			    TRAVELLER Digest 454

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Longbow (SPOILERS) by lewis@chara.gsu.edu
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 453 by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 453 by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) Hivers, various... by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  5) Military police gear by BARTZ@emuvax.emich.edu
  6) Striker II and Battle Rider by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  7) by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  8) Steward/Longbow Comments by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
  9) TL16 Palisade RF-151 Recon Fighter by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
 10) Re: Striker II and Battle Rider by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 11) Re: TL16 Palisade RF-151 Recon Fighter by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 12) Anyone see the last B5 (traveller idea/ SPOILERS) by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 13) USL Landing/Fighters in TNE by Wesley.Esser@hd62.haledorr.com

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 95 10:29:02 -0400
From: lewis@chara.gsu.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Longbow (SPOILERS)
Message-ID: <9510181429.AA07678@chara.gsu.edu>

If you care about SPOILERS in the RSB, don't read this!






Ted Kim asked a question about using Lonbow technology to look torwards
the Imperial Core. I think the reason is that Longbow detects photons,
which travels at the speed of light, so if the new Longbow was at the
very edge of Deneb sector, it would have to look through Corridor,
Vland and Lishun Sectors. (I think those are the sectors, I could be
wrong) Each sector is 32 parsecs wide, at 3.24 ly per parsec it would
take light 311.04 years to travel the three sectors.  If the Domain
wanted to study Imperial History, it would make a good project.  
The Zho's core expeditions were even farther away, but the Imperium
didn't have anyother means to find out what was happening there.
Lewis

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 07:59:17 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 453
Message-ID: <v01530501acaad1658e38@[137.229.100.61]>

>It seems to me that one of the problems with crew levels in FF&S is that
>they try to use one set of formulae for both military and civilian ships.
>This is slightly off.

Not Really. The difference is more one of how many shifts and where the
crew work.

>Military ships are crewed and equipped to perform extensive repair during
>operation.  Military equipment is gerally operated at the edge of its
>performance envelope, and so needs much more maintenance than civil ship.  I
>would suggest that mantenance and engineering crews on civilian ships should
>be lower than the military counterparts by a factor of ten -- with
>corresponding degradation in field repair capability.

Again, same crew requirements, just differing priorities. What you are
talking about is what's called "Minimum Crew" or "Prize Crew", the minimun
number of men who could get it from point a to point b. Not how any
commercial vessel I've ever heard of operates.

>Likewise, stewards are included on military ships at a fairly high rate (I
>do not have my FF&S with me right now, so I cannot look it up).  This is
>silly.  I would suggest one cook or cook's mate per 100 crew of any rank.
>Crewman would have mess responsibilities as a secondary duty according to
>the traditions of their service -- but a full time "mess steward"? Naaa.
>Officer's steward would likewise be drawn from regular crew, and would have
>military responsibilities as well.

Stewards are *FAR* more than just cooks. They are the cooks, laundry,
barber, tailor, and morale crew. 1 per 50 was laughed at by several
ex-"steward"s (actually ex USN MS3's), as being a few too many. 1 person
can cook for about 30-40 people without too much hassle, but even
automation makes the 1 per 50 a bare minimum for real numbers.

>I've already expressed some feeling about the number of officers, especially
>hanging about the bridge.  Officer ratios should be far lower on civilian
>ships  -- crewman will mostly do their jobs, and there is no need for
>tactical planning or couragious inspiration on a civilan cruise.

When you look at modern Merchant Marine vessels, they have the same or
higher ratios of "officers". From what I've been told, it's because
military crews need less supervision for coordination.

Modern naval vessels differ from civilian vessels by having Gunnery
departments, Ship's Troops, Intelligence specialists, and low-tech systems
(Most US vessels would be borderline TL6-7, with a few 8's); the biggest
conventional ship to have seen recent service had a TL5-6 MECHANICAL
computer, the Iowa Class BB's.



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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:54:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 453
Message-ID: <9510181554.AA05224@Rt66.com>


Regarding ships' crews:

I've been working on a full FFS design for a 30,000 ton Zho CL, and
right now it has some 180 (!) bridge workstations.  And only 24 are for
MFDs right now.  The engineering crew is 917.  Yeesh.

I wouldn't have a big problem with the FFS crew levels if they were
expressed as crew/day.  That way the duty crew (bridge, engineering, and
maint.) would be say 1/3 of the FFS number.  The wkstations, etc would
be calculated for the lower number.

At GQ the gunners would report (the 2/3 that're off duty), and the
remaining eng, maint, and command would report to damage control, or to
the aux bridge, or whatever.

I just don't see why I need to provide for all 900 engineers to work at
the same time since they *must* have time off.

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 09:22:35 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Hivers, various...
Message-ID: <08529db0@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Eric Ackerman:

>>With my experience with, and fondness for, Traveller (or what I remember 
of it), I thought about getting Striker II and Battle Rider. To this end, I 
am interested in gathering people's opinions of (and experience with)these 
twogames.<<

I'm about to use Striker II in my mercenary campaign, and though I haven't 
used it yet, I'm rather pleased with the content from my initial 
read-through.  It seems like a great sequel to Striker I from CT.  I use 
Brilliant Lances for ship combat and haven't had a pressing need for fleet 
combat, so I haven't bought Battle Rider.  If you end up getting it, I'd 
love to know what _you_ think.  I've been reluctant to buy and learn yet 
another satellite Traveller game.


Responding to Susan Shock:

>>I'm now relatively certain that the RSB does NOT make any
reference to where these Hivers live in the Regency. So...how about some 
ideas about how they got there and where they are?<<

There is mention of Regency Reserve Worlds.  One of them, Marastan/Glisten, 
seems to be particularly for K'kree.  I've established a second K'kree 
reserve on Northammon/Vincennes, but that, of course, is unofficial.  (See 
my Northammon RICE paper if interested.)

The other reserve world listed is Aosta/Gulf in Deneb Sector.  No 
particular group of aliens is listed as the local refugee race, so I 
imagine it might be reserved for a number of races.  Perhaps the Hivers are 
part of a large alien community there.  Refugee Ael Yael from Gushemege, 
Vegans from the Solomani Rim and other races may be there too.


Responding to Jerry Alexandratos:

>>: Also, I expected to see a correction or two to the carreer list, and an
: addition or two... NONE of these were there. What do I feel is wrong?
:         1) Merchants cannot get steward except as a hobby.

>>Uhm, does the steward skill exist any more?  I don't think so.  I'm
pretty sure that steward is more of a job than anything else.  For
this job the prerequisite skill would probably be Liason.  You can get
that under either the Exploration or Interaction clusters, either of
which is available to enlisted and commissioned merchants.<<

Steward is gone.  _Service_ is the replacement skill.

>>:   3) There is no carreer for Serving Nobles... Wealthy Traveller isn't
:            quite right for them, although for terminal nobles and titular 
:            nobles it works.

>>Being a noble was never a career.  Nobles and their advisors have
always had another career.  For example, how many Dukes and Archdukes
were in the Navy.  How many were bereaucrats?  Their advisors are
likely to come from the same walks of life, or had a career in what
their function is (Norris' proctologist was a Doctor, Craig's
strategists were probably Navy, Brzk's maid was a kennel owner, etc...)<<

I think what our friend is referring to here is the Noble career back in 
CT's Citizens of the Imperium.  TNE seems to have determined, much like 
Jerry, that Nobles indeed have other careers besides "Noble."  If they're 
just lazy putzes who tool around the galaxy, Wealthy Traveller would have 
to be their calling.

Further proof of the part-time Noble argument is how contacts are 
constructed.  Some of a player character's contacts, whether they be 
military, business, trader, or whatever, are nobles as well.  I would 
assume that a straight "Noble" contact was also a wealthy traveller.

--Chris

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12:27:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: BARTZ@emuvax.emich.edu
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Military police gear
Message-ID: <951018122756.27c0a056@emuvax.emich.edu>

Hi all;
thought I'd de-lurk for the first time to ask for some
help. 
I want to send my players to do a tour (under-cover) as
Military Police (Patrol-Type) at a large base complex.
The base will be at military standard tech, so their gear
will be TL-12+
I figure on auto snub pistols for them, with 2 mags of regular
rounds and one tranq.
Questions:
Does anyone have a restraint device for high tech (a replacement for handcuffs)?
Does anyone have a design for a stun/shock device (to replace the club/baton)?
Ideas for com for the COPs?
Has anyone seen a adventure dealing with solving crime
for traveller (I need a side adventure for them as they seek the
answer to this thread)?
I was going to have the Marines provide MPs for the Navy,
has anyone done anything different?
Has anyone out there run a COPs in space Traveller thread
before? What did you do? Did it work out?
Thanks, Gary

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:40:17 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Striker II and Battle Rider
Message-ID: <v01530502acaad5527a55@[137.229.100.61]>

Battle Rider plays well, but if you want to be able to use home grown
designs, you may wish to reconsider using it. It does give conversion rules
for FF&S designs. Since its primary concern is critical hits, it "feels"
different from TNE/Brilliant Lances. It is very abstracted for my tases,
but it is quick and playable.

Striker II looks good, but I haven't had the chance to test it. Nobody to
play against...


-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:      down due to access problems.

"History is the story of the life of societies; geography is the study of
what they evolved in."



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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 08:40:24 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <v01530503acaad735ebb4@[137.229.100.61]>

>From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
>
>: ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU wrote:
>
>: Also, I expected to see a correction or two to the carreer list, and an
>: addition or two... NONE of these were there. What do I feel is wrong?
>:         1) Merchants cannot get steward except as a hobby.
>
>Uhm, does the steward skill exist any more?  I don't think so.  I'm
>pretty sure that steward is more of a job than anything else.  For
>this job the prerequisite skill would probably be Liason.  You can get
>that under either the Exploration or Interaction clusters, either of
>which is available to enlisted and commissioned merchants.

They changed the name of the skill to Service. It has nothing to do with
liaison.

>:         2) the Scout carreer does not accurately reflect the IISS (Has the
>:            RISS changed so much?)
>
>As a fan of the IISS, I have to ask "how so?"

Several points do not match, based upon my experiences with CT and MT:
        1> IISS Scouts in the Field do not have ranks.
        2> Admin Scounts tend not to fly much\
        3> Field Scouts fly most of the time
        4> the skill mix seems wrong; a matter of proportions.

>:         3) There is no carreer for Serving Nobles... Wealthy Traveller isn't
>:            quite right for them, although for terminal nobles and titular
>:            nobles it works.
>
>Being a noble was never a career.  Nobles and their advisors have
>always had another career.  For example, how many Dukes and Archdukes
>were in the Navy.  How many were bereaucrats?  Their advisors are
>likely to come from the same walks of life, or had a career in what
>their function is (Norris' proctologist was a Doctor, Craig's
>strategists were probably Navy, Brzk's maid was a kennel owner, etc...)

Wrongo! Check Supplement 4: Citizens of the Imperium, or the MT Players
Manual. Both have a Noble Carreer, separate from Diplomat or Bureaucrat.
With a different mix of skills. there is some overlap with wealthy
traveller, but WT is both differently aimed, as well as having the wrong
kind of contacts.

>
>: Also, they mention the X-Web, but give no real data.
>
>What about the entire section labelled "The XWeb?"  Are you looking for
>anything specific?

Actually, On this point I stand corrected. That section gives more detail
on a second read. Still doesn't explain enough of the hows. I could care
less about the 4 paragraphs of explanation of why the regency did it. It
still doesn't tell me how to implement it, costs of sending messages, etc.
I want as much detail as the CT rule books (Bk1-8) gave, if not more. For
example, an X-Boat message cost was 10cr per image page per jump; we knew
to count by j-2 to the nearest X-boat route stop, then follow the route at
j-4, then go back to j-2 when we have to leave the route again. Universal
addressing (sort of... hopefully the destination system hasn't done a major
overhaul in local addresses since you last contacted them.) By the same
token, under the X-boat system, we knew how long it would take to get data
from point a to point b... 8.5 days per jump, assuming normal X-boat
turnaround times, and jump variations.

The X-web is missing That kind of information.

And I don't think the X-web would be used for secure data... it's little
more than a traveller internet. Lots and lots of raw data, private
messages, but too many hands in the pot that can't quite be trusted to not
peek.

maybe I should buy a soap box. I feel like I spend a lot of time on them. ;-)


-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:      down due to access problems.

"History is the story of the life of societies; geography is the study of
what they evolved in."



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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:29:18 -0500
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Steward/Longbow Comments
Message-ID: <199510181629.LAA26346@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

Jerry <darkstar@UDel.Edu> asked:

>Uhm, does the steward skill exist any more?  I don't think so.  I'm

Yes.  Charm cluster, now called "Service".

Ted Kim asked:

>Why isn't the Regency using Longbow technology to look the other way?
>Perhaps, they didn't have the resources to build another one, but just
>think of the possibilities.  Maybe they know what is really happening
>in Black Curtain area or have detailed knowledge about the deep
>Wilds. Maybe they have been spying on the on Hivers and their allies.

Among other good reasons (like horrendous expense and a lot of calibration
work), there's lightspeed delay.  If it went operational in 1200, it could
see what is going on one sector-width away...in 1100.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@tc.umn.edu>


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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:44:08 -0500
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TL16 Palisade RF-151 Recon Fighter
Message-ID: <199510181644.LAA26492@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

---------------------------------------------------------------
TL-16 RF-151/RF-151-2 Palisade Recon Fighter (Regency of Deneb)
---------------------------------------------------------------

The Palisade reconnaisance fighter was developed by the government 
of Vincennes/Vincennes as a modern replacement for the standard,
century-old Imperial Rampart short-range fighter design.   

Advances in fusion power generation and gravitic technology allow
the craft to achieve seven gees of acceleration without substantial
loss of delta-vee.  While more expensive than existing nine-ton
fighters due to its' sophisticated computer, the state-of-the-art
interactive expert system makes it much easier to maintain than
older designs.  

Two major variants exist.  The most common is armed with a compact
72MJ tunable laser lance with an effective range of 2400 Mm.  An
alternative two-place craft with an expanded communications suite
is designed for duties as a trainer, missile-carrier, or squadron
command ship.  While the one-place laser fighter can also carry 
missiles, the additional mass makes it less maneuverable when it
does so.  Since neither craft is equipped with an MFD, all missiles
carried should be fully-independent.

The Palisade is meant to operate as an interceptor or as part of a
fleet's fighter screen.  In this role, the mission of the Palisade
is primarily to watch for incoming enemy forces and to perform 
scouting and intelligence missions to gather data for the fleet,
without exposing vital fleet assets to return scrutiny.

While Palisade fighters are a common sight in the Vincennes system,
particularly around the system defense center on Friend, they are
much more rarely seen in regular Regency service.  However, due to
their similarity in appearance to Rampart fighters, it is possible
that some "Rampart" squadrons are actually newly deployed Palisades.


BATTLE RIDER

FF Palisade                       FF Palisade-2
 --                     +1         --                     +1
 --                  TL-16         --                  TL-16  
 --                    --          --                    --
L(x1) 10:1             --          --                 M:0(4)
A:10 P:2 Msk        (S) G7        A:10 P:2 Msk        (S) G7
AV:2                   --         AV:2                   --
 --                    2/2         --                    2/2
 
The Battle Rider listings above reflect normal weapons carried.

GENERAL
  Displacement:  9 tons        Hull Armor:   70
  Length:        13.6 meters   Volume:      126 cubic meters
  Target Size:   MC            Tech Level:   16
  Config'n.:     Cylinder AF   
  Price:         [RF-151]   MCr 28.44
                 [RF-151-2] MCr 28.76
  Mass (Loaded/Empty): [RF-151]    165.6/161.5 metric tonnes
                                   with missiles, 193.6 metric tonnes
                       [RF-151-2]  141.3/137.2 metric tonnes
                                   with missiles, 169.2 metric tonnes
					   
ENGINEERING
  Power Plant:       74.8 MW Fusion (24.9 MW/hit), 1 month duration
  Jump Performance:  nil
  G-Rating:          7G (8.45 MW/G), CG Lifters (0.9 MW)
                     [RF-151] with missiles, 6G (9.86 MW/G)
  G-Turns:           54.5, 1.0563 cubic meters ea.
                     [RF-151] with missiles, 46.7, 1.2323 cu. meters ea.
  Maint:             [RF-151]    2
                     [RF-151-2]  1
  
ELECTRONICS
  Computer:  2 x TL16St (0.6 MW ea.)
  Commo:     [RF-151]   1 x 1000 AU maser (infinite, 0.6 MW)
             [RF-151-2] 4 x 1000 AU maser (infinite, 0.6 MW)
  Avionics:  TL10+ Avionics
  Sensors:   PEMS fixed array 60 Mm (2 hex, 0.03 MW)
             AEMS 300 Mm (10 hex, 10 MW)
  Controls:  [RF-151]    1 x workstation 
             [RF-151-2]  2 x workstations
  ECM/ECCM:  EM Masking (0.126 MW)
  
ARMAMENT
  Offensive: 
    [RF-151]  1 x TL16 72 MJ laser lance (Loc. 1; Arc 1; 2 MW; no crew)
                 10:(1/6)-21  20:(1/6)-21  40:(1/6)-21  80:(1/6)-21
    [BOTH]    4 x USL grapples for standard missiles
		
ACCOMODATIONS
  Life Support:   Basic (0.0126 MW)
                  Artificial Grav (7G, 0.63 MW) 
  Crew:           [RF-151]    1 (1 x Maneuver/Gunner)
                  [RF-151-2]  2 (1 x Maneuver, 1 x Commander/Gunner)
  Accomodations:  none
  Cargo:          none
  Airlocks:       [RF-151]    1 hatch
                  [RF-151-2]  2 hatches

No purification or fuel scoops.

SYSTEMS
  LS-1H; ELS-1H; LT-1H; PP-(3h); Others-(1h)
  
DAMAGE TABLES:
  AREA    SURFACE                INT. EXPLOSION
  1                              LT
 *1                              Hold
  2-3     1-4: Ant               1-4: Wpn, 5-20: Elec
  4-5     1-4: Ant, 5-7: Hatch   1-12: LT, 13-20: Elec
 *4-5     1-4: Ant, 5-7: Hatch   1-10: Hold, 11-20: Elec
  6-7                            1-10: Qtrs, 11-20: Hold
 *6-7     1-3: Hatch             1-10: Qtrs, 11-20: Elec
  8-9                            Hold
  10      1: EMMR                1-4: Qtrs, 5-20: Hold
  11      1: EMMR                Elec
  12-15                          Hold
  16-17                          1-10: Eng, 11-15: Hold, 16-20: Elec
  18-19                          1-10: Eng, 11-20: Hold
  20                             Eng 
  
* Use for RF-151-2 variant in place of normal entry.

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

BONUS COMPONENT:

TL-16 72 MJ tunable laser lance, 1.826 meter lens:
  13.894 m^3; 24.69 tonnes; 2 MW; MCr 0.2174; 2.62 m^2
  See above for operational statistics.
  
  
  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@tc.umn.edu>
  

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:06:50 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Striker II and Battle Rider
Message-ID: <9510181706.AA10356@Rt66.com>

 
> Battle Rider plays well, but if you want to be able to use home grown
> designs, you may wish to reconsider using it. It does give conversion rules
> for FF&S designs. Since its primary concern is critical hits, it "feels"
> different from TNE/Brilliant Lances. It is very abstracted for my tases,
> but it is quick and playable.

A primary difference in feel is the whole "add outstanding hits together"
bit.  I do BR combat as in the rules, but don't add hits together at
all.  You have to be sure and play meson screens properly (ie: like BL)
if you choose to do this (that way non-deep site MGs can hit a capitol
ship).

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:15:54 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TL16 Palisade RF-151 Recon Fighter
Message-ID: <9510181715.AA11041@Rt66.com>

 
Cool stuff.  One comment... [snip snip]

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> TL-16 RF-151/RF-151-2 Palisade Recon Fighter (Regency of Deneb)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Two major variants exist.  The most common is armed with a compact
> 72MJ tunable laser lance with an effective range of 2400 Mm.  
>
> TL-16 72 MJ tunable laser lance, 1.826 meter lens:
>   13.894 m^3; 24.69 tonnes; 2 MW; MCr 0.2174; 2.62 m^2

Why a laser lance?  I don't just mean in this design, I mean at all.
Ever.  I don't see that the price difference is worth it.  For a savings
of maybe MCr1, there is a major decrease in effectiveness.  As I see it
figthers should have as many gturns as possible, and evade at near max
gs all the time (when within laser range of a target).  That way the
target won't get a lock, and they'll get within 1 turn missile range.
The steerable array allows them to actually attack any target regardless
of evasion success---and makes using them as an anti-missile screening
force much more effective.

But all I have to do is increase the price :)  Neat fighter (and no
spreadsheet, *wow*).

>   Steve Bonneville

-Merrick


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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 11:40:41 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Anyone see the last B5 (traveller idea/ SPOILERS)
Message-ID: <9510181740.AA12995@Rt66.com>

Here's a spoiler space....




































OK.

Did anyone else pay attention to the reaction of the B5 people to the
massdriver (KE weapon, aka rocks) attack on the Narn homeworld?  That's
exactly the way I would see reactions to weapons of mass destruction in
traveller (nukes, rocks, or bioweapons).  I think that treaties, etc.
are a better way to deal with the rock problem than wishing them
away---and I like the their use would be a way to create solidarity vs.
the unprincipled enemy who uses them...


Just thought I'd mention it.

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:15:07 -0400
From: Wesley.Esser@hd62.haledorr.com
To: Rob Miracle <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: USL Landing/Fighters in TNE
Message-ID: <"726*/G=Wesley/S=Esser/OU=hd62/O=hale and dorr/PRMD=haledorr/ADMD=mci/C=US/"@MHS>








In response to my post about USL ships landing on worlds by using CG and
low thrust..

>>          So where's the flaw in this image (except that it blows GDW cannon
>>          out of the water)?
>>
>>          Wes
>>          wesley.esser@haledorr.com

Merrick said:


...stuff deleted...
>I wish that contra grav costs (volume, mass, and MCr) went up absurdly 
>above a certain size.  Oh well.
>
>You could make aerodynamic arguments (wind, storms, etc.) against
>it---it's possible, but only under the right weather conditions.

That makes sense as a limiter - I seem to recall that there are instance
in some published adventures where landing in regular SL ships is delayed
due to bad weather.  I guess weather control is not really perfect..

>USL designs could be considered less an intrinsic quality of the hull
>form (hell, there are only 2 catch-alls that can't be streamlined) than
>a purposeful design choice.  In other words when you choose "Open Frame"
>you are planning on having sensors, etc. hang off the ship all over the
>place such that it'd be dangerous to have 'em in wind.  That or the
>shape won't let the ship put down (how do you land a spiky
>framework?)---I guess they could hover, though.  Choosing to USL a
>Needle, say is a choice to make it too fragile to land.  That'd be my
>take.  It's possible, but bracing, etc. requires using a SL form (and
>worrying about surface feature placement) to land.  Open and Close
>Structures are any shapes that are intrinsically too fragile for landing
>by definition.

How about landing them in water?  That way odd surface protrusions aren't
going to be such a problem.  Getting ready for such a landing might require
a few EVA's to unbolt some particularly delicate sensors and such, but I
didn't mean this as an everyday occurance, just that it COULD be done -
emergency landings, offloading an unusually large cargo, etc.  Also - does
this mean that they can't land in the gravity well of an airless world?

Actually, the real point was not so much about the USL part, since in FF&S
SL frames are quite cheap, but about the low thrust requirements for takeoff.  
GDW doesn't recognize partial-G thrust for spaceships, but it would help 
to make economical merchant ships - A lightweight hull (at only .25G the
rules would only require AV 2.5), not much internal bracing (although I would 
say that the bracing should be designed with the G of the landing world in
mind), and a really small fusion plant (which helps keep crew down).  

[Aside: did anyone else ever notice that the 10T thrust/diplacement ton
really penalizes civilian ships, which tend to be lighter?  I have built
ships that weighed only 1500 t yet needed (according to the rules) 3000 t
thrust to make 1G.  I know that the 10tonnes/Ton rule is there for ease
of design and to keep the math down, but who designs from ff&s without 
a spreadsheet?]

Using the long burn/low thrust aspect of contra-grav could actually give it 
some value for civilian ships (after all, if yuor ship can do 2G it can get
offplanet without CG, and without the expense and power consumption).

>-Merrick

Alvin:

>Is the top speed for unstreamlined vessels 300 kph, or 400?
>(Please point out it's pg. number in FF&S: I couldn't find it, so I used 
>the old MegaT figure from memory)

Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa.

I don't actually know where I got the 300 klick figure...I thought it was the 
top speed for simple airframe designs, but after a quick dive into FF&S, I 
find that there is not one but two simple airframe top speeds - 400 kph for
lift vehicles and 320 kph for airframes - and as you can see, neither is 
300 kph.  So rest in peace - your air-rafts are still valid designs!

General Inquiry:  

Has anyone used fighters under BR rules?   I tried it yesterday, pitting 5 
9-Ton, 4G fighters, each with a laser lance and 4 missiles against 2 400-Ton
3G Close Escort style ships equipped with meson gun spinal mounts, 2 laser 
turrets and a MFD controlled missile bay.  I treated the fighters individually,
since there were only 5, thought that could get nasty in a really large battle.
I was mildly suprised by the results: 2 Close escorts exploded versus 1 fighter
exploded, 2 badly damaged, and 2 unscathed.  [this shows a fundamental truth
about fighters: if you get hit, you get damaged BADLY.  Damage value adds ship
size, which is usually negative.  The 9T fighters are size +1. It is unlikely 
that you will get a temporary damage marker]  So for the replacement cost of
3 fighters (assming the 2 damaged ones are totalled, even if the crew survived), 
or about 60 Mcr, I destroyed utterly 420 Mcr worth of Escorts.  Not a bad trade
off, from the fighter's point of view.  

This exercise also validated my view of how to use a fighter effectively - make
it a mobile, stealthy missile launch platform.  To that end, here are some
of the design changes I am going to make to my fighters in the future:

Always carry missiles in external grapples - save space
Use LADAR instead of AEMS
     Fighters are not designed to play out a battle without support.  They
     are a screen for a more capable force - let the main ships/base do the
     detecting of bogeys at long range - the fighters just need locks once 
     the ship is detected.
Only install an MFD if they are cheap and small  
     range 2 or 3 should be more than enough.  Fighters are supposed 
     to close in - if you want to sit back and be safer, build a missile boat
If you don't install an MFD it's ok
     These fighters had none, so they could only control 1 missile each at 
     any given time, and they still did fine against a comperable TL ship.
     If I had given them crack crews (not unlikely in a fighter) then they 
     would have done even better.
Install a point defence laser turret
     A high fire laser turret that will reduce the diff mods on hitting 
     enemy missiles would probably have saved at least 2 of the 3 fighters
     lost.  And the -5 diff mod at a rate of 800 shots/turn goes a long way
     in BR - almost as close to a sure hit as you can get.
Make sure they have EMM
     The stealthiness of small size and EMM made the fighters very hard to 
     detect.  Once you are detected, the MFD on the enemy ships will negate
     some or all of this advantage, but until then you are at a distinct 
     advantage.

Basically, I think fighters still have a place in traveller space combat.  They
are cheap, and fast, and can get missiles to places the enemy doesn't want them.
And a good laser lance can inflict temporary damage on some pretty large ships.
That can be enough to tilt the odds to the fighter's side.  They should scoot 
in to close range, fire missiles, and run.  Fighters with SL and AF hulls can 
be based on a world and make use of the planetary sensors as well as hiding in
the atmosphere.  They can also be used to hunt down missile spreads and 
destroy them before they can get close enough to hit a real ship.  And best of
all, they are cheap and expendible.

The defense against fighters is, of course, more fighters.  Send cheap fighters
against other cheap fighters to make sure that your missiles get through.  Or
build an expensive "fighter-destroyer" with really good sensors, the best MFD
available, and a high ROF laser and waste them..most of them, er..oops, that
one just got through and launched a missile...no more expensive ship.

Well - that should be more than enough for one day!


Wes
wesley.esser@haledorr.com

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 454
***************************
