asking is why you choose to accept *TCS* data over *RS* data?

    Because RS is inconsistent with the reality presented in other places.
For instance, the ability to fight an interstellar war WITHOUT resorting
to sterilization of worlds is a function of military strength.  With a
small number of ships, it becomes impossible to move large enough units
to the target area.  And if you can't take the world, you either leave it
alone (and if it is safe to leave it alone, then there was no point in
coming here in the first place), or you sterilize it.
    Yet Trav REPEATEDLY described successful invasions of worlds.  Several
in the FFW, more in the Rebellion.  WHERE DID THE SHIPS COME FROM?
Supposedly, the total amount of shipping available to the Imperium was
declining steadily during the Rebellion, yet they were coming up with
invasion forces right up to the point when the fighting ground to a halt.
    If Dulinor had had 2000 ships at the start of the Rebellion, where did
he get the resources to conquer whole subsectors?  Certainly, 2000 ships
weren't it.  Unless EVERY one of the 2000 ships could move an entire
division of high-tech troops, which they couldn't (The Tigress is the only
Impy ship ever described that could move a division, though mention of
assault transports was made)...


>>  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.

> You're "mixing apples and orange".  Why would I choose to have a *TCS*-
> generated aggressor fight a *5FW*-generated defender?

    No, I'm describing a SINGLE SHIP.  Designed using HG, which was the
system used to design that SDB.  You are assuming that a ship designed
under High Guard is somehow different than another ship designed using
High Guard just because the one ship was designed for a TCS game, and
the other was designed as a bit of local color for the Traveller game?
Ridiculous!


>>  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.

> Let's see what a little creative rationalization can do with this.  I
> postulate one or more fuel refining depots in orbit about the gas giant.
> There are strictly controlled traffic corridors between the 100-diameter
> jump point, the fuel depots and Regina itself.  85% percent of incoming
> traffic and 100% of outgoing traffic passes through these corridors.  Of
> course, some `unauthorized' traffic might skirt these corridors but I'm
> not worried about protecting them from corsairs anyway.

    Let's use a calculator instead.  Regina's 100 diameter limit is about
12,000,000Km.  One incoming corridor, one outgoing corridor means 24 giga-
meters to patrol with your 10 ships.  Which means each ship has at least
2,400,000Km to patrol (assuming the ships are NEVER down for maintenance
and things like that).  Weapon range of 300,000Km means you have to run
900,000Km to get within weapon range of a pirate attacking someone as far
from you as he is likely to get.  Which means that you take about an hour
and a half to get within firing range of the pirate if you had your hands
on the controls just waiting for this to happen.  If the pirate is at all
competent, he can blow up his target in half an hour, and be gone well
beyond your sensor range before you get there.  If, on the other hand, he
is stupid enough to be trying to capture the ship, he'll have done that
in an hour, and you'll find yourself with a velocity differential of
about 330Km/s relative to him (he won't be in weapon range, because he'll
have run AWAY from your line of flight for that very purpose).  If he's
pulling 4G, and you 6G, you'll catch him in about 4.5 hours, which is
about two hours longer than it'll take him to reach the jump limit if
he's smart.  And if he's stupid enough to not jump before you reach him,
then you have to figure out how to beat him up before you overshoot
him (about an hour at your current relative velocities), WITHOUT killing
the innocent civilians on the captured ship.  Of course, to complicate
your planning on beating him up, you have to keep in mind that he is
twice as big as you are, and twice as well armed, and your nearest friend
is around 3,000,000Km away still.  And if he is smart, then he has a very
good friend running amok through your shippin lanes while you are off
chasing him...:-)
    As most of the old TMLers can tell you, I think piracy will never work
in Trav.  But the situation you described is about as close to paradise
for a pirate as I can imagine in Trav - lots of traffic in a small area (thus
saving you the trouble of FINDING targets), defenders spread out all over
that traffic lane (thus letting you know where they are so you can avoid
them).


> I came up with this in about 30 seconds.  Give me a couple of weeks and
> I'll make those 10 SDBs *invaluable*!  (As long as you don't restrict me
> to *5FW* constraints while you use *TCS*.)

    I'm not restricting you to ANY constraints.  I am using HG to design
pirates, you are using HG to design SDBs (the one in question is the
standard SDB from the Trav game (and Mt, and TNE, in different
incarnations).  It has NOTHING to do with FFW.  FFW just provided the
background for GDW to describe the SDB.  And if you'd like to design a
BETTER SDB (using HG, or any other rules set) feel free.  It won't make
a difference, any more than it would make a difference whether the US Navy
used ten PT boats or ten Iowa class BBs to patrol the US coastline.  The
problem isn't the capability of the patrol ship, the problem is the
NUMBER of the patrol ships.  Keep in mind that your ten ships can only be
TEN places at once...


>>  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.

> Remember MegaTraveller?  The Imperium only fights for high population
> worlds.  In *5FW*, high pop worlds have *hundreds* of SDBs that are able
> to match the jump-mobile naval squadrons.  Furthermore, I believe that
> *JTAS* said that the 10 Regina SDBs deployed in the gas giant's atmosphere
> in order to `harrass' opposing forces.  There was even a rule in the
> game for declaring your SDBs `active' or `passive' or some such thing.

    If the Imperium only fights for high pop worlds, how did they grab
the Border Worlds from the SW?  Only one High Pop world there, so they
shouldn't have touched any of the SW except Sacnoth...
    As to "*hundreds* of SDBs", that is irrelevant to the utility of
the SDBs that Regina supposedly sent to the GG.  You have to assume that
the Commander of the Regina System Defenses knew what he was about.  So
he obviously expected to accomplish something by deploying ten 400T SDBs
to Regina's GG.  But WHAT?
    As to "harassing", what harassment could those offer to a battleship?
Or even a Fleet Escort?  I think if you drag HG out, you'll find that
any combatant larger than a DE can deal with any possible action by ten
of those generic SDBs without breaking a sweat.  In fact, I venture to
suggest that ONE (1) Impy Sylea class fighter could deal with anything
those ten SDBs could do to harass anything...
    And "active" meant that your SDBs did something (mostly died), while
"passive" meant they did nothing (and therefore lived, but accomplished
nothing while doing so).


>>  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.

> What do we have here?  The Cult of the Trillion Credit Squadron?  :-)
> I'm not trying to argue what *TCS* says.  What I want to know is *why* I
> should ignore *5FW* and *RS* in favor of *HG* and *TCS*?

    No.  We have people who like to do EXPERIMENTS!  Try it some time.
Pick out a rules set you like.  Design ships.  Design a Doctrine for
using the ships.  Deploy the ships IAW your Doctrine.  Then let some-
one ELSE design ships, and a Doctrine, and let him put his Doctrine and
ships up against YOUR Doctrine and ships.  DON'T take GDW's word for
waht works.  Or mine.  And don't GUESS!  Get off your lazy behind and
FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF!
    As to the question of strategy and tactics and operations, if your
Doctrine doesn't cover ALL of them, it won't be worthwhile for anything
other than defending a system that YOU are in (you can't give tactical
orders to a froce that is three weeks travel away from you...).
    In my TCS game (which was more a strategic game than a tactical game,
and more an operational game than either one), TACTICS didn't actually
mean very much.  All the players could do is decribe BROADLY what
tactics their fleets should use (what "the Book"said).  The normal
decisions they made were operational and strategic (how should we spend
our money to advance our goals?  Where should we deploy ships to?  How
many should we deploy there?)
    As to why you should ignore FFW and RS, consider:
    1)  Built into FFW and RS is GDW's picture of "tactics" and "ship
design" and "logistics" and everything else.  Which means that
accepting their picture of the Impy Navy requires that you accept
their picture of how a battle is fought.  (Remember those SDBs which
are actively defending the GG?  Or passively hiding there?  Well,
they don't accomplish much UNLESS I go to the Gas giant!  FFW assumes
that a Fleet MUST go to the gas giant (and that there is only ONE gas
giant)  So the function of those pieces in that game assume a certain
tactics used by all sides.  Which is all well and good IFF those tactics
are the BEST tactics possible given the TECHNOLOGY!  They aren't.  In
three TCS games I've run, I saw only three attacks that used the gas
giants the way GDW said they were used.  All three failed.  I saw only
ONE attempt to defend at the gas giants the way GDW said they should be
defended.  It was the most disastrous defeat for the defending Navy I
have EVER seen.
    Note that the three attacks using GGs the way GDW said they were used
were all involving UNDEFENDED gas giants.
    2)  Neither of those games deals effectively with ANYTHING but the
Impy forces in general, and the non-Impy forces in the Spinward Marches.
This ignores too much of the Trav Universe, and requires that you
assume that the K'Kree, the Hivers, the Solomani, the Aslan, and the
countless Vargr states ALL FIGHT THE SAME WAY!  This is incredibly
stupid, UNLESS the "SAME WAY" is the BEST way to fight.  I have seen
too much HG combat to believe that "defend the gas giant, fight them
as they come from the GG to the main world, defend the main world" is
the BEST way to do anything.  I have also seen too much to believe that
"attack the GG to refuel, move to the main world while beating up their
fleet, attack the main world" is the best way to attack anything...
    3)  And finally, neither of these sources is "strategic", which is
the only thing you claim for them that TCS isn't also.  Both are only
vaguely related to any military factor other than number of
ships/men/tanks, etc.  Which any student of the military can tell you
is pretty insignificant compared to other concerns...


>>  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...

> More Cult dogma?  The *Rebellion Sourcebook* clearly indicates that most
> of Glisten subsector as well as portions of District 268 and Trin's Veil
> subsector fell at one point to the *ihatei*.  Once again we see that the
> `strategic' viewpoint conflicts with a `tactical' one.  How do we choose,
> rationally, between the two?  Can we reconcile them at all?

    You assume that GDW did more than arbitrarily decide the fate of the
Ihatei and GListen, eh?
    You seem unaware that strategy grows out of tactics/logistics/operations
and that tactics grow out of strategy/operations/logistics.  If you can move
your army 30 miles in one day, your "strategy" cannot call for the capture of
an enemy position 300 miles from your nearest forces three days from now.
Because if your strategy DOES call for such, then you'll have to change
strategies in three days when your men fail to accomplish the objective you
have set for them.  And if your strategy requires that worlds be taken
intact, then they cannot be bombarded with nukes and dinosaur killers.
    If the Operational Simulation produces different battle results than
the tactical simulation, then the operational simulation is a bad simulation.
Once your operational simulation produces results consistent with playing
out under a tactical suimulation, then you can proceed to determining
whether the strategic elements decribed in RS are actually relevant to your
operational goals.  If they are not, then clearly the strategic elements so
described are not a good model of the reality you purport to describe.

    Alternately, you can ASSUME that the strategic concerns described are
correct, and assign operational/tactical concerns consistent with that.
    BUT< if you do, then you should be aware that you have then made an
assumption comparable to the French assumption in 1940 that the Germans
could not get through the Ardennes in less than ten days, and certainly
could be stopped at the Meuse River by the forces present along that
frontier.
    Ultimately, ALL strategy/operations/tactics are a function of what
ONE man(army)/ship(navy) can accomplish with the weapons available to
him/it.  So you have to know what a man/ship can accomplish before you
can make any realistic analysis of what your Army/Navy can accomplish.
    And you can't determine what one man/ship can do by looking at
a strategic primer.

> Finally, I've got a question for all you *TCS* cult members.  Is there any
> clear way to identify ship types or classes based upon tonnages?  In other
> words, is there some breakdown like:

> Battles          100,000+
> Cruisers         40,000 - 100,000
> Destroyers       5000 - 40,000
> Etc.?

    Well, for all you RS/FFW Cult members, no, there is not.  Labels in Trav
are largely arbitrary, based on the assumption that spaceships in the far
future are similar to modern Naval vessels.  They aren't.  Not even close.
Which is why so many people who play the game misuse their fighters (which
are NOT analogs of modern fighters, but rather of modern PT boats).
    However, that being said, GDW seems to use the following:

    Battleship = 200,000T+
    Heavy cruiser = 75,000-100,000T
    Light Cruiser = 30,000-50,000T
    Escort = 5,000-10,000T
    Destroyer = 2000-3000T
    Destroyer Escort = 100-1000T
    Fighter = 100T-.

    Note that in my experience, ships as small as 30,000T have been described
as
battleships, and ships as large as 100,000T have been described as light
cruisers,
by the few people who knew that doctrine for use is what made it a given
type,
NOT tonnage.


> What about types/classes themselves?  Is there some finer breakdown than
> battles, cruisers, carriers, escorts, etc.?  Is there a way to tell a
> frigate from a destroyer, etc. (besides what the designer choose to call
it)?

    No.  The designer is the only one who knows what the proper label for
something is.  The USNavy today has 18 "cruisers" that are smaller than
their destroyers.  And once upon a time, a cruiser twice as large as those
destroyers was labelled a "frigate" (back when we were in a nostalgia phase
in the Navy, and wanted to bring to mind the Constitution and such).
    You may, of course, assign labels to suit yourself, f you don't like the
designer's.  If your labels don't take into account tactical/operational
use for the ships, they will be pretty meaningless, but that's your
privilege...

                ---Steve

Vanishing down the corridor to XTML immediately, never to appear
here again....


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

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