Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 322
Date:	95-06-19 21:46:33 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 322

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Please Help
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  2) TNE Levithian
	by E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
  3) Energy Storage
	by Ralph.Ferneyhough@psygnosis.co.uk (Ralph Ferneyhough)
  4) HRD?
	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  5) Electromagnetic pulses...
	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  6) Re: Electromagnetic pulses...
	by Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
  7) Re: The death of the Battle Rider...
	by Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk>

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jun 1995 23:01:17 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Please Help
Message-ID: <199506190301.XAA25177@chopin.udel.edu>


So I've decided to start on my first two original designs using FF&S.  
Now, they are inspired more by thing that I've seen in other sci-fi
games and books then anything else.

So, I'm not sure how to go about designing them under Traveller.

First, I want to create a wheel-vehicle.  Think of it as a big wheel
with a seat in the center, and the wheel revolves around the seat.o

Second, I want to create a starship with the following profile:

       ------          --------          ------      ----------
       [    ]----------[      ]----------[    ]     [|        |==
       [    ]----------[      ]----------[    ]     [|        |==
       ------          --------          ------      ----------
                         FRONT                          SIDE

It's should be a 300 ton ship (that's what I'm aiming for anyway).  The
sides are the engines and the center of  the ship is the main
crew/cargo area.

So, even if these designs aren't the Traveller norm, are they still
doable?  And if so, how would I specify shape and suspension under
FF&S (ie, would this ship be a slab, and what kind of wheeled vehicle
would the wheelcycle be?)

Thanks in advance...

        --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: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:37:47 EDT
From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE Levithian
Message-ID: <009921DA.B5F43D00.104@v2.qub.ac.uk>


Derek Wildstar sent a message in the last digest about Surveying systems
in TNE, and I thought i'd get my pennys worth in:

Jump, your large ship in, near a Gas Giant if possible, refuel. Send your
Modular Cutters with a modified survey module with includes fuel scoops
to explore the outer system, thrust the large ship to the inner system (
as long as there is a fuel source there) and survey. When all surveying is 
done, rendezvous with the cutter's  in the outer system, refuel at the Gas 
giant again, jump out to the next system on the exploration list.

Brings up a point about the Survey Ship in TNE, it has to use it's cutters
to fuel it - so they'll spend ages fuelint the ship for a system survey,
and ages fueling up for the jump out. O.k. if you've got time.

Another unrelated point :- Gazelle Escorts, CG for 300tons, i.e. sans tanks.
How does it refuel at a Gas Giant - it would have to drop its tank's 
according to the rules - as a streamlined ship needs CG to fuel at a Gas
Giant.
Once it's fueled, it's very fuel limited, no endurance? Any words of wisdom
from GDW?

Bye.

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

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 14:36:07 +0100
From: Ralph.Ferneyhough@psygnosis.co.uk (Ralph Ferneyhough)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Energy Storage
Message-ID: <10078.9506191337@chester.psygnosis.co.uk>


Hello all,
I've posted this before, but got no replies/insights, so I thought I'd post
again in case anyone missed it or has joined since.

My questions are regarding energy storage in TNE, referring to FFS.

1) My calculations show that batteries are about one order of magnitude
better at storing energy than homopolar generators. So why not build weapons
etc with batteries to store pulse energy? And if so, how do you reconcile
the charge energy etc? And indeed how fast does a laser discharge that
energy - i.e. what discharge rate battery do you need?

2) If a homopolar generator of the same size etc, can supply one or 500
shots per second to the same weapon (it is usually only the focal
array/whatever that needs to be beefed up), then what is to stop you
chaining more than one weapon onto the same HPG? For instance, rather than
use up all that precious starship volume on huge HPGs, just build one HPG
large enough to power the largest weapon and then feed the rest from that?
Even if that seems a bit too unfair, it is perfectly feasible to mount ten
laser focal arrays firing at 50 shots per turn feeding off a HPG that could
fire 500 times per turn....

It strikes me that:

a) HPGs are far too weedy or batteries are far too good.

b) HPGs should be beefed up just like focal arrays at higher shots per
second etc. A bit of thought to this could make the multiple weapons per HPG
either give you no gain, or give you some gain so as to make 'intelligent'
sharing of HPGs another bit of tweaking necessary to get the 'best' design.

c) HPGs are a silly idea anyway :-) I have not calculated just how fast a
HPG disc would need to be spinning in order to store some of the more truly
massive amounts of energy in a rapidly firing high power weapon, but I would
not be surprised if this came out at some stupidly high figure or lead to
such large rotational stress on the mounting to be impractical.

Any thoughts?
Ralph.
         ,------. ,-----.,-.   ,----.,-. ,-.         oooO 
         |  ()  | |  () || |   | () || |_| |         (  )   Strolling  Oooo
         |  ___  )| ___ || |__ | ___)|  _  |          \ (    the Net   (  ) 
   ____  (__) (__)(_) (_)(____)(_)   (_) (_)  ____     \_)  since '89  ) /
  (____)  Ralph.Ferneyhough@psygnosis.co.uk  (____)                   (_/


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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 12:22:55 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HRD?
Message-ID: <fe5cec10@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     In the Deneb sector, there is a world called HRD (1623 A401754-F N Na 
     Va Ic   110 RE K1 V M3 V).
     
     There was an article some years back in Megatraveller or somesuch that 
     said something about HRD being a formal Imperial Research Station that 
     eventually went independent.  But as far as I could tell, they didn't 
     say what the acronym "HRD" stood for!
     
     Does anyone (hey, GDW insiders!) know what the initials HRD stand for? 
      Help!
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 13:03:50 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Electromagnetic pulses...
Message-ID: <fe5d8690@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     Okay, I'm inquisitive today.  This is my second general query.
     
     Do any of you nuclear physics experts know if the electromagnetic 
     pulse given off by a nuclear weapon would disrupt the operation of 
     high-tech weaponry that employs electronics?
     
     In my current campaign, there's a good chance the PC's starship will 
     be attacked and boarded, and I was wondering if an occurrence like the 
     one described above would be viable.  I envisioned an enemy ship 
     firing off a nuclear missile, detonating it near the PC's ship for the 
     expressed purpose of disrupting any and all electrical systems and 
     then boarding them.
     
     I have no idea how a nuclear explosion behaves in a vaccuum, however, 
     and would like to make the occurrence as realistic as possible.
     
     The group uses incredibly high-tech weaponry (gravitic rifles), and I 
     want to show them that high-tech ain't always what it's cracked up to 
     be.  But I don't want to deny them use of their rather formidable 
     weapons if my science is bad (which it may well be!).
     
     Any input would be appreciated.
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:36:43 +1100
From: Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic pulses...
Message-ID: <8CFD57789C@teleng1.tait.co.nz>

I'm not a nuclear physicist (can't even spell it), but in most of
the novels I've read that involve nuclear war, the EMP's _do_ disrupt 
electornic devices, even to the extent of destroying them.

However, if the hull of the ship is metalic, equipment inside the 
ship would be spared the brunt of the pulse due to the shielding 
effects of the metal hull.  Any external devices would certailny be 
wiped out, and depending on the strength of the pulse, some of the 
more sensitive (higher tech?) equipment might be temporarily 
disabled.

Unfortunately, I realy don't know, but the above does make sense.

Bill

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:38:59 +0100 (BST)
From: Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: The death of the Battle Rider...
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.950619220013.13132B-100000@sable.ox.ac.uk>

 
> Under TNE/FF&S and in particular the Battle Rider expansion game for
> fleet combat, firepower can now be made in all sorts of nifty shapes
> and sizes, some of which are totally unlike firepower in previous
> versions of the game.  Also, unlike before, armor mass now hurts
> your maneuverability... you can get armor-2000 if you want, but it's
> gonna only make 0.1 G and have a G-turn or two of endurance...

Yes, but armour is a very important factor of ship design, and larger 
ships (with their lower MV/disp ton ratio) can carry more armour and 
maintain their maneuvreability (sp?). I find it qite easy to design fast 
heavily armoured battleships in the 200,000t range.

> 
> Look for example at lasers.  Previously, lasers were a joe shmoe
> baseline weapon which didn't do anything spectacular.  Now, due to
> the rules changes, lasers punch holes in just about any armor in
> existence... missile based lasers can kill a battle ship with enough
> hits, through ANY armor (excepting million ton juggernauts with armor
> 1000 or so...), 

I should have mentioned that I use the Max of TL*50MW Discharge Energy 
rule for lasers as otherwise there seems to be no reason for arming your 
craft with anything else. As for armour 1000 - I consider that to be a 
minimum for any medium to large warship, and you don't have to have enormous 
ships to happily carry armour 2500 or so.

> and large bay and spinal grade lasers can punch holes
> in _anything_ out to 80 hexes if designed right.  If anything, ships are
> much more vulnerable than they used to be, because very very long range
> lasers can kill in ways that used to be impossible even with Meson
> spinal mounts.  You can put enough firepower on a TL-10 10,000 ton
> monitor to take out anything in the world.  Big ships are just big
> targets in that sort of environment.

Large(-ish) ships can be armoured well enough to make particle accelerators 
carried on any ship of equivalent size useless, and with the TL*50Mw rule 
then lasers do not become the killers that you make them out to be 
(otherwise it very much changes the flavour of the game IMO)

If anything I would say that ships can be more easily defended than ever. 
A ship can carry enough armour and large enough screens to defend against 
the weaponry of any balanced ship design of equal size. So to beat your 
opponent's ship you have to build yours bigger (So that firepower can be 
increased without sacrificing armour, screens, or maneuvre).

The change has come because now firepower can be constantly increased (by 
building ever larger meson guns or whatever) whereas in High Guard it 
could not (eg at TL14 a type T spinal mount was the biggest thing you could 
stick in a ship). With TNE, small ships die very fast as their defences 
are completely overwhelmed by  the huge firepower that larger ships can 
carry.

> So go ahead, design big juggernauts, by all means.  I love fighting
> opponents who are designed in inferior manners, it keeps most of the
> hard parts out of the game ;-)
> 
> -george william herbert

I actually considered the requirement to build juggernauts a bit a shame, 
as it takes the innovation out of ship design. I don't think its a good 
thing, just the best way to design a combat ship in TNE.
 
------------------------------ >  
>  This is only partialey true, you forget the fact that big battle ships 
> require a porprtanatley big docking area and a large repair budget per
unit.
>  So once a battleship gets damaged, it takes a long time to repair.
>  But a BR tender can be 'repaired(by replaicing the fighters)' in a 
> instant. And those reserves can also be used to finght assuming you have 
> a robotic brain/ai or you have pilots for it. Hence a storage depot is 
> _very_ well protected.

Yes, this is a good point. I hadn't really thought about the 
logistics or practicality of it all, and this is something that does 
shape the nature of actual real-world (TM) deployed weapons.

>  And a little fighter _can_ take out a big ship very easily. Am I the 
> only one who has thought of 12g HEPLaR powerd missiles carrying nuclear 
> warheads?

No missile requiring contact or near-contact detonation would ever get 
close enough to a well designed warship with sufficient anti-missile 
lasers, unless you fired enough of them to completely overwhelm the enemy's
defences (which would rquire you to have local numerical superiority, and 
so your ships would be effective even if they were traditionally armed).

Also, with the size of missiles in TNE, ships which relied on this tactic 
would run out of ammunition fairly quickly, so they would have to run 
away pretty soon.
I see missiles as only having much of a use as sensor drones for large ships.
While they are effective against small ships, they are virtually useless 
against well armoured warships, even with the increased effectiveness 
that Battle Rider gives them.

 > bri

Jules. 



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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 322
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Mon Jun 19 21:45:46 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA007112746; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:45:46 -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 VAA01823; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:32:47 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 21:32:47 -0400
Message-Id: <199506200132.VAA01823@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 322
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

