Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 332
Date:	95-06-29 21:47:15 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 332

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) The Bridge Crew Thing
	by lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 331
	by Pete Blake <peteb@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk>
  3) FFS: Gauss Weapons, Battery Error
	by Lahtinen Antti Jussi <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
  4) Bridge Layout (was Ship Crews)
	by "Peter H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
  5) FFS 1st to second printing upgrade.
	by Hans-Christian.Prytz@ffi.no
  6) FAE
	by jmg141@email.psu.edu (john gardner)
  7) RE: FFS 1st to second printing upgrade. 
	by That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
  8) Re: BL rules question
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  9) Re: Defending against Big Lasers
	by "Arturo Algueiro Melo" <ALGUEIRO@BUEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM>
 10) Why it's easier to hit in BR...
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 23:18:45 -0300
From: lhowie@dilbert.lrmi.com (Les Howie)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: The Bridge Crew Thing
Message-ID: <9506290223.AA06024@lrmi.com>

        I have been following the Bridge Crew Debate with great interest,
and would like to make a couple of observations:

1.  Crew size / 6 is a very back of the envelope calculation -- anyone have
access to a copy of janes or equivalent that would offer numbers for
officers vs other ranks on a modern warship?  I'll bet it works out very
closely.

2.  I can't, myself, picture all these people on the bridge commanding their
six (on average) subordinates at the other end of the ship: occasionally,
you have to get up close to people and things.  Reminds me of the Lieutenant
from Aliens II

3.  Command structures, even with good communications, are culture/doctrine
dependent.  I am told, for example, that a Canadian destroyer has a seperate
Tactical Officer whose job it is to fight the ship, seperate from the
Captain.  I don't tink that this is the US practice.  And this distinction
is between two very closely linked militaries.

I am inclined to adopt my own "house rule" for my own campaigns:

a. A rule is a rule, so 1 officer to 6 O/R it is, BUT

b. Bridge function can be dispered, depending on culture and design, between
1-4 functional areas, e.g. Maneuver Bridge, Tactical Operations Centre,
Engineering Control Centre.

c. Although all bridge workstations called for in the rules must be provided
(junior officers have to have somewhere to keep their pencils) it should be
assumed that, most of the time, said junior officers will be somewhere in
their ship shouting at their swabbies.  It should not be assumed that the
bridge will be the duty station -- however, for ships doing plus G's to a
level requiring coaches, etc, appropriate workstations should be provided at
the station.

d. A bridge critical hit should be assumed to toast one of the functional
areas, and so disrupt communications aboard ship as to have the effect
indicated in the rules.  Full backup of all areas is required in order to
claim an "auxilliary bridge"

I think these rules are a balance between an interesting and varied reality,
and ship designs which could compete against "conventional" designs without
an unfair advantage. I invite comment.

Also, anyone like to propose some alternative rank names for various TNE
cultural groups (nth Officer does not do it for me)?  The sci.military FAQ
used to have some alternative terms for C20 Terra, but I don't have newgroup
access right now.
Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
Atlantic LRMI


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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 09:31:18 +0100 (BST)
From: Pete Blake <peteb@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: Pete Blake <peteb@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 331
Message-ID:
<Pine.SUN.3.91.950629092002.27456A-100000@t1000.digicon-egr.co.uk>

Hi Folks,

While we're on the starship weapons thread, I have a question about the
standard New Era rules.  I have only recently started running a Traveller
campaign and am still picking up the rules, session by session.
The last session I had saw my players' first space combat.  As a novice
referee I guess the combat was conducted totally wrong, but as novice players
they didn't realise :-)

When reading the starship combat rules again, after the session, I discovered
a rule I had missed on my first few readings which would have a huge effect
on the combat.  That is the rule on range adjusting the difficulty level of
a to hit roll.  I don't own BL, which may tidy up this whole business.
However, my PCs own a Scout/Courier, exactly as taken from the TNE rule book
(with a few modifications which have no effect on combat).  They have a
TL-15 3000 Mj Laser mounted in their single turret.

According to the rules, the to hit roll is calculated taking range into
account as per the roll for sensor locks, and then that difficulty level 
is adjusted up by one level for every three hexes (or range bands) the target
is away.  This makes even an 'Easy' shot 'Impossible' at a range of 12 
hexes - which is only medium range for their laser turret.  Even if they 
had an MFD they would still never be able to hit anything beyond medium 
range, and from my calculations, no other ship would be able to either.

Am I missing something, or are long and extreme ranges in starship combat 
totally useless?

Thanks for your help,

Pete


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

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


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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 14:55:07 +0300 (EET DST)
From: Lahtinen Antti Jussi <al76188@cs.tut.fi>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FFS: Gauss Weapons, Battery Error
Message-ID: <199506291155.OAA26244@kaarne.cs.tut.fi>

	FFS: Gauss Weapons, Gauss Battery Error, Magazine Capacity

	After some fiddling with gauss weapon design rules, I decided 
	to use separate components for autoloader and HPG in stead of 
	a single "receiver" unit. This comes from the fact that a HPG 
	can be placed anywhere in gun, but autoloader must be placed at 
	the rear end of barrel. When separate components are used, the 
	minimum length of weapon drops quite dramatically.

	I also noticed that gauss weapon batteries are incompatible 
	with the batteries listed in page 66. For example, TL-14 gauss 
	magazine battery is 14.4 times heavier than corresponding TL-14 
	storage battery.
	Using current rules the battery size may vary greatly when tech
	level and muzzle velocity is changed, but the maximum grip
	magazine capacity stays constant. I measured several modern
	handgun magazines, and made a simple volume-based formula that
	can be used with CPR and Gauss handguns.

	In the following design breakdown I have used separate autoloader
	and HPG, and used normal storage battery.

	----------

	Design example: TL-14 Gauss Pistol

	Projectile: 4x20mm Density 2 plastic dart
	Component	Mass (g)	Volume (cm3)	Price (Cr)
	Projectile	0.5		0.25		0.01

	Gun: Selective fire with 2500 m/s muzzle velocity
	Component	Mass (kg)	Length (cm)	Price (Cr)
	Barrel		0.45		15		270
	Autoloader	0.03		 4		  3
	HPG		0.2		19		 20
	Hollow Grip	0.1		 0		 25
	---------------
	Gun Total	0.78 (kg)	19 (cm)		318 (Cr)

	Autoloader is designed as Mass Driver autoloader. Weight
	multipliers are:
	Semi Automatic	30
	Fully Automatic 50
	Selective Fire	60
	Very Rapid Fire	100
	The length of loader mechanism is twice the length of ammo. 
	Autoloader is placed in the rear end of barrel, so the minimum 
	length of weapon is the length of barrel, plus the length of 
	autoloader.

	HPG values are taken from table in page 66. HPG could be placed
	anywhere, but in this design the HPG is over the barrel and
	autoloader. The HPG is cylinder shaped, and its diameter is
	2.53 cm.

	Autoloader and HPG price is calculated as in page 103, using
	price multiplier of 100.


	75-round Grip Magazine

	Component	Mass (kg)	Vol (cm3)	Price (Cr)
	Magazine	0.0237		37.7		0.237
	Battery		0.0520		20.8		1.875
	Ammo		0.0375		(75 rounds)
	---------------
	Magazine Total	0.1132 (kg)	58.5 (cm3) 	2.112 (Cr)
			0.0758 kg unloaded

	Magazine capacity depends on the total volume of magazine.
	The total volume of magazine is twice the volume of carried 
	ammo, plus the volume of battery. The volume of modern grip 
	magazine is around 60 cm3 in medium-frame pistols, and less 
	than 30 cm3 in hideout guns. (22.5 cm3 in one palm-sized 
	autoloader)
	This pistol is designed to be medium sized (as Glock 17), so 
	the magazine volume can be up to 60 cm3.

	Battery is taken from battery table in page 66. To allow all
	fire rates up to 50 rounds/sec, a 0.36 second battery is
	selected (price multiplier 9).
	TL-14 battery volume in cm3 is calculated as:
	(req. energy [j] x number of rounds)/(2.5 [MWh/m3] x 3600 sec).
	Battery mass is 2.5 g/cm3, and price is Cr0.01/cm3.

----------

4mm Gauss Pistol (Gp-25)
Manufactured in Vyborg/Capella/Solomani Rim, the SAKO Gp-25 is high-power
selective-fire gauss pistol used as sidearm by Vyborg police and military
forces. The Gp-25 fires 4mm gauss darts at 2500 meters per second.

To minimize autofire recoil, Gp-25 can fire 3-round autobursts in stead of
normal fully automatic fire.

Note: This weapon have the same dimensions as TL-8 Glock 17 autopistol. The
major difference is that Gp-25 has barrel at the same place where Glock 17
has the recoil spring guide.

TL-14
Ammo:		4x20mm/25 (density 2 plastic dart)
Muzzle Energy:	1562.5 joules (required energy 2500 joules)
Weapon Length:	19 cm
Weapon Weight:	0.78 kg empty, with no magazine.
		0.893 kg with full 75-round magazine
Weapon Prize:	Cr318
Magaz. Weight:	75-round magazine: 0.113 kg loaded, 0.076 kg empty
Magaz. Price:	Cr3
Ammo Prize:	Cr0.01 (Dart), Cr0.02 (EDD, Tranq), Cr0.03 (HEAP)
Ammo Weight:	0.5 grams per round
Features:	Optional TL-14 laser sight

Round		ROF	Dam	Pen	Bulk	Magaz	Recoil	S Range
4x20mm Dart	SA/3	3	1-Nil	1	75	4/6	20 (20)
4x20mm EDD	SA/3	4	3-Nil	1	75	4/6	20
4x20mm HEAP	SA/3	4	2-2-2	1	75	4/6	15
4x20mm Tranq	SA/3	-1*	Nil	1	75	4/6	12

----------
-- 
        Antti Lahtinen    :     Justice is Only a Wish of a Weak
        al76188@cs.tut.fi :


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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:37:38 -0500
From: "Peter H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Bridge Layout (was Ship Crews)
Message-ID: <199506291637.LAA09409@cummings.uchicago.edu>

Wildstar made some great (and well illustrated) bridge crew descriptions.
I wanted to discuss the layout a bit.

>For a bridge this size, I'd break it up a bit, basically place it on two
>decks.  The upper deck is the actual "bridge", and would contain the
>helm and astrogation positions, as well as the captian, the communication
>and sensor positions as well as the engineering stations (maneuver, power,
>cheif engineer, and damage control).  The lower deck would be the "combat
>information center", and would contain the MFD's, electronics operators,
>analysis desk, fire control officer, and tactical officer.


I had to figure out the layout of a Megatraveller designed monstrosity's
bridge once.  I found what I think is a "standard" large ship bridge
design;

Controls included a "Large Holodisplay" - actually several of them - I
interpreted this as one large and several normal holographic displays.

Begin with a large circular room about two stories high.  In the center is a
platform with the primary Bridge crew ; Chief Engineer, Tactical Officer,
Helm/Navigation stations, Damage Control, Sensor Off., Commo Off., Fire 
Control, Defense coordinator, Chief Flight Officer, and their 
workstations.  And, Of course, the captain.

Now, around this platform are two levels of workstations with
the subordinates to the bridge positions; so each "bridge" officer can 
"encourage" thier individual assistants in person and up close.  In the
center
of all this is the primary Holodisplay; a very large (4 meter?) holographic
projector which can be seen *from every station on the bridge* if necessary
for coordination.  Smaller holodisplays (6 in my specific design) are placed 
around the perifery for possible viewing by a sector of the bridge.

The advantages of this layout are two pronged;  Obviously, Communication
between the section chiefs and their nearest subordinates can be done
directly, rather than through communications which may be knocked out. 
The "over and under" levels allow more people to be brought close together
than a conventional 'flat' bridge would, and everyone who needs direct access
to tactical information shown on the holodisplay can have it.

A variation which may be a bit more efficient would be a 'horseshoe'
shape to the surrounding decks and offsetting the large display towards
the horseshoe's open end, and offsetting the command bridge the other 
direction; A little ascii art to illustrate;

H= large holodisplay
B= Command Bridge
C= Captain's position
 _________________
|                 \
|_______________   \
|		\   \
|  HH	  BBBBB	 \   \
| HHHH	   BBBCB  |   |
|  HH  	  BBBBB	 /   /
|_______________/   /
|		   /
|_________________/


The second advantage is this; by experience I know this bridge makes an 
excellent location for a firefight!  dozens of  half-height consoles face
inwards and make good cover, In combat the bridge is red lit and pretty dark,

so shadows abound, especially in the lower tier of the perifery.  Ultimately
there is also the problem of keeping the bridge operational after spraying
half the gunnery stations with autofire!

When the grav plates failed it got even more interesting.

The Azhanti High Lightning (I recall) also had a circular layout with,
in their case, a sunken bridge (was it called 'the pit' or am I confusing
it with something else?).  That bridge had a great many people on it too
I recall (especially the warship incarnation), perhaps it would make a 
good guide?  (I'll dig out the booklet if asked.)

Pete

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 18:47:40 +0200
From: Hans-Christian.Prytz@ffi.no
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (Non Receipt Notification Requested)
Subject: FFS 1st to second printing upgrade.
Message-ID: <"156 95/06/29
18:47*/G=Hans-Christian/S=Prytz/O=ffi/PRMD=uninett/ADMD= /C=no/"@MHS>

I have seen a reference to an article in Challenge 75 detailing the changes 
neccesary to upgrade 1st printing FFS to 2nd printing, however I haven't been
able to 
get a hold of Challeneg 75, since the supplier (corect word?) who supplies
all of my local 
 gaming shops had some delivery trouble.
 So what I'm looking for is either a copy of this article if someone would be
willing to type 
it in (and if this would be permissable with regard to copyright) or
Someone or someplace that could sell me a copy of that Challenge.

If anyone kan help me with this I'd be grateful.


Hilsen (Regards)
Hans-Christian Prytz
**************************************************
PGP public key availible on request.
**************************************************
X.400 : G=Hans-Christian;S=Prytz;O=FFI;P=UNINETT;C=NO;
RFC   : Hans-Christian.Prytz@FFI.NO (hap@ffi.no)
 
Forsvarets forskningsinstitutt - FFI
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment - NDRE
Postbox 25, N-2007 Kjeller, Norway

Tlf(Phone) :+47-63 80 72 53    Telefax : +47-63 80 72 12

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:25:42 -0400
From: jmg141@email.psu.edu (john gardner)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: FAE
Message-ID: <199506291748.NAA29555@genesis.ait.psu.edu>

>This is one reason why the US and British military have the Viper
>system on combat engineering vehicles. Viper is a rocket fired over a 
>known or suspected minefield trailing a 'cable' behind it. FAE is ejected
from
>the cable, the rocket, and explosive charge contained within the cable
detonate
>and massive overpressure results in destruction of all mines in a path 20 or
>so meters across.

I think that you are confusing this device with a system called MICLIC,
which is used to breach minefields.  The actual system uses strung cratering
charges on the line, and not a fuel-air explosion.  

just a thought.

--john.

"Any society which is willing to surrender liberty for security . . . shall
have neither."
                                                           - Benjamin
Franklin.
"A simple man believes anything, but a prudent man gives thought to his
steps."
                                                           - Proverbs 14:15
"No matter where you go, there you are . . ."
                                                           - Albert Eienstien
"A chicken is nothing but an egg's way of producing more eggs"
                                                           - unknown



  


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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 14:30:26 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: FFS 1st to second printing upgrade. 
Message-ID: <199506291830.OAA07233@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Thu, 29 Jun 1995 12: 49:32 EDT
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 14:30:25 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: I have seen a reference to an article in Challenge 75 detailing the changes

: neccesary to upgrade 1st printing FFS to 2nd printing, however I haven't
been
 able to 
: get a hold of Challeneg 75, since the supplier (corect word?) who supplies
al
l of my local 
:  gaming shops had some delivery trouble.
:  So what I'm looking for is either a copy of this article if someone would
be
 willing to type 
: it in (and if this would be permissable with regard to copyright) or
: Someone or someplace that could sell me a copy of that Challenge.
: 
: If anyone kan help me with this I'd be grateful.

This errata exists on the net.  Look at the ftp.mpgn.com or
ghost.cc.missouri.edu archive sites for 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: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 16:06:49 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: BL rules question
Message-ID: <9506292206.AA00165@Rt66.com>

Greetings,
 
> 
> According to the rules, the to hit roll is calculated taking range into
> account as per the roll for sensor locks, and then that difficulty level 
> is adjusted up by one level for every three hexes (or range bands) the
target
> is away.  This makes even an 'Easy' shot 'Impossible' at a range of 12 
> hexes - which is only medium range for their laser turret.  Even if they 
> had an MFD they would still never be able to hit anything beyond medium 
> range, and from my calculations, no other ship would be able to either.
> 
> Am I missing something, or are long and extreme ranges in starship combat 
> totally useless?
> 
> Thanks for your help,
> 
> Pete

Nope, you're not missing anything.  As far as I can tell from the rules, and
the
challenge article with the design notes, they assume ships are trying not to
be
hit---I would rather see it possible to hit something at longer ranges as
long
as they don't dodge, and have the table apply only under the right
conditions.  

As it is, you can't hit a *planet* outside of 44 hexes (I remember there
being a
max range regardless of modifiers), this makes no sense (what else is new :)

On a related note, can anyone with the rules handy tell me if the same limits
apply to laser, maser, or meson commo?  They *must*, otherwise I'd drop the
range table if the target doesn't try to evade (the basic premise of my
surprise rules is just that, actually).

-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 20:54:54 EDT
From: "Arturo Algueiro Melo" <ALGUEIRO@BUEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Defending against Big Lasers
Message-ID: <199506300008.UAA05562@Mithril.MPGN.COM>

  From "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

> but if your reflector was a big, rigid, carefully designed, thick,
superdense
> reflector, like a section of carefully designed starship hull, then maybe
it
> would have some significant effect on lasers. It wouldn't require
significant
> volume or mass, perhaps a high-reflective coating over the hull - how
reflective
> is superdense? The major problem in constructing it would be the cost of

There are two problems with the reflec armor approach for hulls:
1) Micro-meteorites: Even if the hull is superdense, a starship
travelling through meteorite and micro-meteorite showers will have
her hull surface very quickly eroded, negating the specular effect.
The only answer for this should be a force field to repell the debris,
technology that isn't available at TL15. (A repulsor beam should be
focused on each particle, task that is not possible because of the
size of the meteorites involved, their speed and their number; even a
bunch of TL15 computers should be overloaded within a meteorite shower).
2) Atmosphere abrasion: When gas giant refuelling or landing/taking off,
or in tainted atmospheres, the interaction of the gases with the hull
though heating, scratching, etc. will also erode the mirror surface.

Arturo ALGUEIRO MELO - (Internet Address: ALGUEIRO@BUEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM)

Buenos Aires - Argentina

*** DISCLAIMER *****
*
* The comments included here are my personal opinion and do not
* necessarily reflect the official opinion of my company.
*
********************

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:13:52 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Why it's easier to hit in BR...
Message-ID: <9506300113.AA19038@Rt66.com>


Hi,

Just thought I'd note something that's bothered me for a while:  it's *much*
easier to hit things in BR than it is in BL.  There is one major error in BR
(could well be a typo) that contributes to this.

The BR rules state that the difficuly for a short range task is 1, but this
corrisponds to _Easy_, not _Average_ as it should.  Basically, all tasks in
BR should be one level harder (they seem to have gotten it right in the
screens
section, since the base diff level is 2 (Average).

This, combined with the fact that MFDs can reduce basic diff levels in BR,
not
just +DMs, mean that targets are engaged farther out than they are in BL.

The simple solution is to make the base shortrange diff level 2, then 3,
etc..

Also, one should only allow FC and overpowering "-" DMs to reduce the range
and
size "+" DMs (ie: it's *never* easier than the base diff level).


This is a *major* flaw in modelling BL combat on a large scale.  It must just
be an editing errror since it is sytematically inconsistant with BL.

-Merrick


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 332
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Thu Jun 29 21:46:03 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.11/16.2) id AA296156763; Thu, 29 Jun 1995 21:46:03 -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 VAA01018; Thu, 29 Jun 1995 21:38:22 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 21:38:22 -0400
Message-Id: <199506300138.VAA01018@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 332
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

