			    TRAVELLER Digest 206

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 188	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 189	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 190	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  4) TRAVELLER digest 205	by Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
  5) REXX Pgms for T...	by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  6) Re: Starship Design	by CyHiggin@aol.com

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 14:55 GMT
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 188
Message-ID: <memo.705181@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199502101733.MAA12745@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > T::>If anyone want's further info, or to use this setting in any 
  > ::>way, I've got about 500K worth of maps, documents, designs 
  > ::>and other minutae on my PC at home.  I'll send them to 
  > ::>any interested parties. 
  >  
  > Pant.  Drool.  Slobber. 
  >  
  > Gimmegimmegimmegimme! :) 
  >  
  > Drop me a note private if you meant "send them via landmail"...

Err, yeah, me too. (Sorry if I've already asked, but I'm not a well man
atm :-( )

---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 14:55 GMT
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 189
Message-ID: <memo.705182@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199502111726.MAA26573@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > Querry, why has no one tried to set up a traveller-based mush or moo?
  > Other than copyright restrictions (which have been worked around in
  > the case of novels) and lack of a site that is. 

I've seen it mentioned a few times that there are some Traveller-inspired
novels out there somewhere - who's the author?

---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 95 14:55 GMT
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 190
Message-ID: <memo.705183@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199502121725.MAA10155@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > I am trying to find the official name of the Zhodani language.  I have
  > seen it called Zdetl or Zhetl in unofficial documents, though the
  > former is supposedly from the Rebellion Sourcebook.  However, my copy
  > of the Rebellion Sourcebook, copyright 1988, on page 63, gives the
  > name of the Zhodani language as Zhdant (the same as the homeworld
  > name). 

The MT Referee's Companion says Zdetl.

---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: 26 Feb 95 13:33:56 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@compuserve.com>
To: <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 205
Message-ID: <950226183355_100326.446_BHG102-3@CompuServe.COM>

>> and don't mind blowing up the ocassional ship who's 
communications array isn't working. <<

So you blow up the  occasional ship whose transponder isn't 
working. No difference. I always thought the transponder 
bit was pretty feeble, m'self. 


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

Date: Sat, 25 Feb 95 16:42:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: REXX Pgms for T...
Message-ID: <8A433EA.01000431D1.uuout@execnet.com>


T::>Anyway, REXX is useful if you have a computer with a REXX interpreter on it
 ::> OS/2
 ::>comes with it built in, Amiga has an implementation called ARexx, there are
 ::>PD Rexxes
 ::>for most Unix flavors, and, since it was originally an IBM mainframe shell
 ::>language, it
 ::>is probably available on any IBM "big iron" you might have lying around.
 ::> There are
 ::>also REXX implementations for DOS, but not freeware, as far as I know.
 ::> Someone
 ::>who had Personal REXX for DOS downloaded the programs; he never told me how
 ::>well
 ::>they worked in that version of REXX (Jeff? ).

 Yes, that was me.  I haven't had the chance to clean out the 
 mailreader debris from the files and try them, though.  I _will_ 
 do so in the nearest future that I can manage, and if they take 
 any tweaking, I'll note what, and, subject to a veto by any of the 
 authors, I'll willingly mail the mods to whoever wants them...

 I believe that the PD/shareware REXX interpreter called 
 "Regina" can be mad to run on DOS systems; I believe that the GNU 
 project also has or is working on a REXX interpreter, which will 
 also be easily modifiable to run on DOS.

 I understand that there are several DOS/Windows REXX interpreters 
 available; the only ones I can speak for are the Quercus Personal 
 REXX products for both DOS and Windows.  The latter is advertised 
 as being very highly compatible with the REXX that comes with 
 OS/2.
==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
  QMPro 1.53  "Build a watch in 179 easy steps" by C. Forsberg.

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

Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:56:39 -0500
From: CyHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starship Design
Message-ID: <950226225639_33321550@aol.com>

From: "David A. Nelson":

>      just to foster discussion, her are the guideline I use

Comments that follow are merely my opinion; my designs have
not yet been tested in combat, so bear this disclaimer in mind...

>  1. armor is your friend. most warship want a armor values around 100.
>    the few Cubic meter you lose will be made up for with the protection
>    gained.

Considering the ease with which I can design a laser that will trivially
punch thru several hundred points of armor, I think 100 AV is so low
as to be useless.  Why pay the weight penalty for no gain?  Either 
use really heavy armor (500+ points) or don't bother with armor at all.

>2. One big hole is better to many little holes.  Putting 1 150 point blast
>   into an enemy is better then 3 50 point blast.  The bigger damage, the
more
>likely you can cause a critical hit and totally take out cital systems (i.e,
>   life support, powerplant, etc.).

1000-pt holes are even better...  On the other hand, 3x 50 point shots will
knock down 3 incoming det-laser missiles, while 1 150-point blast will 
knock down 1 of those missiles while the other 2 detonate and shred your
ship.

>3.  If you ship's mission is to 'lie in the line' keep the small craft to
the s
>mallest number possable.  Unless you design is going to carry a large number
>of troops, or be used for police/coast guard type duties a good deal, forget
th
>e small crate use the space something mission related (i.e., firepower)

This seems too trivial to mention.  I always assume small craft are their 
for a reason, not just decoration.  At the very least, a several hundred-man
crew needs some way for crew members to go and from the ship without
the ship docking at station everytime a crewmember needs to get on and
off.... In the Navy, we called 'em "Liberty boats", for their most common
use.

>4.  I allways use lazer turret/barrbet insted of nuclear dampers turrerts/
>    barrbets;a lazer is more flexible.  A lazer allow you to stop a missle from
>    you, but tne can be used to hit the person who fired that missile at you.

And they're cheaper, less power-hungry, available at lower tech levels, etc.
I prefer lasers to particle beams, for the same reasons.

>5. no MFD = DEAD

Can't argue with that.

>I still have not come up with a good answer a few question like these.
>what is a good g-rating for a war ship of given size?

As high as you can squeeze into the crate without squeezing your
crew into thin layers of goo on the wall when you light off the drive...
The practical limit is probably 2Gs higher than your Grav Compensators
can handle at the "strapped into workstations" level.  Add 1G for 
Grav tanks, if you can handle the expense and extra volume, and 
an really elite crew may be able to handle the extra level of difficulty
for doing tasks at 1 higher G than compensated for, so add another G.
Of course, you may not be able to squeeze that much drive and 
reaction mass into your hull, depending on your tech level, so that is
another limit.  But your maneuver Gs are your limit on evasion mods,
your ability to pursue the enemy, and your ability to flee him, if necessary,
so the higher, the better.

>how long should a ship design to work with a fleet take to purify it fuel?

It shouldn't.  Fleet Tankers and Fuelers should be designed to handle
scooping/slurping fuel and refining it.  A warship shouldn't have the extra
clutter of a fuel refinery and scoops, unless it has a heck of a lot of spare
space available.  As for the Fleet Fuelers, how often do you want the fleet
to be able to move?  That determines how fast they should be able to 
process fuel.  One constraint: obviously, they don't need to process it any 
faster than it can be scooped or slurped.

From: "Post, D L (Dan)":

>on pg 70 - self contained thusters
>is the FC rate mass in kg or tons for thrust calulations?

Yes.

Oh. You mean, which is it?  Tonnes metric.

>  1.  FFS- On small turrets FFS  have some huge multipliers for space.
>       I understand some of the problems with the mechanics of multiple
>        turrets, but surely some of these could be solved with high tech. 

There's a fix in the Striker II rules -- if your small turret winds up bigger
than a large turret, I think you give up and make it a large turret.

>   2.  Pg. 126 of the Reformation equipment manual has a Pyrrhus tank and a 
>12mj fusion gun of 40 penetration. In the striker manual the same vehicle 
>has a penetration of about 100. Which one is correct?

GDW fixed the energy weapon design rules in the FF&S errata published
in Striker II; the numbers in the Striker II manual are up-to-date and 
closest to correct.

                                             -- Cynthia

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
                                          -- 2nd Amendment, U.S.Constitution



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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 206
***************************
