Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 291
Date:	95-05-20 19:13:52 EDT
From:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com

From:	traveller@mpgn.com
Sender:	traveller@mpgn.com
Reply-to:	traveller@mpgn.com
To:	traveller@mpgn.com (Multiple recipients of list)
			    TRAVELLER Digest 291

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Grav Compensators & Antimatter PAWS
	by Dane Johnson <djohnson@frame.com>
  2) 
	by adou01@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Richard  Doull)
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 290
	by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)

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

Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:46:50 -0700
From: Dane Johnson <djohnson@frame.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Grav Compensators & Antimatter PAWS
Message-ID: <9505200048.AA04689@fmcuro>

Two reasonably quick things I was thinking about yesterday:

1)
Not to start the TNE vs. CT/MT flamefest again, but has anybody noticed that
grav compensators seem to be useable as propulsion under FF&S?

The text states that G compensators provide an acceleration in the direction
opposite that of motion to lessen the amount of force on the people in the
ship.   I (personally) can't think of a reason that you couldn't use this
creatively.

1/  Who needs Anti-Hijacking programs?  When the ship *isn't* under
acceleration, what's to stop you from cranking your 6G Grav comsators on
full bore (after, presumabely, disabling the built in safety features) and
smashing everthing into the wall at 6Gs?  And, since this stuff has been
"shown" to be locally adjustable (ie, different rooms can either be on or
off, etc), you can just hole up in the bridge or your stateroom or whatever,
snug as a bug.

2/  Assuming that the artificial gravity/g compensator equipment actually
has to entirely enclose whatever it's acting on (thus keeping you from
planting a couple plates on the back of your ship and using 'em as
propulsion, a la CT Grav propulsion) instead of just being a plate in the
floor, what's to keep you from using this to make either mass-driver weapons
and/or mass-driver Ground To Orbit launch "guns"?


2) The description of PAWS in FF&S suggests that Traveller neutral particle
beam weapons are throwing Hydrogen atoms around.  Is there some reason that
by TL 12 or 13 they aren't throwing around AntiHydrogen instead?  Wouldn't
this be rather more effective as a weapon?  Granted, they wouldn't work as
well in an atmosphere, but the damage in space combat ought to be better,
with more radiation produced as well.


Dane

"I will not buy this obvious hint, it is scratched."


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

Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 19:11:47 +1200
From: adou01@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Andrew Richard  Doull)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199505200711.TAA23273@cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz>

[Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com> said...]

>"Realism" is very subjective, particularly when you're talking about a
>science-fiction game.  In the opinion of the game's designers, T:TNE has a
>realistic combat system, and many of the published scenarios involving
>giving the player-characters a substantial technological advantage over
>their opponents in order to help assure player-character survival.
>
>In the opinion of other people who have played the game, T:TNE's combat
>system is not realistic at all.  This is one reason why people tend to
>either like or dislike the combat system - either you agree with the
>designers' opinions, or you disagree with them, but there is little middle
>ground.
>
>In my case, players of mine who are in a position to be familiar with the
>way that modern military weaponry works have expressed their dissatisfaction
>with the T:TNE combat system.  I respect their opinions, and don't agree
>with some of the design choices made by the game's designers.

I  would  be  quite interested in hearing what (specific) criticisms people
have  with  the  Traveller:  The New Era combat system.  As an enthusiastic
rules  hacker,  I have finally decided the TNE combat system (Also Twilight
2000 and Dark Conspiracy) is actually quite bearable and usable compared to
a  lot  of  other  combat systems I have used.  Is the detail about various
military  systems terribly incorrect?  (My brother is joining the army in a
month  after  8  years  in army cadets.  He doesn't seem to mind it and has
acted  as  an  unqualified range instructor.  Heavy munitions were a little
out of the cadets league.)

May be this is just because I am used to the rules system.

[and later...]
>
>The system is easy to explain to players, and isn't hard to use at all; it
>has the advantage of simplicity.  However, I have a few strong dislikes.
>The first is that attributes (generally STR, DEX, and to some degree INT and
>EDU) have a great impact on the task target numbers.  This is because
>attributes and skills contribute to the target number in equal proportion,
>but attributes average around 6, while most characters have very few skill
>levels that high.

This  is slightly incorrect.  Attributes and skill levels have equal impact
ONCE  the character has started developing a skill.  If a character has not
started   learning   a  skill,  each  point  of  attributes  has  half  the
contribution  of  a  single  skill  level.   This reflects the fact(?) that
innate  talent  is of great benefit early on when learning something, which
is how a skill system should work IMHO.  Having total success chances based
partly  on  attributes  means that fatigue (which reduces STR, AGL, CON and
INT)  and  serious  wounds  (which  halves  STR)  have a direct impact on a
character's  chance  to  perform  tasks.   The reverse argument is that low
attribute  characters are perhaps unnecessarily disadvantaged.  I'm working
on it.

>                     The other thing I dislike is the relatively coarse
>control over die roll - modifiers affect the task difficulty, so a +1
>difficulty modifier represents a large change in the chance of success.

The  coarse  control  over the die roll only applies if you don't use finer
control,  such as modifiers to the attributes and skill level of the people
attempting actions.  The task system actually has a wide variety of ways of
controlling the die roll, including best of, worse of or average of several
skill  levels.   You  can  also  use  partial  diff  mods  (1/3, 3/4, 1.5).
Uncontrolled  recoil  is subtracted directly from the final success chance.
Melee  weapon  attack  modifiers  are applied directly to the final success
chance.   Equipment  (auto-meds,  binoculars) are applied directly to skill
mods.  This doesn't seem coarse control to me.

>
>Problems with the combat system were generally mentioned above, however
>I should also note that I personally found the combat rules needlessly
>confusing - it's quite aparrent from reading them that the current rules
>grew out of a much more compact rule-set that was repeatedly extended.
>At the current state, it looks as if the rules have to remain the way they
>are in order to maintain 'backward compatibility' with earlier versions
>of the rules (such as the infantry weapon versus heavy weapon confusion
>that has aparrently confused more than one first-time player).

Yes.  I agree with you about combat needing editorial revision.  However, I
find combat relatively easy to run.  I prefer the slightly older initiative
system  that  was  used in the first printing of Twilight 2000 2nd edition,
and  Dark Conspiracy, which gives high-initiative folk a huge advantage and
really  discourages non-combatants getting involved.  Damage is simple, and
from  what  I  have  seen from an article in Challenge magazine (Admittedly
defending  the  system),  fairly realistic.  Just remember to use the quick
kill,  stun  and  knockdown rules and fights finish quickly too.  This way,
little  won't  stop  someone  (temporarily)  first  shot, but PC deaths are
infrequent  outside  of  a  military-type  environment.   It  gives  a  big
advantage to whoever starts shooting first as well :-).

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

Date: Sat, 20 May 95 14:54 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 290
Message-ID: <memo.429209@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <199505192305.TAA04600@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>


  > From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen) To:
  > Subject: Aldebaran Sector 
  >  
  > Does anyone know of a UWP file for the Aldeberan sector?  It's 
  > no great hassle if not, I'll knock one up myself... 
  >  
  > Thanx 
  > Michael Bailey, Police Dept. of Western Australia: 
  > pd82495@wapol.gov.au <<  --from log 238 
  >  
  > Michael, if you haven't found them by now, or if I missed a post 
  > announcing where you can find them, the Aldebaran stats are available
  > in Genie's gaming section.  If you'd like, I can e-mail them directly
  > to you or put them up here.  Let me know either which way. 

Are they ftp-able from there?


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 291
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Sat May 20 19:13:31 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail05.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA111071611; Sat, 20 May 1995 19:13:31 -0400
Return-Path: <traveller@mpgn.com>
Received: from  (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by Ambassador.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9)
with SMTP id TAA11456; Sat, 20 May 1995 19:07:38 -0400
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 19:07:38 -0400
Message-Id: <199505202307.TAA11456@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>
Errors-To: traveller-request@mpgn.com
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Originator: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: traveller@mpgn.com
Precedence: bulk
From: traveller@mpgn.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@mpgn.com>
Subject: TRAVELLER digest 291
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List
