Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 329
Date:	95-06-26 21:49:45 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 329

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) TL12 Spinal Mounts Corrected
	by bonnevil@flipper.itlabs.umn.edu (Steven Bonneville)
  2) Re: Why GDW beta _probabley_ picked tl*50
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  3) New Fusion/Plasma rules
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  4) Ship Crews
	by goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden)
  5) RE: Ship Crews 
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  6) Real World(tm) Computers
	by peteb@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk (Pete Blake)
  7) Books
	by bvanbra@bvemx.ppco.com
  8) ADMIN: Vacation Time
	by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
  9) Re: Big Lasers
	by George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 20:35:58 -0500
From: bonnevil@flipper.itlabs.umn.edu (Steven Bonneville)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TL12 Spinal Mounts Corrected
Message-ID: <9506260135.AA08232@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

Mea culpa.

I hate to admit it, but I rushed those two spinal mount designs
so fast that I made a couple of hideous errors (with HPGs, among
others) that I carried over into both designs and that ended up
making them quite a mess. 

I've just finished fixing the stupid mistakes and this time I'll
send my calculations, too, so people can check up on them if they
want.  The mount sizes are now a much more reasonable 4500 d-tons
or so.  The laser gains some ground back on the PAWS, but the
PAWS may still have some points in its' favor.  If I finally did
everything right, the PAWS here is equivalent in size to the old
CT/MT tech-12 PAWS-Q spinal mount.  My previous tech-15 design
would be roughly equivalent to the PAWS-T mount in size.

Specs are the same: deliver 250 gigajoules to one light-second.
Power consumption is at normal fire rates; the weapons aren't
even beefed up, but the PAWS probably should be since it's very
cheap to do so, and doesn't affect size much at all.

TL12 250-GJ PAWS Spinal Mount
-----------------------------
Length:  500 meters
Volume:  62650 kL   Mass: 125110 metric tons
Power:    6944 MW   Crew:      1
Price: MCr 639
Surface Area: 0.533 sq. meters
10:2500  20:625  40:156  80:39

TL12 250-GJ Laser Lance, 3.5 m lens dia.
----------------------------------------
Volume:  64873 kL   Mass: 127366 metric tons
Power:    6944 MW   Crew:      1
Price:  MCr 862
Surface Area:  9.6 sq. meters
10:1/400-1250  20:1/100-312  40:1/25-78  80:1/6-19 

===============================================================

PAWS DESIGN BREAKDOWN:
Effective FA at 500m length, 1 light-sec range: 0.8 sq. meters.
Real FA: 0.267 sq. meters
Tunnel:           133 kL;    100 tons; MCr  13.3
1.250 TJ HPGs:  62500 kL; 125000 tons; MCr 625.
300Mm Beam Ptr:    10 kL;     10 tons; MCr   1.
Workstation:        7 kL;    0.2 tons; MCr   0.0015
Note that I consider that the "Effective Length" calculation
only affects range, not maximum power -- in FF&S, DE is found
before effective length is calculated.

LASER DESIGN BREAKDOWN:
For 1 light-sec range with tunable array, need 3.46 m dia.
Lens would have a surface area of 9.42 sq. meters.
Fixed Hvy FA:    2356 kL;   2356 tons; MCr 236.
1.250 TJ HPGs:  62500 kL; 125000 tons; MCr 625.
300Mm Beam Ptr:    10 kL;     10 tons; MCr   1.
Workstation:        7 kL;    0.2 tons; MCr   0.0015

Some rounding artifacts may appear in totals; I did some fast
rounding as I went that isn't rigorous.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>

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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 19:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why GDW beta _probabley_ picked tl*50
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950625192750.9617A-100000@kelly.teleport.com>

 Is because on the Colonial Cruiser has a 700-mj Laser Barbette.
 And 15*50=750 so tl*50 is the smalles they could make it.
 


bri



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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 19:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: New Fusion/Plasma rules
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950625193046.10076A-100000@kelly.teleport.com>

 could someone post them if GDW woulden't mind(copyright and the like)?
 I didn't come accross the issue of Challenge(I assume it was in there) 
and would like to have these. Seeing as how I'm still going off the 'old' 
FF&F Fusion/Plasma rules.
 Thanks.

bri


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

Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 21:04:05 -0700
From: goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ship Crews
Message-ID: <9506260406.AA18271@deltanet.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

>From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
/* snip */

>>         I also don't understand why a ship only needs one pilot and one
astro
>>gator regardless of size. Doesn't anybody have shifts anymore? You
certainly 
>>can't keep your pilot on duty 24 hrs a day.
>
>[stuff deleted]
>
>Man, I've just been on a posting roll lately!  8)
>
>Anyway, you forget that an astrogator and pilot are basically worthless
>once their jobs are done.  Once you enter jumpspace, the astrogator has
>nothing to do.  Once you've plotted a course and begun manuevering your
>ship in realspace your pilot has nothing to do.  These aren't jobs that
>need to be done on a 24hr basis on a starship.  Granted, combat is a
>different matter all together, but then again, no one gets to sleep
>through that.

        Once you've entered jumpspace, true, you don't really need an
astrogator anymore. But even once you've plotted your course and laid in your
orbit, I still think you need somebody monitoring things. And what if he
comes down sick? Or what if he's just pulled a really long stint at the
controls, and you get mugged by the "VS Dracula?" You'd prefer to have
somebody fresh to take over. I still think larger ships would need more than
two maneuver crew, and I really don't think you'd want a separate astrogator
-- as you pointed out, he works for maybe 1/2 hour before a jump, and that's
it.
>
>Engineering and such can be argued to be a different story on a large
>ship.  As for command crew, divide that by three and think of that as
>the the crew running the ship at the various three intervals.  That way
>you for each shift you have three officers manning the bridge.
>
>All the crew stations that you cited (that's in the deleted part of the
>message--sorry), don't necessarily have to be on just the bridge either. 
>Remember, there may be a number of console and stations in engineering
>as well as others interspersed in labs and whatnot.

        OK. But I'm still trying to figure out what positions those special
bridge workstations (twice as large as normal ones!) are. The ones for
maneuver, sensor and weapons crews are obvious. But I'm still trying to
figure out the other 11. To show what I'm talking about, here's the crew
breakout:


        11 Command (CC, XO, ???...)
        2 Maneuver (pilot & astrogator)
        3 Electronics (handling 4 commos and 4 sensors)
        20 Gunnery (8 sandcaster turrets, 10 MFDs and 2 meson screen crew)
        39 Engineering
        7 Maintenance
        1 Steward
        1 Medical

        Of these, 26 are "bridge" workstations: 11 command, 2 maneuver, 3
electronics and 10 MFD. D*&@! I just found an error in my design -- I have 28
bridge ws. The maneuver, electronics and MFD are self evident. What the ^%#
are the other 11 guys/gals/things doing on the bridge (or wherever the
workstations are separated out to)?

        OK, it seems command would also include a second, third and fourth
officer, so you can always have a command officer available. Also put in a
chief engineer, and a weapons officer. That covers 7 people. Any suggestions
for the remaining 5? And what about bigger ships? Add a deputy or two for the
engineer and weapons officers, and stash a spare pilot or two in here? Is it
safe to assume the line officers have flight skills, so they act as backups?
Then the 2 maneuver are just the minimum any ship needs with the extras in
command?

        I'm also leaning towards a declaration that when FF&S says you need
so many workstations, that's just a way of estimating volume requirements,
and you wouldn't actually have that many workstations as shown on a deck
plan. In other words, instead of putting in 26 workstations on the bridge (11
command, 2 maneuver, 10 MFD, 3 electronics) I'd put in 16 (maneuver, MFD,
electronics, plus captain/duty officer), and maybe one or two spares. The
remaining workstations would be ignored, and the space used for bridge
volume, ready room, etc. Comments?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6a

iQCVAwUBL+4xJIq9M9KUhCkhAQHsCwP/VJRUUCpFaI7+jm307zHEk4o3cETQmy9E
dzmtmHaLYYPeONcn2LvbgzV2ThxD/V51QMmzOG5n1aLVt0oOIW7/9YxGsacRMz/E
P5yJcRi7lcVIf+zymkgXlsyNfcxZvKe28XiY57I3pYAQF1QuDnIfdIw4nJemI47D
k6hBDrDUB0o=
=ejLQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                     |         D.GOLDEN@genie.geis.com
  PGP Public Key available        |           goldendj@deltanet.com

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine


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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 00:56:30 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Ship Crews 
Message-ID: <199506260456.AAA03278@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Mon, 26 Jun 1995 00: 07:26 EDT
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 00:56:29 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
: 
: >From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
: /* snip */

[stuff deleted]

:         OK. But I'm still trying to figure out what positions those special
b
ridge workstations (twice as large as normal ones!) are. The ones for
maneuver,
 sensor and weapons crews are obvious. But I'm still trying to figure out the
o
ther 11. To show what I'm talking about, here's the crew breakout:
: 
:         11 Command (CC, XO, ???...)
:         2 Maneuver (pilot & astrogator)
:         3 Electronics (handling 4 commos and 4 sensors)
:         20 Gunnery (8 sandcaster turrets, 10 MFDs and 2 meson screen crew)
:         39 Engineering
:         7 Maintenance
:         1 Steward
:         1 Medical
: 
:         Of these, 26 are "bridge" workstations: 11 command, 2 maneuver, 3
ele
ctronics and 10 MFD. D*&@! I just found an error in my design -- I have 28
brid
ge ws. The maneuver, electronics and MFD are self evident. What the ^%# are
the
 other 11 guys/gals/things doing on the bridge (or wherever the workstations
ar
e separated out to)?

[your crew breakdown deleted]

Looking over the numbers, here's what I can extrapolate (this may be
wrong, but it seems to work).  Give yourself a captain and a first
officer through fourth officer.  That's two.  Now for each department
that has more than 5 people give them department heads for every ten (or
so people).  Oh fudge, using this I come up with 12 officers.  Hell,
make the steward the fourth officer.  There, so here's the breakdown:

        captain
        1st officer
        2nd officer
        3rd officer
        4th officer
        head engineer
        2nd engineer
        senior engineer
        junior engineer
        head gunnery officer
        2nd gunnery officer

And everyone else can just report to the captain and officers respectively.

:         I'm also leaning towards a declaration that when FF&S says you need
s
o many workstations, that's just a way of estimating volume requirements, and
y
ou wouldn't actually have that many workstations as shown on a deck plan. In
ot
her words, instead of putting in 26 workstations on the bridge (11 command, 2
m
aneuver, 10 MFD, 3 electronics) I'd put in 16 (maneuver, MFD, electronics,
plus
 captain/duty officer), and maybe one or two spares. The remaining
workstations
 would be ignored, and the space used for bridge volume, ready room, etc.
Comme
nts?

I don't think that'll cut it.  I think that you need a full crew
manning the bridge during a battle, and that's why they do this.  What
you might want to do to save on space is design a gunnery bridge and
place maybe half of the MFD's there (that way, you also don't have to
worry about a shot knocking them all out--look under design
evaluation).  Also, if you look at auxilary bridge rules, you could
theoretically split the number of bridge controls between the two
sites, and if they aren't both fully manned, then you would suffer from
not having a bridge (now to be honest, I'm not sure if this is a viable
option, hopefully one the FFS gurus out there will point out if I'm
mistaken...).

Anyway good luck on this behemoth of a ship!

        --Jerry

       --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, 26 Jun 95 09:49:31 BST
From: peteb@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk (Pete Blake)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: peteb@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk
Subject: Real World(tm) Computers
Message-ID: <9506260849.AA21889@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk.digicon-egr>

Hi Folks,

I have just started really using my PC to aid my traveller campaign.  I have
down loaded most of the ship designs which get posted here, and a whole load
of
adventure plots from the net.  I also use it to write my own campaign stuff
and
designs. I am after some useful software for it.

Does anyone out there have any useful Excel(tm) spreadsheets for use with
designing ships (or anything else for that matter) from FFS?

In addition I want to start designing some floor plans, both for ships I have
designed and for adventure plans; and also want to start drawing subsector
maps
and holding them on my PC.  I have seen a number of these sort of maps on
various internet sites with traveller stuff on them.  I want something that
allows you to set up a grid and then have it displayed as a sort of
background to
the main design when printed or displayed.  Can anyone recommend a good PC
package for this purpose?  

Last night I actually set the PC up in my lounge and used it during the game.
I was wondering how many referees out there use computers on-line to aid
their
refereeing actually during play.

Any help would be much appreiciated.

Pete


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Pete Blake                         | "Blood, Sweat and Beers"
|
| Systems Support                    | Internet:  peteb@digicon-egr.co.uk
|
| digicon geophysical ltd.           | Telephone: (44) 01342 328111 x309
|

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

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 07:51:02 -0500
From: bvanbra@bvemx.ppco.com
To: "SMTPMAIL-TRAVELLE (052)" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Books
Message-ID: <0011200001253769000002*@MHS>

To: TRAVELLE--SMTPMAIL
 
From: Bart Van Brabant-Phillips Petroleum Int. AG (IS-DEPT)
     355 Brusselsesteenweg 3090 Overijse Belgium
     Tel: 32-2-6891375 Fax: 32-2-6891472
Subject: Books
 
A nice book to include is 'The voyage of the Starwolf', from...I cannot
remembe
r the title since I am currently not home, but I'll find out. It is about a
shi
p which does not have a name and just has a number. It needs to deserve its
nam
e. You are guided through the book and the day to day onboard life of every
crewmember and I will of course not spoil the complete story, but it was fun
to
read. I wanted to create a destroyer vessel after reading the story.
 
Too bad I could not locate Fire Fusion and Steel yet, for I find the rules of
G
DW TNE not as simple and easy to overview as MT.
 
Best regards
Adnan Valkner
Chief Intelligence Operations, Earth Sector
 
** Who the hell pushed this red butt... **
 
X400: C=US,A=ATTMAIL,P=PHILLIPS66,OU1=P66,S=VAN BRABANT,G=BART
Internet Address:bvanbra@ppco.com
USPPC7XC@IBMMAIL, EVOKER@IBM.NET
NNNN

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:38:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: ADMIN: Vacation Time
Message-ID: <199506261438.KAA02036@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

I will be on vacation June 30 - July 9.  By some wierdness of orginizational
structure, my backup will be gone as well.

So no traveller requests or problems will be processed during that period.
I will try to log in and look for any major problems.

This also effects ftp.mpgn.com as well.  Submissions will not be processed 
during that period.

Thanks
Rob
-- 
Rob Miracle (rwm@mpgn.com)   | GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v
C++>++++ 
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V--
-po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++
u** 
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++

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

Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:17:34 -0700
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Re: Big Lasers
Message-ID: <199506261717.AA09374@mail.crl.com>

Steve Bonneville writes:
>The running conversation about the "superiority" of lasers got me
>interested in running off two more spinal mount designs to compare
>laser and PAWS performance.  Here's two at tech-12, within the
>technological reach of the Coalition or Cleon Zhunastu:
		   
The Laser in that pair was not a very well optimized laser.
It's not very difficult to do much better with range,
i.e. a "short" range of 20, or 40, or even 80 if you
want to... and it makes little sense _not_ to.

Assuming a Battle Rider game, the laser's lower damage
for the same discharge energy is almost always balanced
out by effectively infinite penetration.  Even a 10 Gj
laser is a very effective weapon, and one with a big enough
focal array to reach out and touch people at 80 hexes with
full power is quite reasonable.

-george

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 329
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Mon Jun 26 21:48:54 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mailgate.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA293167734; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 21:48:54 -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 VAA07553; Mon, 26 Jun 1995 21:42:40 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 21:42:40 -0400
Message-Id: <199506270142.VAA07553@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 329
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

