Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 318
Date:	95-06-15 21:49:52 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 318

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Big guns question...
	by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
  2) Re: Big guns question...
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  3) RE:Full cyborgs
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  4) Re: TRAVELLER digest 317
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  5) FTP Sites
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  6) Ooops!
	by E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
  7) 2m deckplans
	by ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 95 18:06:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Big guns question...
Message-ID: <2FE1044E@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) writes:

 -------------------------------
Just a quick question...

I was looking at spinal and parallel MG and PAW mounts in FFS, and it got me 

thinking.  How many targets can a ship deal with with its spinal and 
parallel
(or radial in a spherical hull) mounts since they would have only a limited
pointing ability (outside of moving the whole ship)?
 -------------------------------

I thought the BL/BR rules implied that only one target may be engaged per 
fixed mount and that all such weapons on a particular arc of fire must fire 
at the same target and that only weapons from one arc may fire per turn.
This ignores high ROF weapons firing less shots at each target and hence 
being able to fire at multiple targets at the cost of using the lower ROF 
diff mods.

 -------------------------------
I always assumed that bays were just *big* turrets (as they were in AHL), 
but
they don't include enough room for pointing bay sized PAWs/MGs, and even if
they did, the surface area should be more like length*dia. than Pi*r^2.  If
bays made a little more sense, and you could only point fixed mounts at so 
many
targets, you'd have a reason to make bay weapons---which aside from missiles
and super lasers have no usefulness (bogan-bays as well, vs. smaller ships).
 -------------------------------

I envisioned bays as being similar to the casemate mountings used on ships 
from the 1860's through to WW1. These have limited traverse compared to 
turrets but are lighter, cheaper and less complex. The Star Destroyers from 
Star Wars seemed to use mountings of this style which is probably where the 
inspiration for bays in Traveller came from.

 -------------------------------
The easiest thing would be to standardize the socket size for each bay (dia. 
+
some depth) that doesn't use the whole volume, and allow the weapon to sit
"above decks" as a naval turret would these days.  As for number of targets
to be engaged, I was thinking of something like this:
 -------------------------------

If you do that then its a turret isn't it.

 -------------------------------
1.A ship can engage a number of targets with spinal and parallel mounts 
equal
to the number of gturns *not* spent (out of its max g) on maneuver or 
evasion
with the following modifiers.
 -------------------------------

Just use the BL/BR rules for available facing for a particular maneuver.
The number of targets should be related to the available ROF of the weapon.
Say ROF/(20*number of hexsides covered) targets (fractions rounded to the 
nearest whole number)

 -------------------------------
        a. -1 target for each rate of fire DiffMod above -1 (high ROFs would
        require the *ship* to point at a given target for a longer period of
        time).

        b. +1 target for each gturn spent on "tracking" targets (the ship 
uses
        gturns to rapidly move the ship from target to target (if the 
targets
        are through more than 1 hexside, then all passive detection attempts 
get
        a -1 DM (it's spinning around a lot)).
 -------------------------------

Yes, these are ok.

 -------------------------------
2.Bay weapons have no such restrictions if they are trainable (for 
simplicity
I would just say "bays are trainable", but why not say "my 100m PAW parallel
mount is really a big bay"?).
 -------------------------------

Trainable weapons should require some "training machinery" that would add to 
their cost, mass, volume and power consumption. The fact that FFS doesn't 
take this into account should be rectified...ideas anyone?

 -------------------------------
Maybe a weapon can't be trainable unless it is less than some arbitrary % of
ship displacement (1% of displacement, or 100 tons whichever is higher?).
 -------------------------------

I don't like arbitary anything. If the rules worked properly then people 
wouldn't see the need for arbitary restrictions.

 -------------------------------
Any ideas out there?  (it'd be cool, because it will require ships to
sacrifice weapon range/performance to be able to deal with multiple 
targets--making
tactics more important than range 10 big guns if there are enough targets).
 -------------------------------

Well you got my Cr0.02 ;-)

Django.

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 08:57:07 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Big guns question...
Message-ID: <9506151457.AA19682@Rt66.com>

> I was looking at spinal and parallel MG and PAW mounts in FFS, and it got
me 
> thinking.  How many targets can a ship deal with with its spinal and 
> parallel
> (or radial in a spherical hull) mounts since they would have only a limited
> pointing ability (outside of moving the whole ship)?
>  -------------------------------
> From Upton, Django:
> 
> I thought the BL/BR rules implied that only one target may be engaged per 
> fixed mount and that all such weapons on a particular arc of fire must fire

> at the same target and that only weapons from one arc may fire per turn.
> This ignores high ROF weapons firing less shots at each target and hence 
> being able to fire at multiple targets at the cost of using the lower ROF 
> diff mods.

One target per fixed mount is what I assumed, but the rest I don't know.  In
BR you might see the following:

M(-2)10:16-12-10-7	-3
P(x3-2)10:7		TL15	

Now this ship has one spinal mount, and 9 lesser fixed PAWs.  From my read on
the rules it could fire the spinal mount forward, and 3 PAWs through each of
3
hexsides.  As each weapon would have its own MFD it would be considered fully
controlled, and as far as I can tell, each could shoot at a different target
as long as there were only 3 targets through each hexside.

Regardless, though, these are athwartships (radial) mounts in a spherical
hull,
so even if 3 were firing on one target the whole ship would be required for 
a steering mechanism... The rules just aren't thought through, I guess.

>  -------------------------------
> I always assumed that bays were just *big* turrets (as they were in AHL), 
>  -------------------------------
> From Upton, Django: 
> I envisioned bays as being similar to the casemate mountings used on ships 
> from the 1860's through to WW1. These have limited traverse compared to 
> turrets but are lighter, cheaper and less complex. The Star Destroyers from

> Star Wars seemed to use mountings of this style which is probably where the

> inspiration for bays in Traveller came from.
>  -------------------------------

Yeah, but how much volume for that limited traverse?  (not aimed at you,
aimed
at the #@!$ rules :)

>  -------------------------------
> From Upton, Django: 
> Just use the BL/BR rules for available facing for a particular maneuver.
> The number of targets should be related to the available ROF of the weapon.
> Say ROF/(20*number of hexsides covered) targets (fractions rounded to the 
> nearest whole number)
>  -------------------------------

I wasn't trying to have a single weapon shoot at multiple targets (sorry if I
wasn't clear on that).  My point is that each fixed weapon requires the
*ship*
to point at the weapon's target for some small period of time per shot, and
that if you have several weapons (*or* targets) the ship won't be able to
point at or with all of them.

>  -------------------------------
> From Upton, Django: 
> Trainable weapons should require some "training machinery" that would add
to 
> their cost, mass, volume and power consumption. The fact that FFS doesn't 
> take this into account should be rectified...ideas anyone?
>  -------------------------------
> Merrick:
> Maybe a weapon can't be trainable unless it is less than some arbitrary %
of
> ship displacement (1% of displacement, or 100 tons whichever is higher?).
>  -------------------------------
> From Upton, Django:
> I don't like arbitary anything. If the rules worked properly then people 
> wouldn't see the need for arbitary restrictions.
>  -------------------------------

I sure agree with the last statement, but at the same time so many rules seem
arbitrary that adding one more wouldn't be all that bad :)  It'd be easier if
the rules for the adding pointing machinery made pointable weapons above 100
tons difficult to use, then there'd be a *reason* for ships to take the 
"standard" bays they include (yet another example of making a standard that
would never have evolved on its own using their own rules (it'd be easier if
I
didn't have any ideas of what a traveller ship *should* look like, but I've
been playing a long time)

> Well you got my Cr0.02 ;-)
> 
> Django.

Only a few 100ths of a credit more and I can buy a candy bar :)

-Merrick

(my flurry of posts has to do with the fact that the ref of the campaign I'm
in is in Bosnia for 10 weeks (volunteer work ~50km from Sarajevo, yeesh!))


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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 10:46:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE:Full cyborgs
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950615103735.14804B-100000@kelly.teleport.com>

> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 05:51:20 GMT
> From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: Re: Full Cyborgs
> Message-ID: <36@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
> 
> I haven't seen Vampire fleets, but:
> >  But I think full cyborgs would be very popular. av50 walking tank 
> > carrying a Crunch Gun and he would cost a fraction of what a comparable 
> 
> Very popular with army generals, probably less fun for the guy trying to
have a 
> normal social life with an anti armour rifle built into his shoulder.
Perhaps 
> you could use an interchangeable brain case, so that when the cyborg was
off 
> duty he could 'wear' a more anthropomorphic body.
 Yes, Note: I was saying _nothing_ about the moral or ethicial 
implications of this action. I was speeking from a purley technicial 
stand point. 
 
> > humans(in the long run only), and he could eat food instead of 
> > electricity(small fusion reactor or fuel cell) simplifing supply.
> 
> Food could supply the small amount of nutrients needed, but maybe you could

> extract enough hydrogen from the food as well, to power a fusion plant
(sorry if 
> thats what you meant). Cyborg troops might need deuterium enriched food, in

> which case it would be easier to fuel them normally, but if they had some 
> inbuilt fuel purification, then they could live off the land in longer
military 
> campaigns.
 Yeah, either a full purifier or you could just use water in the fuision 
reactor. Suere it would wear down on it. But it's better then having your 
robots run out of batteries ;)
 
> > woulden't have to pay for the robot brain. Wich is _expensive_ and 
> > _extremeley_ hard to produce. Hence it would be better at lower tech
levels.
> 
> Is this in the Vampire Fleets rules? Brain transplants and full neural 
> interfacing sounds fairly difficult and expensive. There could be some 
> interesting moral issues with this. If a soldier gets shot up badly, do you

> even try to regenerate his body, or just put the brain in a new body, 
> incidentally providing a much better soldier for your army. Some cyborg 
> characters could have quite chip on their shoulder, if this happened to
them 
> withou their permission.
 Yes, a VERY BIG CHIP no doubt.
 As said before, It was purley technicial speculation.
 And as far as brain transplants and the like. If your going to put a 
robotic brain in there; you already have to have the 
sophisiciated(read:costley) data links. Same for a human brain, 'cept 
it's a little diffrent. Not a whole lot more costley I would think.
 Now(especialley from any of us who have even tried to program). Imagine 
the development cost of the programming on a Robot brain capable of 
independant action on the level of a human, with a good iniative, 
minimial glitches(yeah riiiiight) and a personality that won't rebel or 
go hay-wire more then humans.
 Can you say 'BILLIONS AND BILLION'..... If your lucky that is. And 
that's just the software.
 Now what about the hardware. You know how hard it is to produce a modern 
day CPU. Now imagine a full robot brain. Nearley impossible for most empires.
 Maybe the Coailition and the Domain could pull it off. But after that, 
except for your isolated TL14 worlds with suriving equal tech computer 
facilities. It would be pipe dreams.
 Where as for a human all you need is a neural jack. Yes, still 
complicated, but alot easier.
  
> > just a thought.... I would like one.... Maybe Loren could 
> > contribute(always wanted to work for GDW ;) )
> me too ;)
> > --
> > bri
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Brendan O'Donovan

--
bri


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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 10:50:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 317
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950615104811.14804C-100000@kelly.teleport.com>

Date: Wed, 14 Jun 1995 08:04:02 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Cyborgs
Message-ID: <fdefa7a0@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>
     In my current merc campaign, I think my plan is to slowly transform
     their PCs into cyborgs.  I've already managed to blind the CO and make
     him purchase TL-13 soft cybereyes on Deneb.

     By the time they've completed a dozen tickets or so, I'm sure they'll
     all be setting off metal detectors.
 

 Yes, but I was talking about something MUCH more drastic than the FF&S 
rules for cybernetics..
 And, is it just me. Or do you all have starting characters like that? ;)
 Probabley becuase I also play cyberpunk<ish> games alot.
 I like cyber. I think it adds alot of flavor and edge(mental, in how you 
picture your character) to your character.
 Also fun to role-play some of the negative side-effects(security guards 
chasing you away _because_ your have metal ect.).




bri


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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 14:35:24 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FTP Sites
Message-ID: <199506151835.OAA29743@chopin.udel.edu>


What are the traveller FTP sites nowadays?

        --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8 
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 19:58:00 EDT
From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ooops!
Message-ID: <00991EE2.C8490080.42@v2.qub.ac.uk>

This is the message I was trying to send to the list last night,
had troubles with my Vax mailer.

Hi,

I was looking through the Greenleaf onling RPG store at
Http://www.vpm.com/greenleaf, and of course made a beeline for
the GDW section. I found it noted the Striker II boxed set,
this is the first I have heard of this, could anyone tell me the
make up ot the aformentioned product.
A few weeks ago Greenleaf also refered to 'The Long Ships'
being out in '96. I haven't heard that book mentioned in a
long time, is it coming out at all?

Thank you.

Eamon Watters, CNG0016@qub.v2.ac.uk



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

Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 17:02:57 -0500 (CDT)
From: ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)
To: traveller@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: 2m deckplans
Message-ID: <9506152211.AA23321@showme.missouri.edu>

Well, since there doesn't seem to be any indications of 2m deckplans
appearing any time soon, I've gone ahead and begun drawing some.

I redid the Imperial Scout/Courier to keep the general interior form
very close to the original (Classic Traveller) deckplan. They're also 
(mostly) cool from the FFS book's version of drawing deckplans. Probably
more "free space" than they'd normally have, but it's a close rep.

If anyone's interested:

ftp://ghost.cc.missouri.edu/PUB/Traveller/TNE/starships/scout.gif

or if you like PDF format:

ftp://ghost.cc.missouri.edu/PUB/Traveller/TNE/starships/scout.pdf

I drew the layout in Adobe Illustrator, if anyone wants the original
file...

-- 
 joe                          (314) 882-5000
 ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu    University of Missouri - Columbia  
 "with a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and
 impenetrable fog!" -- Calvin
 <A HREF="http://www.missouri.edu/~ccjoe">ccjoe</A>


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 318
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Thu Jun 15 21:49:10 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by emin05.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA162147350; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:49:10 -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 VAA03871; Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:39:09 -0400
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 1995 21:39:09 -0400
Message-Id: <199506160139.VAA03871@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 318
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

