       TRAVELLER Digest 67

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Naval budgets - Digest 65 by nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nicholas James)
  2) TNE Errata by ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)
  3) GDW is still with us. by "Mary E. Poynter" <3I4KQ7X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
  4) Streamlining and Contragrav by James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
  5) Re: Replies by James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
  6) Ya go off-line for a week... by gdw.support@genie.geis.com
  7) Damage by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
  8) RC by Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
  9) What is TCS? -- Answer by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
 10) Jump Ranges by michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
 11) Re: More Annoying Rumors by "Harold D. Hale" <HDHALE@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
 12) Re: replies to replies by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
 13) Has anyone... by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
 14) collapse questions by Glenn Myers <gem188@swanson.com>
 15) Re: Space Ship Design & Sensor Operations by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>

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

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 21:46 BST-1
From: nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk (Nicholas James)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, nicklaw@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Naval budgets - Digest 65
Message-ID: <memo.584169@cix.compulink.co.uk>

 Hans Rancke writes:
 >Isn't Army, Air Force (COACC), and the wet Navy together the Planetary Defense Forces?

Planetary defense in its more narrow sense refers to deep site meson guns, heavy surface-to-space missiles (like the PDM in Path of Tears) &c which engage attacking space vessels; the *coastal artillery* if you like.

> The reason why TCS maintenance is so expensive is that it includes 
administration, salaries,
>pensions, communication and ground installations

The only thing compared to which it is expensive is the 0.1% of cost that far 
traders and the like pay for their annual overhaul. Civilian equipment is 
always easier to maintain than the equivalent military item, while far 
trader captains don't have the navy's *support slice* to pay for. All the 
same, I have difficulty with the annual overhaul --  try taking your car in for 
a service and only paying 0.1%! I haven't had an opportunity to look too 
much at the TNE repair rules, but they suggest that even with proper annual 
maintenance, things are going to break down and need replacing, which is why 
starships have redundent systems.

>R&D seems to be non-existent in the Imperium

What about all those Imperial Research Station <Greek letters> that player 
characters so loved to explore/ransack/blow up?

>TCS does not have any rules for replacement of ships as they wear out... but I usually
>assume that a ship has a useful life of 50 years on the average. That means that 2
> of the 10%/year maintenance actually goes to replacement ships

I suspect that TCS didn't include 
anything on replacement as it was only 
meant to be a set of wargame campaign 
rules to cover conflicts of far shorter 
duration than the maximum lifetime of a 
ship, rather than a sourcebook for 
generating a system's military 
potential. Although I am sure that a 
hull could stay in service for fifty 
years, it would almost certainly need 
an extensive (and expensive) refit 
every decade or so (which ties in with 
TCS's ten year initial build), and in 
TCS refits are not part of the 
maintenance cost. Striker says: *budget 
is spent on three things: purchase of 
new equipment, maintenance of 
equipment, and support of 
personnel...Maintenance costs 10% *. 
Although the navy is capital intensive, 
and personnel will not form a large 
proportion of total cost, there is not 
just the crews on the ships; there are 
people in training, base personnel, 
civilian support staff &c all to be 
paid for.

>Also recall that Striker allows the 
military budget to rise to 15% in times 
of war. 

If budgets in TCS are greater than the 
Striker average, then maybe TCS assumes 
that there is a long period of 
confrontation, a *cold war* preceeding 
a *hot war*, when states can arm 
themselves (perhaps reflecting the era 
when TCS was written). Striker also 
says that military spending can drop to 
1% in areas where there has been peace 
for a long time -- this would describe 
much of the interior of the Imperium 
from the Civil War to the Rebellion.

Nick Law (and not Nick James, as my 
network seems to think)


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

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 16:52:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (TML Submissions)
Subject: TNE Errata
Message-ID: <9410102152.AA16333@showme.missouri.edu>

Regardin the errata and little "errors" -

There's some errata files at ghost.cc.missouri.edu /PUB/Traveller
-- 
 joe                          (314) 882-5000
 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu    University of Missouri - Columbia  
 "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and
 impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin
 <A HREF="http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe">ccjoe</A>

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

Date:         Mon, 10 Oct 94 18:59:41 EDT
From: "Mary E. Poynter" <3I4KQ7X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: GDW is still with us.
Message-ID:   <941010.185941.EDT.3I4KQ7X@CMUVM>

Since someone just amswered my call to GDW and graciously answered a rule
question relating to BATTLE RIDER, I tend to beleive they are still in
business; I don't think they'd be in much of a mood to answer questions if
they were in the process of cleaning out their desks!

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

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 20:54:40 PDT
From: James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Streamlining and Contragrav
Message-ID: <9410110354.AA02892@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>

erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu (Erich Schneider) says:

>It would seem more reasonable to me to say that streamlined ships
>could land on any planet provided they have contragrav, while airframe
>ships don't need contragrav if the atmosphere is at least Thin
>(or Standard?).
>
>Comments?

 This is exactly the case. It has been mentioned in Challenge, though
I don't recall which one, in the "Ask Commodore Bwana" column. I also
allow Unstreamlined ships with Contra-grav to scoop fuel from gas giants,
but they have to be careful about it (ie. no hot dives).


James Kundert <j.kundert@genie.geis.com>
              <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was much faster, much faster than Light.
She departed one day in a relative way,
And returned on the previous Night.
   --Albert & the Heart of Gold

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

Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 20:56:14 PDT
From: James Kundert <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Replies
Message-ID: <9410110356.AA02902@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>

Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de> says:

>On hit capacity: I thought about using the quick kill rules, but after
>remembering a very disapoinging RuneQuest...

 The damage level threshholds are misleading, since they sit without
explanation on the character sheet. If you wish to make your games
a bit more lethal, have a copy of page 288 of the TNE rulebook in front
of you while you run combats, THEN cut all location threshholds in half.
This will have the effect of forcing consciousness rolls at the 10-18
damage point range. For those of you with First Printing books and no
errata, I quote the following:

  "Page 288
   "Upon further testing, we have decided that the following wound
 effects provide more entertaining and dynamic play, and suggest that
 all players use these instead.
   "Serious Wounds: the roll to avoid losing conciousness every turn
 in which the character attempts an activity becomes a Difficult roll
 against Constitution. Characters who have lost conciousness make a
 Formidable roll against their Constitution each turn to attempt to
 regain conciousness.
   "Critical Wounds: The roll to regain conciousness is made each
 combat turn, and is a D100 (percentile) roll against the Constitution
 attribute."


>...That skills and other stats depends too much on the attributs is
>however a general problem with the rules.

   All games run this gauntlet: either the attributes make too little
difference, or they make too much. The influence of attributes has been
steadily increasing throughout the editions of Traveller. I, for one,
don't mind the current set-up.


>As an instant idea, what's about using the "Mensch aergere dich
>nicht"-rule (I don't know the english name of this game): On a 6
>reroll and add?

 My fragmentary German does not help with that one, but the term for the
effect is "Open-ended roll." Several American games use it, but those
that do use it to simulate "critical hits" in the absense of another
mechanic. TNE already has an effect for rolling Outstanding Successes
in combat: weapon damage is doubled.
 If I have one continuing complaint with the TNE rulebook, it is that
the _basics_ of combat are scattered across 27 busy pages, and are well
camouflaged.


>A 18x90 HEAP ammoution is probably not the typical personal combat thing.

 Lordy, I hope not.

>To use bigger guns to reduce the hit points problems seems however
>not to be a good solution.

 I quite agree.


>Btw. What is TCS?

 "Trillion Credit Squadron," a Classic Traveller "Adventure" book.

James Kundert <j.kundert@genie.geis.com>
              <james@dumbcat.sf.ca.us>

There was a young lady named Bright,
Whose speed was much faster, much faster than Light.
She departed one day in a relative way,
And returned on the previous Night.
   --Albert & the Heart of Gold

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

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 03:39:00 UTC
From: gdw.support@genie.geis.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ya go off-line for a week...
Message-ID: <199410110443.AA270640616@relay2.geis.com>

Alvin:
> Re: Glenn Myers' question about Challange #75.....
 
> I asked my neighbourhood RPG dealer for 75, and an order
> was put in for a few weeks.  This Tuesday, however,
> he said that GDW has stopped publishing
> Challange Magazine, at least for now...
 
> Is this true?
 
 
  No. I have a copy of #75 on my desk as I am typing this.
 
 I'd like to get through one month without someone starting
 a new rumor about us going under...
 
Please ask your neighborhood RPG dealer to send me a note
and tell me who at GDW told him we stopped publishing Challenge.
 
  LKW

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

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 12:05:58 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Damage
Message-ID: <199410111004.GAA22560@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

Quick kill
----------
The chance to get a quick kill is damage value of the hit. For example
a weapon that makes 4d6 damage has a chance of 4/20 or 20% of quick kill,
not 4-24/20.

I just thought to let you know.

Bone breaking
------------- 
Sounds interesting but unfortunately I didn't receive that posting. Could
someone please send it to me or at least tell me in which day's posting it
was supposed to be so I can check it out.

Thanks,

Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi


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

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 12:16:25 +0200 (EET)
From: Joni M Virolainen <jonimv@evitech.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RC
Message-ID: <199410111013.GAA22617@Mithril.MPGN.COM>


1)      I don't find any faults in it. 

2)      I would run a series of interrogations to the PCs. That is because RC
 Propably wants to know as much as possible about their background.
 After that RC can brief them. You can tell them anything common 
 knowledge like how many member worlds what are their policies. You
 can even get them for example to Aubaine where they can see all the 
 glory of the RC.

 Personally my PCs started out from Aubaine. Before they first session
 I told them something from the rulebook. 

3)      Sorry, don't have Smash and Grab. Someone reviewed it a while back.
I understood it has quite simple scenarios with lot of fighting and
some has very tough opponents.

I hope this helped you a bit.

Joni Virolainen
jonimv@evitech.fi


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

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 08:36:05 ADT
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@cpx.Prograph.Com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: What is TCS? -- Answer
Message-ID: <9410111136.AA09678@Prograph.Com>

Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de> wrote
> Btw. What is TCS? (Traveller Combat System?)

TCS is Adventure,Trillion Credit Squadron, published in 1981 by GDW.

It has three parts:

1. Some cleanup and interpretation on the High Guard (2nd edition) ship
design and combat rules.

2. A set of tournament rules to permit players to design fleets according to 
fixed parameters (jump, G's, number of pilots, credits) and bash them against
each other.

3. A campaign game played using standard traveller subsectors intended as a 
strategic fleet game.

Les Howie
Technical Architect (Database)
Prograph International


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

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:28:02 -0500
From: michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Jump Ranges
Message-ID: <9410111228.AA09770@Prograph.Com>

Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@informatik.uni-kiel.d400.de> commented:
>I remember a statement I heared (or read) once, that there's a great
>rift on the map, that only Jump-6 ships can fly through.  If I know
>that there's fuel at the other side, I can now make this fight with my
>Jump-2 scout, jumping three times. Very odd.

  In Classic, there was never any restriction on the maximum amount of fuel
you carried, save your hull size.  I started my first Classic game out at
TL 10.  It was not uncommon to have DSR (Deep Space Ranger -- My Empire's
explorer group) ships with 80% tankage, allowing 6 or 7 successive jumps. 
The limiting line was life support;  I said a ships internal systems were
good for a month before you had to put down in a livable atmosphere and
flush the LS gear.
--
    -+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=-
 Michel Vaillancourt            Written from, not for:          
 "Live, Love, Learn"            Prograph International      
 MetroCity 2.0.2.0 BBS          2745 Dutch Village Rd,         
    902.835.9766                     Halifax, NS                
1:251/17@fidonet.org            "Watch your language!"          
                                                   
------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 1994 09:25:41 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <HDHALE@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: More Annoying Rumors
Message-ID: <se9a5969.016@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

Steve Charlton said:

>In reference to the post regarding Challenge magazine; I was told last week
>by an assistant flunky at my local game store that GDW had folded.  This
>was subsequently denied by the manager of that store.  However, I did send
>an E-Mail to GDW Support asking if they were stillin business, but received
>no response.  This is not conclusive evidence of anything; my mail server
>is questionable at best (this is the second attempt for this message).  

>But then again, Loren and the other GDW folk have been mysteriously
>silent on the TML.  Leap to your own panicked conclusions; I won't
>beleive it until I see some form of official obituary.

   Game Designers' Workshop is definately ***not*** out of business.  
I spoke to Dave Nilsen yesterday, and all is well (or as well as can be
expected).  Currently they are still getting settled into their new offices,
which are located across town (in the same building that has contained their
warehouse for a number of years--phone numbers for voice and fax are
unchanged if you wish to give them a call and have their number).  The
official move was completed at the end of September, but unpacking and
organizing everything is still taking up all their time.  I wouldn't expect
Loren or Dave to be very talkative for at least a few more days.

-hdh

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

Date: 11 Oct 94 10:19:27 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: replies to replies
Message-ID: <9410111415.AA14943@internet1.lotus.com>

Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:

>I remember a statement I heared (or read) once, that there's a great
>rift on the map, that only Jump-6 ships can fly through.  If I know
>that there's fuel at the other side, I can now make this fight with my
>Jump-2 scout, jumping three times. Very odd.

Remember, it's not just one 6 parsec gap you have to bridge, it could be
TEN.  THEN you have to count on 20 Jump 2's into deep space, and assume
there will be fuel at your next destination.  So, you CAN do this...

If you want to risk it.  What happens when your Jump-2 Scout
has a PROBLEM after making PART of the trip.  Like, a Jump Drive
breakdown, after making 2 of the three J-2's needed to get to the 
next system in this "Jump-6 rift".  

Well, I'll tell you what happens.  You are never heard from again.

(You're derelict ship provides the first adventure for a new group of
characters at year 800 or so of the TWELFTH Imperium, as it drifts into
the outer reaches of the nearest system. :)

Having said that:)

A government or corporation could do these things.  Using several
ships (so that crew could be transferred to a functional ship in the
event of breakdowns, etc), a government or corporation could establish
refueling stations in deep space.  These perhaps would have started
just as cache's of drop tanks stashed at known (and calculatable)
locations.  Eventually, actual permanent (more likely, semi-permanent)
stations could be established...  I think they would have been - 
somebody would have looked at that jump-6 rift and resolved to cross
it.  Why?  Because it's there.  Probably corporations would balk at
the expense, unless there was some report of incalculable wealth to
be made, but governments would probably want such a route, for
communication if nothing else.

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

Date: 11 Oct 94 12:32:38 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: gdw-beta <gdw-beta@quark.qrc.com>, traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Has anyone...
Message-ID: <9410111627.AA02156@internet1.lotus.com>

1)  Done any serious work with Bay-Mounted Meson Guns and Particle
Accelerators?

2)  Done any of the above work and NOT come to the conclusion that
they are a waste of space?

3)  Done any of the above work and NOT come to the conclusion
(in the specific case of Particle Accelerators)  that EVEN SPINAL
MOUNTED PAWS are a waste of space...??? (And Mass, and Energy, and
Money, and TIME...)

   Example:  10000 Mj Discharge Energy Spinal Particle Accelerator
with sufficient tunnel length to be range-effective requires an input
energy (IE) of 50000 Mj, which when converted to the weapon's power
requirements, gives a required power input of 277.78 MW.

A standard TL 14 Barbette Laser with a discharge energy of 300 Mj
(remember, it's ten THOUSAND for the PAWS), requires 8.33 MW.

The Penetration value of the PAWS is 500.  
(For PAWS, PV=5xSQRT(DE)=5xSQRT(10000)=5x100=500, at best)

The Penetration VALUE of the Laser is 602.  
(For Lasers, PV=DV/PR=43/(1/14)=43x14=602.)

The PAWS requires something in excess of 50,000 displacement tons.

The Laser requires 6 displacement tons.

and

4)  Corrected what appears to be a critical [literally] error on
the Critical Hit table in the Space Combat section of the TNE Rulebook?
(The error being that with that standard TL 14 barbette mentioned
above, I could do automatic critical hits to targets up to GIGANTIC
sized, with Armor Values up to and including 401 !!! - This is because
the table has Target Size down the side and PENETRATION value across
the top.  Shouldn't this be DAMAGE value?  (PAWS have an implied PR of ONE,
so for PAWS, DV=PV))

--Derek

--------------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions are Not those of Lotus Development Corporation, which
is Not in the TL 14 Standard Barbette Socket Laser industry.

HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Your Ex-wife and her lawyer are both drowning. 
Where do you go to lunch?

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

Date: Tue, 11 Oct 94 16:36:44 EDT
From: Glenn Myers <gem188@swanson.com>
To: traveller%MPGN.COM@swanson.com
Cc: xboat%mpgn.com@swanson.com
Subject: collapse questions
Message-ID: <9410112033.AA26884@fea1.swanson.com>


Hi All, 

Two questions for the learned lists...

1) What was the approximate TL at the end of the Rule of Man, 
i.e. Twilight or before the Long Night. I have been cleaning up
some details in my campaign and this is a loose end. I assumed 
a TL = 12 when I first wrote it. Is that accurate?

2) After reading the book "What If The Moon Didn't Exist?" I've 
realized that the effects of a nova I had used to trigger a 
collapse would be more devastating than I thought. 

(I know it is a blatant plot device, but I set it 1000 years 
in the past to add background. The civilizations are now exploring
this region again) 

I'd like to downgrade that stellar event to something which would
permit partial recovery within 3-4 hundred years. Would stellar
flares be applicable? What might cause them? Any other suggestions?

The major civilizations are about 12 to 18 jumps away. I'd like to 
deny access to a particular region for about 5 - 9 hundred years.
I'd rather not have more than a 5 jump radius of complete ruination.
I'd like it to be survivable outside of that distance. What about
other types of collapses besides novae.

TIA

Glenn

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


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

Date: 11 Oct 94 16:42:20 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: "100073.77" <100073.77@compuserve.com>
Cc: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Space Ship Design & Sensor Operations
Message-ID: <9410112037.AA08158@internet1.lotus.com>

Paul Harris wrote:
>I would be very intrested if anyone could help me out with the sequence
>of the way in which the starship design rules for FFS should work as
>the sequence in the book does not seem to work correctly. 

Paul,

I am working on starship design right now (in preparation for a game
with a background setting which involves adventuring in an area at/near
the front lines of a war (which will itself be a TCS-style game)).

I am finding that just the amount of *work* designing [really] new
ship's is daunting.

Just what sort of help are you looking for...?  I would be happy to
assist.  (And I might get some answers for myself that way.)


>Also when using sensors on a starship how can you get a visual image of
>the ship you are looking at with your sensors.

You can only really get a good "visual" image under two conditions:
1) You are actually close enough to optically observe the other ship
2) You have illuminated the other ship with ACTIVE sensors.  Or are
close enough for Passive Sensors to distinguish the target as more
than a point-emitter of energy.

The reasons for the first are obvious.  For the second, ACTIVE sensors
(for most cases, this would be Active EMS) bounce electromagnetic
radiation off of the target, and then pick up the reflected energy on
the A-EMS system's antenna.  In a real sense, the image captured is
3-dimensional.  That's because all of the energy in an active EMS pulse
is emitted at the same time, but it doesn't all COME BACK at the same
time.  So, the energy that comes back later has bounced off of a part
of the target that is FARTHER AWAY from your ship than the part of the
target that the "first returning" energy bounced off of.  This [very
slight] delay allows the computer to build an image that's fairly
accurate.  The level of accuracy depends on a number of things, but
can basically be abstracted to the level of success of the Sensor
Operator, some means of determining the effectiveness of the image
building computer/software (combination of the success of the operator,
and the original success level of the programmer when s/he wrote the
software, perhaps), and the "horsepower" of your computer.

Now, why don't Passive Sensors work well?  Because Passive sensors
primarily detect _radiated_ energy (active sensors detect _reflected_
energy) - So an Active EMS system can give you an idea of an object's
range and *shape* (so you can make a guess as to it's displacement and
mass - and construct a visual image), and passive sensors give you an
idea of the object's *radiated power* (so you can estimate the output 
of it's power plant, for example).  Note that when you are close
enough that your Passive Sensors are able to distinguish the target
ship as something more than a point-energy-source, it becomes possible
for Passive Sensors to contribute to the "visual" imaging as well.
How close this is depends on the sensor range & effective radius of the
antenna.

Example:  Your eyes are passive sensor antennas.  You can distinguish
the moon as something other than a point energy source.  You have a 
pretty good idea of what the moon looks like.  You can NOT distinguish
[from Earth :) ] ANTARES as something other than a point energy source.
You do NOT know what ANTARES looks like (in the absence of other
information).

Sensors, however can be confused.  (see Sensor Decoys,
Electromagnetic Masking, and FORCE FIELDS)  Sensor Decoys confuse
sensors (and may degrade the _clarity_ and _detail_ of your "visual"
image, by reflecting some of your sensor energy while not being part
of the target ship, yet too small to be "sensed" independently).
Electromagnetic Masking confuses sensors by directing the radiated energy 
generated within the ship and [a small amount of] reflected 
energy (so it doesn't find its way to your antenna).  Force Fields 
confuse sensors by absorbing some or all of the energy that Sensors try 
to detect. Note that a flickering black globe will absorb a significant 
portion of an Active EMS system's radiated energy:

Example - X amount of energy would otherwise reflect off of your ship
and bounce back to my ship's Active EMS Antenna.  But your ship has
a Black Globe Force Field flickering at a 40% flicker rate.  It
absorbs 40% of X as X approaches your ship, and then absorbs 40% of
(X - 0.4X) as it passes through the flickering screen on its way
*BACK* to my sensor's antenna.  So X retains 60% * 60% = 36% of its
value.  Your screen has stopped 64% of X with a 40% flicker rate, and
my sensor only gets 36% percent of what it would have gotten.  Under
certain conditions, this might make the difference between being spotted
and not being spotted.  The globe would only absorb a straight 40% of
radiated energy, however.  (Puzzle- A TL 16+ black globe flickering
at it's maximum rate, in this example, will absorb 100% of X, rendering
my Active Sensors totally useless.  Why?)

White globes render a ship invisible in all spectrums, except those
that the ship is using for sensors and communication, to ACTIVE SENSORS
[only] (no effect on the other guy's passive sensors - but *yours* are
limited to whatever frequencies you don't feel like absorbing.

Finally, if the target ship *jams* active EMS (and this jamming does
not have to extend all the way to your ship), you will lose your
visual image.


Hope this helps.


Derek

--------------------------------------------------------------
These opinions are not those of Lotus Development Corporation,
which is not in the Active EMS Sensor Jamming Business.

The thing I like best about being a journalist, aside from
being able to clip my toenails while working, is that sometimes,
through hard work and perseverance and opening my mail, I come
across a story that can really help you, the consumer, gain a 
better understanding of how you can be KILLED by breakfast snack 
food.

             --Dave Barry, "The Great Strawberry Pop-Tart Fire"


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 67
**************************
