			    TRAVELLER Digest 455

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Striker II and Battle Rider by muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic)
  2) Ships Crews/Fighters in TNE by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
  3) Re: Ships Crews/Fighters in TNE by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) Re: USL Landing/Fighters in TNE by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  5) S-2A Erratta (OOPS!) by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  6) Cronor Star Type in RSB by pete.burke@compudata.com (PETE BURKE)
  7) Penalized cargo Vessels by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  8) Re: Striker II and Battle Rider & RE: High Tech Ship Designing by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
  9) Re: TRAVELLER digest 453 by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
 10) Re: TRAVELLER digest 454 by Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
 11) Re: Military police gear by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
 12) Re: TRAVELLER digest 453 by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 13) Re: TRAVELLER digest 454 by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 14) by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:03:20 -0500
From: muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Striker II and Battle Rider
Message-ID: <199510181903.OAA08358@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>

In a nutshell:

STRIKER II

Striker II is great as a 25-15mm infantry game (lots of fun, realistic
"feel") but doesn't work so well on that scale for armor. I haven't played
it using microarmor yet. If you have larger scale miniatures, I highly
recommend it. I played in the demo at GenCon this year, and even though my
squads were trashed, I found it enjoyable and have played several times
since.

(By the way -- was anybody else on this list at the "Olympus Down" game? I
was the Glorious Fighting Red Legs (you know...the ones that eventually
formed the square :-) Unorthodox Coalition Tactics at its best).

BATTLE RIDER

Battle Rider just didn't "feel" like a good space battle. The movement was
easy, but both battlelines just seemed to drift towards each other until
they launched missiles and hammered away. I'd like to play with someone who
knows the rules well and enjoys the game (perhaps I missed something), but
there was not much enthusiasm in my gaming group to give it a second try.
I'd tried it once before -- at a GDW deom at GenCon 1994 -- but the ref
seemed as unsure of the rules as the rest of us, and again, there was
little "feel" or "flavor" to it (sorry about using such indefinable terms).

John Kovalic



******************************************************************
"This must be Thursday. I never COULD get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                     - Arthur Dent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wild Life" on the Web? Head for the hills!
COMIX CENTRAL: http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/muskrat/
******************************************************************




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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:26:16 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ships Crews/Fighters in TNE
Message-ID: <08570fd0@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Merrick:

>>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.<<

I would assume that the engineering crew incorporates shifts for standard 
operation.  Therefore, 1/3 of the listed engineering crew could maintain a 
watch during each 8-hour period.  During battlestations, however, the full 
complement, or at least 90 percent of it would be required to help manage 
the increased use of the ship's power plant and for damage control.  During 
battle, weaponry, sensors, missile launchers, maneuver drives and all 
manner of power-eating equipment are in use.  

To properly accommodate your engineers, you may want to institute 
"hot-bunking," to save on stateroom space, putting in 1/3 the number of 
bunks for the required crew.

On a side note, the one problem I have with the rote processing of ship's 
statistics on military ships is the requirement of bridge workstation 
installation for ship's troops commanders.  Why on Earth would troop 
commanders require bridge workstations?  And yet, ships like the Broadsword 
Merc Cruiser include workstations for these people.  I've made an exemption 
to the bridge workstation rule in my campaigns as I think this is 
ridiculous.  Even if you envision an "Aliens" style officer control video 
camera system, the workstations would at least be reduced to 
engineering-sized (7 kl) instead of the huge bridge workstations (14 kl).


And, responding to Wesley (Fighters in TNE):

Thanks for the tips.  I haven't employed Rampart or any other style of 
fighter yet in BL, but I've been looking forward to doing so and I'm glad 
to hear there's an intelligent way of doing it.

--Chris

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:01:04 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Ships Crews/Fighters in TNE
Message-ID: <9510182201.AA01070@Rt66.com>

 
> I would assume that the engineering crew incorporates shifts for standard 
> operation.  Therefore, 1/3 of the listed engineering crew could maintain a 
> watch during each 8-hour period.  During battlestations, however, the full 
> complement, or at least 90 percent of it would be required to help manage 
> the increased use of the ship's power plant and for damage control.  During 
> battle, weaponry, sensors, missile launchers, maneuver drives and all 
> manner of power-eating equipment are in use.  

I have to assume that as well, but do the guys that show up when GQ is
sounded need to all have workstations?  That seems odd to me.  Give them
all a laptop and let them carry it to the area need at the moment (since
the duty crew will handle all the major stuff at the workstations.

Since the PP is what engineering crew is for, what is it about a PP that
needs so many people?  I'd like to have seen a system where you could
have multiple PPs, but there is some minimum overhead for each one.
That way a designer could choose to have 10 PPs with a lot of crew, but
it'd take more damage since there isn't one choke point. You could have
one big PP, with almost the same crew as one a tenth of the size, but
it'd take fewer hits to kill. 

> To properly accommodate your engineers, you may want to institute 
> "hot-bunking," to save on stateroom space, putting in 1/3 the number of 
> bunks for the required crew.
 
Yeah, but they're not that tight as it is.  I was thinking of 4 bunks
per small stateroom for the enlisted (friends tell me that was the
arrangement on ships they were on (er, well the 2 ft high bunks anyway,
not the stateroom).

> fighter yet in BL, but I've been looking forward to doing so and I'm glad 
> to hear there's an intelligent way of doing it.

One problem is that the missiles that the fighters fire won't get locked
on by the target in BL (most, anyway) which makes them really nasty.  On
the other hand I got the idea that the fight was played out in BR... and
missiles are way too easy to lock in BR.  On yet another hand (who has
3 hands, anyway?) the missiles in BR do way too much damage if they
hit.  

Maybe I'll play out a BR game tonight with fighters (using my damage
bashes on BR so it'll turn out like a BL game.

-Merrick


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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 17:59:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: USL Landing/Fighters in TNE
Message-ID: <9510182359.AA08628@Rt66.com>



> 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).  

There isn't anyting in FFS that prevents fractional gs at all.  Just use
the fact that HEPlaR drives produce 20 tonnes of thrust per megawatt
applied.  I did this for the 8 ton fighter (had to).  It was like a
14.4g drive without taking mass into account.
 
> [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?]

If using the actual mass (make sure to give the cargo mass!) improves
the design, post it as such, it's legal.

>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
 
True enough... remember to incluse the missile mass when calulating
drive performance.

> 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.

I gave my fighter ladar so it could paint the target with it for its
missiles.  Some of this effect you comment on is due to the nature of
sensor tasks in BR (it's different in BL).

> 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

Seems reasonable.

> 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.

I use FIMs for all fighters (though they can be controlled, as well).

> 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.

Two things here:  one, you're right high ROF turrets are a good thing...
turrets, not lances.  Two, the tasks in BR are all one level too easy!
Remember to make everything one *base* diff level higher than it is, or
BR won't even remotely model BL combats.  And the bullseye should only
count as a regular hit for diff levels 4-5, but that won't matter if you
ditch the doubling rule with damage (not too much, anyway).

> 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.

Yes!  EMM on everything, missiles included (the semi-ind. missiles
published already do, BTW).

>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.

In BL a fighter with a crappy sensor won't ever see the swarm, even with
a hand off at short range.

>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.
 
True and not true, but I like it :-)

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 16:04:13 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: S-2A Erratta (OOPS!)
Message-ID: <v01530500acab44159ae6@[137.229.100.61]>

While upgrading to TL 15, I discovered a small (expensive) error in my
design spreadsheet. Only 4 items are affected: Mass (L/E): 894.386/816.461,
not including air/raft. Price: MCr83.1015. Cargo 54 kl, with up to 200
metric tons of mass allowed. (Still can't fill it with steel... hehehe!).

Many apologies. TL 15 version soon to be posted. Need to double check some
items (like hit tables). And doublecheck for other errors. (Enough mass is
saved, however, to allow an extra j-1 of fuel, an extra airlock, and more
cargo- It can hold on to a mail route!)

Yes, for the observant, the maneuver fuel equals J-1.


-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 95 21:15:00 -0400
From: pete.burke@compudata.com (PETE BURKE)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Cronor Star Type in RSB
Message-ID: <8B344FB.01F406179A.uuout@compudata.com>

While I'm waiting for my copy of the Regency Sourcebook, could someone 
let me know the Zhodani world Cronor's Star Type? In all original 
sources it is listed as M8 V, which seems too dim to support a world 
with a 60% hydrosphere. I'm doing a write-up on the world and I didn't 
want to conflict with the TNE stats. BTW, has GDW changed any star 
types in the Domain?  Alot of them just don't make sense to me.

Thanks
Pete Burke
 * RM 1.3 01608 * RoboMail -- The ultimate QWK compatible message manager.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 20:17:56 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Penalized cargo Vessels
Message-ID: <v01530501acab7db7c617@[137.229.100.54]>

>[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?]

Yes and No... the listed "Loaded Weight" for cargo vessels is 1000kg per
1000L, or a specific gravity of 1, identical to 4=B0c water. Many cargos wil=
l
be much denser than this. And, since cargos are shipped by the displacement
ton (TNE, p232), a cargo vessel is likely to be carrying goods which exceed
the "loaded Weight", even though her holds are half empty. Remember that
anything that doesn't float will "overload" the design, if the "loaded
weight" is taken as maximum safe weight. Military vessels tend not to carry
cargo, so their empty weight is often closer to the 10t/dt than a cargo
vessel, although after figuring the actual tonnage metric of the vessel
after a load of ores, dense woods, and data crystals, said cargo vessel can
come real close to 10tonnes per disp ton.

The answer, of course, is to list cargo space as 5 tonnes per kL, as this
is the approximate density of steel, and is a safe "upper limit" to
_average_ cargo loads.

Except for vessels where cargo is incidental to the design, and is more
than likely the ship's locker and long duration food stores.

-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: Thu, 19 Oct 95 12:37:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Striker II and Battle Rider & RE: High Tech Ship Designing
Message-ID: <3086D32D@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


eackerma@vt.edu (Eric Ackerman) writes:

 ------------------------------
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 two
games. I've some experience with Command Decision II (CDII) upon which
Striker II is based. My experience with CDII is mixed. It is full of good
concepts unevenly developed: the rule is either clearly expressed and plays
cleanly, or is vague, ambiguous, and muddled.
 ------------------------------

Battle Rider seems to work fairly well, at least you can play with 
battleships without having to use 3000 die rolls to fire all its weapons :)

Striker II has similar problems to CDII plus it adds a few of its own.
I have asked these questions on the TML  and directly to GDW without 
receiving an official response.

1. Ammunition. The rules are unclear whether 1 shot is used per turn of fire 
or per dice rolled. I will assume 1 shot per turn of fire unless official 
clarification is forthcoming.

The problem is as follows:
 - Striker II uses different numbers of dice rolled for hits at different 
ranges.
 - Weapons will fire the same number of rounds at a target regardless of 
range.
 - In Command Decision (which most of Striker II's rules came from) 1 shot is 
used per ROF to hit attempt.
 - If the interpretation is as CD then at least one of the vehicles presented 
in Striker II doesn't carry enough ammo for even 1 turn of fire at close 
range with it's main armament at max ROF.
 - The rules for ammo use for infantry heavy weapons refers to turns of fire, 
NOT dice rolled.
 - In the direct fire rules it states that less than the maximum ROF dice may 
be used if desired. Is this intended to conserve ammo?
 - ROF is reduced if moving without adequate stabilization. Is this reduction 
to account for less ammo fired or reduced accuracy of firing?
 - The rules of Striker II are totally unclear as to what is intended.

2. ROF dice per TNE ROF. How many dice does a weapon with TNE ROF 4 ( eg. a 
10 cm autocannon ) get? I will assume Striker II ROF 4 unless official 
clarification is forthcoming.

The chart inStriker II does not have a position for any vehicle weapon with 
ROF=4.
It does have:
TNE ROF (5 or 10 handheld), all 3 = Striker II ROF 4
TNE ROF 5 or 10 mounted = Striker II ROF 5

 ------------------------------
PS Does anyone know anything about a GDW product known as Imperium 2nd Ed.?
I vaguely remember a boardgame of that name, but...?
 ------------------------------

Yes, AFAIK it was merely a reboxing of the original Imperium (which is the 
version I have).


That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu> writes:

 ------------------------------
: ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU wrote:

[stuff deleted]

: 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.
 ------------------------

Isn't Liason half way between Admin and Streetwise with a bit of dealing 
with Aliens thrown in?

Hmm wot, not steward skill? .... Jeeves, what ARE you skilled in then? :)

<stuff deleted>

 -------------------------
:         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...)
 --------------------------

Ahem! Look in Citizens of the Imperium (CT supplement 4 I think), and you 
will find Noble as a career! I think this may have carried over to MT but 
I'm not sure...

Django.

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:10:49 -0500
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 453
Message-ID: <199510200009.RAA03605@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

In digest 453, Merrick said:
>Good question.  I have to admit that in CT I always thought that mdrives
>were a reaction type drive.  The thruster plate crap was a real surprise
>to me (look at the starport blast burms in JTAS).  I had assumed that
>ships actually had to reenter the hard way.  I wish that contra grav
>costs (volume, mass, and MCr) went up absurdly above a certain size.  Oh
>well.

Apart from the blast berms, there was the small ship in "Fighting Ships"
(the original, not the sad MT version) which had baffle plates installed
to protect people when it took off.

However, I have NO problem with anti-grav within a planetary gravity well.
My explanation to the players is that an "anti-grav generator" creates a
standing gravity wave which is opposed to the planetary gravity. When you
press down on the accelerator in your air/raft, the generator changes the
grav wave to a pushing force. In effect, the craft "surfs" on the gravity
wave (OK, I am a fan of *that* scene in Dark Star!).

Now, I realise that this is totally unscientific, and grav waves probably don't
work this way, and even if they did you probably couldn't surf on them, but
there comes a point when you have to say "Oh, what the ****! It just WORKS,
ok?"

At the moment, I am still using thruster, because NO-ONE HAS COME UP WITH
ANYTHING BETTER!! I agree with the person about 50 digests ago who said
something to the effect that "I can't believe that they are still using TL 12
tech (HEPlAR) at TL 15!" Please, create something to allow the Leviathan
to work as it should. I don't care if you call it "thruster plates" or
"roses", for playability (remember this is a GAME!) it should exist!

<frothing mode now off>

Sorry for the rant. For the record, I hated it when they nobbled Magic
Missile too.

- Hyphen
 (David Jaques-Watson)



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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:00:21 +0100
From: Johan Herber <johe@einlu.ericsson.se>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 454
Message-ID: <199510190800.JAA07408@einlu.ein.ericsson.se>

 > 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.

That's the the solution a friend and I selected. Additional
considerations are:

* pilots (additional pilots for all shifts)

* engineering crew - it's ridiculous that the engineering crew is
  proportional to the size of powerplant etc, in a ship. Just because
  a powerplant is double the size doesn't mean that you need twice as
  many people pushing buttons. We used a logarithmic function after
  engineering crew reached a certain size.

 > 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.

Right!

/Johan

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 12:33:00 PDT
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: "traveller%mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Military police gear
Message-ID: <3086A818@pc136>



BARTZ@emuvax.emich.edu [Gary] de-lurked to ask:

> Does anyone have a restraint device for high tech (a replacement
> for handcuffs)?

If your campaign uses any of the cyberwear from FF&S, you could use a buzzer 
on the ones with jackplugs. Briefly, the buzzer plugs into their jack and 
broadcasts white noise which overrides the sensory inputs to their brains 
and renders them temporarily helpless (but still easy to move around) - my 
Cyberpunk players have a lot more respect for the cops now because of this.

> Does anyone have a design for a stun/shock device (to replace the
> club/baton)?

Stun/Shock I don't know about, but I was reading in New Scientist [I think] 
about a foam rifle which shoots streamers of very sticky gluey foam, 
covering the perpetrator and rendering them helpless and unable to 
move/resist.

> 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)?

You could try rewriting some Space Precinct episodes (or Hill Street Blues, 
or whatever other cop show is running over there at the moment). 
Alternatively, read some Joseph Wambaugh books. That should give you enough 
ideas for a while.

Let me know how you get on.

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:36:52 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 453
Message-ID: <9510191636.AA29988@Rt66.com>

 
> At the moment, I am still using thruster, because NO-ONE HAS COME UP WITH
> ANYTHING BETTER!! I agree with the person about 50 digests ago who said
> something to the effect that "I can't believe that they are still using TL 12
> tech (HEPlAR) at TL 15!" Please, create something to allow the Leviathan
> to work as it should. I don't care if you call it "thruster plates" or
> "roses", for playability (remember this is a GAME!) it should exist!

Well, the bottom line is that any realistic mdrive is gonna be physics
limited, not TL limited.  TL12 is the point at which all the forces are
controlable.  The drives might get better in increments---or more
likely, cheaper, but I don't see too much improvement in HEPlaR.  If you
consider that the exhaust is supposed to be "clean" that really limits
you (although we all know HEPlaR drives are blowtorches).  I'd expect to
see improvements in the TL9 fusion drive as given at TL12 or so... A
*big* jump.  BTW, HEPlaR comes in at TL10, not 12, so maybe a HEPlaR
improvement there as well (smaller in the case of HEPlaR given the
restrictions on the exhaust).

If you wanna do this for a Leviathan design, do it.  HEPlaR drives (from
memory, so do the math!) are .357% of hull volume per g, and gturns are
.4464% per gturn (gturn figure is exact).  For fusion rockets the drive
at TL9 is 8% of hull volume per g, and .18% per gturn.    A simple fix
would be to do the design in straight FFS, then cal the mdrive a "dirty
HEPlaR" (which would just be a fusion rocket at a higher TL) and
multiply the gturns by 2-2.48 to give it the samefuel use as a fusion
drive.  Then your design can be used by everyone, and it'll have a few
hundred gturns for your use.

That or use some improved fusion rocket (I'd have a 1g HEPlaR for use
where safety is an issue).

Of course you could always use micro jumps to get around the system,
just prorate the fuel use... jump 1 is 10% hull volume in fuel (worst
case), in system travel would be a tiny fraction of this.  10% is just
over 22 gturns, BTW.

-Merrick


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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 10:52:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 454
Message-ID: <9510191652.AA01015@Rt66.com>

 
> * engineering crew - it's ridiculous that the engineering crew is
>   proportional to the size of powerplant etc, in a ship. Just because
>   a powerplant is double the size doesn't mean that you need twice as
>   many people pushing buttons. We used a logarithmic function after
>   engineering crew reached a certain size.

Yup, there should be an economy of scale on PPs.  Maybe there's a way to
use the minimum volume allowed for a PP as a coefficient for crew (that
way at higher TLs you get an improvement in crew size for a give sized
PP).  Does anyone have a good idea of what they actually thinkfusion PPs
are?  

By their rules I'd guess that a hydrocarbon PP now would take about one
engineer per kilowatt since my honda generator takes one "engineer" (er,
physics geek :-) per kW... what does four corners coal plant do... like
20MW or something?  Wow, 20,000 people just to keep it running ;-)


-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:13:13 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199510191713.NAA25213@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Wed, 18 Oct 1995 12: 29:27 EDT
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:13:13 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: >From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>
: >
: >: ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU wrote:
: >:         1) Merchants cannot get steward except as a hobby.
: They changed the name of the skill to Service. It has nothing to do with
: liaison.

You're right.  I completely forgot about that.  However, enlisted
merchants can get the skill as a first term skill.  I think that the
best solution to this problem is to add the Service skill to the
Interaction skill cluster.

: >:         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.

The first thing you need to remember is that they overhauled the
character careers.  They aren't quite what they used to be.  However, I
personally think that these current rules are better.  You are right
that Field Scouts didn't have ranks.  However, I think that under the
Enhanced Scout Character Generation sequence they did.  It also seems
as though they took the ranks for scouts from this.

I think that you're confusing officers with administrators.  Just
because someone is commissioned, doesn't mean that they automatically
become administrators.  After all, someone's got to be in charge in the
field (and yes, I know this is the scout with the highest Pilot skill,
but hey, it can't hurt if he also knows how to lead)

Field scouts don't fly most of the time.  What about the surveyors that
need to run the holo-pit?  Or how about the dirtside scouts from the
Exploration Branch?  And the Intelligence Office needs sneaks more than
pilots. 

To me the skill mix seems just fine.  Am I the only one that's happy
with the new character careers?  I think that you just have to choose
the skills that would make your shape your character the way you want
to.  Choose Liason instead of Survival.  Choose a Spacehand skill
instead of a Space skill.  It's all there in my opinion.

: >:         3) There is no carreer for Serving Nobles... Wealthy Traveller isn
: >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.

I stand corrected.  I completely forgot to check my MT manual. 
However, I still stand by my initial argument.  I think that you Social
Standing should determine your nobility, and what you do should
determine your career.

If that's not good enough, you can always try porting the old career
into TNE format.

: >: 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.

I think that they left that open so you could decide on the hows.  If
that doesn't make you happy, then just use the original Xboat 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.

I think that even under CT and MT you would never send really secure
data by Xboat either.  After all, that's what couriers and players were
for.  8)

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

Maybe a time machine would be more appropriate.  I just get the feeling
that if it's not one of the little black books, you're not happy with
it.  8(

       --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

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 455
***************************
