Subj:	TRAVELLER digest 333
Date:	95-06-30 21:54:38 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 333

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: The Bridge Crew Thing
	by Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
  2) Re: Force Fields @ TL15
	by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  3) Ship Crews
	by goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden)
  4) Laser extreme ranges & Big lasers
	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
  5) Reentry & Micrometeoroids
	by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
  6) 
	by HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx)
  7) Re: Reentry & Micrometeoroids
	by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: 29 Jun 1995 22:29:09 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: The Bridge Crew Thing
Message-ID: <919076830.84739006@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca>

Les, I like it.  I've always assumed that command crew were scattered
throughout the ship myself, but you explanation is a lot nicer and leaves
room for local variations.  

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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 20:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Force Fields @ TL15
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.950629203525.16315E-100000@kelly.teleport.com>

 are possible according to FF&S p.60(First Printing, but the Errata 
dosen't seem to mind) So you could hit your desired speed, on a corse to 
take you through the field without hitting anything to large and flip on 
the Black Globe 100% of the time and you'll be fine. Or you could use a 
ESA system, power for a starship would not be a problem when your using 
ESA unless it's really big, then you pop it with a laser.

bri


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

Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 21:23:00 -0700
From: goldendj@deltanet.com (David J. Golden)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ship Crews
Message-ID: <9506300426.AA00923@deltanet.com>

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

        Thanks for all the input, folks! I think I've got a fairly good idea
what all those command crew are now. Any day now I'll get around to finishing
my deckplans up. Also, I'll try to summarize the discussion so it can be
posted on the FAQ page in a week or two. Anybody got any favorite bridge
layouts they'd like me to submit as samples?

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

iQCVAwUBL/N5loq9M9KUhCkhAQHjTwQAnCnT38DYQWMvsCNbjJ8FjnqheWyOian6
H0/5FiqU2w48XC2e0MvWaRm4/JU0VxHDZc6UpUqanxHUXN9orF9Qnelnb6rSvQ2q
vBb4dV3bXBipIH261K6k6ZKKtP0oOpbX3Sur3sOZzbkGmlOHkfBAZ1dCBy7+sTTW
OnW9hKeHGXk=
=9prd
-----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: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 19:09:17 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Laser extreme ranges & Big lasers
Message-ID: <40@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

In the message dated Thursday 29, June 1995 Pete Blake wrote :
 
> 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?
> 

Long range is useful with BL.
eg.
Long range = Formidable
44 hex range +14
TL15 MFD -6
100 ROF overpowering -2
Gigantic target -5
Total +1
Final difficulty  = impossible

Not all of these modifiers apply to basic TNE. The maximum range could be 
increased past 44 hexes with some truly massive overpowering of weapons, but
no 
starship weapons will ever reach the 80 hex maximum range. The reasons it is 
useful to have such a long range are to keep the damage up for any hits you
do 
manage at 40hexes+, and to keep the base difficulty levels down as low as 
possible.

Another thought for the Big Lasers discussion:
As I read it, critical hits are caused by large explosions, which completely 
obliterate areas of a starship's interior. It seems to me that lasers would
be 
extremely poor at causing critical hits, as they tend to go straight through 
things. I think GDW mentioned that lasers do cause explosions, but I reckon
that 
can only be minimal compared to PA explosions of the same DV, otherwise
lasers 
would not penetrate as well as they do. Perhaps laser damage values should be

halved or more when determining numbers of critical hits. The only problem is

that this rule wouldn't translate well to Brilliant Lances scale combat, as
it 
would remove most of the critical hits from the game.

-- 
Brendan 

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 05:59:38 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Reentry & Micrometeoroids
Message-ID: <41@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

Are micrometeroid streams really that dense? In an article about shielding
the 
International Space Station, I read that the densest ever meteor storm had 
150,000 impacts per hour on the earth (atmosphere). Considering that earth is

many orders of magnitude larger than even gigantic size ships, there would
only 
be one or two impacts per hour on the reflector armour of a battleship. Over
a 
short period of time it wouldn't add up to decrease armour efficiency (the
same 
way cumulative PA hits don't reduce armour). However, at maintenance stops,
the 
damage would need to be smoothed over, which would probably cost much more
than 
a normal overhaul. Still, a really high cost would help explain why small
ships 
don't fit them. In terms of economy of scale, the size and cost of the
reflector 
would go up as l^2, but the volume of the ship protected would go up as l^3,
so 
they would be more viable for really big ships.

Also, atmospheric interactions shouldn't be much of a problem. Most TNE ships

need no heat shielding for reentry in the atmosphere because they have contra

grav. This allows them to orbit at extremely slow speeds, a fraction of what 
modern spacecraft need to stay in orbit. Equally, it means that the
spacecraft 
can effectively stop relative to the atmosphere, and just lower themselves 
through it at a very slow speed. Aerobraking would be harder, as the
spacecraft 
_would_ encounter the atmosphere at high speeds during this maneuver, but if 
only the front and/or sides were reflectors, then the ship could simply flip 
over and reenter tail first.

On a related point, why do starships need to have a constant armour value all

over? If you can outmaneuver your opponent and keep him in your front arc,
then 
why not make your frontal armour thicker? Given that most hull configurations

are longer than they are wide, then the front arc will have a lower surface 
area, and so require less material volume to make the armour thicker. This 
approach could also be useful for non-military designs. A trader operating in

safe systems would only need Gmax x 10 armour on the front, back and one side

(the side presented to the direction of travel when the ship turns over at 
midpoint). This could provide some weight and volume advantages. After all,
the 
10 armour on some traders is as good as nothing against lasers and even
particle 
accelerators already.

-- 
Brendan


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

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 12:08:29 +0100
From: HA281PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Lynx)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <95063012082910@newvax.ntu.ac.uk>

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.

On the subject of FAE clearing of mine fields, John Gardner said:

>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.  


Oh, i think your right actually. I must have been confused. Do you have any
data on MICLIC at all? Length of line, vehicles with system mounted on it
etc?

Would an FAE system along the same guide lines be practical?

Paul.


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

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 10:02:08 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Reentry & Micrometeoroids
Message-ID: <9506301602.AA03316@Rt66.com>

Howdy,
> Brendan says: 
> On a related point, why do starships need to have a constant armour value
all 
> over? If you can outmaneuver your opponent and keep him in your front arc,
then 
> why not make your frontal armour thicker? Given that most hull
configurations 
> are longer than they are wide, then the front arc will have a lower surface

> area, and so require less material volume to make the armour thicker. This 
> approach could also be useful for non-military designs. A trader operating
in 
> safe systems would only need Gmax x 10 armour on the front, back and one
side 
> (the side presented to the direction of travel when the ship turns over at 
> midpoint). This could provide some weight and volume advantages. After all,
the 
> 10 armour on some traders is as good as nothing against lasers and even
particle 
> accelerators already.


How about slope?  I was thinking of using the slope rules for armor already
in
use for tanks, etc..  You would say that Streamlined hulls get the 1.5 times
AV
modifier, and airframes get the 2x modifier from the frontal arc.  In combat
you would have to complete a tracking task to keep the nose pointed at the
shooter for the whole turn.

-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 333
***************************


----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
From traveller@mpgn.com Fri Jun 30 21:53:44 1995
Received: from Ambassador.MPGN.COM by mail03.mail.aol.com with ESMTP
	(1.37.109.16/16.2) id AA268623624; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:53:44 -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 VAA12992; Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:47:50 -0400
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 1995 21:47:50 -0400
Message-Id: <199507010147.VAA12992@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 333
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Traveller Mailing List

