       TRAVELLER Digest 5

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: Archery skill and bows  by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  2) Hey, I LIKE the New Era... by Jeff Scott Franzmann <umfranzm@CC.UManitoba.CA>
  3) TRAVELLER digest 3        by Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
  4) TNE players wanted by pabl@im.se
  5) Listproc changes by rwm@MPGN.COM (Rob Miracle)
  6) FF&S Gauss weapon design by PR James <prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
  7) FF&S: Questions/Ship Classifications by bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
  8) Briliant Lances, Battle Rider by alvin plummer <plummer@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 01:01:05 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Archery skill and bows 
Message-ID: <199408110501.BAA19251@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Wed, 10 Aug 94 19: 35:34 EDT
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 01:01:05 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar>

: Greetings all,
: 
: Can anyone help me out here?

I sure hope so...

[questions about bows deleted]

It's my understand that statistics for such things will be released in
the World Tamer's Guide, which is due out this fall.

: My roleplaying group has been playing TNE for abut 8 weeks after
: many years of fantasy and they hate the TNE universe.  It is too
: depressing and the players don't have enough access to futuristic
: stuff they complain.  I started them in a Pocket Empire in the
: middle of the wilds as I didn't like the standard RCES or old
: Imperium settings and thought a Pocket Empire woud give more
: control over the universe.  The suggestion is that the party is
: time warped into the future 200-300 years.  This would then allow
: for more interesting planet cultures than just after the virus,
: vampire ships and virus affected equipment would be less common and
: the Pocket Empires would be in an expansion phase rather than just
: a survival phase.  The Wilds will still exist.  Has anyone else
: done this?

Why time warp?  Just change around the universe to suit the needs of
your campaign and players.  It always gets my goat when people worry
that their campaign world (universe in this case) isn't the "official"
shrink-wrapped one.  Just have fun...

: What are peoples opinions on the damage system?  We changed to the
: On Target system (from an old White Dwarf?) which multiplies damage
: based on the hit location which works well with the current combat
: system.

I know this means that I'll be breaking many a copyright law, but could
you please post them so that others can see them.

       --Jerry


|>  Jerry Alexandratos             **  "vengo de la tierra del    <|
|>  darkstar@strauss.udel.edu      **   fuego ten cuidado cuando  <|
|>  darkstar@canary.cns.udel.edu   **   llamas mi nombre..."      <|

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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 00:59:52 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jeff Scott Franzmann <umfranzm@CC.UManitoba.CA>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Hey, I LIKE the New Era...
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.9408110046.A17847-c100000@mira.cc.umanitoba.ca>

On Thu, 11 Aug 1994, That Computer Guy wrote:

> It's my understand that statistics for such things will be released in
> the World Tamer's Guide, which is due out this fall.

 Good news :). I missed the World Builder's Guide when it first
came out, and have been lamenting the fact ever since.

> 
> : My roleplaying group has been playing TNE for abut 8 weeks after
> : many years of fantasy and they hate the TNE universe.  It is too
> : depressing and the players don't have enough access to futuristic
> : stuff they complain.  I started them in a Pocket Empire in the

 Keep in mind this is all IMHO :). Too depressing? Hell yes, that's
why I like it so much :). One of the big reasons I like Deep Space Nine
over the Star Trek:The Next Generation...it's not so artificially happy.
People are just not as advanced as all the futurists like to argue. We'll
always have petty disagreements, petty squabbles, and petty wars. We're
petty in general. I LOVE the New Era, since it's simply a result of all of
the human species' faults coming together at once. Virus, the creation of
Humanity now threatening it. The Reformation Coalition, hardly a coalition
at all, forced to use brutal means to achieve what they view as a noble
end. It's the way the future WILL be, not how it ought to be. There is all
the good with all the bad, the way things were meant to be :).
 As for complaints about futuristic equipment? I'm sorry, but if
they complain because they can't get their hands on a Fusion Gun, well,
tough apples. They sound jaded to me. My gaming group had a BLAST when I
dumped then on the rain soaked world of Eriris, with little more than the
clothes on their backs. Forced to deal with a military run city, they came
through with flying colours and smiles, all without the high tech gadgets
everyone seems to crave. Why? They had to deal with high tech problems via
low tech means, and it allowed them to show their creativity :). They got
right back on their run down Labship, the Archimedes, and ended up at at a
TL-15 starport the next adventure, but they had fun without needing high
tech goodies. Your players shouldn't complain, really. Even in a High
Science Fiction Campaign, it sometimes pays to strip 'em bare and have
them face the Rancor without a Lightsaber ;).

> : middle of the wilds as I didn't like the standard RCES or old
> : Imperium settings and thought a Pocket Empire woud give more
> : control over the universe.  The suggestion is that the party is
> : time warped into the future 200-300 years.  This would then allow
> : for more interesting planet cultures than just after the virus,
> : vampire ships and virus affected equipment would be less common and
> : the Pocket Empires would be in an expansion phase rather than just
> : a survival phase.  The Wilds will still exist.  Has anyone else
> : done this?

 If you want high tech worlds bordering on the wilds, just holding
it off, and want to use 'official' material, use the Domain of Deneb.
However, you could always do what I did and 'create' a history for your
particular sector of space, dating from the Rebellion to the New Era. It
allows you to use 'official' material, without locking you into following
it by the letter.

> Why time warp?  Just change around the universe to suit the needs of
> your campaign and players.  It always gets my goat when people worry
> that their campaign world (universe in this case) isn't the "official"
> shrink-wrapped one.  Just have fun...

 Always the number one priority :).

Sincerely,
Jeff Franzmann




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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 08:59:26 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 3       
Message-ID: <199408110659.AA04056@oslonett.no>

PR James <prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>To: traveller@MPGN.COM
>Subject: Ship design with FF&S
>Message-ID: <29666.9408101606@titian.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

>I'm new to the traveller universe and having never seen any traveller
>or megatraveller rules for ship building I'm having a couple of
>problems with with the rules given in Fire Fusion & Steel. I was hoping
>someone would be able to help out with the following problems:

>Is the surface area of a hull calulated including the hull plating
>thickness or excluding it?
I asked GDW about the same, their answer was no. Hull thicknes do not
aditional thickness do not apply.

>How much fuel capacity should a ship have? Enough for one jump, 10?
A simpler way to calculate it is to multiply the drive volume with 5.
Then you get fuel volume needed for one jump out to the maximum jump
range. Divide fuel volume by jump numbeer to get fuel volume needed for
jump one.

>How is the number of crewstations and workstations required calulated??
Following crew should have bridge workstations:
        Command
        MFD
        Maneuver
        Electronics

Engineers should have only normal workstations.

>Are the cost, size and power of navigational aids the same nomatter
>what size ship they are fitted to or are the figures given per
>displacement ton?
The size of the ship do not matter.

>Can a ship have a computer of a tech level higher than its control
>system?
No

>Is it possible to have retractable turrets (so a ship can be equipped
>with a turret and still remain streamlined)?
If you look in the TNE rulebook at the equipment chapter, you will see
that the turret is automatically retractable.

>How are costs for fuel scoops calculated? You work out how many you
>want as a percentage of the total surface area, but the costs are given
>per cubic metre. Does one cubic metre of fuel scoop cover 1 square
>metre of surface area or 10, does tech level affect this?
I must confess that I use the design rules in BL at some areas, when I
find the instructions there more understandable. Use the rule there.

I hope this helps some :)

**StarWolf**  myhre@oslonett.no
                                                

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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 94 8:55:29 EDT
From: pabl@im.se
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: TNE players wanted
Message-ID: <9408111255.AA55289@itgrs1.im.se>

Hello all
  I'm new to the list and was wondering if there were any TNE players
on the list from the Sicklerville, NJ area looking other TNE players.

Paul Blankenship
44 Brearly Drive
Sicklerville, NJ 08081

pabl@im.se

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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 09:40:34 -0400
From: rwm@MPGN.COM (Rob Miracle)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Listproc changes
Message-ID: <199408111340.JAA19780@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

We tweeked the listproc software a little this morning to try to permently
fix the transmission bug.  Hopefully this will be much more stable.

Thanks for your support.

Rob
--
Rob Miracle
rwm@mpgn.com
"You have a problem?  I have a plan!" -- Anton Devious


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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 15:21:04 +0100 (BST)
From: PR James <prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Travller mailing list)
Subject: FF&S Gauss weapon design
Message-ID: <6814.9408111421@titian.ecs.soton.ac.uk>

Thanx for the various people who helped with my ship designing, now all i
need to do is work out what Battle Rider is and buy Brilliant Lances
(anyone care to email me a review of it?).

Anyway I decided last night to try and design something a little simpler, a
gauss snipers rifle, and came across something that I'm sure is an error.

When calculating the barrel length, FF&S(pg102) gives a formula Lb=V/100TLm.
The text above this formula states that higher muzzle velocities require
longer barrels, but higher tech levels allow higher acceleration within the
barrel and thus shorter barrels. However when I calculated the barrel
length for a 4000m/s muzzle velocity i relized the shortest barrel length
is achived at TL 10 (25 cm) and the LONGEST barrel length is at TL 16+
(100cm).

Assuming someone can help me with this problem I'll post a design for a
gauss snipers rifle tommorrow, and should be able to finish a spreadsheet
for gauss weapon design.

Paul James  prj91@ecs.soton.ac.uk

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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 12:48:03 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FF&S: Questions/Ship Classifications
Message-ID: <199408111748.MAA15978@oyster.micro.umn.edu>

James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us> writes:

[good discussion deleted]

> The other side of the fuel problem is reaction mass for the HEPlaR drive.
>This eats up volume at voracious rates.  In PC ships, it almost always
>comes down to what you want more: cargo or manuevering time.  This is a
>design philosophy question that only you can answer for your specific
>campaign.

This problem tends to clear up with larger ships which have more
volume available.  (And also less proportional surface area, but
that doesn't enter in here.)  I've just about finished a TNE
version of the _PF Sloan_ Fleet Escort (5000 tons), which in the
various configurations I've tried has from 75 to 100 G-turns, good
armor, and lots of other equipment.  I plan to post that one also
in a few days, after people are back and I finalize my design.
This probably indicates why _Battle Rider_ isn't too concerned 
with tracking G-turns!  Speaking of which....

"Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au> writes:

[discussion of ship classification scheme deleted]

I don't have it uploaded yet, but I've been putting together a
quick report on the way that the Imperial Navy classification
scheme and tonnage progression seemed to work, with a few 
notes on mission details.

Two things I'd like to touch on for now.  First, some paramilitary
or civilian ships were designated "cruisers", even if they were
more like cabin cruisers.  (Partly an artifact from original CT.)
A lot of them were closer to destroyer escorts or corvettes in
actual operation.  Second, the RC uses their own designations for
the craft they have.  Some of them are a bit overblown, some are
Imperial relics, and some are their own.  So an RC "Battle Rider,
Light" is really a converted SDB carried by a 2000 ton stretch
_Aurora_, and really isn't in the same league as a real 25000 ton
line battle rider like an _Admiral_, even if the concept is similar.
So if you try to merge RC and Imperial terms, it's easy to get
screwed up *real* fast.

More later!

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


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

Date: Thu, 11 Aug 1994 16:24:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: alvin plummer <plummer@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Briliant Lances, Battle Rider
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9408111632.C21768-8100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


One day, after I have gainful employment, I plan to buy the above two
products.  Any brief reviews on them?  E-mail me! 

Thanks, 

Alvin Plummer
(gone to do some reasearch on hydroponics and motorbikes...)


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 5
*************************
