			    TRAVELLER Digest 108

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Combat and stuff	by Evyn.Gutierrez@highsierra.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Evyn Gutierrez)
  2) Alliance: Queries and other stuff.	by Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
  3) broke! we have the TL	by cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
  4) AM - Are we coming to an agreement?	by "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
  5) Re: The Penetration thing...	by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
  6) -No Subject-	by Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
  7) RE: Darrians and the post-Virus world	by "John Banagan" <jbanagan@uclink2.berkeley.edu>

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

Date: 19 Nov 14 21:51:00 -0800
From: Evyn.Gutierrez@highsierra.wmeonlin.sacbbx.com (Evyn Gutierrez)
To: <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Combat and stuff
Message-ID: <afd_9411200905@wmeonlin.sacbbx.com>


 Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
>Lasers are another point.  They are completely useless in relation to
>their TL.  If a TL 13 laser can't wound a TL12 soldier, I don't need
>it.  I would say, without special ablative armor, lasers will
>penetrate all conventional armor.  And ablative armor will be damaged
>(melted) due lasers, so it only offer a temporary protection.

Stefan, in someways I agree with you, but in CT the combat environment
suit was the standard for line troops from its introduction at tech level
10 through 13. At 13 combat armor becomes the norm. Lasers are considered
to be usful only for target ranging and designation, and some sort of slug
thrower being the combat arm of choice. Which IMHO is the way it should
be.

On a side note to make lasers a lot nastier, you could give them a healthy
chance to blind the target on any head shot.

In the other ablative armor is one of the things I miss from CT.
Mr.Kundert and I dicussed this, we came up with a varation based somewhat
on the mecanic presented in MT. Ablative armor absorbs say 9 damage dice
on the first hit in that location, 8 the next, and so on. Haven't come up
with the details on weight or price as yet thou.

>That's another point. Armor can't be damaged.  You can walk in your AV
>6 battle suit over a battlefield full of machine gun fire and all you
>notice are some nasty bee stings.  Not that permanent gun fire would
>slowly damage and penetrate your amor -- no it will look as good as
>when you bought it (going with the rules -- of course as a referee I
>would correct this. I only what to show this rules leak here)

Here's my quick fix for damage to armor, first figure out the damage
normaly, roll the damage, and on any 6 reduce the AV by 1, then roll the
nonpenatrating dice and do the same as above.

As for the combat system in general it works very well in play, I my
experience it has realality to make it feel real, while not so much as to
slow down the game.(I don't know about the rest of y'all, but tempo is one
of the things I relish) In vetting out the combat system I found that
blunt trauma was more significant than seems mentioned in this forum. More
than once firefights in which Battledress was worn by any combatant, the
Battledress drew more fire and even though the a lot of the shots did not
penatrate, the poor shmuck wearing it had to be poured out. When weapons
that could penatrate where used, it generally was the case of "one shot
one kill", not always a death, but a definate mission kill.

On other topics, does anyone remeber where, if at all, what EM signiture
was assocated with breakout from Jump now that the lanthum hull grid is
non-canon?

Evyn




 This copy of Freddie 1.2.5
--- FidoPCB v1.5 beta-'j'

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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 12:30:03 +0000 (GMT)
From: Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
To: Traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Alliance: Queries and other stuff.
Message-ID: <Pine.3.87.9411211203.B23412-0100000@pasta>

Excuse my ignorance, but what is the Alliance? Why all the talk about AM.
Anyone want to tell a confused (and hungover due to Raisin Sunday) TML'er?
Howsabout an FAQ?

P.S. How does a star trigger work?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
|"Well, Im away to tell children who go    |Mark Fletcher,           |
| to boarding schools, that their parents  |University of St Andrews.|
| hate them. Good night!" Dominick Diamond.|(mf1@st-and.ac.uk)       |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+



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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 13:03:31 +0000 (GMT)
From: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: cs5025@wlv.ac.uk (L.T.Bryant)
Subject: broke! we have the TL
Message-ID: <m0r9YP6-0003u9C@ccub.wlv.ac.uk>

Hello out there,
	After  reading  the  last 4-5  days  of  submissions  and
talking it through with the famed Mark Archer, We have got a  few
ideas wed like to kick around.
	Dons flame proof gear

1)	STOP moaning abought T Tne, and start poasting the  fix`s
up  to  here, if your unsure abought a FIX , PUT IT UP  ANY  WAY,
after  all  if we get a decent result , then  a  certain  company
Should give us credit when they use it.

2) 	 just because that certain company isnt to polite to  us
dosnt meen we shouldnt be polite back, this dosnt mean be  humble
but inuendo is a wondeful wepon, And if some one who earns  there
living  off  US is rude to US dont by anything of  theres  for  a
couple  of months, Talk with you cash, that`s what  free  markets
abought.

3)	  we  have That companys E-Mail address ...... Use it  if
 they get  X  requests for a certain supplement they`l get it  out
 all the  more  quickly especialy if you add the rider that  you
wont buy the other products they release , until they do.

4)  Dont  start  rumors  abought them,  use  the  above  and  ask
Questions that need to be answered carefuly.

5)	 Have you ever sent any snail mail ( pen + paper) to  the
above  company and been sorly disapointed with the results,  Send
again  and  again theyl reply in the end, if they dont  then  its
there loss.

	im  not  Knocking  any  peticular  company ,  But   after
spending several hundred pounds on there products i do feel  that
being  treated like a fool is a bad way to get me to spend  money
on ther future products.

L Bryant
--
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


--
oh rose thou art sick
               the invisible worm that flys by night.....STEEL


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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 09:59:34 AST
From: "Les Howie"  <lhowie@192.219.29.90>
To: xboat@MPGN.COM, traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: AM - Are we coming to an agreement?
Message-ID: <9411211359.AA09853@Prograph.Com>


JSHiggin@aol.com (Steve H) wrote:

SH>    The assumption that "standard TF ops" means that ships will
SH>be close together (even comparatively) is fallacious.  "Standard
SH>TF ops" will be developed by the individual nation-states
SH>involved. [snip]  Certainly there is not a reason for any two Alliance
SH>capital ships to be within that range of each other.  And not a
SH>damn lot of reason for them to be within 30,000,000Km of each
SH>other...


I follow your logic.  I think 10ls is a bit too much dispersion due to comm lag
between the element, but dispersed, sure.


MV>>   My gut reaction is that the collateral risk is too high to
MV>> include AM warships in typical fleet operations.  I'll play
MV>> with numbers and see if I am right.  If I am, this doesn't
MV>> mean AM warships don't have a role.  They do, but not in a
MV>> convetional fleet operation.  High-speed raiders, deep
MV>> intruders and the like, who will be operating in a "lone-wolf"
MV>> capacity are suited to AM power.  Carriers and Dreadnaughts,
MV>> who require fleets to be clustered around them, might not be
MV>> such a bright idea.

SH>    Your gut reaction is wrong.  Just like the gut reaction of
SH>people after the development of the A-bomb that aircraft-
SH>carriers were now obsolete (they were vulnerable to being
SH>destroyed by land-based planes, by nuclear attacks (surface, sub-
SH>surface, aerial), and their air groups would always consist of
SH>planes inferior to those based on land).  It doesn't work that
SH>way because you design your Doctrine around your ships.  And you
SH>design your ships to complement each other.

Hmmm.. I guess this is not really the venue to discuss modern naval strategy, so
I will forbear to comment.  Obselete is a tricky word in military matters,
though.

SH>[snip.]  But that's not what you should be building if you have
SH>plentiful supplies of AM.  You should design ships to USE that
SH>AM...

Very true


SH>Les Howie:

SH>> 1.  A question for the group: should this be a traveller list
SH>> thread, or an xboat thread?  Opinions, please.

SH>    Well, depends on whether you want me to shut up again, I
SH>suppose...;-)
SH>    If so, then move it over to the TML, which I do not subscribe
SH>to...

Why should I want to shut up someone who knows what he is talking about? :-)


[calcultaion by LH cut]

SH>    Actually, I get considerably less than that.  As we were
SH>taught in Nuke Power School, a considerable part (half?  more?)
SH>of the energy released by pair-annihilation is in the form of
SH>neutrinos, which couldn't hurt anything (except your neutrino
SH>sensors, of course).  So a better estimate would be 25Km.

OK.  Any idea what proportion?


Anyway, I think that we agree that:

1. AM is a more hazardous power source than fusion.

2. AM is too damn useful: doctrine will be developed to take advantage of its
energy while minimizing the risks.  (Personally, I think there are going to be
some nasty incidents while the bugs get worked out of the doctrine).

Is it worth working out some sort of a damage curve for an AM explosion?  Taking
into account a "long flare" model, the neutrino component of the reaction, and
the heavy particle flux from the unconverted matter and AM, including secondary
radiation from the AM flux encountering target ship hull?  Lots of work, but
would it be worth it?



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

Date: 21 Nov 94 10:12:58 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: The Penetration thing...
Message-ID: <9411211510.AA16903@internet1.lotus.com>

Stefan Matthias Aust:
>>Lasers are another point.  They are completely useless in relation to
>>their TL.  If a TL 13 laser can't wound a TL12 soldier, I don't need
>>it.

Cynthia H:
>Also true.  I haven't examined the small arms laser design sequence
>in detail yet -- it is possible that the example weapons were badly
>designed.

I have examined them.  The lasers were designed in a manner typical
of the way GDW designs the examples they offer.  Mediocre.  But,
unfortunately, you still can't get a reasonable small arms laser to
have a non-nil penetration.

I tried *everything*.  I tried high-drain (enhanced output) betteries.
I tried PFC's (!), I tried both of the standard methods.  I even
looked at PNF.

The best I came up with was a straight DEI laser.  It's mass (plus
battery, HPG, and cooling system), came out to something like 68 kg.

This was the smallest thing I could build with a non-nil penetration.

And it had a ROF of 1.

It doesn't even make a good Squad Support Weapon.

The only advantages to it were:

1)  You could fire it about 300 times without recharge (!)...  This
didn't contribute much to the mass (it was the goddamned COOLING
SYSTEM and the stinkin' HPG), so it didn't seem to hurt much to allow
a large "magazine".

2)  Anyone you hit with it was *COOKED*, even someone in Battledress.

Trouble is, use it once and guess who's everyone's number 1 target?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Smith - Lotus Development Corporation - Release Engineering

"Oh, for the good old days!  When lasers were hot knives, and
Battledress was butter!"

                            -Lt. Col. Jonathan "Gronk" Verdell
                             Imperial Marines (ret.)

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

Date: 21 Nov 94 10:37:36 ES
From: Derek Smith <Derek_Smith.LOTUS@crd.lotus.com>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: -No Subject-
Message-ID: <9411211535.AA17904@internet1.lotus.com>

I spewed forth:
>>If you've ever read _Downbelow Station_
>>by C.J. Cherryh (highly recommended), there is a drawing at the
>>beginning (done to the author's specifications) showing the Battle
>>Carrier Norway and its Riderships.  (Guess where GDW got the idea
>>for Battle Riders in the first place).

erich @ bush.cs.tamu.edu (Erich Schneider) replied (though not to
the list, I don't think):
>_Downbelow Station_ is copyright 1981. "Battle rider" craft are
>defined in _Library Data A-M_, my copy of which is labeled "Copyright
>1980, 1981". I would not be surprised if they are mentioned in _High
>Guard_, published even earlier. I thus believe that the issue isn't as
>cut and dried as you seem to think.

I was unaware of the dates.  But I am schtikin' to my story.


>In any case, the riders in the Union/Alliance stories are more like
>fighters than battle riders, and the rider tenders of Traveller are
>nothing at all like the carriers - rider tenders have zero fighting
>capability and battle riders are more powerful than jump-equipped
>battleships!

Partially correct.  The Riders in the Union/Alliance stories served
two purposes:  Combat, and Target Acquisition.  Much of the combat
took place at relativistic speeds, which made for serious fire-control
nightmares.  Having a couple of your Riderships between you and the
enemy gave you a much easier time.  Sure, the information your riders
pass you will be as out of date (by the time it gets to you) as your
own sensor data, but it will be much more precise.

In combat in these stories, ship armor was pretty much like butter.
You needed a big Carrier for lots of firepower, but mostly for
the ability to carry lots of supplies, the ability to do lots of
repairs and replacement of parts, etc.  And to do this over a long
period between rests.  But a couple of decent hits would knock out
a big Carrier pretty easily.  So small riders became feasible, and
big riders became stupid.

Re:  Rider Tenders vs.  Battle Carriers.

I never said that *they* were parallel.  The Battle Carrier goes
into combat.  Once in combat, it tapdances like crazy to avoid
getting hit!

>(I'm a big Cherryh fan, by the way, even if she doesn't seem to
>understand special relativity sometimes.)

Well, she's proposing a drive which is inertialess.  Unfortunately,
if that were the case, the people inside wouldn't feel any G's.
So she's mixing metaphors, to say the least.

I wouldn't expect anyone who writes good fiction to understand
(or pay heed to) special relativity 8^).  If s/he wants 10,000 Gs of
inertialess acceleration, go for it!  It's really the only thing
that makes the warships in her stories any better than the armed
merchants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Smith - Lotus Development Corporation - Release Engineering

"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"

"Uh, I think so Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental
floss."

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

Date: Mon, 21 Nov 94 10:07:10 CST
From: "John Banagan" <jbanagan@uclink2.berkeley.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Darrians and the post-Virus world
Message-ID: <36434.jbanagan@uclink2.Berkeley.EDU>

In Message Sat, 19 Nov 1994 05:12:17 -0500,
  erich@bush.cs.tamu.edu (Erich Schneider) writes:

>(Then again, maybe they're afraid a Virus strain will get hold of the
>Star Trigger and figure out how to make it work for real...)

Now THAT'S a SCARY thought! (And a good adventure idea... hmmm...)  =)

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 108
***************************
