       TRAVELLER Digest 39

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) RE: MIXED                 by Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
  2) Fighting space balls... by Caffein Achiever! <fok@chaph.usc.edu>
  3) Ship Design Trials & TL 15 Battledress by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
  4) Re: TRAVELLER digest 36 by MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
  5) Re: Copyright. by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
  6) lifepath by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
  7) Re:Traveller Digest 38 by "Harold D. Hale" <HDHALE@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
  8) RAFM Figures by Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
  9) Re:Some questions on weaponry.(long) by "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
 10) Re:Space balls/Cosmic Shotgun by "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
 11) More about fighters by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
 12) TRAVELLER digest 38 by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
 13) TRAVELLER digest 38 by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
 14) Exploration Adventures by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 07:36:07 +0200
From: Roger Myhre <myhre@oslonett.no>
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: MIXED                
Message-ID: <199409130536.AA11209@oslonett.no>

>How about using psionic computer empathy with connection to computer
>via DNI?
OK we got a third way to do it :)


Roger "StarWolf" Myhre



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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 0:11:48 PDT
From: Caffein Achiever! <fok@chaph.usc.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Fighting space balls...
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.779440308.fok@phakt.usc.edu>

Date: 12 Sep 94 15:57:36 MS
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc

>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.
[...stuff deleted, but same idea]

> 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.

Heres a thought:

at the scale of 30000km per hex, a 1 kg object moving at 1 hex per 30
mintues turn will have a energy of 139Mj. times 4 to get a base
penetration value of 556.   For each additional hex per turn this 
value is doubled once. (for example: 2 hex per turn then 2 x
556 = 1112, 3 hex per turn then 2 x (2 x 139) = 2224)

Use the relative velocity between the projetile and the target to
determine the above value.  Also in additional to the velocity
multiplier, multiply the result by the mass of the projetile in kilograms.
(again w/the 3 hex per turn projetile: 1kg then PV=2224, 0.5kg then PV=1112

This can be more effective then ...spinal mounts!?

-Ed Fok
p.s. Thanks for the comments!  A friendly suggestion: Steve can you
perhaps switch to an editor that inserts hard returns at the end of 80
columns?  It makes reading and reformatting much easier! :)

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 16:06:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Ship Design Trials & TL 15 Battledress
Message-ID: <2E767E49@msmail.trl.oz.au>


Les Howie-Ship Design Trials:
     A similar thing was done years ago with High Guard in the Cluster TCS 
PBM games. In these any ship design within 5% of the "size step" boundary 
may not be classified as what you thought it was!

Roger Myhre-TL 15 Battledress:
     You EEDIOT!
     The Rigid Body Armour Table lists the mass of armour PER ARMOUR FACTOR 
per location. In addition armour factors greater than the materials 
toughness require double this mass per additional armpour factor.
eg. For your TL  15 BD made from BSD ( toughness = 28 )
mass of head and full torso armour to AV 30 is 32x1.95=62.4 kg
mass of arms and legs armour to AV 28 is 28x2.4=67.2 kg
total armour mass=129.6 kg.
This is a bit more than what you had and really eats into the 200 kg of 
"spare" mass.

Django.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 19:12:03 +1000
From: MOBTOTRM@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 36
Message-ID: <01HH2OW2G8CI9JEFTG@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au>

G'day
I need to desub from the Traveller Digest and XBoat Digest for a while.  I
have lost the information describing how to do this.  Could someone please
send it to me?
Cheers
MOB

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 08:53:26 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Copyright.
Message-ID: <9409131153.AA00860@Prograph.Com>


CHiggin@aol.com (Cynthia), while in a bad mood, writes:
> 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? 

Actually, I don't live in the same country as you do.  I also depend on sales
of
copyrighted software to pay my rent, and buy my groceries, so I probably feel
a 
bit diffently about copyright than you do.

> 
> 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,
[...snipped out excellent agruement of why the one might not get sued
anyway...]
> copyrights of various net materials are very iffy -- infringement is not so
> certain as TSR and GDW seem to want us to think.

Ah, a true anarchist..:-).   Really, you may well be right, BUT, I think we
have
to balance what we do and share freely with what might hurt the revenues of
GDW 
-- and I while I would not feel too bad about ripping off, say, Microsoft,
GDW 
is just a small group of people who have managed to make a living on a small 
market with tight margins.  They deserve praise, support, and nurturing, lest

they go the way of the dodo and SPI.

Copyright laws are there to promote the just treatment of those who live by 
their creativity, and I for one feel that both the letter and the spirit of 
those laws deserve respect.


> 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...
>
 
Actually they are a lot less scarry here.  Canadian lawyers, thank God, have
to 
work flat fee, not percentage -- a real bane of the American legal system.
And 
I very much doubt that GDW has a terribly great budget for lawyers.  I'm just

not going to interfere with their livelihood.

-- Les,
   Not looking for trouble, just for peace, order, and good government :-)

Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:30:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: lifepath
Message-ID: <199409131228.IAA04417@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

Yeah, about life path. It just flashed to me suddenly.
In Challenge 35 is an article "The Spice of Life" which is mainly  
background generator for NPCs in MegaTraveller. But I suppose you can
use and modify it. I just thought to let you know. If someone generates
better background generator let me know.

P.S. My friend have a Central Casting II -Heroes of Tomorrow (I think).
     That is a background and personality generator size of a book
     for SciFi games made by Task Force. 
     
Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi


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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 11:49:08 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <HDHALE@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re:Traveller Digest 38
Message-ID: <se7590eb.029@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

   My comments on your comments....

<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.>

   Well, months perhaps, but not years.  The Imperium wasn't quite _that_
big (unless you're talking about sending the Old Expanses Fleet to the
Spinward Marches, then we're talking serious time lag there).  The Corridor
Fleet is a good example of a "fire brigade" force, which was stationed two
sectors away, but saved the bacon of the Spinward Marches more than
once.  True, the Corridor Sector wasn't exactly quiet, but the principle
is the same.

<Subject: Starports>

  <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?>

   Both.  Actually an orbitable facility would probably look more like a
seaport, and a planet-side facility some hybrid in between.  A lot depends
on what kind of ships will be landing there.  If there are quite a few
designs
that employ thrusters but no contragrav, having runways for those craft
makes a lot sense, since although they can theoretically land straight down,
such landings take much more fuel.  So if you have the land area (or can
build it artifically) it makes sense to have at least one runway.

  <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.>

   Depends on the design of the spacecraft--though most if not all do.
I recently designed a TL 12 fighter that has no contragrav, but has an
airframe hull so that it can land on the surface.

  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?

   A good model is an aircraft carrier, which generally employ some sort of
blast shield in back of the aircraft as it takes off.  If I may be so bold as
to
refer to another universe, I recall in the movie Star Wars that the Mos
Eisley spaceport had special bays for craft which were sealed off from the
rest of the facility when a spacecraft was taking off.  I remember in the
novel that they were refered to as being bowl shaped, and obviously they
open at the top.  Size would depend upon the what size ships were to
routinely use the facility.  Size-wise, the area for a typical small craft
bay
on a starship would be as good as any.

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

   Being that a starport is a commerical facility, I would try to maximize
the number of craft I could get into the space available, while trying to
keep safety in mind.  If you have noted the spacing at a typical airport
or dock, they get them packed in pretty good, but also have large amounts
of clearance up to the actual gate/dock facility itself so that the
plane/vessel
has plenty of area to manuever so that it can position itself properly.

   Additional note: In your design, please allow for extra lanes of traffic
coming into the airport!  :-)

Cynthia, who is in a bad mood right now, writes among other things:

<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...>

   There was a guy in the news a while back who decided he wasn't going
to pay taxes anymore because, he decided, that the system was "voluntary"
(a horrible misinterpretation of the law, BTW).  He was perfectly safe until
he wrote a book about it and starting touring the country preaching tax
revolt.  As soon as he had accumlated some wealth doing this, wham! the
IRS and the FBI came down on him hard with a laundry list of charges.

   It comes down basically to a question of risk.

   The fact is that if you put together a game aid, and give a few copies to
friends, GDW or TSR are very unlikely to hear about it, let alone consider
legal action.  If you decide to post a gaming aid on a local BBS or sell some
copies of it at the local game store, it is possible that GDW or TSR could
find out about it, and would look at it for copyright infringement--your
chances of getting sued are still slim, but increased, due to the possibility
that they might make an example of you.  If you are bold enough to post
your gaming aid to Internet, or sell it by mail, it is almost inevitable (if
your
product is of high quality) that GDW or TSR will find out about it, and look
_very_ closely for copyright infringement.  If they can track down the
source, you stand a good chance of getting a "nastygram" from the
company, followed by another from a lawyer if you don't stop publication
or remove your work from the Internet.  If the company thinks what
you have done is sufficently damaging, they _will_ sue--not so that they can
take your car and house, but so that they can make sure you won't continue
your copyright infringement.  The last thing these companies want is
to force some middle-class family out on the street and then have them 
crying to the press about the big, bad, ugly corporation.  Ask any major
company that ever won a case and then lost more in sales than they won
in the settlement due to negative publicity about that.

   The reality of it is that most people can't afford to consult with an
attorney about things that really matter in their life, let alone over
something that is a hobby.  I can't believe that any of the people who
frequent this board (game companies executive and staff excluded) plan on
or are making a living producing game aids for Traveller, which means
that we are all hobbyists (if you are still unsure, ask the IRS--having
published work does not make you a professional writer).  Using copyrighted
material in a game aid involves risk, particularly if you are not trying to
market it to GDW, but instead decide to go it alone (either selling copies
or giving them away).  

   Chances are, Cynthia, and GDW won't tell you this, you won't get caught.
Like that guy who announced to the world that he wasn't paying his taxes,
however, the fact that you posted your intentions on TML to distribute a
game aid that contains copyrighted material (if I understood you correctly),
means that you have just substantially increased the chances you will be
getting that "nastygram" from GDW.  Hope you have the name of a
good attorney in your address book, just in case, if you go ahead with your
plans (no threat, real or implied here, just reality).  

   The nature of today's legal climate is that you can be right, but lose
the case--and even if you don't lose, you're out big bucks.  I don't think
you
can afford it, and neither can I.


Steve Charlton writes:

<dumb space munitions>

   The only problem with leaving steel balls in orbit or using them in space
is that they become an extreme navigation hazard not only to your enemy,
but you as well.  In orbit for example, not only will you damage the enemy
spacecraft, there is a very good chance you'll knock out your own satellites
as well.  Release enough of them, and you can pretty well forget launching
a spacecraft from the surface anytime soon.  Such munitions have no
friends, only lucky and unlucky targets--and with Murphy's Law being
what it is, there is a very good chance you will have to go back to that
area where you released the spheres and be a clay pigeon for a while....

<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!>

   The chances of your monkeys coming up with an exact duplicate of the
exact same work are so improbable so as to make comment moot.

   _However_, in cases where two scientists working independently of each
other discover 'X', credit is given to both scientists for discovery, even if
one found 'X' a few days before the other guy--provided that guy 'B' (who
finished his process a few days late), worked without knowledge of what
guy 'A' was doing (that is the exact processes, etc.).

   In the case of copyright, you have to show that your monkeys came up
with their version of Battlerider _without knowledge of GDW's version_. 
The all important burden of proof would be on _you_, not GDW in this
case.  If you don't have hard evidence that you started your version of
Battlerider prior to GDW making their version public, you will almost
certainly lose. 

   On the other hand, let's say some hack songwriter sues Michael Jackson
for stealing a song.  To win, the songwriter must prove that the songs are
identical (or virtually identical, there are after all, only a limited number
of
musical notes and ways to arrange them in common useage), and the
songwriter must have hard evidence that he/she wrote the song before
Michael recorded his version.  

   GDW would almost certainly be able to prove your monkey's work is
essentially similar to theirs, and although your monkeys may not know
Battlerider from Oscar Wilde, that does not matter, since GDW has long
since published Battlerider, and can produce evidence that it was in the
works long before your version came about.  Unless one of your monkeys
is an 81 year old grandmother, GDW will be able to shut down your
monkey sweat shop without so much as a hint of sweat on their lawyer's
brow.


Harold

"No, I'm not a lawyer, but I am related to a few."





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

Date: 13 Sep 94  9:34:12 MS
From: Steve Charlton/Avalon Software Inc
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: RAFM Figures
Message-ID: <9409131538.AA14274@khan.avalon.COM>

Glen Goffin (sudet@well.sf.ca.us) writes
>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.

Posting here is fine.  Loren & Co at GDW Support said that they would also
be happy to forward this information, so posting lets both GDW and me
know.  Like Glen, I am a big fan of the old Grenadier minis (especially the
Adventurers and Alien Adventurers sets).  However, I am fairly pleased with
the RAFM figures.  The only exception has been the RAFM aliens, which
have ranged from OK (the Aslan) to hideous (the Hiver).  As for the ships, I
am most ecstatic.  I have already made whining sounds about wanting
Rampart fighters, a Mercenary Cruiser, a Kinunir Cruiser, a Midu Agaashaam
destroyer and an Azhanti High Lightning.  One can only hope.  I just don't
know how an AHL Cruiser can be done in 1:1200 scale, which is what
RAFM is trying to stick to.  I want one anyway, even if it is larger than
several Battle Rider hexes. 

scharlto@avalon.com
Currently adding a room to his house
in anticipation of the 1:1200 Atlantic class Battlecruiser figure

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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 14:24:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
To: Traveller Submission <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re:Some questions on weaponry.(long)
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9409131447.A20025-0100000@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>


Wow! the TML has really surged back to life, probably has something to do 
with the new school year.  Anyway.....

A while back someone posted a fix for Plasma and Fusion weapons their main
problems being poor range and effectiveness.  I would like to initiate a
discuussion on this topic, (unless GDW has already corrected it) so that
we can come to some sort of consensus on these weapons.  I breifly toyed 
with it last night before calling it quits.

The problem is this, the high energy weapon design sequences as they 
stand make great sense.  I mean the logic behind it is very appealing and 
perhaps realistic BUT.....If they are only as effective as the FF&S rules 
make them out to be, no one would ever build them much less employ them 
in combat.  Only a total moron would.  I believe someone said this 
earlier.  I beleive GDW also realizes this and as such there werent any 
HE weapons in Challenge 74.  I dont know about other supplements as I 
havent purchased them yet. (Just give me time.)

Just some of my suggestions....
 The cartridges deliver plenty of energy but maybe this could be 
increased based upon the fact that it is a one use weapon type cartridge 
and as such can discharge more rapidly and efficiently?

 A TL 12 PPC about the size of a 120mm cartridge will deliver 13.5 
MJ but by the FF&S rules will have a PEN of 44 at short range.  This is 
compared to a PEN of about 120 for a 120mm HEAP round at TL 8.  I'll take 
that M1 versus that RC grav tank please!.  

 I say that realism is important.  But since this ultimately is 
science FICTION, things can be bent slightly.  For me the plasma and 
fusion guns always filled that sci-fi niche of the blaster.  That do-all 
BFG blow a hole in the wall thundercracker.  Remember high technology for 
high tech sake is pure insanity especially when you get half the 
effectiveness for ten times the price.  

I wonder if GDW plans to address this? (Anyone see this?)
Or if they already have...In which case I retract everything above.

HOLLOW POINTS?
Any ideas, I was thinking of adding a D6 to the damage value and dropping 
the pen by one at all ranges.

WEAPON EFFECTIVENESS AND DIFFERENTIATION
I know that some people use D10s for damage, I was toying with the idea 
of using D6s but dividing by 10 instead of 15   you know  SQRT(ME)/15.
This would produce greater differentiation in weapons of considerably 
different real world performance.  Drawback is that more dice would get 
through armor.  Need more dice too.  Oh well.

I think thats enough on this topic for today, next post will be on 
material of a less technical nature.

Tariq Rashid
spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu

"The bullshit piles up so fast on the internet...you need wings to stay 
above it!"



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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 15:00:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tariq M. Rashid" <spstmr@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>
To: Traveller Submission <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re:Space balls/Cosmic Shotgun
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9409131551.C20025-0100000@gsusgi2.gsu.edu>



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).  

I once looked at this after I bought Brilliant Lances, the expense, size 
and mass of the standard missiles was the primary culprit.  I tried to 
come up with a rule that would determine hit difficulty based upon the 
aspect of the target relative to the fire.  Head on shots being the 
easiest and so forth.  My impression was the the speeds of ships in BL 
were well into the KM/S range, 1 hex/turn = 30,000 km/turn=1,000 km/m = 
16 km/s=16000 m/s.  With a 1kg projectile this gives an energy of 
0.5*1*16000^2 or about 128 MJ!  And thats at minimum speed!  However 
common materiel would not survive such an impact and would most likely 
vaporize on impact with the surface of the target.  Still it would make 
for interesting fireworks.  I wonder if you fired a bunch of these from 
within the same hex at a fast(non maneuvering) target would you have a 
better than 0 chance of a hit.  Maybe.  I should point out that BL and MT 
space combat ranges have always been a bit long for my tastes.  Hitting a 
moving target at beyond 600,000 km seems sort of implausible.  I guess 
the classic Sci-Fi space battle where you fire a two dozen times to get 
one hit is at work.

I am not prepared to calculate hit probabilities, a 30,000 km hex has a 
lot of space.  The nasty thing about this weapon is that these things 
would be floating around for quite a while, representing a significant 
hazard to navigation.

About hazards to navigation.  Anyone figured a way to cheapify Nuke 
pumped X-Ray lasers to make space mines feasible?


DROPPING BALLS FROM ORBIT.

Another thing that would be an interesting discussion topic is orbital 
bombardment.  One day I'll set out to design a submunition releasing 
missile that fits the standard missile tube.  You could pack quite a few 
submunitions in one of those monsters.  Even better you just have orbital 
monitors with nothing but hundreds of tubes filled with metal spikes with 
re-entry bodies and little terminal seeker heads.  Remeber the Thor 
satellites from Renegade Legion.  They would have to dropped from low 
orbit (500km) for accuracy sake and if they were aerodynamic they wouldnt 
have reached terminal velocity by the time they reach the surface.  This 
create problems for your seekers/guidance if so but a little drag on it.  
Anyone know the drag coeffecient for a ceramic coated steel cone?

Even a very small ship could carry a good wallop for special forces down 
on the planet.  Recovery mission in trouble?  I shall call upon the wrath 
of the skies!  (15 min later if youre still alive!) A big hole where the 
TEDs whatever was.

I think thats much more than enough from me today, I'll continue this 
thread tomorrow.

Tariq Rashid
spstmr@gsusg2.gsu.edu

"It is impossible for words to describe what is necessary...to someone 
who does not know what horror means.....Horror, and moral terror...
Horror has a face...and you must make a friend of horror..otherwise they 
are enemies to be feared, they are truly enemies."



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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 94 16:51:51 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: More about fighters
Message-ID: <9409131951.AA01743@Prograph.Com>

bonnevil@mermaid.micro.umn.edu (Steven M Bonneville) writes

> 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.

I agree about the "play and atmosphere" point, of course BR sacrifices a lot
of 
the detailed effects of small weapons surface hits, such as sensor system 
degradation.  Mr. Chadwick is right, I think, in saying that you should not
be 
able to ignore a missile (they go up to (1/25) 79 in the the FF&S tables,
after 
all).  When you deploy large ships in BL, how well do the fighters stack up?
Do
they deserve some "fiddling" as well?
 
> >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.
> 
I would certainly agree with handing off sensor locks around the flight.  
Probably also with transfering missile control within a spread from 1 flight,
so
you would not have to track which fighter the missile came from.   I would be

inclined to do single detection and fc locks with numbers providing some sort
of
diff mod, just to cut down on the card turning. 

Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


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

Date: 13 Sep 94 16:51:56 EDT
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:traveller@mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 38
Message-ID: <940913205155_100326.446_BHB64-1@CompuServe.COM>

>> 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! <<

Not sued - shot! By me; I wrote Strike Two in 1989. Bloody monkeys...


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

Date: 13 Sep 94 16:52:04 EDT
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: "INTERNET:traveller@mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 38
Message-ID: <940913205203_100326.446_BHB64-2@CompuServe.COM>

Cynthia:

>> 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. <<

I don't know where you live, compadre, but if we ever eyeball I'll buy you a
pint of _anything_ for that! If I want to improve my gaming by writing
software,
which includes data in a book _i've already paid for_ I will, too. Slainte!

The War Dog


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

Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 12:33:45 -0400
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Exploration Adventures
Message-ID: <94Sep13.171338edt.95707-1@mail.uunet.ca>

Joni Virolainen asked about exploration adventures.  The obvious answer is to
pick up World Tamers.  Possibly a copy of World Builders Handbook (DGP,
MegaTraveller) would also help.

Exploration is my favorite type of adventure.  First, you need players that
really enjoy discovering new things and _not_ shooting them.  Make it clear
that this is an exploration adventure, not the lead-in to an
"alien-will-rip-your-face-off-when-you're-not-looking" adventure.

Second, you need to understand how exploration _and_ remote sensing work. 
Read up on it, especially if your players have scientific training.  One of
my players is a biologist, so I have to be _very_ careful when I design
ecologies.  (It helps that she has agreed to explain to me my mistakes
privately, so I can let her know which anomalies are clues and which are
mistakes without spoiling the group's fun.)  I am an engineer, so my
remote-sensing technologies are usually ok, but I've played in games where I
knew more than the referee and he wouldn't listen.  This is a real downer to
a player.  (Example I'm thinking of, our 'sensors' said the atmosphere was
'tainted'.  No indication of what the taint was, indeed, of what the
composition was, without going down.  Of course, any reasonable ship would
have a spectrometer and so could get a very good idea of gases from orbit. 
The 'tainted' designation is a considered judgement, not an instrument
reading.)

A good book for high-tech exploration is Congo (Michael Crichton).

Try to leave lots of puzzles for your players to figure out.  If possibly,
have lots of raw data and let them sift through it.  (But not too much,
computers can do a lot of that for their characters.)

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 39
**************************
