Subject: TRAVELLER digest 248
Date: 95-04-07 19:14:07 EDT
From: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to: traveller@mpgn.com
To: traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)

			    TRAVELLER Digest 248

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: FFS technical stuff	by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
  2) FF&S Hull sizes	by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
  3) Re: Navy Warfare	by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  4) Re: Vampire Kingdom....	by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  5) FW: Supplies for merc campaign	by "Post, D L (Dan)" <PostD%HOST2@WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM>
  6) The sincerous form of flattery...	by "Salisbury, Tim" <salisbury@ftdetrck-atmo1.army.mil>

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

Date: Fri, 07 Apr 95 12:16:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@VTRNNTOV.TELECOM.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: FFS technical stuff
Message-ID: <2F85BA2D@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


Lahtinen Antti Jussi <al76188@cs.tut.fi> writes:

 --------------------------------
        Helicopter Rotors

        I tried to re-create various modern helicopters using FFS aircraft
        design rules, and I noticed that FFS designs require much more
        engine power than modern helicopters.
        That is, Huey Cobra uses 0.8 MW engine power to create 11 tons
        of lift, and FFS allows only 4-5 tons of lift per MW. This low
        effiency means that FFS-style Huey clone needs huge engines and
        consumes fuel like hell.
        Huey Cobra weights 9.5 tons, and corresponding FFS designs weights
        24.5 tons.
        However, if the lift/MW values are doubled, modern helicopters can
        be designed.
 --------------------------------

FF&S does appear to have a bit of a problem modelling actual vehicles etc 
doesn't it! In this respect it follows in the footsteps of previous 
traveller design systems ( Striker and MT ).  :-)

 --------------------------------
        Volume-based aircraft design

        While the present aircraft design rules in FFS are based on the
        weight of the airframe, it is possible to design fixed-wing and
        rotary-wing aircraft by using the design rules from lift-vehicle
        chapter, and design evaluation rules from aircraft chapter.
        The main difference is that you can design armored aircraft with
        lift vehicle rules.
 --------------------------------

No a lift vehicle has to be rated as a lift vehicle NOT an aircraft because 
lift vehicles do not derive lift from aerodynamic surfaces. Instead they use 
a lifting mechanism such as contragrav or ducted fans.
However I would not rule out the use of rotary-wing systems to provide the 
lift and maybe part of the thrust of a lift vehicle.
What seems to be required is some rules for the amount of aerodynamic lift 
for different configurations of lift vehicles.

 -------------------------------
        Displacement Tons

        When I was re-designing modern vehicles, I noticed that the numbers
        can be deceiving, for 1-ton vehicle is already quite large.
        I checked the volume of various modern vehicles and come up with
        following values:

        Vehicle Name    Approximate Volume in Displacement Tons
        ------------    ---------------------------------------
        Motor bike      0.2  tons or less
        Family car      0.5-1.0 tons
        Van             1.0-2.0 tons
        APC             2.0 tons (M113)
        Helicopter      1.5 tons (Huey Cobra)
        Jet Fighter     2.0 tons (F-18 Hornet)
        MBT             4.0 tons (T-80)
        Large MBT       6.0 tons (M1 Abrams)

        Compared with these values, 12-ton MBT (Prairie Fire) and 4-ton
        LRV (Pandina) are quite large.
 --------------------------------

Yes, maybe these designs have the same reality problems as your helicopters 
(above)

 --------------------------------
        Hull Material Volume

        When I calculate the hull material volume (with Exel spreadsheet),
        I use the following formula:

        MV = Material Volume
        DT = Displacement Tons

        MV = (DT*14)-4/3*PI()*(((DT*14)/(4/3*PI()))^(1/3)-0,01)^3

        (Volume of spherical hull, minus the volume of a spherical hull
        which has 1 cm smaller radius. This difference gives the volume
        of 1 cm thich hull armor.)

        This formula gives quite similar values as Hull Size table in FFS,
        page 11, but the results begin to differ in the high and low ends
        of the table.

        Rate    Exel    FFS     Rate    Exel    FFS     Rate    Exel    FFS
        1       0.28    0.4     100     6       6       1000    28      28
        2       0.44    0.5     200     6.9     9       2000    44.6    43
        3       0.58    0.7     300     12.6    12      3000    58.4    57
        4       0.70    0.9     400     15.2    15      4000    70.8    70
        5       0.82    1.1     500     17.7    17      5000    82.1    80

        Either this formula is wrong, or there is some errors in the FFS
        table.
 ---------------------------------

I thought GDW used (surface area * thickness)=material volume.
This is inaccurate particularly at large armour thicknesses and small hull 
volumes but does include the little bits of extra material commonly used 
around hatches etc.

 --------------------------------
        Damage Dice for PAWS

        Does anyone know how much damage a particle beam will inflict
        to living targets? As PAWS are used mostly as spinal guns, the
        personnel damage is irrelevant, but the design rules allows PAWS
        to be downscaled into man-portable waaepons, and then personnel
        damage becomes an issue.

        Laser damage is ( 2.5 x sqrt(I) ).
        PAWS damage (and penetration) is ( 5 x sqrt(I) ).
        According to FFS, Lasers inflict 20 times more damege to living
        target than they inflict to non-living target.
        According to BL, a crew hit with PAWS will double the causualities.
        Does that mean, that PAWS Damage Dice would be ( 100 x sqrt(I) ) ???
 ------------------------------

The extra crew casualties in BL are supposedly due to radiation damage. This 
is probably a carry-over from the previous High Guard / MT rules.
I do not recall any special treatment of PAWS damage so I suppose PAWS just 
get their normal damage and penetration. ( I don't have my rules with me so 
I could be wrong about that ;-)

Django.

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

Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 08:29:10 +0100
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FF&S Hull sizes
Message-ID: <199504070835.EAA21150@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

In traveller 247, Lahtinen Antti Jussi <al76188@cs.tut.fi> says:
>	Hull Material Volume
>	When I calculate the hull material volume (with Exel spreadsheet),
>	I use the following formula:
>	MV = Material Volume
>	DT = Displacement Tons
>	MV = (DT*14)-4/3*PI()*(((DT*14)/(4/3*PI()))^(1/3)-0,01)^3
Or, to simplify (i.e. check this out in my mind):
Total vol TV = DT*14 = (4/3)*PI*(R^3) where...
Total radius (assuming spherical) = R = ((DT*14)/((4/3)*PI))^(1/3)
And the volume of a sphere 1cm smaller in radius is NV =
(4/3)*PI*((R-0.01)^3)
Which basically comes out to Antti's equation above.

Yes, I started an excel spreadsheet for this and it's clear that FF&S has
altered the values to fit some predefined function. It's not just a case of
perhaps using R+0.01 in the above equation - there's a definite
non-linearity in there somewhere which can't be explained, even by strange
rounding algorithms. Perhaps someone did the calculations by hand on the
back of an envelope?

DROYNE

Also, On Thu, 6 Apr 1995, Paul Marini wrote:
>> I'm interested in using Droyne as PC's in a game. If anyone has any
>> information on how to generate a Droyne PC, I'd appreciate being sent
it...
And Rehan Ahmad <rnahmad@is.dal.ca> replied:
>If you can track it down, CT had a wonderfull module for explaining and 
>generating Droyne characters. This was part of the Aliens module series.

What about the original CT adventure Twilight's Peak? I think that had
Droyne character generation in it? And there's some information in Research
Station Gamma (CT Adv 2?) which is more oriented to Chirpers, but is still
relevant.

Andy
Cmdr Lilly, PITS (Political Intelligence Team, Scout)
PITS Team motto: "We are never outgunned."
* Nothing I say or do in any way reflects the views of my very kind
  and generous employers who have no interest in outgunning anyone. *


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

Date: 07 Apr 1995 02:04:53 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Navy Warfare
Message-ID: <01HP1GP90QCI9UTVF5@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:	IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM" 30-MAR-1995 09:47:01.27
To:	IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:	
Subj:	RE: Navy Warfare

After WW1, the Battle Cruiser was designed. It was a lightly armored =
cruiser that would be harder to hit due to it's speed.  It was discovered =
very quickly in ww2 that even if one in 200 shots hit is as opposed to 1 =
in 100 shots, without the armor this fewer hits did far more damage and =
was therefor a bad trade.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just a quick historical comment;

The battlecruiser was invented by the UK *before* WWI. At that time bat-
tleships could only make 20-22 knots so they removed alot of the armor
& put in more boilers to get the speed up to 27-30 knots. They were NOT
originally meant to be used in the battleline but with a main gun arma-
ment almost as good as battleships the temptation just couldn't be resisted,
with disastrous results. After the war the best features of both were com-
bined to create the 'fast' battleships that were built in the late '30's
forward. Interestingly enough Germany was ahead of the rest of the pack
on this count. Her BC's had always had armor almost as good as the BB's
& by 1917 had even begun working on what was essentially fast BB's. Work
was abandoned, however, due to the exigencies of the war. France & Germany
both built a pair of what were essentially up-armored BC's before WWII
while the US built some during the war. The US Navy called their's CB's
instead of BC's & they were essentially up-gunned heavy-cruisers. From
what I've read the USN had no intention of using them against capital
ships. The program was begun due to persistent pre-war reports that Japan
was building an improved version of the German 'pocket' battleships.

Phil


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

Date: 07 Apr 1995 02:23:35 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Vampire Kingdom....
Message-ID: <01HP1HG9TQIW9UTVF5@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:	IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM" 30-MAR-1995 10:00:34.78
To:	IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:	
Subj:	Vampire Kingdom....

Again, how would the Imperials know if another empire was located on the =
other side of the Zhodani?  Do you think many Kkree know about the Aslan? =
 Do the Zhodani know much about the Hiver?  And the Imperium is an open =
border for trade compared to the Zhodani border....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Open sources of info would be more than enough to find out about the
other side of the Imperium. Standard Library Data can be easily accessed. 
And don't forget that the Hivers had a trade delegation present in the 
'Marches. I don't think the Zhodani could overlook that. Finding out about
the 'other side' of the states surrouding the Imperium would be tougher but
the Imperium still could find out about the "other side" of the Consulate 
thru info from the various minor states along the rimward edge of the Con-
sulate, for example. Any info that becomes public knowledge in any of the
major powers would be soon found by the others, IMO, by various & insundry
means.

Phil



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

Date: Fri, 07 Apr 95 09:30:00 PDT
From: "Post, D L (Dan)" <PostD%HOST2@WLV.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM>
To: Traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: FW: Supplies for merc campaign
Message-ID: <2F85695B@MX.IIPO.GTEGSC.COM>



 ----------
From: Post, D L (Dan)
To: Traveller
Subject: Supplies for merc campaign
Date: Thursday, March 30, 1995 9:22AM

Since my last chart got mangled by email I sent it again with
underlines in between.
                         
          1 Platoon of 40 men           
          1 Day of supplies             
                         
________Percentage______supplies in kg____   Mult. for volume___Volume in tons
Ammo__    0.42____________    3360____kg____________0.5________1.68 

Fuel____  0.5_____________    4000____kg____________1.0________4 
Food___   0.03____________    240_____kg____________ 1.0_________0.12 

Spares__0.05____________ 400_____kg____________1__________0.4    
Total___________________ 8000____kg_______________________6.2

So for a company multiply by 3-4. (depending on size)
For a battalion muliply by 9-12(depending on size)
1 Fat trader would have 32 platoon days worth of supplies.
This means 1 platoon for 32 days or 32 platoons for 1 day.
If Fuel is locally supplied then you could supply 64 "platoon days"
worth of supplies in 1 Fat trader.
 If you have fusion power divide the fuel supplies by 20.  If you have a large
percentage of laser weapons you could also lower your ammo supplies.
Local ammo sources would be great but what is the local tech level?
You can see that attacking a planet with a hostile enviroment and no
local allies would be a logistic nightmare.
                    Comments?
                    Dan Post
"No plan suvives a staff meeting"

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

Date: 7 Apr 1995 15:09:23 -0500
From: "Salisbury, Tim" <salisbury@ftdetrck-atmo1.army.mil>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <traveller@MPGN.COM>, traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: The sincerous form of flattery...
Message-ID: <n1414855076.15551@ftdetrck-atmo1.army.mil>


>Watching TV the other night, it struck me how much fun you could have
>with the RC stuff playing it sort of like ST:TNG. For Enterprise,
>substitute an Aurora or Maggart class ship 
>Paul Ah-Thion			(Traveller victim, 1982 - present day)
>pahthion@PhoneLink.TelMe.com
 
  I was recently watching Deep Space Nine, and the thought crossed my =
mind that the Vargr make good replacements for the Ferengi.  In the =
ST:TNG episodes about the Klingon civil war, where a duel gets fought =
over honor durring a staff meeting with the Klingon High Command, I had =
visions of Aslan dancing about my head.  The sneaky Zhodani (at least, =
according to the Imperial they are sneaky) work well as a Romulan =
replacement, replacing cloaks with Psionics.  Sword Worlders could =
replace Kardasians in a pinch, if your campaign has them more =
expansionistic, but I here the Sword Worlds are no more in TNE.  
  I would hesitate to put a worm hole of equivelent in my campaign, but a =
deep space station designed to allow jump-2 traffic to cross a four =
parsec rift might do just as well, or allow jump-4 traffic to cross an 8 =
parsec rift! (Jump-2 ships could still do it if they carry extra fuel or =
drop tanks).  The station refuesl ships from a captured interstellar =
comet, or using a large magnetic funnel to suck hydrogen from a protostar =
deep in space, and you haven't changed the Traveller physical laws at =
all, but still have a strategic military spot and interstellar cross =
roads.  
  
   A Star Trek Voyager campaign could be easly set up if a Jump 2 Aurora =
miss jumped 36 parsecs away.  Just finding a jump-2 rout home and all the =
adventures along the way could last quite a while. Have the drive reduced =
to Jump 1 and you have an even longer campaign.

   If you perfer to copy Larry Nivens Known Space story style, the Aslan =
can replace the Kzinti, the Hivers make good Puppetiers, and the Ancients =
replace the Slavers.  I have already seen RingWorld type adventures in =
PBEM and in regular campaigns.

0.0
\_/

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 248
***************************
