			    TRAVELLER Digest 466

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) TL-5 Transport Aircraft by Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
  2) Various TML 464 by john.bogan@asb.com
  3) Plasma/Fusion explosives by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  4) TNE by Scott and Vivian Nolan <nolan@DGS.dgsys.com>
  5) Ship Sizes by aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  6) Re: Sensor Stuff (re: to Merrick) by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  7) Web page by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  8) Battle Rider Conversions by Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
  9) What came after the Rebellion? by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 03:48:12 -1600
From: Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TL-5 Transport Aircraft
Message-ID: <9510281946.AA07191@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

This is the transport aircraft mentioned in the forthcoming Pequan RICE Paper:

PSAF-12 'Ensade' TL-5 Transport Aircraft

Airframe:       Simple fixed wing, 
                maximum takeoff weight = 3 tonnes
Thrust/Power:   3 x 0.286 MW Improved Internal Combustion Engines
                Propeller driven thrust (0.6 tonnes thrust)
Controls:       TL-5 Basic Mechanical
Crew:           3
Passengers:   (adequate seating)
Cargo:          400 kg
Fuel:           373.8 kg

Glide Ratio:    5:1
Max Speed:      320 kmh
Cruise Speed:   240 kmh
Combat Move:    44
Travel Move:    960
Agility:        4
Takeoff Roll:   382 m
Landing Roll:   156 m
Agility:        4
Target Size:    VS
Range:          1238 km (5 hrs 10 min)

Price:          Cr 75,888 (single) / Cr 60,710 (quantity)

A ubiquitous design on Pequan, the PSAF-12 is typical of TL-5 transport
aircraft.  
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



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

Date: Fri, 27 Oct 95 22:50:19 -0500
From: john.bogan@asb.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Various TML 464
Message-ID: <9510272250.0W31L02@asb.com>


Subject: TRAVELLER digest 464


From: Drake Gearhart <gearhart@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>

>   Are these sci-fi paperbacks or game resources?  Does GDW have a website 
> for mail-order, pricing, etc?  Why haven't I seen them at the game stores 
> or at Borders?

Game resources. In fact, a whole new product line. LOTS of things have
changed (including some of the underlying assumptions of 'Traveller 
physics', grrr!  Stay tuned to this list for fixes on that)

GDW doesn't have a web site, but does get email at :
gdw-support@genie.geis.com

snail to: GDW
             PO Box 1646
             Bloomington, IL, 61702-1646

Anyone want to take bets on Drake's reaction to the New Era?

P.S. Drake, be sure to sign up to the X-Boat list, since it formed
for the benefit of those who couldn't abide the new system and setting,
and focusses on Classic (original) Traveller and Megatraveller.
If you're using MT then it may be the list most directly useful to you.

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

From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>

> I've got a different idea to the TL*50 power limit.
> Try 250Mj input power per square metre of FA surface area MAXIMUM.

> Note that this removes a particularly arbitrary looking self imposed limit, 
> means that really powerful lasers mass/vol etc increase with the cube of the 
> power rather than the square, deals with the HPG problem to some degree and 
> makes non-grav focussed lasers worth a really good look.

> Django.

[grumpy mode on]

I assume that the above means that _you_ tried it. Where are
your numbers? Are we all supposed to crank out a bunch of lasers
at various powers and techs by ourselves just to see if you're even
on to something? Come on!

[grumpy mode off]

Seriously, posts like that aren't particularly useful for most
of us. How do existing published designs stack up? What effects
(if any) does tech level have? Tell us what you know!
Give us your numbers!

The point of the 50Mj*TL rule was to impose some sort of limit on
lasers that would keep them at the bottom of the ship-weapons
heirarchy (where GDW seems to have just assumed everyone
would build them, not even considering the effects of large ones)
without neccesitating ANY change in existing, published designs
(so as to improve chances that GDW might actually adopt it
as an official rule -- above and beyond the fact that unlimited lasers
make PAWs and MGs obsolete [and thus, ship combat less varied])

What effects does your 250 rule have? Be more specific.

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

From: "Frances A. McLaughlin" <wwnfam@pipeline.com>
>   This also assumes that, unlike lasers, R _can_ be
> less than 1, since the design sequence says round R to the nearest .01, but
> doesn't say round values of less than 1 to 1. 
 
 Wrong, that's an error. It SHOULD say that. Remember, the effective
range is the region where all of the PV can be applied (R less than or
equal to 1). Outside the effective range (R > 1) is where the beam loses
cohesion thanks to focussing limits, and thus it doesn't hit with full
strength.

I made the same mistake the first time I ran through the sequence.
I was designing a PAW to fit an Azhanti High Lightning-sized
ship, and came up with the something's-wrong-here result of
thirty-seven THOUSAND PV at short range.
Can you say "Fire the Wave Motion Gun!"? Ouch!

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

From: ROWAN Iain <wm0iro@acresearch.sunderland.ac.uk>

> Is there any rough standardisation for the sizes of ships
> within a certain class?  I'm interested as to whether there's
> any canonical GDW view, but I'd also be interested in
> hearing what any of you use in your campaigns.

> What I mean  by this is whether the term 'battleship', for
> example, correlates to a particular range of tonnage -
> how big is a battleship?  10,000 tons? 100,000 tons?

100,000 and bigger. The largest ever published (Tigress-class
in the blackbook Fighting Ships) was half a million, and 300K
was common for smaller models.

> As another example, I've seen the term cruiser used in
> Traveller to describe ships of between 1200 tons and
> 60-100,000 tons.  There's a big difference in terms of
> performance and firepower between the two. 

In present-day usage (at least in the USA), the word "cruiser"
cam refer to certain categories of naval vessels, as well as
certain police vehicles (namely, cars). There seems to have 
been some sort of dichotomy of usage in the Imperium as well.

Naval cruisers ranged between 10,000 and 100,000 tons, though
the low end of that might instead be labelled a "destroyer".

Other "cruisers", be they colonial-, mercenary-, or whatever, tended
to be called cruisers because the people who built them called them
that.

This may be confusing, but it seems the Imperium let it stand since
it aided obfuscation by the Imperium ("We've sent a cruiser to deal with
that problem") and because it complicated enemy intelligence gathering
("Agent Slartibartfastishav relayed a report of six cruisers in the system."
"Was he more specific? Did he mean cruisers, or CRUISERS?")

> Cheers,
> Iain

Cheers to all,

John Bogan

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

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Plasma/Fusion explosives
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951028125805.14846A-100000@kelly.teleport.com>


 Now, ever since I bought FF&S, the thing that has bugged me the most(No, 
not gmax X 10 :) is the fact that explosives just stop developing at TL-10.
 So, to fix this, I've come up with additional explosives.
 Beginning at TL-10(Chemicial Plasma Cartridge), the EPGs can be used in 
place of explosives, calculating their damage the same way you would for 
a plasma or fusion beam.
 The reason why I like this is because it actualley gives tac-missiles 
some teeth, whereas before, the only way to go was direct-fire weapons.
 This would not interfear with the background or the RC equipment, since, 
until your TL14-16, they are to expensive to be of use.

 The way you would desing one is look on the warhead chart and find the 
given mass of a warhead, then divide it by 1000 to get it's mass on tons, 
then divide it by 4, and then divide it by the listed EPG Volume. Hence, 
a 150mm Warhead would be equivilient to a 125mj fusion beam when it impacted.
 The only diffrince between these and a fusion beam is that the EPG is 
scatterd upon detonation, and the beam has a very short range. Hence, 
it's penetration would only apply to targets it actualley struck.
 Now, these weapons become on par with "conventional" explosives at 
TL-16, other then that, they would only be used for missions were money 
is secondary. So, if your in the RC, they might be issued to special 
teams, or PCs. If your in the Regency, then they would be special forces 
weapons, since they can manfuacture TL-16 weapons, but on a limited quantity.
 How you want to handel avaibility of these weapons is up to you(the GM), 
but in any campaign I run, they'll be just as avaible as EPGs of the 
appropiate TL. Since there really isn't any diffrince(According to the 
High Energy weapons rules).
 Another variation on this might be reduce the pen to the appropiate for 
a HE round, but double Concussion, and quad Burst. This would be a area 
of effect high-energy explosive.

 I'll post a buncha designs tomorrorw or in a few(days), as I'm not 
really upto it right now. But they're not to hard to design(quite easy in 
fact, just take a given TAC missile, and replace the warhead)
 If GDW is still out there, I would love to hear their opinions on this 
topic. 

bri


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

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 16:25:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Scott and Vivian Nolan <nolan@DGS.dgsys.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951028162337.18866A-100000@DGS>



On Sat, 28 Oct 1995 john.bogan@asb.com wrote:

> Anyone want to take bets on Drake's reaction to the New Era?
> 
> P.S. Drake, be sure to sign up to the X-Boat list, since it formed
> for the benefit of those who couldn't abide the new system and setting,
> and focusses on Classic (original) Traveller and Megatraveller.
> If you're using MT then it may be the list most directly useful to you.

Don't let them scare you, man.  Traveller: The New Era (commonly known as 
TNE) is the best thing that ever happened to Traveller.

Scott

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

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 13:35:13 -0800
From: aswfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ship Sizes
Message-ID: <v01530504acb84475b3ca@[137.229.100.102]>

>Is there any rough standardisation for the sizes of ships
>within a certain class?  I'm interested as to whether there's
>any canonical GDW view, but I'd also be interested in
>hearing what any of you use in your campaigns.
>
>What I mean  by this is whether the term 'battleship', for
>example, correlates to a particular range of tonnage -
>how big is a battleship?  10,000 tons? 100,000 tons?
>As another example, I've seen the term cruiser used in
>Traveller to describe ships of between 1200 tons and
>60-100,000 tons.  There's a big difference in terms of
>performance and firepower between the two.  Do you
>think that tonnage should be the criteria for describing
>a ship's class, or should its role do so - so if a local
>planetary navy is using a 1000 ton ship as the largest
>offensive part of its fleet, that ship is by definition a
>battleship?
>
>As a related question, I'd be interested to know whether
>any of you place any maximum limits on ship sizes.
>
>If you reply, I'd be grateful if you let me know what
>campaign setting/set of rules you are using.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Iain

Well, looking at CT and MT Sources, Cruisers seem to be in the 30-150 KTon
range, DN's 200-500 KT, and BB's 500-1000 KT. Escorts appear to be under
2000 tons, leaving a huge gap. Destroyers seem to be up to about 40 KT.

Sources include: (CT) _Supplement_9:_Fighting_Ships_ and (MT)
_Fighting_Ships_of_the_Shattered_Imperium_. Both by GDW.



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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 00:17:36 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Sensor Stuff (re: to Merrick)
Message-ID: <199510290617.AA15768@ns-1.csn.net>

At 03:17 PM 10/27/95 -0400, you wrote:
>Hi There:
>
>> > 1.  Jump exit sigs are the same regardless of jump number. (yes? no?)
>> > 2.  Jump exit sigs change with displacement of ship (bigger ship,
bigger flash).
>
>Since there can be no really scientific answer, I think we should make 
>assumptions based on what is best for game balance and so on.  What I 
>generally assume is that the flash varies based on ship size, but not on 
>jump number.  What that means is you can tell whether a battleship group 

        I'd argue for exit sigs vary with jump number: since different jump
numbers require different energies to enter, the "spillover" radiation from
jumpspace as you exit would also be different -- at jump six, you're coming
down a much steeper slope than at jump one. So you can tell how big a mass
came through, and roughly how far it came. Or better yet, the energy is a
function of both mass and jump number, with no easy way to separate the
effects. So maybe that's a small ship from far away, or a big ship from next
door ... 
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www2.csn.net/~goldendj/index.html

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine


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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 00:17:39 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xtml@MPGN.COM
Subject: Web page
Message-ID: <199510290617.AA15771@ns-1.csn.net>

        Whew! Finally managed to read the all the mail that accumulated
since I went offline ... close to 500 in all. NOw I just need to sift them
out. Sometime in the next week I should be posting some of the ships, etc.
to my web pages, and I also received a stack of images to post. Please, be
patient, and I'll get it back up to speed.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www2.csn.net/~goldendj/index.html

 "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his
  enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes
  a precedent that will reach to himself" -- Thomas Paine


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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 20:24:39 -1600
From: Michael Bailey <pd82495@wapol.gov.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Battle Rider Conversions
Message-ID: <9510291223.AA15281@phq1002.wapol.gov.au>

I've added some new Battle Rider conversions, and made corrections to the
old ones.  All the ships described have been posted to the mailing list, and
are no doubt available at one or more of the FTP sites:


"Julian" Class Armed Scout

        SX Julian

-                       -1
-                       TL:12
-                       FC:-4
L4:1-1-0-0              -
A:4 P:4                 (SP)J3 G3
AV:2                    -
-                       8


"Republique" Class Barque

        CE Republique

-                       -1
-                       TL:12
-                       FC:-4
L(2x)4:1-1-0-0          M:5(20)
A:6 P:4 Msk             (SP)J3 G3
AV:2                    -
D:1                     11


"Passchendaele" Class Transport

        TT Passchendaele

-                       -1
-                       TL:12
-                       FC:-4
-                       -
A:2 P:3                 (SP)J2/1 G1*/1
AV:1                    -
-                       9

NB: Values represented as n/n indicate with 
and without drop tanks respectively.


I-1102 Solomani Scout

        S I-1102

-                       -1
-                       TL:14
-                       FC:-5
L2:1-1-1-1              -
A:10 P:5 Msk            (SP) J2 G2
AV:2                    -
-                       4

Type SZ Scout/Courier (experimental)

        SZ Scout/Courier (experimental)

-                       -1
-                       TL:16
-                       FC:-6
L10:2-2-2-2             -
A:16 P:6                (SP)J2 G2
AV:1                    -
-                       5

'Old Crow' Class Solomani J3 Trader

        MV Old Crow

-                       -1
-                       TL-14
-                       -
-                       -
A:4 P:4                 (SP) J3 G1
AV:0                    -
-                       10

'Emsu Kushukhimir' Class Diplomatic Courier

        DS Emsu Kushukhimir

-                       -1
-                       TL-14
-                       FC:-5
L(x2-1)2:1-1-1-1        -
A:16 P:5 J:16 Msk       (SP) J4 G4
AV:8                    -
SC:2                    10

'Malkop' Class Frigate

M5:6-3-2-1              -3
-                       TL-14
-                       FC:-5
L(x3)2:1-1-1-1          Msl:10(80)
A:16 P:7 J:16 Msk       (SP) J4 G4
AV:12                   -
SC:10                   44

'Arafura' Class Yacht

        Y Arafura

-                       -1
-                       TL-14
-                       FC:-5
L(x2-1)2:1-1-1-1        -
A:4 P:5                 (SP) J2 G4
AV:3                    -
-                       6
Michael Bailey (pd82495@wapol.gov.au)

"...the scum also rises..."
                          Hunter S. Thompson



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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 11:57:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: What came after the Rebellion?
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.951029115057.27358B-100000@hubble.sheridanc.on.ca>

> Date: Thu, 26 Oct 1995 13:05:17 -0500 (CDT)
> From: Drake Gearhart <gearhart@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
> To: traveller@MPGN.COM
> Subject: What came after the Rebellion?

Don't you just LOVE questions like this?

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

> Seriously, you should read:
> 1/Hard Times - end of Megatraveller
> 2/Survival Margin - collected history of the Rebellion
> 3/Traveller:The New Era - replacement for MT
> (the first two could be harder to find)
> Traveller:The New Era is not just an extension of Megatraveller, it is an 
> entirely new system. The New Era is set around 1200 imperial.

Also, try to get the Arrival Vengeance supplement, if you can find it 
anywhere.

Someone may wish to privately email Gerhart, if he want's more info.  
However, so much has happened that it's hard to say ANYTHING without 
spoilers...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer
"Preserve what we created, Norris, and remember what we stood for."
                               - Strephon, 179-1126

Reply to: alvin.plummer@SHERIDANC.ON.CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 466
***************************
