From:   IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca" 15-JUN-1994 21:08:54.95
To:     IN%"traveller@engrg.uwo.ca"
CC:     
Subj:   TML biweekly: Msgs 8017-8023 V46#17

Return-path: <jamesp@engrg.uwo.ca>
Received: from engrg.uwo.ca (nova.engrg.uwo.ca)
 by delphi.com (PMDF V4.3-7 #6563) id <01HDL2RX7Q008X0129@delphi.com>; Wed,
 15 Jun 1994 21:08:49 EDT
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 21:00:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin)
Subject: TML biweekly: Msgs 8017-8023 V46#17
To: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Errors-to: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca
Reply-to: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Submissions)
Message-id: <9406160104.AA02610@engrg.uwo.ca>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Approved: by traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (TML Admin) Wed Jun 15 21:00:02 EDT
 1994
Precedence: bulk

TML biweekly    Wed Jun 15 21:00:02 EDT 1994    Volume 46 : Issue 17

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 641  8017 15-Jun-1994 J Roberson       GURPS FF&S << I just bought GDW's FF&S 
 642  8018 15-Jun-1994 J Roberson       I can't believe it's not Feudalism! << 
 642  8019 15-Jun-1994 "Les Howie"      A comment on Feudal Technocracy << I'm 
 642  8020 15-Jun-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re:Designs:Weapons:AFV << In continuing
 642  8021 15-Jun-1994 "Tariq M. Rashi  Re: Border Crossings << The last thing 
 642  8022 15-Jun-1994 Steve Charlton/  TNE Drivel << Yes, by all means, less d
 642  8023 16-Jun-1994 rancke@diku.dk   All: Spinward Marches census (singular?

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: 641
Archive-Message-Number: 8017
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:30:07 +0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: GURPS FF&S

I just bought GDW's FF&S yesterday, hoping to design some high-tech weapons
and vehicles. After glancing through it, I believe it is *much* better than
GURPS vehicles for designing spacecraft, and generally better for anything
beyond GURPS TL 9 (I think that's an Imperial TL 10 - not sure).

Anyway, what I would really like to do is revise the GURPS fire combat
rules to make them a little more streamlined and less overwhelming in
damage. The two biggest complaints I have about non-fantasy/lowtech GURPS
is:
        Gun stats are too detailed for quick play.
        Damage is excessive.

I find that the range mods in GURPS go up and down to quickly to keep good
track of accurately, especially if more than 4 people are involved. I also
concur with the excessive damage - I believe ultratech combat stats could
be scaled back a tad with no problem.

ANYWAY - I was wondering if anyone else had done this, or would be
interested in the results.

ALso, I'd like to use FF&S to create Shadowrun weapons - far more difficult
because of the way Shadowrun does damage. Any takers?

Consistency is a Flaw
J Roberson      RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu        Priss@io.com





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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8018
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 09:30:14 +0600
From: RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu (J Roberson)
Subject: I can't believe it's not Feudalism!

>How is "giving out industrial fiefs in [exchange] for allegiance and
>support" different from "selling shares of an enterprise in exchange for
>financial capital"?  In my view, they are the same thing.

A couple of differences:
        First of all, a shareholder is not responsible for the development
of the shares the CEO & assorted lackeys are. Secondly, from a more
romantic point of view, loyalty and fealty do not come from being paid off,
but from the heart - this is an ideal which is nice, but historically there
were probably more than a few lords & vassals who contemplated loyalty
based on personal gain.

        I think you've been approaching Techno-Feudalism wrong from the
beginning. From what I've read in this exchange, the CEO of a corp and the
Baron of a fief are being equated. But who's got the power? The CEO runs
things, but he must answer to the Board of Directors, who are in turn
selected by the dominant shareholders (usually). Granted, the Baron has to
have some level of consent from his vassals (and initial consent is
strengthened by years of tradition and faith in the ruling family).
However, while the Baron has legal authority over his vassals and subjects,
the CEO of Corporation X has no legal authority over the shareholders.

        IMHO it is the predominant shareholders who have the ultimate
authority in a FT. Rail Baron Getty invests and eventually controls 35% of
Getty Rails. *He* is the Baronial equivalent, and the other stockholders
have their own fiefs - parts of Getty Rails. But since Getty owns most of
the company, everyone agrees to follow his lead (most of the time) and
looks to him for leadership.
The CEO, the Board of Directors - these are but the minions of the
fiefholders who maintain the company, equivalent (perhaps) to the Sheriffs,
Castellans, and others who were granted authority but not fiefs.

        Now, rather than going to war to acquire more fiefs, Getty simply
invests in another company. This can lead to hostile takeovers, poison
pills, and all the other trendy economic actions involved in mergers &
buyouts. If it works, Getty gets a significant portion of another company's
stock. It may not be controlling interest, but then again, King Henry never
controll all or even most of France, either.
        The other shareholders can initiate their own dealings and
eventually acquire a power base outside the company - but Baron Getty might
be aware and could take steps to prevent them from getting far.

How's that for Feudal Technocracy?

Consistency is a Flaw
J Roberson      RJR96326@vax1.utulsa.edu        Priss@io.com





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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8019
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 94 12:41:48 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
Reply-To: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@Prograph.Com>
Subject: A comment on Feudal Technocracy

I'm probably going to end up putting both feet in my mouth, but here's my
Cr.02:

My OED offers for technocracy: n. Organization an management of a countries 
industrial resourses by technical experts for the good of the whole community.

And for feudal system: medieval European form of government based on relation
of vassel and superior arising from holding land in feud.

and GDW offers the laconic definition for feudal technocracy:  Government by
specific individuals for those who agree to be ruled.  Relationships are based
on the performance of technical activities which are mutually beneficial.

Now David Johnson (if I have this straight) has argued for the equivalence of
"share fiefs" with "industrial fiefs".  I cannot accept this because a share
holder performs no TECHNICAL service for the corporation.    He provides 
Capital and receives dividends and a measure of control.  I think this is 
a more proper role for a Capitalist, not a Technocrat.

If, on the other hand, the ruler grants an industrial fief to a vassel the 
vassel will have a technical role - managing the industry.  He must then 
find "vassels" for the feifs within the plant, say the Information Systems
fief.

Thinking about this, I think perhaps the "Industrial Feudalism" of Mote Prime
(Niven & Pournelle) resembles a "Feudal Technocracy" as well.

As a side note, while Aristocratic terminology rang true for Piper's Sword
Worlds, it probably confuses the issue in this debate, since the historical
view of a Medieval Duke is of a person whose only skills were in military
matters; the feif itself was run by a paid employee.

 

Les Howie
Prograph International


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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8020
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 15:54:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re:Designs:Weapons:AFV

In continuing my previous submission of MBT main guns here are several 
mass drivers from TL 11 to TL 14.  Note thay I have omitted short range 
so that anyone can use his/her own fix. 

NOTE:the HPGs can also be used for a helluva point defense laser *** 

Your PD laser can be a whopper once gun energy begins to climb.

                                AFV Armament
                                Mass-Drivers
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TL 11   4cm MD   Projectile Mass=2.5 kg   MV=2000 m/s
        Optic, Laser, EMS Ranging   26,000 Cr   0.14 MT
        ME=5 MJ    RE=12 MJ   HPG  0.72Kl  1.44MT  7200 Cr
        Gun Wt=0.32 MT    Gun Pr = 16000 Cr    Unit Pr = 49,200 Cr
        APFSDSCI  170-160-150-130

TL 12   5cm MD   Projectile Mass=4.91 Kg  MV=2500 m/s
        Optic,Laser,EMS Ranging  26,000 Cr  Wt 0.14 MT
        ME=15.3 MJ  RE=30.7 MJ   HPG 1.53 KL  3.07 MT  15,300 Cr
        Gun Wt = 0.72 MT   Gun Pr=36,000 Cr   Unit Pr=77,300 Cr
        APFSDSCI  285-275-265-245

TL 13   4cm MD  Projectile Mass=2.5 Kg    MV=3000 m/s
        Optic,Laser, EMS Ranging  26,000 Cr  Wt 0.14 MT
        ME=11.25 MJ  RE=20MJ   HPG 0.9 Kl  1.8MT  Pr 9000 Cr
        Gun Wt = 0.6 Mt  Gun Pr 24,000 Cr   Unit Pr=59,000 Cr
        APFSDSSD 250-240-230-210

TL 14   6cm MD  Projectile Mass=8.44 Kg  MV=2430 m/s
        Optic, Laser, EMS Ranging  26,000 Cr  Wt 0.14 Mt
        ME=25 MJ  Re=40 MJ    HPG  1.6 Kl  3.2 Mt   16,000 Cr
        Gun Wt=0.72 Mt  Gun Pr = 36,000 Cr  Unit Pr=78,000 Cr
        APFSDSBSD 610-600-590-570
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Im not sure about the gun prices for the TL 13 5cm Gun, you might 
want to check that, however its about right.

Adio
Tariq



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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8021
Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 16:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Border Crossings

The last thing we need is XTML people coming over to TML to flame anyone
or TMLs over to XTML, I thought we had settled this, TML readers do not 
feel like reading about how great XTML is.  They can do that on XTML like 
I do.

Tariq



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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8022
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
Date: 15 Jun 94 16:09:51 
Subject: TNE Drivel

Yes, by all means, less drivel!  Why would I want to read
 an intelligent conversation on the definition of feudal
 technocracy when I can instead read dozens of flame
 messages on how the defenseless Traveller virgin was
 deflowered.

I thought we were finished with this whole debate.  
Nobody has been forced to subscribe to TML, and anyone
can unsubscribe when they wish.  Can we please stop
whining about issues that are now moot, and get on with
our lives?

We now return you to the Hans and Dave show, already
in progress...


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

Bundle: 642
Archive-Message-Number: 8023
From: rancke@diku.dk
Subject: All: Spinward Marches census (singular?)
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 1994 01:25:57 +0100 (METDST)

David Johnson writes:
>First off, I thought we had given up on the technology issue?  :-)

More or less. But the discussion keeps shifting to new interesting aspects.
Now you're trying to suspend our disbelief in the notion that three different 
UWP listings for the Spinward Marches made over a period of at least 12 years 
could possibly have _all_ the population data identical.

>I merely stated that since there were changes to the UWP data over this 
>fifteen year period 

It is 17 years if your're talking about data from the earliest Traveller
background material (which didn't have population multipliers) and 12
years if you're talking about the three full listings I've mentioned
before. The only change I know of (although there may be others; I've 
only spot checked) is Regina's change from TL 10 to TL 12, and it was
suggested that that was merely a correction of a typo.

>*and* the population and other figures were not changed that it must be 
>*assumed* to have been done intentionally.

Only if there is no simpler explanation. I suggest that they are all three
based on the same census and that only the allegiance codes were updated
for the _Imperial Encyclopedia_ and the _Megatraveller Journal_ publications.
If there should be a few differences (and with a spot check of 10% of the
systems I didn't find a single one) I suggest that they are typos or
corections of typos. 

>I did a little arithmetic though and found some interesting numbers. A 
>population increase of 10% over a period of 15 years works out to an annual 
>rate of increase of 0.64%.  Here are some `real' annual rates from a handy 
>1990 almanac (these are net figures, accounting for births, deaths and 
>migrations):
> 
>US         0.7%
>Denmark    0.0%
>Japan      0.5%
>Spain      0.5%
>UK         0.2%
>France     0.4%
>USSR       1.0%
>Greece     0.1%
>Italy      0.0%
>Germany   -0.1% (a decrease!)
>India      2.2%
> 
>It's clear for `developed' countries that something less than a 10% increase
>over a period of fifteen years is not unreasonable.  

Agreed. As a matter of fact I'm of the opinion that the history of the
settlement of Charted Space does not make sense unless one postulates
that most well-developed worlds (not excluding the Aslan ones) practise
population control. But to go from there to the assumption that _all_
worlds in the Spinward Marches (a not yet developed area, after all)
practise it is IMO to go to far. 

>Keep in mind as well that due to rounding conventions, a 10% increase (or 
>decrease) will not show up even in the PBG population multipler (the 
>mantissa) for values under 5 and that *only* a 10% *increase* will affect 
>the actual UWP population code *if* the population multipler is 9.

I'm well aware of that. I used 10% as an average. Remember that roughly 10%
of the worlds should have a mantissa of X.4 (whatever X may be) and that in
that case considerably less than 10% increase is necessary to kick it over
into the next higher number. A world with a mantissa of 8.4, for example,
needs only a 1.2% increase to reach 8.5. Fulacin, a TL 5 world with a 
population of 543 million in 1105 needs only a 1.3% increase. In 17 years!

>It's my impression that most worlds in the Spinward Marches are going to be
>more equivalent in terms of population growth to contemporary `developed'
>nations than to `developing' nations (just my opinion).  

They certainly _ought_ to be, since they've had up to ten centuries of
developement. Yet Spinward Marches is again and again referred to as a
'frontier'  -  not only in the 'frontier with other nations' sense, but
also the 'developing area' sense. Certainly scores of systems seems to
be woefully undeveloped.

>Furthermore, while one might expect high birth rates and low death rates 
>(due to available high tech medical care) on `developing' worlds one would 
>also expect high rates of *emigration* (to high population worlds) to keep 
>the net growth rate low.

Now, are you SURE you're not allowing the discussion to affect your good
sense here? I would expect a lot of emigration FROM high-population planets
to developing low-population planets. That's usually the way it goes here
on Earth: From the crowded (or opressive) to the less crowded.

>In fact, it is internal migration that ought to have the greatest effect
>on population for worlds within the Domain/Regency.

Oh, sure. But that should register too, shouldn't it? 

>Now, I accept that it is quite incredulous not to see any change in *any*
>world population over a span of fifteen years (and I suspect if we looked
>hard enough we might even find a couple of changes due to errors in 
>transcription) but I submit the above information in an effort to suggest
>that such an occurrence is not *impossible*.  (Maybe only as unlikely as
>the occurrence of `techno-economic cycles'.  :-)

Far more unlikely. I refer you to the examples of Forboldn, Fulacin, and
Vanejen. Each of them ought to have had changes in population, most likely 
also TL and starport type in the case of the first two. In each case the
lack of change could be explained away. But it would have to be explained
AWAY. And my point is that if you need a new and distinct explanation for 
each world you examine, then a simpler solution that explains them all is 
to be preferred. I stand by my claim that the three different UWP listings 
we have are one and the same (and one that was already somewhat out of date 
in 1110).

>Nevertheless, I believe we were discussing tech levels not population levels
>and the fact that no tech levels changed still does not suggest that *any*
>of them went *down* so the lack of any evidence for the `techno-economic
>cycles' remains.  (Remember, I've already admitted the *possibility* that
>they *could* exist.  I can just explain Gram's domination of the Sword
>Worlds through the less incredulous agency of Zhodani aid.)
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
                         incredible, surely?

I see no reason why both can't be true. Nevertheless, if you think that the
Zhodani help alone is sufficient (and I don't intend to dispute that) and
you don't believe the other then don't use it. (But I STILL think the
developement of the Spinward Marches has been slow, SLOW, *S*L*O*W*!!!)

>>There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their
>>population level totally stagnant for 15 years. Some of them, sure. Not
>>even most of them, but some.
> 
>It's *possible*, just not very damn likely.

I'd say that it's the same kind of "possible" you get when you're talking
about all the air in a room suddenly collecting under one table. Sure, it's
*possible*. ;-)

>>Try imagining economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population, 
>>rather than a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough, 
>>the factories will close.
>
>Well, first off, it's my sense that as the size of the economy *increases*
>it becomes *more* difficult for economic down turns to affect technological
>capabilities (since there is more of a buffer to absorb down turns in
>particular sectors).  

The size of a unified economy, yes. But do you really think that the Mexican 
economy is the more stable because of the size of the population of the US?

>I've admitted this is possible though.  So, please give me some sense of 
>your sense of the relative likeliness of these `techo-economic cycles' 
>occurring as compared to the likelihood of there being no population change 
>in the Marches over fifteen years. Twice as likely? Five times? Ten times?  
>A hundred times?  It's my sense that these two occurrences are about 
>*equally* likely. :^)

Oh, far, far from it. Orders of magnitude different. But then, I know 
something of statistics and can't see the population thing happening in
a thousand years and have very little knowledge of economics and see no
difficulty at all in those economic swings. As for putting numbers on it, 
that's difficult. But taking a wild stab I'd say that at any given year at 
least one in a hundred worlds inside the Imperium is getting shafted enough
by outside manipulation to be on the decline and several times that number 
outside the Imperium. Exactly how long it takes for a downturn to affect
the TL is another difficulty. Not less than 10 years, I'd say. And of course
a downturn would not always last long enough (As you can see, I'm weaseling
like crazy. That's because I really know too little about economics to put
numbers on anything. But I'll have a shot at defending these ones).

>>How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of
>>inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if 
>>you have even more billions of people to do it.
> 
>Again, see above.  As the size of the economy grows it becomes *more*
>difficult for economic factors to affect overall technological capabilities.

Yes, but are you saying that 10 billion people have a greater difficulty
affecting 1 billion people than 1 billion people have affecting 100 million?
My guessing bone tells me that the proportions would remain roughly the
same.

>>Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have
>>closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't
>>quote any examples.
> 
>Even if you could this is not a matter of technological fluctuation that
>is tied to economic factors.  If the country is unable to continue to
>operate the factory then it never *had* that level of capability.  The
>company that pulled out maintains its own tech level at its other facilities.

Oh yes it is. This is one thing I'm certain of (as defined by Traveller,
that is). There are scores of low-population worlds with a high-tech
classification that they couldn't _possibly_ maintain on their own
population base. In 1105 Fulacin ran a Type A starport and a TL of 13
with a population of 800. You couldn't even run a civilization with
half that TL with that. All these worlds must have their TLs artificially
maintained by outside sources.


      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

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