From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 12-JUN-1994 21:06:39.56
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 7923-7929 V46#6

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDGVQXBFWG8ZGDIT@delphi.com>; Sun,
 12 Jun 1994 21:06:36 EDT
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 21:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 7923-7929 V46#6
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406130102.AA07227@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Sun Jun 12 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 6

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 631  7924 09-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Jackie Fisher and Death Stars. << James
 631  7925 09-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       2300-TNE guns pt2 << Hi again all .
 631  7926 09-Jun-1994 L.T.Bryant       help << Would  some one please help me 
 631  7927 09-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Regency Naval Policy << djohnson@geds01
 631  7929 09-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      Regency Military Thoughts << > From: dj
 631  7923 09-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Feudal technocracies << David John
 631  7928 09-Jun-1994 "Ralph Ferneyho  FFS Miscellany << Right, I've been play

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: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7924
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 08:52:06 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Jackie Fisher and Death Stars.

James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> wrote
>  >This is a good analysis.  To tell you the truth, I like the feel of being
>  >able to armour my dreadnaughts in proper Fisher fashion.
> 
>  I'm afraid I don't get the Fisher reference.

Admiral Jackie Fisher was First Sea Lord of the British Admiralty at the turn 
of the century, and he invented the all-big-gun battleship -- called the
1st one Deadnaught.  (More or less invented, I know about the Italian and
US developments at the time, by it was Dreadnaught that set the standard)

[Now there is a set of titles for Regency fleet command types - First Star Lord]

>  But your own paragraph on tactics indicates part of their role:
> Overloading point-defenses and scrubbing surface features.  The standard
> missile in TNE is capable of a lot of mayhem, and will scrub surface
> bits off of _any_ ship.  The more ships (of any size) you've got firing
> these things at the enemy, the less capable the enemy will be to
> respond.

Agreed.  Also, I notice that Meson screens and Nuclear Dampers have antennas
in their designs.  If I destroy those antennas, do I get a prize?

>  The levels of armor described in Steven M Bonneville's
> (bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu) post almost, BUT NOT QUITE, return
> us to the days of MT, when anything without a meson gun was harmless
> above a certain level.  In TNE, with all of a ship's surface features,
> it is quite possible to get a mission kill without penetrating the
> armor.  Nothing is completely invulnerable.
> 
Actually, my problem with MT was the same as my problem with HG -- the use of 
weapons as damage absorbers.  It was like covering the Iowa with 50-cal MG's
and then saying you had to knock them all out before you could take out a
big gun.  The new rules suit me a lot better.

I don't think 2000 is going to turn out to be that much armour once we get going
at ship design.  We probably need some sort of structure to compare apples and
apples, like TCS provided for high guard.  Perhaps we should be working on
designs in a TCS environment  -- say TL14, unlimitted pilots.
 

>  >3c Cross Sectional Area    2.25e22 (a diameter of 8e7 km !!)
>  ...
> 
>  Even the Ringworld Meteor Defense System is only twice this diameter,
> and that's only if you consider the Ringworld itself as the barrel...
> 
Its only about 260 light seconds!  (Maybe I could just hit the planet
upside the head with it :-) ).
  
and bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville) wrote
>
[snip] 
> Well, as I mentioned there might be a possibility of using them in very
> large numbers as nuclear missile launchers, and try for a direct hit on
> the battleship.  Somehow, I doubt even factor 2000 armor would take well
> to having a nuke go off next to it.  Of course, the target solution is
> fairly simple once the missiles get that close, so you'd have to fire 
> a *lot* of them and concentrate your fire on one enemy target.
>
I like the idea of a contact nuke, but I guess our friends at GDW don't.  I
have not done the calculations for the energy in the wave-front of an H bomb
and I really must -- I am not sure that you would have to get all that close.
 
[snip]
> power requirements of such an anti-missile laser would be.  Arming the
> little fleet escorts with "pea-shooter" meson weapons would probably be 
> a better bet if you're trying for serious internal damage.

Agreed. 


Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7925
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: 2300-TNE guns pt2
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:40:47 +0100 (BST)

Hi again all .
        here come some more of the guns as promiced.

Heads .... INCOMING

Type 81 storm gun  20*31 mm APHE ETC Tl 12 gun

round lenght 51mm
        lcc=31
round weight  77.9g
Ea      = 10128.5 J
round price  11.7 Cr

average Barrel length 12.66 cm
Lb      = 29.12 cm
barrel weight  0.88 Kg
barrel cost  349.4 Cr

muzzle energy = 16712 J
damage  9d-1 ( ball)  12d ( HEAP )
pen     2-3-4          2-2-2

Reciver heavy self loader
ROF  = SA
reciver length  40.3 cm
reciver weight= 10.43 Kg
reciver cost = 2285.7 Cr

plastic stock  25 cm  0.5Kg  30 Cr
range 332M Ball/ 249M HEAP

feed   box magazine 10 round
empty weight  0.76Kg
full weight  1.54 Kg

Bipod  weight 8.3 Kg   133 Cr    SHORT RANGE NOW 432M/324M

TL9  long muzzle break  8cm  0.4 kg  200 cr
Tl9 SA stock     0.2 Kg        75 Cr

Recoil 2
Mass  22. 25 Kg         Length 102.4 cm          bulk  7        
 cost 3073.6 Cr

Notes :   this is tricky and after trying the CPR rules  i  found
that  the  smallarms system works better not the  recoil  its  no
where  as feirce as is predicted but the barrel is  also  nowhere
as long as in 2300.




FTE-10  Tl12 Gauss sniper Rifle

10 mm round
round mass  3.142 g
round price  0.063Cr each

Barrel length  60 cm
muzzle velocity  6000M/s
barrel mass   1.8 Kg
barrel cost   1080 Cr

Muzzle energy 56556 J
required energy  113112 J

dam 16
pen 2-2-2

reciver single shot
ROF  SS
reciver weight   11.31 Kg
reciver length   106 cm
reciver cost     1131 Cr

rifle stock   5cm  0.5 Kg  30 Cr

range 381 M

Feed 2 seperate magazines

battry magazine weight  20 Kg
battry magazine cost   40 Cr
ammo mag Empty  0.026 Kg
ammo mag full 0.058 Kg
ammo mag cost 1 Cr

optical sight   Range now 438M  0.1 kg  150Cr
Bipod  28Kg  cost 332Cr   Range Now 569 M

recoil  7   Bipod 3
cost  2723 Cr    length 171cm     bulk 11     mass 61.8Kg

Notes:  as close as i can get this dam thing , my one  suggestion
with  the weight is the probabliity of a 2 or 3 man  sniper  team
after  all  with bipod and scope the extream range is  Just  over
4.5 Km and this should cause spotting problems.


All for now.
L. Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7926
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: help
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:54:12 +0100 (BST)

Would  some one please help me , i had message  groups  7753-7753
to  7823-7836 on disk unfortunatly the disk failed and i can  not
rcover the messages, wuold some one pleas be good enough to  send
me them  .
Thank you all in advance.
L Bryant
- -- 
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7927
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 10:38:34 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Regency Naval Policy

djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson) wrote:
> 
> How are Regency naval and army forces organized at the subsector and sector
> level?

I would suggest that, given a strong memory of the rebellion, Regency forces
would be controlled at a far more cetralized level.  Fleets would still be
deployed to subsectors, but ship, squadron and command staff rotations would 
frequent to avoid forming local alliances.  I would suspect that jump capable
"provincial" forces would also be banned, and local defence command would 
be assigned by central command.

The pay-off in return would be a greater scope in Regency-wide affairs than 
would have been possible under the Imperium.  
    
> What is the overall composition of Regency military forces?
>
 
Has enough data been posted to permit development of a TCS (or alternative,
take your pick) budget for the fleet?  The regency and its enemies could form 
a good focus for our ship design and tactics discussion.

> What is the compostion of a `typical' Regency naval squadron and a `typical'
> army battalion/regiment/division/corps/whatever-you-think-the-`basic'-unit-
> ought-to-be?
> 

working...

I rather liked H. Beam Pipers term from the Terran Federation period -- The
"Fleet-Army Force."  It identifies the tie-in between the two components
very clearly.

> I don't either.  I'd really rather see folks suggestion *alternatives* to
> any point *anyone* makes rather than merely trying to rip holes in a position
> they disagree with.  The latter course is neither interesting *nor* useful.
> 
I'll be happy to work from pretty much any formula for budget, etc.  TCS does
give a number, however.  (On the other hand, maybe its the wrong number.
The very fact that a TCS campaign is a straight wargame means that you start
the whole exercise in an arms race.  What are the big-time threats to the 
Regency right now?  Is there an active arms race on with any of them?  I think
these factors are more important than the budget numbers.  Then there is the
question of the proportion of fleet resourses going to anti-virus defence...)

Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7929
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 94 11:24:46 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: Regency Military Thoughts

> From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
> Subject: TNE: *Shall Not Perish* Regency Military Forces
> What is the compostion of a `typical' Regency naval squadron and a `typical'
> army battalion/regiment/division/corps/whatever-you-think-the-`basic'-unit-
> ought-to-be?

Here's one crack at it...

Regency Military Forces -- Basic Structure.

The basic organizational unit of the Regency armed forces is 
the Regiment.  Paradoxically, the Regiment is a unit which 
will never be encountered on the battlefield.

Instead, the Regiment is composed of two or more battalions.  
The base battalion remains fixed to a recruiting territory -- 
a fixed area of a given world.  It is responsible for 
administration, recruiting and basic training of individuals 
who will then serve with the Regiment's 1-2 active service 
battalions.  In addition, the battalion may maintain one or 
more reserve battalions -- part time soldiers and veterans 
using out-of-date equipment.

All Battalions of a Regiment are of the same troop type.  
Thus the Battalion is the building block of other formations.  
Regiments are recruited based on the society and capabilities 
of the home world -- for instance, low tech worlds produce 
light infantry regiment, while armored troops are recruited 
on worlds where advanced technology is more familiar.  In 
particular, space EVA units are be recruited as much as 
possible in asteroid belts.

Special Service Regiments (SAS, Drop Troops, whatever) are a 
detached assignment of the best troops from line regiments.  
Members retain their regimental assignments, and return to 
their regiments (probably to a promotion) on the completion 
of their tour.

Higher level formations are built up of Brigades, a formation 
made up of 2-4 Battalions.  Although Brigades have no 
"permanent" structure, the value of established team 
relationships is recognized, and long term partnerships 
between complementary battalions (say, lift infantry and grav 
tank) is commonplace.

In a combat situation, Battalion and Company combat teams 
will be formed by the brigade commander as required for the 
mission at hand out of the component companies of his 
brigade.

Officers also remain members of their regiment for their 
whole careers, but may be detached to various staff commands 
for extended periods.  Above field grades, regimental 
membership has more to do with club membership than command 
structure.

I hope this is helpful.  It is, of course, the British / 
Commonwealth regimental system;  but I think that it is an 
approach with real virtues in military terms, and good 
adventuring flavor.

I will put some thought into higher formations, to troop 
types, and "how large should a battalion be, anyway?"


Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7923
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Feudal technocracies
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 13:13:55 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>Wait a minute!  This is the same `reasoning' UFO-nuts use to make claims
>about ET visitors.  It is the burden of any claimant to provide evidence
>of their claim.  Merely suggesting that your argument can't be disproved 
>does not make your point!

It depends on exactly what is being claimed. You asked for an explanation of
how come Gram dominated Saxnoth when Saxnoth was more powerful than Gram. I 
suggested that maybe Gram had been a higher tech level recently (and/or
Sacnoth lower) due to an econo-technological cycle effect. You _claimed_
that this wasn't possible. Since then I've been arguing that they are. Not 
necessarily likely (although I think they are, but then, as I've stated 
before, economics are mostly SF to me), but at least possible. Obviously, if 
I could come up with just one example, I would prove my point outright. But 
just because I can't dosen't mean it isn't possible. Now, if I were to claim 
that the lack of evidence to the contrary _proved_ anything, then I would be 
making a UFO-nutter type claim. But I'm only saying that the lack dosen't 
disprove anything. 

>>Except that they represent a stagnation of the economy that is quite
>>incredible to me. It's the 'slow' I object to. One TL in umpteen centuries
>>is not slow, it's moribund.
> 
>Okay, but who's feelings are competing with the factual record now?

What factual record? We have _one_, count them, one, complete listing of
world UWPs for the Spinward Marches, the one first published in _Spinward
Marches Campaign_ and since reprinted (with the UWPs _unchanged_) in
_Imperial Encyclopedia_ and _Megatraveller Journal_ #3 (Before you decide
to dispute that, check the data. Despite the changes in alliegiance noted
in IE and MJ3 there are no changes in world population level or multiplier
(this based on a spot check of 40+ of the planets, including all the Vargr-
occupied ones in Aramis Subsector)). How can you establish any sort of
projection on that? So it _could_ be that the TLs have grown slowly and
steadily. Or they could have been rollercoasting up and down over the
centuries. We just can't tell from the record.

>>Right. I will give you those decades. I'll even make them centuries. So the
>>question becomes: Regina was TL 9 in 275. Why did Regina gain only one TL in
>>EIGHT centuries and two more in two decades?
> 
>I don't know but nothing about this slow rate of advancement calls out for
>your mysterious techno-economic cycles.  

The _discovery_ tech level of the Imperium have been one TL per three or
four centuries, hasen't it (I forget exactly; the discovery times of
Jump-4, -5, and -6 was mentioned somewhere once. I think it worked out 
at one per three centuries)? But we're talking about _developement_ TLs.
I say again: A moderately important colony like Regina that advances it's
economy by 5% (or even 20% if you go by _Striker_ rules) in eight centuries
by slow, steady increments that never declines, is difficult to believe. I
can believe in economic up- and downturns that averaged out into 5% over the 
centuries much more readily.

Hmmm. Perhaps I can restate my argument in a clearer way than I have done
before:

Assumtion: The only reason why an Imperial planet in 1105 is not TL 15 is
that it can't afford to be (I'm ignoring those few planets where there 
are legal, moral, or philosophical objections to advanced technology).
(This is the crucial assumption.)

A planet with TL A therefor has an economic condition we will call
Economic Level A. Should the planet advance from EL A, its technological
level will advance too (To, say, TL B). If the planet at any future date
becomes poorer, its economic level would decline to EL A again. Its 
technology should decline as a consequence, since the planet obviously 
cannot afford to maintain the technology (if it could, it would have had 
TL B in under EL A in the first place). Since economies do seem to have a 
tendency to fluctuate (vide the world as we know it), it seems plausible 
that it will do so in the Spinward Marches too.

>>Piper's Gram is merely a feudal monarchy set in a more technological
>>advanced age than the medieval feudal monarchies of Terra.
> 
>Not true.  Gorram Shipyards was an industrial fief, not a land fief.  There
>was also banking fief.  

It would be nice to have a few quotes. I skimmed _Space Viking_ last night
without findng any reference to either Gorram or Lothar Ffayle being barons,
but I did notice that while Traskon is a farming and ranching barony (hence
a land barony) Sesar Karvall is, indeed, baron of Karvallsmills, not of
Karvall. And there is a reference to the 'financial and industrial barons
of Wardshaven'. So, yes, Gram does have industrial fiefs.

>A feudal technocracy works similar to the feudal
>aristocracy we are more familiar with.  

That's the assumption I'm working from.

>The difference is that the medieval feudal arstocracy was tied to land 
>fiefs as you describe while a feudal technocracy is tied to industrial 
>and service fiefs that exist in `modern' society.

I agree completely.

>We all know these obligations were often ignored and `legitmacy' often
>fell to the most charismatic or otherwise powerful liege lord.  This is
>the whole basis of the Arturian legend.  Uther Pendragon lost his kingship
>as his vassals rebelled or refused to support him.  Arthur regained that
>kingship by uniting those vassals in the Fellowship of the Round Table.

I don't really think that a retelling of the doings of 5th century tribal
chiefs is all that useful as a basis of comparison. Though I suppose that
they do reflect how Mallory thought things worked.

>No.  A feudal technocracy is a system of government where the owners of
>industrial production give their support in exchange for economic opportunity
>or `protection'.  

Then its not analogous to a feudal society. Let's get a few definitions
straight:

From "Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary" (1974):

_feudal_: of the method of holding land (by giving services to the owner)
during the Middle Ages in Europe.

_fief_: land held from a feudal lord.

_vassal_: (in feudal times) person who held land in return for which he
wowed to give military service to the owner of the land.

And from "Funk&Wagnall's Standard Dictionary":

_feudalism_ The medieval European system of land tenure on condition of
military aid and other services.

_feudal system_: A politico-economic system [...] founded on the tenure
of feuds, or fiefs, given as compensation for military services rendered 
by chiefs and by them sublet by allotments to their subordinates and vassals.

_feud[2]_: Land held of a superior on condition of rendering service; a fief.

>in a feudal technocracy like the *kieritsu*, the owners of industrial
>production pledge their economic support (i.e. cooperation) to a central
>authority which cooridinates the efforts of various industrial and service
>sectors towards the perceived common good, namely profits.  This is a 
>voluntary arrangement where the individual corporate entities may or may not
>choose to continue to cooperate.  Just as feudal barons might choose to
>no longer support their liege and often did just that when they perceived
>an advantage for themselves.

The feudal baron held his lands on condition that he supported his liege
lord. Many broke their oaths on occasion, but that was in defiance of the
law. (The only valid excuse was winning).

>>Who owns the corporation in a corporate government? Who owns it in a feudal
>>technocracy? What's the difference?
> 
>In a corporate government there are a single group of shareholders as
>represented by the corporate board of directors.  This board acts in essence
>as a single entity.  

And these shareholders never represent different interest groups that wheel
and deal and compromise to get their respective representatives on the
board? The board is always composed of people who are in complete accord?
And all the shareholders are always in accord too?

>In a feudal technocracy there are several *different*
>and independent groups of shareholders (i.e. the `barons') who each act
>as *separate* and distinct entities.

Act in what way that is different from owners of different share blocks in
a corporation?

>I don't think it's appropriate at all to discuss a corporate model
>here.  A corporate government is a specialized form of an autocracy.  

I didn't include the corporate model as an example of the equivalent of
a kingdom, but as the equivalent of a fief.

>In a corporate model there is, in theory at least, no imput at all from those
>participating in the system.  You just do what the boss says or you're fired.

And a vassal does what his liege lord says or he is 'fired'.

>>Traditional feudal society    Corporation             Feudal technocracy
>> 
>>King                               -                  King
> 
>*ditto*                             *CEO*               *ditto*

If a corporate government, yes. Not if the corporation is a FT fief.

>>The king is the man who owns the fiefs and doles them out in return for
>>support from his vassals.
> 
>This isn't correct.  In a feudal aristocracy the king does not `own' the
>land. 

Yes and no. He owns a lot of it from the days where his father was the
biggest lord around. He became king when he conquered the other lords
around him (in which case he came to own their land) or when the other 
independent lords decided to back him, in which case he did not own their
land... yet. But when he became strong enough, he made those formerly 
independent lords do homage for their own lands, thereby actually laying 
claim to it. Or he made war against a recalcitrant lord, acquired the land 
by conquest, and made the former owner or somebody else do homage for it. 
Check a history of medieval Europe for more detail.

>Rather the king supplies `coordinated services' (i.e. joint military
>protection) in return for `cooperation' from his vassals (i.e. local military
>forces and tax revenue).

Coordinated services may be the reason why the other lords decided to back 
him. But what they owe him fealthy for is the tenure of their fiefs.

>No, the king is the equivalent of the Chairman of the Board of Directors.
>The Chairman provides `coordinated activites', i.e. `running the company'
>in return for the financial support of the shareholders, i.e. `cooperation'.

Look, the shareholders in a corporation is a conglomerate owner. In theory
they make up one person, the owner of the corporation. The Chairman works
for the owner. The vassals 'works' for the king. See the difference?

>A true feudal technocracy is much more complicated than this because it
>concerns *all* of the shareholders of *all* of the industrial and service
>entities acting in the entire marketplace.  

A fief has _one_ owner. A baron can't sell off shares of his barony to make
the buyers part-barons of the fief (He may be able to sell bits of the fief, 
but these bits then become parts of other fiefs). And if a company is the 
equivalent of a fief then there won't be any shareholders, just one baron.
You're getting mixed up because so many of the companies we know of today 
are incorporated. In fact, I realize that I've been using 'corporation' and
company interchangably. That was wrong. Please read 'company' whenever I've
used 'corporation' in connection with a feudal technocracy. There can be no
shareholders in a feudal fief, technocratic or not.

>In this sense, if there is a `king' he has gained monopoly control of the 
>entire economic sytem.  This is why US industry fears the Japanese 
>*kieritsu* so much.  They are concerned that their coordinated activity 
>gives Japanese industry a competitive advantage.

It sound like the *kieritsu* is merely capitalism without anti-trust laws.

>>  Fief                        Corporation             Corporation

This should read:

    Fief                        Corporation             Company
 
>>The vassal manages the fief for the king.
> 
>No, the vassal agrees to put the resources of the fief at the disposal of
>the king in exchange for centrally-coordinated joint services.

See definition.

>>Feudal service                        Dividend        Feudal service
> 
>*ditto*                       again not applicable      *cash* (in exchange
>                                                         for `shares' of the
>                                                         profits)

Nope. The central tenet of feudalism is *service* as a medium of repayment.

>>In a feudal society a vassal pays his liege lord with service, not with
>>money. Shareholders, on the other hand, recieve their pay in money.
> 
>No, the dividends received by shareholders in a feudal technocracy are
>equivalent to the military protection received by fiefholders in a feudal
>aristocracy.

The feudal technocrcy equivalent of the military protection received by 
fiefholders in a feudal aristocracy is military protection.

>No, *shareholders* are the equivalent of *fiefholders*.  Each block of 
>shareholders, represented by their boards of directors, is equivalent to
>the fiefholders of a feudal aristocracy.  Each block of shares is a fief.

I suppose that a part holding in a BIG company could be a fief in itself.
But that would be owned by _one_ person, and that person would have the
title. And there's certainly no mention of any 'Baron of a Third of the
Megatronics Company' in _Space Viking_ ;-)

>>Duke Angus owns his holdings outright. Baron Trask owns all of Traskon. 
>>Baron Karvall owns all of Karvall. When Lucas Trask pledges Traskon in 
>>return for a ship, Angus gets the whole bit, not just a share of it.
> 
>There's no conflict here!  Trask could have sold only a portion of Traskon.

That's just precisely what I claim he couldn't. He gives the barony in
its entirety to Duke Angus, and Angus appoints another Trask as 'Vicar-
Baron'. And just like that Lucas is no longer a baron.

>He owned that entire block of shares of the total economic sector of Gram.

He owned a barony. I'll sonceede that the fact that it was a land barony
is irrelevant, and that it could just as well have been a computer firm.
But if it had been, it would have been as indivisible as any land barony
(ie. he might be able to sell off peripheral parts, but the core must
remain relatively intact).

>Remember, it was partially because of the greater economic power he gained
>from the acquisition of Traskon that *Duke* Angus eventually became *King*
>Angus.  Traskon Barony increased Angus's share of the total economic output
>(GPP?) of Gram and thereby led to him becoming king by virtue of his control
>of the largest portion of the entire economy.

Have we read the same book? Angus increased wealth allowed him to buy more
fighting men which allowed him to attack Omfray and other enemies and to
gain the support of some of the other big dukes. And, as someone says on 
page 124, "He's King as long as the great lords like Count Lionel and Joris 
of Bigglersport and Alan of Northport want him to be" (Obviously Angus 
hasn't reached the point where he can annex the big counties and dukedoms 
for himself, but then, he's only a first-generation king).

>> If the Dukes can't agree on who to support for king you get balkanization.
> 
>Right.  And in a feudal technocracy, `dukes' are merely those who control
>large blocks of industrial production - shareholders.

No, in a young FT it's the ones who has glommed onto a big slice of the
industry and dole it out to vassals. In a well-established FT it's the
ones whose ancestors did that and then supported an even bigger duke for
king.

>>The pension fund managers dosen't
>>perform services for the Corporation Chairman, do they (They don't even
>>pay him money).
>
>*Au contraire*!  The pension funds and other shareholders provide *cash*
>to the chairman just as aristocratic vassals provided military forces and
>tax revenue to the king.

Wait a minute. The Chairman keeps back part of his employees' salaries and
place them in a pension fund, right? That gives hin  lot of pull in electing 
the board of the fund, agreed. But the money that accrues from the fund 
belongs to the employees, don't it? How does the Chairman see a penny of it?

>>In a feudal technocracy industrial holdings IMO takes the place of land for 
>>the purposes of generating the wealth that translates into power.
> 
>We're saying the same thing. If the technocratic baron chooses to place
>his support in the hands of a different lord he transfers not only economic
>power but political power as well.

We're most certainly not saying the same thing. If a noble holds his land 
from an overlord he cannot transfer his support without breaking his oath. 
If he's an independent lord that is not a king we're still in the early 
state of the formation of the kingdom. 

>>If he owns them he can dictate who gets to buy them.
> 
>He doesn't own them just as an aristocratic king didn't own his vassals'
>fiefs.  

But a feudal king did own the fiefs, at the very least formally.

>If Uther Pendragon had `owned' the fief of Cornwall he could have
>just `removed' the Duke and taken his wife Igrayne.  

Oh no he couldn't. The feudal contract was binding on the overlord too.
He had promised to protect his vassal's rights. Uther couldn't remove
the Duke without cause. (Also, of course, the whole episode takes place
long before the feudal system evolved).

>>Thereby forfeiting his right to the fief.
> 
>No, thereby forfeiting his right to protection from the aristocratic king
>or profits from the technocratic king.

A fief is held in tenancy from the owner. Fail in your obligations and you
forfeit the fief.

>>>My point is that since, under my world view, Sacnoth is the strongest 
>>>economic power, Harald will one day triumph over Angus.  
>> 
>>1) Being stronger is not an automatic ticket to victory.
> 
>It is in a feudal technocracy.  Again, it's why US industry fears the 
>Japanese.

You're talking about economic might regardless of the social system. But
a sovereign power is only vulnerable to outside economic influence if 
they are vulnerable. By this I mean that if Gram has all the raw material
they need then they can impose trade restrictions that leaves Sacnoth's
greater economic strength whistling at the door. The reason US Industry 
fears the japanese is that the US _is_ vulnerable. But why should Gram
be vulnerable just because the US is?

>>2) He isn't that much stronger.
> 
>He is if he really enjoys a full tech level advantage.  

Not according to the Traveller rules.

>(Of course, you must give up your `cycles' to accept this point.)

No, the cycles has nothing to do with that argument. They just provide one
explanation (out of several) of how Gram can have homebuilt TL 12 ships if 
we decide that a military parity is necessary to explain anything.

>>   King Anders could own huge blocks of Sacnoth industry, making 
>>   Harald a puppet of his.
> 
>Yes, he might except that the TL 12 vassals on Sacnoth might choose to
>no longer support Anders. 

If Anders _owns_ fiefs on Sacnoth then it's actually equivalent to the
England/Calais situation. So I don't think that's likely, since that
would make Sacnoth balkanized. Still, the Scouts might have misunderstood
the situation when they compiled their survey. But those vassals could 
only get out of supporting Anders by breaking their oaths and turning to
Harald for protection. Then he would be their overlord. Nohow would they
become kings themselves.

>>If Anders owns all of Gram he will have to put people in charge of parts of 
>>it, which could result in various systems, including a feudal technocracy.
> 
>No, if Anders of placing people in control then they enjoy their control
>*at his whim*. 

Subject to King Anders' oaths to his vassals. The feudal oath is a two-way
one.

>This is not a feudal arrangement at all. It is autocracy
>*and* similar *then* to the corporate model.

No. _If_ Anders could appoint and remove governors of his holdings at will
then he would be an autocrat. If he gives the holding in fief he cannot
revoke it except for cause. That _is_ the feudal system

>>Again you assume that Harald and his ancestors would want to conquer Gram
>>militarily. Again I suggest that they may not be ready to pay the price.
> 
>No, I'm just assuming that a little military action might make the economic
>conquest of Gram a little simpler.  Think of Japan with a full tech level
>advantage, a nuclear arsenal and the ability to project global military force.
>There'd be no `voluntary' import restrictions on Japanese autos in the US in
>that scenario!

Now we're suddenly into the military situation. I thought you were talking
about economic superiority? I've always postulated that Gram had access to
TL 12 ships of its own. And I postulate that neither Harald nor Anders
wants to duel with submachineguns at 5 paces.

William White writes a whole heap of good stuff:
>     It may be helpful, at this point, to elaborate upon what a
>feudal technocracy is.  In a discussion of the concept of
>feudalism, a historian named Morris Bishop said that it is "one
>of those words that have taken on so many extended and figurative
>meanings that the original [one] has been obscured." 

Sure. I've never said 'feudal technocracy' couldn't actually be non-feudal.
I've merely postulated that it was and argued from that assumption.

>     If we accept the definition of a "technocracy" to be "a
>government by an elite controlling some aspect of the application
>of the society's technology", then the worlds to which we assign
>UWP Gov Code 5 must meet two criteria.  
>     First, the legal rights, responsibilities, and roles of individuals 
>must be defined in terms of their socioeconomic status (thus, "feudal").

The essence of the definitions of feudalism I've seen is that you 'pay'
for tenancy with services instead of money.

>     Second, an elite class which controls some critical technology must 
>make up a privileged, ruling class (ergo, "technocracy").

The rest of your arguments are all very nicely thought out. But I suggest
that the technocracy bit lies in the substitution of industry for land as
the feudal fief. Thus the fiefholder might render technological service
instead of or in addition to military service.

Otherwise your posting is most impressive.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir


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

Bundle: 631
Archive-Message-Number: 7928
From: "Ralph Ferneyhough"  <phd99@cc.keele.ac.uk>
Subject: FFS Miscellany
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 1994 14:44:17 +0100 (BST)


Right, I've been playing around with FFS for a while now, designing
this and mulling over that - the general thing, and I've got some
ideas/questions that maybe other people have worked on:

Please note that I haven't got the book with me at work, so I'll just
have to guess most of the figures, but I hope they are almost
correct.

1) Homopolar Generators. These seem to be the major restriction on the
size of most devices, especially weaponry, within FFS. However, I got
wondering about whether batteries could be used in their place. One
quick calculation later, and I come up with the following:

For a laser, I assumed each pulse lasts about 0.1 seconds, therefore
we need the 0.036 sec discharge rate battery type (or we could
extrapolate). This has an output of x3125 at 3MW (?) at TL15. This
comes to (3125X3X0.036)=337.5Mj per cumet. HPGs are 0.04 cumet per Mj
(?) which is only 25Mj per cumet. This gets even wider a discrepancy
at lower discharge times, so a meson gun at 100 shots/turn would only
really need the 3.6 second battery which works out at about 1350Mj per
cumet.

This creates a slight technology gap... I am of course assuming
batteries can be recharged at that speed, which I would have thought
was possible, as they can discharge that fast!

I also cannot believe that a spinning wheel (which is what HPGs are at
TL 8+(?) ) can give up all x000Mj of energy in a short a space as
0.036 seconds. Has anyone tried working out the friction or even the
speed the wheel would need to be spinning at to store so much energy?
I can believe large power capacitors, so why this rotational K.E.
system?

2) What is there to prevent the same HPG being used for more than one
weapon? The rules state that the HPG is capable of keeping up with any
rate of fire (again I don't believe that), so if it can manage 800
shots/turn, why can't it drive four different focal arrays at 200
shots/turn? All that would be needed is the extra focal arrays, an
extra beam pointer for each FA, and some extra control (this could be
an MFD to drive the FAs or maybe install three extra workstations). I
first though of this idea for a Janus mount, where the two identical
spinal weapons were synched to fire alternately from the same HPG.

3) Black Globes used as solar arrays seem to absorb one heck of a lot
of energy. In the habitable zone, a gigantic size globe will absorb
1/10 (1200^2) = 144,000MW!! Over one single turn, this will be
1800x144,000 = 259 million Mj - try absorbing that lot into a HPG
without overload.

Even a smaller screen will absorb 1/10 (40^2) = 160MW which is 288,000
Mj per turn - has this lot got to be taken into account when designing
the HPGs for absorbing incoming fire?

Maybe we can drag a small ship behind the main craft carrying a black
globe generator and use that as the power supply for my craft....

4) Why does anyone bother with tunable lasers at TL13+ when x-ray
lasers become available? The range modification of any atmosphere
condition is never worse than ten times smaller than the visible laser
modifier, so an x-ray laser with a range multiplier of 100,000 is
always better than the tunable one.

5) Why did GDW have to go and make fusion weapons non-viable as space
weaponry anymore? Grumble moan grumble. Have to make my OWN rules now.
*sigh*

6) When designing bay PAWs, would it be possible to have the tunnel
along the greatest diagonal of the bay? As far as I can remember, the
100 ton bay has dimension of 15.65 x 9.5 x 9.5 thus restricting tunnel
length to 15.65m.

But the greatest diagonal is 20.6m, thus effecting an increase of
tunnel length of 33% or so. Much better....

Same effect applies with turrets and barbettes if you fancy generating
PAW turrets or even close range Meson barbettes.

Personally, I just ignore the standard socket designs myself, and just
design the weapons into the body of the ship - no waste of space and
free to choose my own dimensions.

Which brings me to...

7) How do I calculate the maximum dimensions in the other two
directions on a ship? I know the length - but what about width and
height? At the moment, I am assuming that it can be derived from the
average cross-sectional area: i.e.

Volume/Length = avg cross-sectional area.

The width and height can then be derived from them. A cylinder or
needle config would just be sqrt(area), and other configs can have
widths and heights of any reasonable figures which multiply together
to the area. This are the main body figures. Thus, I know roughly how
large my sideways facing meson guns can be....

Anyone any other ideas? Perhaps a table of W and H multipliers might
be a good idea.

8) Where are the design rules for the bulk of space missiles? I have
found the warhead and propellant rules, but what about guidance design
etc? Have I just missed them?

Oh well, thats enough for now. Otherwise, it's a wonderful book. I
just hope we'll get to see FFS 2 or something similar, with computer
programs, robots, ships, submersibles etc etc.

Aha! Just remembered - in the TNE rule book, it lists an expanded
version of the battery list for higher TLs, and tells you how to
design them for any piece of equipment. Just one small question - no
piece of equipment actually has a power requirment listed with it! So
how do we work it out then? Anyone done a table?

Ralph.

         _             _           _           "To err is human; to screw-up  
 ___  __| |/\       __| |    ____ | \   _         needs the root password."   
 \__\ \_   _ \     /  | |   |  _ \| |  | |                                    
        | / \ \ /\/   | |   | | \ \ |  | |           O     
    __  | |_/ / \  /| | |   | |_/ / |__| |  __         O               _ _
   |__| |    /  /  \| | |   |  __/|  __  | |__|          o  |\__/|  .~    ~.
        | |\ \ / /\   | |___| |   | |  | |                  /  o `./      .'
        |_| \ \\/  \  |_____| |   |_|  | |                 {o__,   \    {
             \ \    \_|     | | ____   \_|         ____      / .  . )    \
              \_\           \_| \___\ aka Asmodeus \___\     `-` '-' \    }
   _______________                       ______________     .(   _(   )_.'
  /______________/ phd99@cc.keele.ac.uk /_____________/    '---.~_ _ _|

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

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