       TRAVELLER Digest 63

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) NH3 Drives by George William Herbert <gwh@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
  2) Introducing PC's to the RC by Julian Norton <JONESM@crnvma.cern.ch>
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 61 by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
  4) Re: TRAVELLER digest 62 by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
  5) Looking for TCS Experience by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
  6) Challenge #75??? by Glenn Myers <gem188@swanson.com>
  7) On Target hit location system by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>

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

Date: Thu, 06 Oct 1994 16:32:38 -0700
From: George William Herbert <gwh@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: NH3 Drives
Message-ID: <199410062332.QAA21224@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU>


I would like to point out one quick fallacy in the "NH3 Purification
Plants" thread so far... there's no reason to assume that a high-tech
purification plant is going to use the low-temp shifting equilibrium
NH3 -> 1/2 N2 + 3/2 H2 reaction.  You might as well just use the NH3
as internal fusion chamber wall coolant, hype it up to a few thousand K,
and ionize it entirely.  You now have a N and H plasma.  You don't want
the N part of it, so you run the plasma through a small cyclotron
or something to accellerate it, then apply a strong electric field 
at right angles to the flow, which will seperate out the N and H ions.
Easy, Simply, doesn't require postheating of the H (feed it right in
to the fusion chamber 8).  If most of the fuel is used as coolant
anyway, as physics indicates it probably will be, then it's even
easier, as you don't have to seperate H out of most of the plasma.

-george
Naval Architecture-1, Engineering-1, Physics-1, JoaT-1, and we ain't
even started on the Fun Stuff


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

Date:         Fri, 07 Oct 94 08:36:24 WET
From: Julian Norton <JONESM@crnvma.cern.ch>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Introducing PC's to the RC
Message-ID: <199410070750.DAA10658@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

I'm GMing a campaign where my PC's have just taken control of a semi-
functioning scout ship. I want them to encounter the Reformation
Coalition so as to continue the campaign. My initial ideas are:

Their ship is virtually useless after a misjump, and floats into RC
controlled space. The ship is intercepted by the RC and the RC decide
they could use a team of people like my PC's for some of there more
'sensitive' missions in the wilds. After this I think I will launch
one or two of the 'Smash and Grab' adventures. I'll try to include
things in the missions to make them more personal to the PC's, such
as have some people from the PC's home planet in the prison as well
in the first scenario. So, my questions:

1)      What do you think of this general idea, any major faults?

2)      How do I brief the PC's about the RC? I was thinking about
        setting up a meeting on the RC ship and handing over a number
        of documents explaining the RC (ie. photocopies from the rules).
        What parts of the rules should I give them? Just the intro to
        the RC in the TNE rule book? Any suggestions? How did other GM's
        introduce there PC's to the RC?

3)      Any quick reviews of the adventures in Smash and Grab, by people
        who have played them? Also, any advice on how I could integrate
        more personal aims to the missions for non-RC PC's who are
        working on behalf of the RC?

Thanks in advance for all your help with this,

Julian Norton

Experimental Metrology Section                         1-034 Batiment 926
Survey Group                                         Tel: +41 22 767 4393
Accelerator Technology Division               Mail: jonesm@cernvm.cern.ch
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
C E R N                                         European Organization for
Geneva, Switzerland                                      Nuclear Research

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

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 10:01:55 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 61
Message-ID: <9410071301.AA05305@Prograph.Com>

Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de> wrote
> After calculating the number of lots, you have to roll for lot size.
> TNE rules say 1D6+10 or 1D6+5.  My old rules however say 1D6_x_10 and
> 1D6x5.  What's correct?

There are some really awful misprints in TNE: just look at the world generation 
rules.  Unless justified by an underlying change in assumptions, as the 
interplanetary travel rules are, I would assume that the old rules are more 
likely to be correct:  I would go the Merchant Prince, rather than MT,
actually.

PS. I misunderstood your concern about the distance to the gas giant being 10
000 Ls - I'd let it stand, tough, unless you actually generate planetary
systems
and so have the exact distance for any given mainworld to gas giant trip
(look 
at Regina, for instance)

Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


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

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 09:34:52 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 62
Message-ID: <9410071234.AA05269@Prograph.Com>

Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de> wrote
> So we thrust for 12 G-hours*. I don't remember the correct values, but
> for 5 G-h it was 0.6 h/Ls, so let's assume 0.2h/Ls. You need 400 h for 
> this journey (about 17 days).  The old rules contain a table for the
> same 600.000.000 km journey that says something like 3 days, but with
> faster ships, the duration is even lower.

The old rules assumed a "thruster" technology which delivered acceleration with 
minimum fuel consumption.  The new rules assume realistic (actually optimistic) 
reaction mass consumption.  The old rules, you burn continuously for all three 
days (turnover at 1.5 days).  The new rules, you free-fall most of the time.
> 
> Another interesting point is, that the TNE examples stats that the
> mainworld -> gas giant journey lasts 10.000 Ls!
> 
Well, thats a generalization.  At the closest appoach to Earth, Jupiter is only 
2 000 light seconds (according to my envelope calculations) 

> *= Do I need the other 12 G-h to decrease velosity or can I spend
> all 24 G-h to calculate a journey time of 200 h (still too long).
> 

Only if you don't want to stop.  Be going by awfully quick,though (864 km/s, I 
think)

> Could somebody please explain this rules or confirm that this times
> are correct (and I've to change the rules). Thanks.
> 

Personnaly, I like the new rules:  If they really bug you, redesign your ships 
with thruster plate technology from FF&S (as I undertstand it, that is the old 
rules technology).  Then just use the constant acceleration with turnover
equations from the classic rules.


Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International

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

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 10:19:07 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Looking for TCS Experience
Message-ID: <9410071319.AA05320@Prograph.Com>

I have been doing some setup for a TCS campaign (actually TCS meets FF&S, but
that is a diffent problem) and ran into something that really threw me.

Generating a half dozen subsectors, say 200 worlds, I found a significant number
of rules with base naval tax rates in the trillions of credits per year (worlds 
with pop 9 or 10, high pop multipliers, and good exchange rates)

The median seemed OK: about 3 billion cr/year.

Anyway, are bugets in the 10's of trillians normal and to be expected, or should
I take some remedial action such a fiddling with high end world taxes or 
thinning out the populations?

Also, any thoughts on a good size for a half dozen players?  4-5 sectors, or 
just a couple?  50% star density, or less:  Any experience you can offer
would be valuable. 

Thanks in advance.

Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


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

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 16:05:56 EDT
From: Glenn Myers <gem188@swanson.com>
To: traveller%MPGN.COM@swanson.com
Subject: Challenge #75???
Message-ID: <9410072003>

Hi All, 

Does anyone know if the all Traveller issue Challenge #75 is out yet?


TIA

Glenn

----------------------------------
| Glenn E. Myers                 |
| gmyers@swanson.com             |
| gem188@swanson.com             |
| Numerical Verification Group   | 
| ANSYS, Inc.                    |
| (412) 873-2913                 | 
----------------------------------


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

Date:  7 Oct 94 10:28:49 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: On Target hit location system
Message-ID: <9410071633.AA04844@internet1.lotus.com>

>From Jonathan Dixon's post:

>1) Determine the general area of wounding roll 2d6.
>
>Dice roll
>
>2  - Left arm                    Special Note:
>3  - Left leg                    A: If the victim is unable to
>4  - Head                        retaliate the attacker may 
>5  - Chest                       choose where the wound
>6  - Lower torso                 occurs.
>7  - Chest
>8  - Lower torso
>9  - Chest
>10 - Right leg
>11 - Left Leg
>12 - Right arm

What I'd like to know is:  *WHAT* is the justification for making a
LEFT leg shot 33% more probable than a RIGHT leg shot???

The rest of it looks real good though.  A true testament to the qualitative 
superiority of nonviolence...  8-)

--Derek Smith

-----------------------------------------------------------------
There's no need to change the world.  All we have to do is toilet
train the world, and we'll never have to change it again.

When the better idiot is developed, it will post to the AMBER RPG
Mailing List.  The level of stupidity will increase geometrically
until mercifully cut off by the actions of the Vogon construction
fleet.

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 63
**************************
