Subj:	#1(2) TRAVELLER digest 323
Date:	95-06-20 22:01:49 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)
Mail Split By Gateway


			    TRAVELLER Digest 323

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Big Lasers (Was the Battle Rider thread...)	by George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 322	by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 320	by roger.myhre@niva.no
  4) RE: Man's inhumanity to Man	by Robert.Brennan@isocor.ie
  5) FF&S Materials	by pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
  6) EMP Guns	by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
  7) Re: TRAVELLER digest 320	by CyHiggin@aol.com
  8) Update to the FAQ	by jamesd@spirit.com.au (James Dempsey)
  9) Re: Energy Storage	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
 10) RE: TRAVELLER digest 322 	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
 11) Re: Big Lasers (Was the Battle Rider thread...)	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 12) Electromagnetic pulses revisited...	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 13) Refs:  What are your science fiction influences?	by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 14) Next Challenge	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
 15) Subscription?	by Daniel Jacob Walker <djw2k@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
 16) Missouri Archives	by ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)
 17) Re: Energy Storage	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
 18) Re: Nukes and Electromagnetic plulses.	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
 19) Re: Nukes and Electromagnetic plulses.	by Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
 20) Re: death of br	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
 21) Upcoming releases?	by E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
 22) Re: Energy Storage	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 23) Re: The death of the Battle Rider...	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 18:49:51 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Big Lasers (Was the Battle Rider thread...)
Message-ID: <199506200149.AA25750@mail.crl.com>


I haven't seen any 50*TL power output limit on Lasers in FF&S;
someone have a page / rule # citation?

Without it, and I havent' seen it so I assume it's not mandatory
(or perhaps nonexistent? 8-), lasers which hit with full effeiency
out to 80 hexes are easy, and gigajoule to tens of gigajoule lasers
will punch holes in anyones battleship.  Lasers in that class range
fit on sub-10kton warships.

-george


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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:07:46 -0500
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 322
Message-ID: <9506202110.AA17680@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

In TRAVELLER Digest 322, Jerry Alexandratos writes:
>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.

Is this inspired by "The Magnificent Three" (Japanese cartoon from early
'70s, theme begins "Spacemen, with a mission, You must make a very big
decision...)? It had a wheel car, often shown speeding over oceans...

I've always wanted to hear from someone who remembers it, and can explain it
to me (I was only 6 when it was on).

..BTW jerry, you would need stabilisers, or the seat would tend to revolve
around with the wheel - and how on earth could you brake? Sure, the seat
could stop turning, but would the wheel???

- Hyphen
   (David Jaques-Watson)



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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 07:53:20 +0200
From: roger.myhre@niva.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 320
Message-ID: <e052f1d0@smtplink.niva.no>

Julian Love <julian.love@st-johns.oxford.ac.uk> wrote: 

>As a result, the design proceedure always favours larger ships. So the 
>excess cost of producing battle riders and their tenders is no longer 
>worth it - what is important is not the number of spinal mounts, but the 
>power of those spinal mounts.

>So under TNE the best fleetes are those with the greatest number of large 
>battleships. A large battleship can effectively carry enough armour 
>and screens etc that it is invincible against any smaller ship., and can 
>carry a spinal mount large enough to defeat the screens of any smaller 
>ship.

>So the battleship is back, and the battle rider is dead.A bit of a shame 
>IMO.I rather like having smaller ships in fleets - it forces designers to 
>be cleverer, rather than in TNE where the winner is the side that can 
>produce the biggest ship.

But in the Real World(tm) few and large ships gives little room for 
maneuverability. If a pocket empire builds only large ships it won't 
be able to cover all worlds as effective as it wants. Smaller ships 
gives more ships for the same price and cre number. And more 
importantly you can cover a larger area with the fleet.


Roger Myhre

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

Date: 20 Jun 95 08:48:18 +0100
From: Robert.Brennan@isocor.ie
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Non Receipt Notification Requested)
Subject: RE: Man's inhumanity to Man
Message-ID:
<ZED-950620084527-2830*/G=Robert/S=Brennan/PRMD=isocor/ADMD=eirmail400/C=ie@MHS>

Hi All,

For any of you that are/were following the debate on Civilisation etc. I just
thought that I'd recommend a book that I'm reading at 
the moment, "War and anti-War - making sense of todays global chaos" by Heidi
and Alvin(?) Toffler.(1993)

The title may sound a little heavy but in fact it's very readable.  This book
tries to give some insights into the current (rapidly 
changing) state of the world.  It concentrates on conflict; the reasons for
it , the types currently evolving, future permutations 
and ways of creating peace.  Subjects include AirLandBattle, the Internet,
The Gulf War, Bosnia, Third Wave civilisations, New 
weapons developments, intelligence agencies, the UN...etc.

Overall I'd say that it's worth reading, it has several possible ideas for
Traveller games eg the magic marker containing 
embrittlement agents, so that when a line is drawn around a bridge support,
it's structural integrity is compromised.  The book 
does come across as being quite enthusiastic about the US military, so you'd
better not read it if that will repulse you.

byee
Rob

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 15:53:40 -1600
From: pd82495@wapol.gov.au (Michael Bailey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FF&S Materials
Message-ID: <9506200746.AA28878@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

Below is a list of extra hull materials that I'm going to use in my
campaign.  I know bugger-all about mettalurgy or any other materials
science, so I make no claims whatsoever about their 'realism'.  They do
however add a bit more flexibility into craft design.  Enjoy!

TL      Type                    Toughness       Mass    Cost

9       Light Ceramic Composite    3              4     MCr0.012

Lighter, but less tough and more expensive than TL8 composite laminate, LCC
would appear to be a poor choice for a hull material.  It does have it's
compensations however - LCC has the advantage of being highly absorbant to
most most bands of electromagnetic radiation, increasing the 'stealth'
characteristics of the craft.

12      Advanced Composites        9              11    MCr0.008

Less durable than TL 12 superdense, but lighter and cheaper, advanced
composites are normally used in civillian and commercial structures, where
armour factor is less important than cost.

15      Enhanced Bonded SD        33              15    MCr0.031

Refinments in material technologies allow improvements to be made on
standard Bonded Superdense materials at TL15.

16      'Collapsed Crystalline'   20              13    MCr0.022

The subject of ongoing research before the collapse, 'collapsed crystalline'
materials incorporate refinements in bonded superdense technology with
advances in crystalline carbon materials discovered at TL16.

18      Enhanced Coherent SD      48              15    MCr0.052

The ultimate extension of 'conventional' technologies, this material
incorporates improvements in coherent superdense material production
available at TL18.

18      'Exotic Alloy I'          70              13    MCr0.100 (*)

Artifacts made from this alloy have been found in certain Ancient sites.
The alloy yields little to analysis.  It is believed to contain several
superheavy elements in it's makeup.

22      'Exotic Alloy II'        100              10    MCr0.250 (*)

Only one example of this alloy has ever been found, in the form of a wrecked
hulk orbiting the *LOCATION CENSORED* mainworld.  No form of probing or
assay has ever been able to determine the composition of this material.
Tough beyond belief, it's wrecked form is a testament to the titanic powers
weildd by the Ancients.  Some scientists speculate that the material is not
native to this universe.

(*) Unavailable at any price in the standard traveller universe, although it
might be used at the listed price in other milleu's.


As I said, I don't really know what I'm talking about - just wanted to add a
little flexibility and it _sounds_ plausible to the ignorant i.e. me!


Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:17:00 +0100
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: EMP Guns
Message-ID: <199506200854.EAA08116@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

In response to Christopher Griffen's query about EMP bursts, I would say:

Why go to the hazardous lengths of using a nuke to generate the EMP? You can
quite happily get man-portable EMP generators today (a classic for sabotage
- walk into opponent's computer room, activate EMP gun, walk out - enemy
wonders why his entire system has been wiped...).

Given the power you can store in a laser or energy weapon powerpack, just
mount one of these, plus the EMP gun, on a small recon drone (with a
suitably low EM signature - ha ha), let it 'drift' up to (or somehow
covertly approach) the players' ship. Let it penetrate the ship (drill
through hull) and activate the EMP gun - that'll get quite a lot of what's
inside. Or attach itself to the main external radio antenna and 'fire' its
EMP gun 'through' the antenna. The 'shock' should kill the players' comms
and (hopefully) transmit the EMP throughout quite a lot of the ship, without
having to actually penetrate the hull directly. OK, so there would be
limiters on the antenna amps, directional coupling and all that stuff, but a
really powerful and high-tech EMP gun, specifically designed for this sort
of thing, ought to be able to b*gg*r things up quite a bit.

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: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:27:54 -0400
From: CyHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 320
Message-ID: <950620082754_74432808@aol.com>

From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>

> I was wondering, for transmitters and communicators of all types in TNE, 
>can one transmitter only transmit one thing at a time? Or can a single 
>radio/maser/whatnot(withing the limits of it's brodcast direction for 
>directional communicators) transmit a large number of 'jobs' at once?
> I.E. A laser talking to another ship. Could it just be voice, or could 
>they have a data transmission also going on in the background?

Sure, why not?  They do now, why should they suddenly stop having that 
ability in the far future?  The limit is amount of bandwidth your particular
encoding scheme chews up, and what frequencies your transmitter uses.
Since the FF&S design sequence isn't that fine-grained, (they just give you
"black-box" "communicators"), you can arbitrarily give your box any number of
channels your Referee will let you get away with.


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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 23:08:59 
From: jamesd@spirit.com.au (James Dempsey)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Update to the FAQ
Message-ID: <20db158c.ec53a-jamesd@loki.spirit.com.au>

I have just made the next update of the FAQ available for WWW access at
http://www.spirit.com.au/~jamesd. The major changes are to make it the
FAQ for both TML and XTML, and to add the list of web and ftp sites.

I still need people to contribute summaries of the larger discussions
which have gone on on either list. Any comments or suggestions would
also be welcomed.

James.
-------------------------------------
 James Dempsey
  jamesd@spirit.com.au
  j.dempsey@student.anu.edu.au



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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 13:04:11 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Energy Storage
Message-ID: <37@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

In the message dated Monday 19, June 1995 'twas said :
> 
> 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?

Looking in a back issue of Challenge (71). The pulse for firing a laser lasts

0.001 seconds. Lets assume a 300Mj Laser. To deliver 300,000,000 J in 0.001s,
a 
power of 300GigaWatts is needed. The smallest possible discharge time for a 
battery is 0.0036seconds. It doesn't matter that this is longer than the
laser 
pulse, the same battery could be used to fire several turrets together during

its discharge. To obtain a 300GW output at this discharge rate a battery with
a 
normal power output of 19.2MW is needed. At TL12 this battery would have the 
following statistics
12.8kl, 25.6t, 1.6MCr.
Compared to 3.6 TL12 HPGs :
54kl,108t, 0.54MCr

These figures seem to indicate that batteries are much better, despite being 
marginally more expensive. The major problem with using batteries instead of 
HPGs is in recharging them. There is a limit to how fast you can recharge a 
battery, I think, whereas an HPG can be accelerated as fast as you can supply

power to it. This means for repeated firing of the weapon, an HPG is 
preferrable. (Although a planetbuster meson gun could use a battery - it only

needs to hit once, and it's unlikely to miss)
Anyone out there know anything more specific about battery recharging - 
batteries might be more efficient for low rates of fire and/or lower
discharge 
energies.

> 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....

The ships you can design if you do this are truly awesome, (a 1000t ship with

2000Mj Particle Accelerator and 10x 700Mj laser barbettes ;-)  ). The problem

with this is one of game balance. It is not a completely disimilar problem to

asking why a 50ROF spinal mount can't fire 10 shots at 5 different targets
(at 1 
shot every 36 seconds it should give plenty of time to point the mount). The 
reason GDW gave was, in summary, you can't, because you miss sometimes. Not
an 
especially satisfying answer, but sensible for letting the game work. A set
of 
guidelines if you want to include this are:

1/Add 5% to the size of the HPG for every additional weapon you want to fire
off 
it, to take into account the additional power conduits/switches you'll need.
2/Make sure you use the TL limit on laser discharge.
3/Put the HPG as a separate damage location inside the ship - any damage to
it 
will bring all connected weapons off-line until repaired.
4/Critical damage (not destruction through cumulative hits) to any connected 
weapon will put the whole system offline, by means of a massive power surge
or 
similar.

These guidelines allow you to produce battleships with an exceptional
offensive 
punch, but which are extremely fragile at the same time. This makes the trade

off interesting, and clever design is required to reduce vulnerability as far
as 
possible. 

> 
> 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.
> 

You tell that to the HPGs. They _are_ actually a real world technology, 
according to Challenge 71 they currently manage 4MJ per metric ton. This is
in 
line with the TL8 figure for HPGs. Higher rates of spin would probably become

possible as a magnetic suspension became practical, and don't forget, kinetic

energy is determined by mass and velocity, and the really big HPGs have
plenty 
of mass. 

> Any thoughts?
> Ralph.
>          ,------. ,-----.,-.   ,----.,-. ,-.         oooO 
>          |  ()  | |  () || |   | () || |_| |         (  )   Strolling  Oooo
>          |  ___  )| ___ || |__ | ___)|  _  |          \ (    the Net   (  )

>    ____  (__) (__)(_) (_)(____)(_)   (_) (_)  ____     \_)  since '89  ) /
>   (____)  Ralph.Ferneyhough@psygnosis.co.uk  (____)                   (_/
> 
> 

-- 
Brendan O'Donovan


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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:14:43 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: TRAVELLER digest 322 
Message-ID: <199506201414.KAA04352@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 20 Jun 1995 00: 12:53 EDT
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 10:14:43 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: In TRAVELLER Digest 322, Jerry Alexandratos writes:
: >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.
: 
: Is this inspired by "The Magnificent Three" (Japanese cartoon from early
: '70s, theme begins "Spacemen, with a mission, You must make a very big
: decision...)? It had a wheel car, often shown speeding over oceans...
: 
: I've always wanted to hear from someone who remembers it, and can explain
it
: to me (I was only 6 when it was on).
: 
: ..BTW jerry, you would need stabilisers, or the seat would tend to revolve
: around with the wheel - and how on earth could you brake? Sure, the seat
: could stop turning, but would the wheel???

Thanks for the interest.  It's nice to see that my idea wasn't too
stupid.  Actually, the source comes from many places.  I've seen this
vehicle on an episode of GI Joe, on some Japanese Anime, and an old
story in an issue of Heavy Metal.  I've always thought of it as a very
interesting design.

I always wanted to create this vehicle for MegaTraveller, but alas I
never got around to it.  So, here I am playing the SW RPG (hark, is
there really any other sci-fi game other than Traveller? 8), and in
their latest SW Adventure Journal, lo and behold what should appear? 
Yes, it's the vehicle of my dreams.  So the creative juices have begun
to flow and I think I'm going to build it.

In between work and work and stuff and classes I have been giving the
design some thought.  It'll need gyro-stabilizers.  The brakes would be
disc-like brakes that stem off from the seat/command center, and it's
configuration would probably be a modified motorcycle type...

Does anyone else have any ideas on this?

       --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: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:05:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Big Lasers (Was the Battle Rider thread...)
Message-ID: <9506201505.AA04641@Rt66.com>

Howdy, 
 
> I haven't seen any 50*TL power output limit on Lasers in FF&S;
> someone have a page / rule # citation?

There isn't one.  It was a reasonable limitation that was developed on the
gdw-beta list.  Without it there are no spinal mounts in the TNE universe. Or
any other weapons for that matter (not unless the designer is a complete
idiot).

> Without it, and I havent' seen it so I assume it's not mandatory
> (or perhaps nonexistent? 8-), lasers which hit with full effeiency
> out to 80 hexes are easy, and gigajoule to tens of gigajoule lasers
> will punch holes in anyones battleship.  Lasers in that class range
> fit on sub-10kton warships.

Yeah, you're right, but that's the problem :)  a TL15 bay laser including its
own powerplant could be made for less than 300 tons displacement that would
do criticals on anything out to range 44.

Again, the rule was added to preserve the traveller universe (or do you not
use
*any* ships given by gdw (not unreasonable, actually :)  --- but it makes an 
interesting alternate universe.  On a related note, why don't the gdw ships
reflect the realities of their own rules?  Having piss poor meson guns on
those
stupid TL12 clipper things is idiotic using their own rules, they'd be *much*
better off with a big laser, and a bunch of missiles.  *sigh*

The only reasonable answer is that they thought they made rules which
supported
the idea of PAWs (MGs as a subset) as a step up from lasers---and they
didn't.

> 
> -george
 
-Merrick 


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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 08:39:26 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Electromagnetic pulses revisited...
Message-ID: <fe6f1fd0@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     First, thanks to Bill Currie for his input.
     
     From what I've been able to gather from discussions I've had since my 
     initial query, electromagnetic pulses _do_ disrupt electronics, but 
     even our TL-8 spacecraft have electromagnetic shielding to protect 
     them from the effects of solar electromagnetic pulses.  Therefore I 
     would imagine that starships in Traveller would be very well protected 
     from EMPs as well.
     
     I don't know how well individual weapons systems would be protected, 
     but I would guess that within the confines of a starship's hull, their 
     electronics would be protected from EMPs happening in space.
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 09:51:42 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Refs:  What are your science fiction influences?
Message-ID: <fe6fcc50@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

     I've got a general question that I want to ask all you Traveller 
     referees out there:
     
     What are your major influences from the realm of science fiction?  
     Cite films, novels, games or whatever.
     
     I have several myself, but I'd be curious to hear everybody else's 
     before biasing the topic with my own bizarre eclectic mix of 
     influences.
     
     --Chris

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 14:35:01 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Next Challenge
Message-ID: <199506201835.OAA20251@chopin.udel.edu>


Does anyone have any idea when Challenge #77 is coming out?  Is it my
idea or is it past due (or did it come out and I missed it)?

        --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: Tue, 20 Jun 95 15:36:45 EDT
From: Daniel Jacob Walker <djw2k@uva.pcmail.virginia.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Subscription?
Message-ID: <199506201936.PAA04414@uva.pcmail.Virginia.EDU>

I'd like to subscribe to the traveller newsgroup.

Thanks,

Jake

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 16:47:37 -0500 (CDT)
From: ccjoe@showme.missouri.edu (Joseph Heck)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (TML Submissions)
Subject: Missouri Archives
Message-ID: <9506202147.AA44867@showme.missouri.edu>

Just a warning,

They're (the infamous they) are in the process of moving around several
offices, including mine. The missouri archive (ghost.cc.missouri.edu) will
probably only have intermittant access during that time. Hopefully it will
be stable again within 10 days. I hope. a lot.

In the meantime, if you can get to it - great!
-- 
 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>

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 15:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Energy Storage
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950620152234.10635C-100000@linda.teleport.com>

 As to why not have one large HPG; go for it.
 Just be prepared to be _bummed_ if that one gets hit.
 And as far as HPG speed. The large hpg's would have correspondingley 
large mass's, so you woulden't have to have the thing spin as fast to get 
the same energy storage as a smaller.

bri


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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 15:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Nukes and Electromagnetic plulses.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950620152502.10635D-100000@linda.teleport.com>

 I've just got one weapon for them.
 1mj Particle Accelerator.
  It will reset _ALL_ non FiberOptic computers for one turn(30mins) 
therby rendering their ship helpless.


bri


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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 10:36:42 +1100
From: Bill Currie <BILLC@teleng1.tait.co.nz>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Nukes and Electromagnetic plulses.
Message-ID: <A70072222E@teleng1.tait.co.nz>

>   It will reset _ALL_ non FiberOptic computers for one turn(30mins) 
> therby rendering their ship helpless.

Theoretically, a big enough surge could disrupt even a fiber optic 
computer.  The light signals have to come from standard electronics 
(LED's etc.) and these can be dirupted.  However, due to this weak 
link, these parts of the computer are probably well protected against 
surges.

I imagine that it may be posibble to do logic entirly in light (no 
electronics whatso ever, photonics ?) but the supply of photons still 
has to come from somewhere, even if it's a constants source (eg 
photon starage device).

Bill

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 15:38:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: death of br
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950620153612.10635E-100000@linda.teleport.com>

 Yeah, I see your point about them.(missiles)
 But when you can make a 100t ship that can take out a 20,000+ ton ship. 
And you can make 200+ of these ships -vs- the 20,000t ship. 
 Out numbering would not be a problem.
 Also, drive to rng0 and just drop off a missile(or 5). No way they can 
get them from all ships.
 They would be _especialley_ effective in T:NE. Where the only ships your 
likley to fight don't have these huge defenses.
 + you would be saving on JumpDrives, and you can never have to many jump 
drives ;)

bri


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

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 00:07:04 EDT
From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Upcoming releases?
Message-ID: <009922F3.6735B260.22@v2.qub.ac.uk>


I was browsing the Fun-n-Games store at http://www.bnt.com/fungames and 
found 2 TNE products referred to in the TNE section:

GDW0319 G Shooters $14.00 and GDW0330 Guilded Lilly Virus Redux, Pt 1 $8.00

Has anyone seen these products? Have thet any info on them? And can they tell
me what Redux means, as I can't find it in any dictionary.

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

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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:25:28 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Energy Storage
Message-ID: <9506202325.AA28867@Rt66.com>

Hi,

> Brendan O'Donovan says (much is snipped):
> 
> 1/Add 5% to the size of the HPG for every additional weapon you want to
fire off 
> it, to take into account the additional power conduits/switches you'll
need.
> 2/Make sure you use the TL limit on laser discharge.
> 3/Put the HPG as a separate damage location inside the ship - any damage to
it
> will bring all connected weapons off-line until repaired.
> 4/Critical damage (not destruction through cumulative hits) to any
connected 
> weapon will put the whole system offline, by means of a massive power surge
or
> similar.
> 
> These guidelines allow you to produce battleships with an exceptional
> offensive
> punch, but which are extremely fragile at the same time. This makes the
trade 
> off interesting, and clever design is required to reduce vulnerability as
far as 
> possible. 

The problem is that once you talk about using battleships, BR is the more 
likely game you'll use, and the differences won't show up at all.  But I do
like
the guidelines...
 
On a semi-related note, since we know that an HPG can supply any weapon at
whatever DE up to a ROF of 800, and MGs can't shoot past 100/turn, then a 
given HPG for a MG can supply 8 guns, no problem.  Also, since meson screens
are
so effective that outstanding hits are all that matter, more guns are better 
than one big one so long as the weapon can do around 20+ on an outstanding
success... maybe a bogan-like spinal mount would be the way to go.  You
ripple
fire the things at one target, and get 8 to hit rolls instead of one. As for
being fragile, it isn't any more so compared to a single spinal mount with
its
own HPG.

-Merrick


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

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 17:29:47 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: The death of the Battle Rider...
Message-ID: <9506202329.AA29389@Rt66.com>

Hi,
 
> > 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.

While it's true that big ships can have *huge* (I like BR AV:30ish) AVs, the
thing that kills the BRs is that they need to have that damn jump fuel... only
for maneuver, not jump.  The savings in volume from the lack of Jdrive is
moot in this case, since the BRs need the extra delta V to evade, etc. (not
to mention returning to the tender, etc).

-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 323
***************************



----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Tue Jun 20 22:01:01 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail05.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA141840061; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 22:01:01 -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 VAA12192; Tue, 20 Jun 1995 21:44:56 -0400
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 1995 21:44:56 -0400
Message-Id: <199506210144.VAA12192@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 323
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List
