			    TRAVELLER Digest 456

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Missile sizes by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  2) Improving MDrives by TL... by CyHiggin@aol.com
  3) Re: Improving MDrives by TL... by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  4) Re: Palisade Fighter by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
  5) Missing Skills by fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
  6) RSB Gripes by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  7) Marines on the Bridge by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  8) Re: Merc. Cruiser specifications by "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
  9) Longbow - warning: Additional Spoilers %-) by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
 10) Sensor locks, and related by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
 11) Re: Sensor locks, and related by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 12) Error in RSB by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
 13) RE: Merc. Cruiser specifications by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 14) RE: RSB Gripes by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 15) Various... by Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 16) Re: TRAVELLER digest 454 by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:34:05 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Re: Missile sizes
Message-ID: <9510191834.AA07166@Rt66.com>


Hi, there was a post a while back regarding missile sizes using US Navy
examples...  I figured the volume for the biggest of them, the Tomahawk.

I assumed it was a simple cylinder, so this result is generous.  It is
1.43kl.  One standard traveller missile is almost 5 times bigger than a
tomahawk.

The Pheonix is the right length at around 4m, but it is only 0.46kl.

CT/MT missiles were Tomohawk sized damn near exactly at 0.1 ton.

-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:38:41 -0400
From: CyHiggin@aol.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Improving MDrives by TL...
Message-ID: <951019143839_48801914@emout06.mail.aol.com>

From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
<<
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).
>>

Well, what we're doing is to apply materials improvements to MDrives:
i.e., assume baseline volume and weight numbers are based on using
Hard Steel, and improve as better materials come on line.  That's how
we came up with the Improved Fusion Rocket -- TL10M, uses crystaliron
in its construction.

                       -- Cynthia


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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:52:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Improving MDrives by TL...
Message-ID: <9510191852.AA08367@Rt66.com>

 
> Well, what we're doing is to apply materials improvements to MDrives:
> i.e., assume baseline volume and weight numbers are based on using
> Hard Steel, and improve as better materials come on line.  That's how
> we came up with the Improved Fusion Rocket -- TL10M, uses crystaliron
> in its construction.
> 
>                        -- Cynthia


Ah... makes sense to me.  If they do nothing else that'd drop the volume
(and mass?  depends on density differences, I guess).  I'd think that
the ability to horse around with the Strong and Weak forces would have
to create a qualitative change in the way they'd make a fusion drive,
however.

Could you post it again for me?  That or just mail it to me.  Thanks!

What about a SD and BSD version?  What are the material volume figures
you're using?  Just assume the thing is a cylinder of a some size?
What thickness (or I guess armor value would be the thing here)?

I kinda like the idea of big military ships using fusion drives... makes
large marshalling areas away from the major world(s) make sense.  In CT
really big ships usually didn't land (like above 5000tons, right?).
That might be Imperial military standards... ships 5kt and below are
fitted with HEPlaR for operating near commercial traffic.  Big ships
would have a small HEPlaR as a backup, and for close ship operations.

-Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:00:20 -0500
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Palisade Fighter
Message-ID: <199510192000.PAA03834@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

Merrick Burkhardt wrote:

>> 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.

I remember thinking about this when I built the laser, but obviously
not too clearly.  This is absolutely correct.  For a paltry MCr 0.01,
the lens can be upgraded to trainable, and there is no other difference
between a lance and a trainable laser.  Add this cost to the laser
fighter and to the laser, and add access to Arc 2 (Bow Quarter) to
the laser arcs.  If the laser is moved to a location in hull section
2-5, you can also add Arc 3.  I think this is worth the Cr 10000.  :)

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonn0015@tc.umn.edu>


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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 19:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Missing Skills
Message-ID: <9510192354.AA76069@st6000.sct.edu>

Reading about how Traders can't easily get Service (the TNE version of Steward)
reminded me of the other "missing" skills I noticed in TNE.

1) A character from a Vacuum world gets Environment Suit as a default
skill; however, a character from a world with Extreme Atmosphere -- which
is just as unbreathable -- doesn't get Environment Suit.

2) Officers in the Aviation career learn Slug Weapon, but they CAN'T learn
Autogun or Tac Missile.  (Neither can the enlisted aviators.)  So, if my
aviator wants to shoot down an enemy aircraft, is he expected to use his
.44 Magnum (instead of his aircraft's Gatling gun or Sidewinder missiles)?

3) The skill Sensors belongs in the Technician cluster.  Many
careers needing access to this skill already have Technician.  The example
that best illustrates this need is the Wet Navy.  Without this
modification, enlisted Sailors can't learn how to use a sonar, which really
bites the big one if the enlisted guy is driving a submarine! 
<CRUNCH!....bubble, bubble>

4) The cluster Vehicle lists only the Interface/Grav cascade of Pilot. 
This should actually be ANY cascade of Pilot, not just Interface/Grav. 
I've got several friends who have a private pilot's license (aka, Fixed
Wing), and a couple of them are rated for helicopters (Rotary Wing).  I
know there are people who ride in hot air ballons for fun (Airship).  You
get the idea.

5) The skill Swimming should be added to the Acrobat cluster.  We've got
other traditional sporting skills in this cluster.

So much for "missing" skills.  I've also noticed some "surplus" skills.

1) Why does anyone in the Military Academy (which is for GROUND TROOPS, not
starship personnel or aerospace pilots; they use Flight Academy) need
access to the Space Tech cluster, especially when you consider that
pre-stellar characters can attend Military Academy?

2) The skill Interview is redundant and unnecessary; replace it with
Interrogation.  Classic Traveller never had Interview; it used
Interrogation.  The ONLY career in Mega-Traveller that used Interview
instead of Interrogation was Journalist (a skill for just one career -- not
a smart idea).  

That's all.  --  Franklin W. Cain

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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:05:09 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RSB Gripes
Message-ID: <v01530502acac9c0d2633@[137.229.100.55]>

>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.

>From both CT Bk 6 and MT Players manual, scouts in the field brances DO NOT
HAVE RANKS! There is no Promotion roll under MT for field scouts (Commo,
Survey, and Explore) They convert to an IS grade based upon their time in
service IF they go to the administration.

>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)

Administrators in the IISS are just that, the enlisted and officer PAPER
PUSHERS! (and mechanics, yard types, etc.)

>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.

Intelligence Office? What Intelligence Office? Intell school is a FIELD
SCOUT SCHOOL for SURVEY branch.

By Flying, I meant that they were shipboard. Due to the small crews,
everybody should be cross-trained, at least by the end of the mission.

The Old IISS (CT/MT) basic generation was expanded into the tree field
branches. The administration was added in expanded gen. It's almost a
separate carreer there. The new (TNE) scout carreer works; I don't argue
that it provides for competent explorers, but it doesn't work for the
Regency or when running previous settings with the TNE rules. It doesn't
match the materials previously created.

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

I am in the process of doing so.

>: 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, I HATE the lack of a coherent system in the CT setup. The only
coherent rules system was CharGen. I Like the TNE Rule System. I have never
liked the "dark traveller" approach of MT or TNE. I liked the rich history
and detail provided by the CT and MT materials. I want Continuity. In both
rules and settings. I have, and shall continue to run primarily in the
1000-1120 timeframe, as that's what I and my players like. Everyone I know
who has bought the RSB in my local area is dissapointed with it; most of
them have played and/or run Traveller since the early 80's, not for the
rules, but the background. And with TNE, the robbed us of that, but at
least gave us decent rules.

As for the Serving Noble, the skills match up fairly well with Wealthy
Traveller... For those interested, I reccomend the following Carreer:

Serving Noble:
PR's: Soc 10+, Edu 7+
First Term Skills: Determination 1, Perception 1, Economics 1, CHarm 1,
Interaction 1, Physical Science 1, Social Science 1
Subsequent Terms: Aircraft, Determination, Perception, Economics,charm,
Interaction, vessel, vehicle, spacehand, Social Science
Special Adventure: 9+, Gun Combat, Explore, Melee, Language, Space Vessel,
Vice, Personal Transport, Physical science, Social Science
Promotion: 12+
Contacts: 3 per term: 1 noble, and 2 buisiness, government, military, or
scientist.
Other effects: Soc x 10 for money, +5 DM's for Yacht, 2 hobbies per term
after first.

See? I'm not JUST a whiner ;-)

-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 1995 17:05:02 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Marines on the Bridge
Message-ID: <v01530501acac98b45cef@[137.229.100.55]>

>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).

I agree that there is a problem with this section. However, there should be
a bridge workstation (remember that the Bridge WS includes enough spacce to
be able to interact comfortably without bumping elbows) for the Ship
Security Station. This is the station that detects threats and directs
responses, as well as handling fire suppression, etc, which marines get
tasked for. Marines as passengers (for example: on a transport) should not
be counted as crew, but steerage or mid passengers. The Marines in the crew
calculations should be the ship's security detatchment; they WOULD be
monitoring, ala aliens, just about everything aboard, and their honcho
belongs on the bridge so the captain and sensors people can prep him for
boardings, and engineering can inform him of potential fire problems.


-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 16:49:03 GMT
From: "Brendan O'Donovan" <Brendan@odonovan.demon.co.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Merc. Cruiser specifications
Message-ID: <105@odonovan.demon.co.uk>

Merrick wrote :
> Namaste,
>  
> > > Also, what sort of special features might a mercenary cruiser have that 
> > > hasn't been added in the past? 
> > 
> > -Ludicrously large non grav focussed laser batteries :-) 
> 
> I made a "standard" zhodani turret at 4 tons last night that is made up
> ......
> turrets that fit in the standard size socket.
> 
> It brought up a question, however:
> 
> Why are any of the published lasers actually used?  Any ship could have
> a nasty laser, and the only problem might be power.  What does anyone

There is actually a second more worrying question I just noticed - Why are any 
TL13+ lasers designed as tuneable? If you take a careful look at the numbers, 
it just doesn't make sense.
Examples use 4.5m diameter FA(barbette)
SPACE FIRING
TL13 NonGF X-Ray Laser
Effective Range = 450,000 kilometers

TL13 Grav Focused X-Ray Laser
Effective Range = 324 million kilometers

TL13 Grav Focused Tuneable Laser
Effective Range = 729,000 kilometers

ATMOSPHERIC FIRING in standard atmosphere
TL13 NonGF X-Ray Laser
Effective Range = 4500 km

TL13 Grav Focused X-Ray Laser
Effective Range = 3.24 million kilometers

TL13 GF tuneable 
Using Far UV,  Effective Range =  7290 km
Using Visible, Effective Range = 14580 km

Grav Focusing does have advantages, but tuneables are inferior in any practical 
application to tuneable lasers. Laser designers at TL13+ should just design 
X-Ray lasers with an on/off switch for the gravitic focussing. The benefits 
from X-Ray lasers increase even further at higher tech levels as GF gets 
better. If you consider how much larger you can make the focal array for a 
nonGF X-Ray laser with the savings from the HPG, you would probably find it 
would overtake the tuneable lasers.

> > -Some large mass drivers for planetary bombardment
> 
> I'd think TAC missiles would be better since it seems like you'd want
> smart projectiles anyway, and you have gravity on your side :-)

This was just a guess based on the following
-You don't need guided projectiles, since the mass drivers would be used 
against big fixed fortifications, against moving targets the lasers (and 
possibly some Meson bays) would be much better, TL16 800MJ lasers being quite 
effective against even the mighty Trepidas.
-If you have a big starship power plant available, using magnets to provide 
launch for projectiles instead of rockets seems sensible, as you don't need to 
carry the rocket engines, and so can carry a much larger supply of ammunition.

> 
> > -A proper fighter squadron. I'm just guessing, but with a single non grav 
> > focused laser lance, you could probably build some very small but effective 
> > fighters by TL16. An 800ton ship could probably carry four or five without 
too
> > much compromise.
> 
> They'll be limited in gs.  I got my 8ton up to 5 gs with a lot of work.
> It gets nasty once mass is a factor...  BTW, the RC Clippers can do

You're right about the G limit, I'm working on a 5G design at the moment. 
Still, it has an interesting new weapons system which makes it quite handy. I 
should finish it to post tonight or tomorrow.

I wonder if Challenge would publish a 'Ships of the TML' article.....

> -Merrick
> 

-- 
Brendan 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 13:29:33 -0500
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Longbow - warning: Additional Spoilers %-)
Message-ID: <199510202028.NAA04445@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

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

etc etc.





In Digest 454, Lewis responded to Ted Kim:
>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.  

I spy a scenario:

The Regency creates a specialised spy ship, which uses linked drone missiles/
fighters/cutters/whatever to spread out and form a coarse version of Longbow.
Each ship has a BIG folding sensor, and tight-beam commo link back to the
mother ship.

The Regency wants some group of loonies (sorry, volunteers) to take the ship to
the edge of Regency space (maybe the Islands) or further (wherever you calc 70
ly to be) and start scanning for what really happened in 1130+.

Enter the adventurers...(crew, victims, sorry, I mean volunteers...)

Poor suckers.

- Hyphen
  (David Jaques-Watson)


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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 21:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Sensor locks, and related
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951019213304.12045C-100000@linda.teleport.com>

	I was wondering, would it be possible for a ship to be totalley 
undetected, -vs- being a "bogey"?(With the exception of Black Globes, 
obviousley)
 Just wondering.

bri


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

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 22:48:11 MDT
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Sensor locks, and related
Message-ID: <9510200448.AA23409@Rt66.com>

>	I was wondering, would it be possible for a ship to be totalley 
>undetected, -vs- being a "bogey"?(With the exception of Black Globes, 
>obviousley)
> Just wondering.
>
>bri

Heheh :-)  Yup, you could play double blind with a ref... I have some rules
I've posted here before (there are rules posted by others (well, Andrew
anyway) as well).  If you want my (long) BL rules additions about sensors
let me know.

-Merrick


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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 04:19:38 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Error in RSB
Message-ID: <v01530500acad42da1449@[137.229.100.60]>

On page 92, in the damage listing of the TL16 Darrian Patrol Cruiser, is
the following (quite erroneous) listing:

        EMMR-(7h)

which means that the ElectroMagnetic Masing Radiators take 7 minor hits.
According to FF&S, p15, it's 1 minor hit per 5 tons, to a maximum of 4
tons, or 1 major per 100 tons. Anything in excess of 20 tons takes 1 major
hit.

I guess somebody fell asleep at GDW... or they really don't play by even
their own rules. B-O

-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: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:28:07 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Merc. Cruiser specifications 
Message-ID: <199510201328.JAA03472@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Thu, 19 Oct 1995 23: 20:55 EDT
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:28:07 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Merrick wrote :
: > Namaste,

[stuff deleted]

: TL13+ lasers designed as tuneable? If you take a careful look at the numbers,
 
: it just doesn't make sense.
: Examples use 4.5m diameter FA(barbette)
: SPACE FIRING

[ranges deleted]

: application to tuneable lasers. Laser designers at TL13+ should just design 
: X-Ray lasers with an on/off switch for the gravitic focussing. The benefits 
: from X-Ray lasers increase even further at higher tech levels as GF gets 
: better. If you consider how much larger you can make the focal array for a 
: nonGF X-Ray laser with the savings from the HPG, you would probably find it 
: would overtake the tuneable lasers.

I think what you're forgetting is that ultimately, no matter how much
power you put behind a laser, their maximum range is still limited by
the beam pointer.  Thus, even if your X-Ray laser goes 1 bijillion kms,
it can still only be pointed out to 80 hexes max.

As for tunable vs x-ray.  The only reason that you would make lasers
tunable is because they are more effective than x-ray laser in
atmospheres.

And I don't think that grav focusing is something that can be turned
on/off.  I think that it's an integral part of the laser design.  Think
of it as the trade-off for having it.  At least that's what the feeling
FFS imparts on me.


: I wonder if Challenge would publish a 'Ships of the TML' article.....

If they don't, I'm sure TTC probably would.

       --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: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:49:57 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: RSB Gripes 
Message-ID: <199510201349.JAA04631@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Thu, 19 Oct 1995 21: 05:51 EDT
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:49:57 -0400
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: >From both CT Bk 6 and MT Players manual, scouts in the field brances DO NOT
: HAVE RANKS! There is no Promotion roll under MT for field scouts (Commo,
: Survey, and Explore) They convert to an IS grade based upon their time in
: service IF they go to the administration.

True, but this is what I meant by ranks.  Granted, it's not the classic
feel.  But it is an acceptable trade-off (IMO).  I think that they were
just trying to ``level the playing field'' with respect to other
careers (skill wise).  Just don't use the ranks (allow the promo roll
for the extra skill though).

: Intelligence Office? What Intelligence Office? Intell school is a FIELD
: SCOUT SCHOOL for SURVEY branch.

Oops!  Did I say office?  Now you know I meant school.  I stand
corrected with egg on my face.  8(

: By Flying, I meant that they were shipboard. Due to the small crews,
: everybody should be cross-trained, at least by the end of the mission.

I don't know about this.  I've seen a lot of CT/MT scouts who were
cross-trained, but then I've seen lots of specialty scouts.  I think
that this fits in with the ``two types of people...independent scouts
and work well with groups...'' attitude towards scouts.

: The Old IISS (CT/MT) basic generation was expanded into the tree field
: branches. The administration was added in expanded gen. It's almost a
: separate carreer there. The new (TNE) scout carreer works; I don't argue
: that it provides for competent explorers, but it doesn't work for the
: Regency or when running previous settings with the TNE rules. It doesn't
: match the materials previously created.

I think that it can be done.  Granted, it may take LOTS of work, but I
don't think 100% backwards compatibility was the highest priority on
GDW's mind.

: >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, I HATE the lack of a coherent system in the CT setup. The only

AMEN on that one! 

: coherent rules system was CharGen. I Like the TNE Rule System. I have never
: liked the "dark traveller" approach of MT or TNE. I liked the rich history
: and detail provided by the CT and MT materials. I want Continuity. In both
: rules and settings. I have, and shall continue to run primarily in the
: 1000-1120 timeframe, as that's what I and my players like. Everyone I know
: who has bought the RSB in my local area is dissapointed with it; most of
: them have played and/or run Traveller since the early 80's, not for the
: rules, but the background. And with TNE, the robbed us of that, but at
: least gave us decent rules.

I've always loved the setting and rules.  I even liked the Rebellion
and even Hard Times.  Granted, it was Twilight:5700, but still it was
nice.  And I was the first one to bitch and moan and gripe and yell and
scream when all I saw was source material for the RCES.

However, I was very happy with the RSB.  I think that it's one of the
best sourcebooks created for any system (not just TNE).  It contained
lots of background info.  Granted, it was as comprehensive as some
would have liked, but for the space, I think that it makes the best use
of it.  Then again, you may want to take what I say with a grain of
salt, after all, I found Hivers and Ithklur humorous and I even liked
the idea of San*klass...  8)

I tend to use the decent rules and try to adjust the past to fit in. 
Granted it takes some work, but it's worth the effort.

: As for the Serving Noble, the skills match up fairly well with Wealthy
: Traveller... For those interested, I reccomend the following Carreer:

Excellent!

: See? I'm not JUST a whiner ;-)

I never said YOU were.  That's MY job!  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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 1995 09:00:06 -0700
From: Christopher_Griffen@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Various...
Message-ID: <087ce590@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Merrick Burkhardt:

>>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.<<

Personally, I don't think you can skirt the workstation rules.  During 
battlestations, you'd need everyone to be online.  If you want to institute 
a "laptop rule" in your campaigns, I wouldn't fault you, but what do I 
know?  I would recommend sticking with official rules, but I have a 
tendency to do that in any event.

>>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).<<

Hmm.  I allow a maximum of two people per small stateroom and four per 
large stateroom as a matter of course.  To me, that seems tight, even by 
submarine standards.  The PCs in my Regency campaign, who are mercenaries, 
are always trying to get something like that past me.  I usually make the 
flyboys (astrogator, pilot), chief engineer and other top spots rather 
finicky and demanding of more stateroom space.  Of course, they can always 
just offend their Crack crew and hire Novice-level guys instead! <g>


Responding to Jerry Alexandratos' reply to someone else:

>>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. <<

You too, eh?  I thought the Xboat list was for the dissidents. <g>  
Basically, I think we have a case here of a person who wasn't going to like 
the RSB no matter what he found inside.  One of the things he neglected to 
observe was that there was a disclaimer in the front that said character 
generation tables could not be accommodated in the RSB, but would appear at 
a later date, or somesuch.  

The black books are still great reference, but we've moved on now.  TNE 
isn't as bad as so many of the bellyachers make it out to be.  I don't 
speak from an uninformed stance, either.  I've played every incarnation of 
this game since 1980.  I've done the CT black books, and they really 
couldn't hold a candle to the current game in many respects, other than 
simplicity.

--Chris

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

Date: Fri, 20 Oct 95 18:01 BST-1
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 454
Message-ID: <memo.807788@cix.compulink.co.uk>

In-Reply-To: <"726*/G=Wesley/S=Esser/OU=hd62/O=hale and dorr/PRMD=haledorr/ADMD=mci/C=US/"@MHS>


  > From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman) To: traveller
  > Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 453 
  >  
  > > 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. 

I've no problem with the number of officers, just, as was said, the fact
that they're *all* on the bridge! All the time!

  > From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) 
  > Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 453 
  >  
  > 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. 

See what I mean?

  > 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. 

Sounds reasonable. It'd be nice to get an official ruling on this - do GDW
still read this?

  > From: BARTZ@emuvax.emich.edu 
  > Subject: Military police gear 
  >  
  > 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. 

I've never been a fan of snub pistols - I guess it's a hang-over from CT,
where they were just about the most inaccurate weapon you could find. Give
me a gauss pistol any day.

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

Handcuffs made of BSD?

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

Neural weapons are supposed to be in FF&S II...

  > 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)? 

_Murder on Arcturus Station_ is the one that springs to mind.

  > I was going to have the Marines provide MPs for the Navy, has anyone
  > done anything different? 

On small ships, I give the job to unemployed gunners, otherwise Marines.

  > Has anyone out there run a COPs in space Traveller thread before? What
  > did you do? Did it work out? 

In my "current" (it's been on hold for months) campaign, the PCs work for
SolSec, which often involves police-type work. The Players still speak to
me, so I think it worked okay...:-)

  > From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman) To:
  > traveller@MPGN.COM 
  > Message-ID: <v01530503acaad735ebb4@[137.229.100.61]> 
  >  
  > > :         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. 

I thought the same when I read it. Luckily, I've not needed to roll up a
Scout since then.

  > Subject: Anyone see the last B5 (traveller idea/ SPOILERS) Message-ID:
  >  
  > Here's a spoiler space.... 

[smug grin]
Oh yes, you got (are getting?) the last 4 B5s late in the States, didn't
you?

  > 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... 

ISTR that the use of WoMD (esp. nukes) was the one thing that would get
the Imperial military involved in 'local disputes'.


---===---
Andrew Boulton

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 456
***************************
