			    TRAVELLER Digest 91

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Game Stores In Santa Monica, CA Area	by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
  2) Path of Tears: Space Forces generation	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  3) Articles for Challange	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  4) UWP modifications...	by alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
  5) To GDW	by "Mary E. Poynter" <3I4KQ7X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
  6) Games Store in Los Angeles	by Caffein Achiever! <fok@chaph.usc.edu>
  7) Passive System	by michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
  8) FF&S Question	by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
  9) Re: Passive System	by merrick@RT66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Thu, 03 Nov 1994 17:36:22 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Game Stores In Santa Monica, CA Area
Message-ID: <seb91ef2.067@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

   It has been a few years since I was in the Santa Monica area, but I do
recall a game store in the Santa Monica Mall that carried GDW products.
The mall is near the the Santa Monica Pier, and I'll assume you can get
there....

Have fun in CA,

Harold



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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 17:30:18 -0500 (EST)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Path of Tears: Space Forces generation
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9411031718.A7739-a100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


Loren of GDW...

I have no problem with your system of generating the navy in PoT (If
it's good enough for Steve Bonneville's Third Imperium navy, it's good
enough for me!).  However, I would like to know your underlying
assumptions for the population modifiers. 

Apparently, ' the larger the population, the smaller the navy.'  This
seems counter-intutive to me.  Not only would larger populations (and
larger economies) support larger navies, but big worlds would have a
greater need for a big navy.  

Incedentally, a 'major combatant' is a vessel larger than 1000 Disp.  Is
there a implied limit to this figure (ie. 1000 to 10,000 Disp), or does
'major combatant' include those 200,000 Disp monsters?
 
With respect, 

Alvin Plummer
("Certain goods are merely impounded for the public good.  These include
stockpiles of nuclear weapons or waste, chemical/bacteriological weapons,
and any Virus-infected epquipment.")


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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 20:31:22 -0500 (EST)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Articles for Challange
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9411032022.B13898-a100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>


Well, now Mr. Wiseman has said that writers aren't going to be paid for
their stories, at least not anytime soon.

Sigh.

Well, regardless, does anyone here plan to write a article for Challange? 
We seem to have the talent and interest to write at least a few
(especially all you B.S and PhD techies out there ;).

And while I'm on the subject, is the tne-pocket group operating (I KNOW I
asked this question before, but I don't recall the answer...).  If so, how
are you doing?  Is GDW going to publish your work, or has interest flagged?

Alvin Plummer
("To Strephon and Empire!" - traditional Navy toast, 1110
 "To absent friends."      - traditional RCES toast, 1200
 "To the Restoration!"     - traditional Regency toast, 1200 
                                   ... guess which one I prefer!)


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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 1994 20:15:49 -0500 (EST)
From: alvin plummera <plummera@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: UWP modifications...
Message-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9411032049.F13508-e101000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

--0-747938873-783911904:#13508
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII



Some time ago, I posted my "prototype" version of a new UWP format.  
Well, it seems that I have been beaten to the punch by Jim here, back in
1993. I repost his article for your edification...


Alvin Plummer
("What's that sick feeling in my stomack?"  ... first sign of a misjump)

================
--0-747938873-783911904:#13508
Content-Type: APPLICATION/octet-stream; name="bun441.mod"
Content-ID: <Pine.3.05.1.9411032024.G13508@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>
Content-Description: 


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

Bundle: 441
Archive-Message-Number: 5177
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 93 16:51:45 PST
From: jimv@ucrengr.ucr.edu (james vassilakos)
Subject: UWP Generation


First, I want to thank everybody for helping me out on that
allegiance code question. I guess I must have slept through the
5th frontier war or something.

Anyway, I'm continuing to mull over the sunbane data on the
spinward marches despite my limited knowledge concerning the
region's recent history, and (at the risk of getting into a
really long discussion) I have to admit that I keep thinking the
same thing over and over: "There's something wrong here." What
I'm talking about is UWP's (formerly UPP's) which don't make a
whole lot of sense to me. Sonthert/Lanth is a decent example of
what I mean.

#PlanetName   Loc. UPP Code   B   Notes         Z  PBG Al.
#----------   ---- ---------  - --------------- -  --- --
Sonthert      1918 X6266AB-3    Ni              R  314 Im
 
Here we have a couple million folks making a living with their
19th century technology, and look what they have to breathe: a
very thin (and tainted) atmosphere. For all intents and purposes,
a vacuum. I know... I know... they can get by with combination
respirators/filtermasks, right? All couple million of them? With
technology which is over a century old? I can just see it now.
"Don't go outside, son. Yer might have to breathe or somethin'."
Hey, at least TAS had the sense to classify it as a red zone
(don't go there if you're addicted to oxygen).

Okay, all kidding aside, the thing that gets me about planets
like this is that anybody decided to colonize them in the first
place. Agreed, with a bit of technology, people can survive just
about anywhere they want to survive, but why bother? I see a nice
dirtball only five parsecs trailing.

#PlanetName   Loc. UPP Code   B   Notes         Z  PBG Al.
#----------   ---- ---------  - --------------- -  --- --
La'Belle      2416 C564112-4    Lo Ni              701 Im 

Now this is sweet. We're talking primo-atmosphere (none of that
chewable Los Angeles gunk). And lo and behold, who shows up to
catch the view? A whopping seventy people. We have more folks on
the TML than this. Yes... I know... the planet is corporate
owned, but who really cares? Why waste a virtual paradise (at
least compared to that other place) on seventy stinking corporate
losers (or maybe corporate winners in this case). Ah, yes... I
can see some cool scenarios... the corporate paradise. The wooing
ground for potential investors. Perhaps it's just one big golf
course. You tee-off from orbit.

But the fact is, this would never happen. When the place gets
colonized way back when, people are gonna zoom in on this little
speck of rock like nothing you've ever seen, and any corporation
that wants it is gonna have to pay through the nose (and a few
other choice orifices) to get it.

My point: this situation shouldn't happen. It goes not only
against intuition and common sense, it goes against the principle
of greed, the fundamental root of human nature (yes, I'm down on
humanity, but that's not the point here). The point is that this
rule system is... flawed, no other way to put it. (I can see
several people shaking their heads and saying "you mean you just
figured this out?") Hey, I've always been a big believer in
classic traveller, and the spinward marches are about as classic
as you can get. But the point stands, there's something rotten in
the Lanth subsector, and it mostly likely extends from the whole
set of rules on UWP generation.

Let's take a closer look. What's going on in the rules to produce
these sort of unwelcome results? I think one of the problems is
real obvious. Just take a look at the order in which UWP stats
are being generated.

1. Starport       5. Population
2. World Size     6. Government
3. Atmosphere     7. Law Level
4. Hydrographics  8. Technology

The first thing wrong with this is actually the very first thing
we see. Why are we generating the starport first? Shouldn't starport
be determined by traffic, and shouldn't traffic be determined by
population? Hence, let's move starport after population (not in
the UWP listing, but in the order of stat generation).

Now (making this one change) let's start looking at cause and
effect in the rules.

The Stat        What modifies it
/------\        /--------------\
1. Size         (nil)
2. Atmosphere   (Size)
3. Hydro        (Size, Atmosphere)
4. Population   (nil)
5. Starport     (nil)
6. Government   (nil)
7. Law Level    (nil)
8. Technology   (everything but law level)

Now this is cute. Again, I always was a big believer in the
classic rules (maybe because I wanted to crawl in a hole when MT
came out), but let's take a look here. Specifically, let's look
at population. The rules would have us believe that you take any
given system, and regardless of its features, the primary world
or asteroid belt in one system is just as likely to have X amount
of people as the primary world or asteroid belt in the other
system. This, my friends, is way way out of line.

Think about it. You roll up some dinky little ice-ball as the
main world in your star system and then you try telling me that
the fact that this tiny speck of crud has no atmosphere, that it
has no liquid water, and that it hasn't even a modicum (I like
the word) of elbow room.... and then you try telling me it's just
as likely to have 50 billion people on board as that garden
terra-prime paradise just a couple of parsecs down the road. I
don't think so. Yes... you can explain it away. You can say, "Oh,
there's this wonderful lanthanum mine." Or you can say. "These
people live here... because it's their home" (and then smile
convincingly). But it doesn't work. This isn't a little
inconsistency. This is whopping big one. It's gigantic. It's
glaring. It's pesky and annoying (like me), but most of all, it's
just plain stupid.

Time for Jim's 1st Law on main-world generation (hey, if Newton
can do it, why not me?): Given that everything else is more or
less equal, people will tend to migrate to the place that is
"nicer". What I'm saying is that worlds with a nice atmosphere,
some actual water, and so forth are gonna attract large
populations which will in turn build nice jumbo starports.
Planets that aren't so nice (you know the ones I'm talking
about)... those planets will not attract people, and hence, they
aren't very likely to have lots of traffic or nice starports.
Jim's 2nd Law is likewise easy to grasp: People will attain the
resources (technology) that they need to survive such that those
resources are available. I.e., if you're really sure that you're
going to live on Sonthert, then you're gonna work damn hard to
acquire the technology you need to survive. TL3 doesn't cut it on
a near-vacuum planet. You need a little bit more (And I've never
bought into the philosophy of high and low tech worlds living
side by side. For a short duration such as a few decades, I can
see it. Given special poltical or social circumstances, I can see
it. But in general, over the course of centuries, eventually
there will either be a leveling process or the low TL regions
will be brought up to snuff... and this is exactly what's
happening on our world).

Okay... now since I try not bitch about something unless I'm
willing to work to fix it, here's my proposed modified-rules on
main world generation (if this begins to look like pseudo-code,
it's probably because it is).

1. World Size. Roll 2d6-2.

2. Atmosphere. Roll 2d6-7+Size.
   if size=0 then atmosphere=0.
   confine range to 0-F.

3. Hydrographics. Roll 2d6-7+Size.
   if atmosphere is 1 or less, then DM -4
   if size is 1 or less, then Hydro=0
   if atmosphere is A-C then DM -4
   if atmosphere is E then DM -2
   confine range to 0-A

4. Population. Roll 2d6-2.
   if size is 2 or less, DM -1
   if atmosphere is 3 or less, DM -3
   if atmosphere is A, DM -2
   if atmosphere is B, DM -3
   if atmosphere is C, DM -4
   if atmosphere if greater than C, DM -2
   if atmosphere is 6, DM +3
   if atmosphere is 5 or 8, DM +1
   if hydro=0 and atmos>3, DM -2
   confine range to 0-A

5. Starport. Roll 2d6 (use whichever table suits the locality
                       but remember that high rolls result in
                       a lower quality starport).
   if pop=0 then starport=X
   if pop=1, DM +2
   if pop=2, DM +1
   if pop is 6-9, then DM -1
   if pop is A, then DM -2
   confine range to A-X

6. Government. Roll 2d6-7+population.
   if pop=0 then gov=0
   confine range to 0-F

7. Law Level. Roll 2d6-7+government.
   if gov=0 then law=0
   confine lower bound of range to 0

8. Tech Level. Roll d6. Modify as per the standard chart.
   if pop=0 then tech=0
   otherwise, if hydro is 0 or A and pop is at least 6,
                 then tech must at least be 4.
              if atmos is 4, 7 or 9,
                 then tech must at least be 5.
              if atmos is 3 or less or A-C,
                 then tech must at least be 7.
              if atmos is D or E and hydro is A,
                 then tech must at least be 7.
   confine lower bound of range to 0

There, that wasn't so bad. I think you folks (at least those who
are interested) should be able to make sense of all of this. I'm
throwing down some example UWP's to show you what sort of worlds
this modified system tends to create.

X211000-0    E475100-8    D86A6BB-7    X410000-0    A410446-B
C66266B-6    E98A237-8    X573220-5    A748483-C    A85A766-C
A867657-B    C310235-7    B220532-D    X473000-0    A665ADD-E
A8599A8-C    C738475-8    A5588B7-9    C634523-8    B332334-9
D545456-5    C575553-7    C110221-8    A667785-7    E75A466-4
D795679-5    C754575-9    E678112-6    X311000-0    X528211-8
B471322-B    C874663-6    D453643-4    C668989-9    B5438AE-8
C87A564-6    C474278-8    X226000-0    C410230-7    X303156-8
B9B4230-7    A5949C9-A    A685876-7    C594100-8    C539343-7
X9A8000-0    X120000-0    B457867-6    B2518CD-B    A631453-F

Note that there are some conspicuous differences between this
data and "normal" UWP listings. We get quite a few uninhabited or
very low-population star systems under the modified rules. Not so
under the original rules. I haven't checked yet, but I suspect
that this will probably bring down the average starport rating
for any given region (which is fine with me). Further, we don't
see lots of low-tech star systems. The lowest I see here is TL4,
and in both cases, we've got a breathable atmosphere attached to
each planet (no assistance required, hence no technology required
in order to breathe). As we'd expect, the yucky-foo worlds tend
to have lower populations and seedier starports. I'm a bit
surprised that we have quite a few lush (atmos=6) worlds with
under ten million inhabitants. On other runs, I usually see very
high populations clustered on those worlds. Of course, when we
look at the highest population world in this run, we see that it
has a standard atmosphere, just as we'd expect, so all in all,
it's not giving us really strange results on that count.

Now what I'd like to do with this modified rule-set is get some
comments and criticism from you folks. Even though the TML
comprises a *very* small corner of the internet, it also has some
of the most devoted Traveller players I've ever laid electronic
eyes on. So tell me... what do you think about the modified
rules? What problems do you see? What needs fixing?

I'd like to "perfect" the program before distributing it, but if
you'd like a copy for "experimental purposes", I can email the
QB45 source and/or the MS-DOS executable. What I'm really looking
for here are suggestions. Do you like the modified system? Do ya
hate it? What about it needs improving? Probably a lot! From
reading this mailing-list in the past, I know that there is
*never* going to be a consensus on the TML regarding something
this broad-based and as fundamental to the rules of Traveller.
That's okay with me. I'm not trying to please everyone (or even
the majority). I'm just trying to get some ideas and a fair
critique (and what better place than the TML?).

Thanks for tuning in. Now back to the regularly scheduled
program.

jimv@ucrengr.ucr.edu


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


--0-747938873-783911904:#13508--


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

Date:         Fri, 04 Nov 94 01:39:17 EST
From: "Mary E. Poynter" <3I4KQ7X@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: To GDW
Message-ID:   <941104.013917.EST.3I4KQ7X@CMUVM>

I'm happy to hear that GDW is not going under. I would also like to take this
chance to publically thank GDW for listening to the fans. It's been obvious
from discussions with TRAVELLER fans (and not just here) that there is a
great
amount of interest in the Regency, and GDW has shown that it values it's
customers opinions in deciding to release Regency related materials in 1995.
Of course, it is possible that this was the plan anyway, but it's still great
to know that our feelings matter.
    I do not, however, wish to see support for the RC campaign stop
completely.
I enjoy the materials that have been released so far, and would like to see
them continue.
    I would hope that the Regency materials will contain information that
would allow us to use pre-Collapse ships in our gaming, insofar as the crew
levels are concerned. That would allow play in the earlier years of the
Traveller universe as well ( I want to run a campaign that stretches from
1105
to 1201 and beyond!)
              Thanks again,
                      Allen Shock

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

Date: Thu, 3 Nov 94 23:45:31 PST
From: Caffein Achiever! <fok@chaph.usc.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Games Store in Los Angeles
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.783935131.fok@phakt.usc.edu>


Known good places:
	Gamesmanship at South Coast Plaza down by Newport Beach/Costa Mesa in
Orange County...full line of traveller/GDW gear - no miniatures.
	Brookhurst Hobbies in Garden Grove in Orange County. (Need to call
operator for their number though)...occasional minatures, some gears.
Lots of non-traveller related minatures.

Sounds interesting but never been there:
	Something Unusual - 4448-East Eagle Rock, Los Angeles.
213-256-3577

Best of luck
Ed

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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 08:43:53 -0500
From: michel_v@cpx.Prograph.Com (Michel R. Vaillancourt; ACP)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Passive System
Message-ID: <9411041244.AA09506@Prograph.Com>

>
>On a related note, does anyone use passives at all in BR (or BL for that
>matter)?  I really like the idea of them, but aside from low tech and/or
>non-military ships, they seem to be pointless (at least in our games
>(and I've bent over backwards to be "quiet"))
>
>
>-Merrick
>
  
        The problem is not the they are generally pointless, the problem is
that they are *specifically* pointless.  What I mean is this:  let's say
your passive sensor has a range of 80 distance-units.  In reality, you can
be *easily* detected at *240DU* by anyone who has a passive system and has
an operator who is awake...  Because, for the energy beam to bounce back
from 80 with enough strength to be readable, it has to be able to go out
and come back at least once and a bit.

        However, in BR the *map* isn't big enough to play this scale.  By
the time you are on the tactical map, you are within any real warship's
active envelope.  And to resolve sensor shadows, you need to be active,
really.

        If there was a strategic-level map up from the game map, at, oh,
say, 10:1 scale (one hex is one l-sec) then passive would be worth it. 
After all, if you can detect your enemy first via passive, then you can
decide wether or not you wish to *engage* him.  The presumtion in a BR
scenario is that you have manuvered down to the tactcal map already;  the
area is too small for it to have been an accident.
 
        I am thinking about trying to ref a game using a strategic map;
three player blind game.  I'f I do, I'll let everyone know how it worked
out.
--
    -+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=-
 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: Fri, 4 Nov 94 11:27:08 AST
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FF&S Question
Message-ID: <9411041527.AA09771@Prograph.Com>

When calculating the surface area for a custom mount PA or MG, would I be 
correct in taking the length times the diameter - that is, take the gun as if

mounted in a trench flush with the hull?    This seems the approach followed
for
bay mounts, but I would like some other opinions.



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

Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:28:08 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@RT66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Passive System
Message-ID: <9411041728.AA28071@RT66.com>

> >
> >On a related note, does anyone use passives at all in BR (or BL for that
> >matter)?  I really like the idea of them, but aside from low tech and/or
> >non-military ships, they seem to be pointless (at least in our games
> >(and I've bent over backwards to be "quiet"))
> >
> >
> >-Merrick
> >
>   
>         The problem is not the they are generally pointless, the problem is
> that they are *specifically* pointless.  What I mean is this:  let's say
> your passive sensor has a range of 80 distance-units.  In reality, you can
> be *easily* detected at *240DU* by anyone who has a passive system and has
> an operator who is awake...  Because, for the energy beam to bounce back

*snip*

>         However, in BR the *map* isn't big enough to play this scale.  By
> the time you are on the tactical map, you are within any real warship's
> active envelope.  And to resolve sensor shadows, you need to be active,
> really.
> 
>         If there was a strategic-level map up from the game map, at, oh,
> *snip*  The presumtion in a BR
> scenario is that you have manuvered down to the tactcal map already;  the
> area is too small for it to have been an accident.

>  Michel Vaillancourt         




We've been using an add-on map for starfire all along (we didn't even
think of using the big-hex map). It's only like $10, and is 4 maps that
attach together to give a board 80 hexes across (with a "megahex" marked
out on the board at about a 30hex radius from the center (100 dia.s for
an earth-like!)

Anyway, that's what we use, works great (we covered it with plexiglass
so we could write on the map with grease pencils).


--Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 91
**************************
