       TRAVELLER Digest 38

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RAFM miniatures by "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
  2) RAFM: do I have them all? by "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
  3) Imperial Navy Forces  by "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
  4) various by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
  5) deckplans and ships by cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
  6) Starports by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
  7) Re: Starports by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
  8) Re: Battle Rider Fighters by bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
  9) Re: Copywrong hassles by CHiggin@aol.com
 10) Traveller Deck Plans by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
 11) Space Balls by Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
 12) Fighters Again by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>

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

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 22:14:46 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RAFM miniatures
Message-ID: <199409120514.WAA11102@well.sf.ca.us>

Steve Charlton offered to collect our requests for miniatures and forward
them to RAFM:  thank you.  Now, I hope you didn't ask for emails, rather
than a posting.

Figures:  Traveller aliens and animals.  I can improvise starships and other
vehicles (as I have since 1981 or so, when I began playing fairly
seriously), and even military types (Space Marine figures are pretty good),
but there are many very nice illustrations in the canon of animals that my
players might encounter that I'd like to have (ok you open the door and here
is what you see -- well, it's not really like a plastic triceratops, really
it has six legs and a long neck....)

I'd love to see (and would immediately buy) the 25mm Grenadier figures
again.  I don't know if Grenadier still has the molds, but I wish RAFM would
work out a deal with them to re-release these figures.

As far as aliens, I'd like to see the major races first.  The Aslan and
Hiver figures are a good start (but the quality isn't quite up to
Grenadier's Aslan and Hiver), but let's please have Vargr and Droyne.

As for vehicles, I'm looking for the Kinunir, the xboat tender and xboats,
the Broadsword 800-ton mercenary cruiser, the Shivva class patrol frigate
(see Adventure 4: Leviathan, and probably Adventure 3: Research Station
Gamma), and the Azhanti High Lightning, and preferably all in the same
scale.  (The RAFM spacecraft are really good -- they're exactly what I've
been visualizing for over a decade.)


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

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 22:23:04 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RAFM: do I have them all?
Message-ID: <199409120523.WAA13258@well.sf.ca.us>

The numbers on the second set of RAFM blister packs is not a complete run.
Do I have all of the sets released to date?
1st set:
5801 Scout
5802 SDB
5803 Gazelle
5804 Patrol Cruiser
5805
5805 Free Trader
5806 Far Trader
5807 Lab ship
5808 Subsidized merchant
5809 Yacht
5810 Launch
5811 Ship's boat
5812 Modular Cutter
5813 Shuttle

2d set:
5852 Coalition Marines in BD
5853 Technos (Hiver and human)
5858 Combat robots
5859 Aslan troops
5860 grav bike

Thanks

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

Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 22:52:43 -0700
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.sf.ca.us>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Imperial Navy Forces 
Message-ID: <199409120552.WAA21190@well.sf.ca.us>

Steve Charlton, in Traveller Digest 35, has a good statement of Imperial
Naval organization, except for the line about
"This means the Imperium can send fleets from quiet sectors to troubled
ones...."
Eventually, yes, fleets would get from the quiet sectors, but, as far as
holding off the Zhodani and the Solomani in the short term, those regions
are on their own for years.

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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 11:32:46 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: various
Message-ID: <199409120852.EAA02625@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

About Water
-----------
Okay, I've got your point, thanks! BTW I primarily I meant that starship
fuelling takes much water, not "normal" fusion plants.

DNI & Virus
-----------
As far as I know the Virus can't infect anything indirctly. That means by
any sensor (including eyes and EMS). Therefore if it is only way that Virus
could infect human brain, then there is no danger for that. I agree that
Virus could send some impuls that could cause epileptical fits or heart
attack.
It is of course possible to use electirical fuses to prevent great electrical
shocks, but the drawback is that when the fuse goes down then the decker
"jacks out". I'm not any kind of expert in the field of electronics, but
don't
you think that it is possible to make circuitry that draws excess current
away from DNI? I don't know so please tell me.

And what comes to those pulses that can cause fits or heart attcks, I think
this is where defencive programs comes in. In fact those programs are in 
*cyberdeck* not in target computer and they work as far as the deck
works,IMHO.

In TNE or in some article in Challenge is said that defencive programs of 
pre-collapse era slowed down infection attempts of Virus. Therefore I believe
that defencive programs of post-collapse era can stop the Virus infection
totally or at least slow it significantly. When this is added to the fact
that
decker can "infect" chips of Virus, then decker has at least 50/50 chances
against Virus. Right?

Even if you would not accept that defence progs can defeat Virus it can't
infect brains. That is because brains are biological, as I was rightly 
corrected about nervecells they are electro-CHEMICAL. Therefore Virus can't
burn the new circuitry into the brain. 

Fleets
------
As I have only run TNE and I am not familiar with Megatravelle or Classic 
Traveller I don't know much about Rebellion. But as you can see from the
TNE book p.79 Core, Fornast and Ley Sector are about totally inside the Black
Curtain. Therefore fleets in these sectors are very likely infected by Virus.
Althought it would be great plot to have one or two ship(s) inside the Black
Curtain which were free from infection and their crews trying to get out of
there. Otherwise I don't have a slightest idea, sorry.

Exploration
-----------
Just how you run exploration adventures? I mean how you input some excitement
to those anventure?  

I'd like to see a sample exploration adventure.

Dungeon syndroma
----------------
Transmission: Dungeon syndroma is spread by game situation or problem that is
              too difficult for players to handle. It is also known to infect
              paties that have no idea what to do next plus if referee
doesn't
              have an idea also.

Symptoms: Players look bored and angry. They don't know what to do and
propably
          just talk to each other about anything exept current session. And
          if they happen to try to play then they make pathetic moves and
          usually very violent attempts to solve problems set by GM.

Diagnosis: Easy refereeing.

Misdiagnosis: Players are not interested about your adventure or are fed up
              with their characters.

Treatment: GM can arrange a firefight or some other relating action to get
           players' attention. After that he can give some hints about
problems
           so playing session can continue.

           Players can also arrange action by themselves but chances are that
           they end up dead, but that's the only way to handle Dungeon
syndroma
           without GM's help.

Course of Disease:

           Incubation: 1d6 hours
           Phase I: 1d6 minutes
           Phase II: 1d6 minutes

Failed Recovery Death Probability: 9

Postrecovery Debility: With treatment, none; without, possibly termination of
           campaign.

Note: I have suffered from this Dungeon syndroma, about all my fellow players
      have also suffered from this disease. Almost all the cases were found
      among the players of certain Role Master campaigns. They usually ended
      up total annihilation of our party (our GM was really sadistic one).
      When we were last time playing it our GM really went nuts because he
      thought that we couldn't play good enough! I suppose it meant
termination
      of that campaign.


Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi


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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 13:40:24 +0100 (BST)
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: deckplans and ships
Message-ID: <m0qkAgL-0003trC@ccub.wlv.ac.uk>

Hi again there
 With  the discusion going on abought, deck plans and  the
list  that  was put up , one sorce was missed  out,  (cringes  in
preperation  of flames) Games Workshops , White  Dwarf  Magazine,
in  the  earlyer  issues  ( 20 to abought 90  )  a  semi  regular
traveller  collum existed and ship designs and  adventures  wernt
that  rare,  also  in  one  issue  the  designs  for  theoretical
starports  were given. I hope that those of you that can look  do
as some of the stuff was well thought out.
 From  the  above magazine the 300 dip ton TL  14  jump  4
scout  can  be reworked and after doing the design  with  FF&S  i
calculated  the  cost  to be abought twice  that  of  a  standerd
scout,  this is the reson that i brought the idea up  considering
that its not realy that hard to end up with a normal scout  using
the TNE rules.
 
 My . 2  Cr  on fighters is that they  would  be  used  as
decoys  for  main attcks and also to cloud  out  missle  tracks ,
hovever i will admidt that ive yet to try to run a space  battle,
and  i  do  remember the statement in FF&S that a  50  ton  craft
hitting  a  black glode sheild will over load it  and  cause  the
system to explode, any coments on disposable remote fighters  for
this purpose.

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


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

Date: Thu,  8 Sep 94 20:43:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (Jeff Zeitlin)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Starports
Message-ID: <1.202991.256.0CB5F945@execnet.com>

Subject: Starports

  I'm trying to "build" a city for a campaign that I'm running.
  The city has the downport component of a class A starport.  I 
  have some questions about designing this port:

  1) An airport has a landing area (the runways) and a service 
  area (hangars/terminals).  A seaport combines the two (into the 
  dock).  Which model should I follow with a starport?

  2) Should I assume that _all_ starships, shuttles, etc., that use 
  the starport are VTOL-capable?  If not, then I obviously have to 
  follow the airport model.  If so, the question is still open.

  3) For ships that use Newtonain reaction mass for takeoffs and 
  landings, how much of a clear area around the vessel itself 
  should I allow?

  4) How big should I make the "parking" zones for the ships, and 
  how far apart?

  Once I have these questions answered, I think I can construct the 
  starport sensibly, and then make a decision on the physical 
  relationship between the starport proper, the extrality zone, and 
  the planetary city.  But I'm willing to listen to any comments 
  that anyone else has on this topic...
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
 ~ QMPro 1.52 ~ Chief Archivist, Regency Institute for Cultural Education

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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 11:35:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starports
Message-ID: <199409121535.LAA11150@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

>   1) An airport has a landing area (the runways) and a service 
>   area (hangars/terminals).  A seaport combines the two (into the 
>   dock).  Which model should I follow with a starport?

The Airport model is acutally a little better.  But a lot depends on
the planet.  For instance, one world (from a published GDW product, 
though which one slips my mind) with a 'C' atmosphere, brought the
ships inside the planet.  Some star ports will have big open areas
that the ships reside in, others will have docking bays.  In Asmov's
Foundation series, the Starport at Trantor was of a docking bay config.
The ships were in the star port, and the people on Trantor never left
the concreate and steel of the capital. 

Depending on the local tech level, you will have either run ways, or
lifters or both.  Some SciFi (which I use) have large magnetic/tractor
beams that reach up into space and pull the starship down, and lift it 
back into space.  So you can get by with not having run ways.  Also it
has been implied that some starships (and ships boats) can hover, also
eliminating the need for long runways.

>   4) How big should I make the "parking" zones for the ships, and 
>   how far apart?

You should plan to be able to support the largest starship that YOU
intend to do.  You could say, that for this world, ships over 1000T
have to use the orbital facility.  You can then plan your space needs
accordingly.

Rob

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

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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 11:08:02 -0500
From: bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Battle Rider Fighters
Message-ID: <199409121608.LAA07881@piranha.micro.umn.edu>

"Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com> writes:

>As laser platforms, you have a problems with the actual potential to do 
>damage.  Could you put a laser on a fighter (a sub-100 ton 1-3 man platform
>with more than 1 or 2 (BR) damage points?  If you can't, how can they do
>effective damage against a capital ship? Play bloody hell with the screen,
>though.

I didn't say they'd do much good against a capital ship, just that 
fighters were essentially big missiles.  (With the caveat that there
are a lot of other ways to use fighters than that way, as I mentioned
in my posting.)  As mentioned in Battle Rider, missiles shouldn't be
able to hurt capital ships much either.  The rules were fiddled so
that instead of having missiles do 1D6 hits at DV 2, they do one hit
at DV 1D6 (i.e., a 20 to 200 point laser!), for reasons of game play
and atmosphere.  Draw your own conclusions from that.

>Fighters always operate in flights of (say) 5-16.  Targetted as a unit 
>- diff mods for quantity.  DV/2 (say) is number killed.  All take same
>action (fire at same target, launch missles, etc.) missile spread looses
>missiles as flight looses fighters.

If we follow the missile spread rules:
  * The squadron is detected and targeted as a whole.
  * However, one beam may only fire at one fighter.  Several beams may
     fire at the same fighter.  (Think about it; this makes a lot of sense.)

What does this sound like?  A task force.  The difference is, a successful
detection on a task force spots one ship, while a successful detection on
a spread spots all the missiles.  Presumably, the spread is in a tighter
formation than a task force.  There probably shouldn't be any hard and fast
rule on the number of fighters in a flight here, just like task forces and
missile spreads.  There's good enough tactical reason to keep the flights
small anyway, especially if you treat a squadron like a missile spread.

>Treated as one ship for sensor, some sort of cumulative rules for jamming, 
>sesor activity, etc.

I'm not sure exactly how this would be worked out, but semi-independent 
missiles can each do their own detection.  However, if we can use the 
standard BL rules too, the fighters could hand off successful target locks
to each other.  I don't know if BR has provision for that.

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


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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 14:52:53 EDT
From: CHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Copywrong hassles
Message-ID: <9409121452.tn799008@aol.com>

Les Howie sez:

>I would not be two keen on this as a solution to copyright hassles.  Pretty 
>soon, some lad will realize that he could give it to his buddy WITH the
table 
>that he had typed in, and you would be in the soup.

That's his problem, not the original programmer's...

>Even if your software prompts "enter the mass of a range 10 TL 13 beam
pointer 
>(page xx, line xxx)" every time it recalculates, you have still lodged the 
>formulas in your system.

Mathematical formulas AREN'T copyrightable.  Tables of numbers by themselves
AREN'T copyrightable. (There was an interesting case where it was ruled that
the Phonebook isn't copyrightable because it is merely an alphabetized list
of names... it fails the originality test.) Therefore...

>By the time you have stripped out everything naughty from your design aid,
you 
>have written a spreasheet program!!.

..I don't need to strip ANYTHING out of my design spreadsheet.

>The only good soultion is for GDW to cut a deal for a competent commercial 
>implementation.  Mac and Windows, please, guys -- real soon now, and I will 
>gladly pay good money for it.

Oh, goody -- let's wait for the wonderful company folks to deign to give us
poor peons permission to PAY for someone else's hackwork that probably
doesn't work as well as something you or I could write, and certainly won't
have exactly the features I want.  I'll program anything I damn well please,
thank you, and I'll give it to anyone I feel like giving it to.  *I* still
live in a free country!  How about you?  Did you move to this strange
Corporate-Ruled state where all the netrunners cower in fear of the dreaded
TSR and GDW (and Palladium, and etc.,etc) copyright lawyers?  A lot of silly,
gutless people seem to think they have.

As for copyright and trademark issues, (1) see my comments above about math
formulas & tables, (2) it could be argued that both TSR and GDW's worlds,
formats, ship designs and anything else that they think is infringeable in
public domain net material has ALREADY BEEN IN CIRCULATION WITHOUT CHALLENGE
FOR SO LONG THAT IT HAS SLIPPED INTO THE PUBLIC DOMAIN!  The Net Spell books
have been around at least 10+ years on the Internet... so have Traveller ship
designs and Sector data files.  If those are trademarks, they're public
domain by now.  If they were created by someone not at GDW (i.e.,
gamer-developed ship designs), the copyright isn't GDW's to complain about.
(3) Look-and-feel is still legally ambiguous as grounds for claiming
copyright infringement -- legal cases have gone both ways.  (4) Are TSR &
GDW's copyright lawyers familiar with the legal decision involving Nintendo
and that company that made an in-line add-on for Nintendo games that allowed
players to modify characters and game conditions?  Nintendo lost the
infringement suit because it was not shown that the add-on hurt Nintendo's
sales in any way -- rather the opposite.  Any of the game companies would
have a hard time proving that computer utilities to assist in playing their
games are criminally infringing their copyrights  when said utilities are
more likely to help their sales than hurt them.  (5) I don't know if the
folks at GDW are just "me-tooing" TSR's heavy-handed stance on copyrights of
net material, but they should be aware that TSR is apparently pulling a "deep
pockets" bluff -- i.e., "I can afford more lawyers than you can, so you'll
back off even if you are in the right".  The legal issues involving
copyrights of various net materials are very iffy -- infringement is not so
certain as TSR and GDW seem to want us to think.

Yeah, lawyers are scary, and they send menacing letters.  They also bluff.
 Most people are so scared of legal entanglements, they won't stop to
consider if they are actually in the right, but will just knuckled under and
do anything the lawyer demands to avoid trouble.  That's the way companies
with a budget for lawyers push the average guy around...






                                                                           --
Cynthia, who is in a bad mood right now.




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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 13:21:14 -0400
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller Deck Plans
Message-ID: <94Sep12.173619edt.95692-4@mail.uunet.ca>

I have most of the Traveller deckplans available as files, thank's to GDW's
kind permission (and my hours of drawing).  Almost everything is available in
15mm scale (1/2 inch squares), and a few items in 25mm scale (1 inch squares,
and colour).

My agreement with GDW lets me distribute these _at cost_ (which in the case
of the colour copies isn't cheap), but also prohibits me from putting them on
the network (not really a problem, I've already had some posted work
reuploaded with someone else's name attached).  

If you want copies of a GDW deckplan, send me a letter and we can work out
things like cost and so on (postage varies depending on where you live).

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

Date: 12 Sep 94 15:57:36 MS
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Space Balls
Message-ID: <9409122200.AA11467@khan.avalon.COM>

Ed Fok (the Caffeine Achiever) notes:

>On the other hand I've been toying with the idea of the Kinetic energy
weapon
>for use in space combat.  Using a stock TL-12 semi-independent missile as a
>base, I replaced its nuclear detonation warhead (400 kg) with 400 1 kg dumb
>shots.  Assuming the missile were able to utilize all 8 G-turns (w/o losses
>for maneuvering, dogleg profile, etc) any projectile that hits will
>have a peneteration value of about 508 (see FF&S pg 140).  

You could have great fun with this.  Given the small size and lack of sensor 
signature
 for these iron balls, you could (with luck and good intelligence info)
launch 
a cloud
 of balls from far beyond sensor range.  The luckless target would not even know to
 navigate out of the way.  Stationary clouds of iron balls could be unleashed in
 inconvenient places; imagine a lone accelerating heavy fighter fleeing in front of
 several pursuing and accelerating enemy SDBs.  As it flies, it dumps a load of balls
 (hi-tech caltrops).  Most balls would miss, but the few that hit would be most
 spectacular in terms of damage.  This would mean that the balls would be around
 forever, but they would maintain the velocity and vector from release time.

The SDBs fly by an hour later, now moving much faster in relation to the balls.

BANG! 
 Big ugly dents and other semi-pyrotechnic events ensue.

These would work even better as planetary defense weapons.  They could be
 placed into strategic orbits by orbiting satellites or from planetary defense 
missiles. 
 This would force assault ships to change vectors to avoid the balls (messing up the
 jump troops' drop patterns or planetary attack missile runs).  If the attackers don't
 see or ignore the balls, they will be damaged or destroyed.  This is easier in a
 planetary defense role since the defender knows which orbits would be the most
 likely for attackers to use for dropping troops or ordanance, and so could block
 those accordingly.

I think this could actually be more damaging than Ed suggests, if both the ball and
 the target are in motion.  I think the velocities would be multiplied (WARNING:  NOT
 A PHYSICS MAJOR).  Maybe some kind, math-capable person could come up with
 a formula to derive the penetration/damage value of this, based on target velocity,
 ball velocity, ball volume and ball material from the FF&S Material table. 

A hypothetical question for Loren (re: Copyrights and Publishing)

If I have an infinite number of monkeys using an infinite number of typewriters,
 working at creating a duplicate of some Shakespeare work, and they instead come
 up with the Battle Rider rules and show them to me, can the monkeys be sued?

 Also, if they should come up with the Striker II rules before GDW published them,
 does that mean I get to sue GDW?  I sure hope so; somebody's got to pay to clean
 up after these damn monkeys!

scharlto@avalon.com

Bad Monkey!  No more Danielle Steele Novels!  Get Back to Work!

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

Date: Mon, 12 Sep 94 22:36:01 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Fighters Again
Message-ID: <9409130136.AA00414@Prograph.Com>

MDURRAN@aol.com writes
> I use the fighters in groups like missiles but 2 hits to destroy (1st hit
> disables) and unlike missiles any group can be attacked.
> The 4 missiles they carry are the sting average DV 3 Max 6.  Figue sand and
> AV 1 they will on average damage any ship smaller than 999 tons, at max any
> smaller than 999,999 tons.
> 

As I conceded to John earlier that emplyment does make sense to me (except I 
would rate a hit with DV>2 as a one hit kill).  However, AV 1 is not a capital 
ship, AV 10 is more along the right lines.  

Can this ship actually control all 4 of its missiles?  My reading of the FF&S/BR
rules seems to indicate the need for a crewman at a missile control station, and
that even SIMs need to be controlled to fire. (I'll buy one lad in the back 
seat, but beyond that I recall the Rampart as a fairly small little toy).

Or, to cut it another way, what is this puppy buying you that a 9-point CVM 
Valor is not?

Pointwise, though, I would rate the tonage of a fighter flight based on the 
square root of the total tonnage of the flight -- after all, it is only one unit
of maneuver.

Wan't to try it on?  Joe Heck has offered to moderate PBeMail Battle Rider, and 
these things are always best tested in combat.

Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 38
**************************
