    TRAVELLER Digest 491

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 490 by Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
  2) List of detailed worlds? by Ethan Henry <ehenry@magmacom.com>
  3) No maps! by HA282PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Paul Radford)
  4) Re: TRAVELLER digest 490 by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
  5) Terraforming Mars... by "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
  6) RICE papers on Reformation Coalition. by Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
  7) Deep-space refueling by fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
  8) Drop tanks for starships by fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
  9) Re: TRAVELLER digest 490 by library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 10:23:47 +0000 (GMT)
From: Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 490
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951121100236.25617A-100000@pasta>

On Tue, 21 Nov 1995 traveller@MPGN.COM wrote:

> 2.GDW AND THE FUTURE
>
> a.What price a multiverse?
>
> I wonder if it is possible to do different things? A multiverse perhaps?
>
> I think that one of the strengths of T$R (in comparision) is that it created
> different worlds to put settings on. When you are tired of the Monty-Haul
> comedy relief (Greyhawk), you can venture into the Realms. If you want "Dark
> AD&D", run a Planescape or Dark Sun campaign. If you want mega-battles, try
> Battlesystem; for smaller fights, use the Skirmish rules.

I think when TNE was orignally written, that was the idea. I think GDW
wanted to write other Sci-Fi settings, based on whatever successes they
had with the TNE setting. Unfortunately the flow of sourcebooks/modules
was a little too slow, and so TNE wasnt the big success it should have been.

Also you have to remember that TSR is a BIG company compared to GDW, and
have interests
other than straight RPG's, ie publishing, and at one point, computer
games. So they have a lot of money to spend developing these alternate
settings.

> b.Modules
>
> GDW has livened up its act with the RC trilogy - these almost make me want to
> play a RC campaign for its own sake (almost - I'm still a native of the
> Marches!). We should be saying, "More! More!"

The last TNE product I bought was "Vampire Fleets". While it wasnt the
greatest book Ive bought of GDW (Come back the Keith Bros. All is
forgiven) I thought the ending was _really good_. At least now Im hooked
to buy the RSB. After reading "Vampire Fleets" I thought about what
impact the ending would have on the New Era reformation. And all I
thought was: The Culture! (an Iain Banks reference)

> Are more modules a possibility, or are we limited to magazine scenarios?

I remember having a conversation with Loren Wiseman some time last year.
I asked him that same question; more modules. His reply was (I think!?!)
that for GDW, sourcebooks make more money per unit sold than modules.

While Im here, what ever happened to GDW's E-mail address? Why dont we
hear from them anymore?

Mark

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 /"Life is what happens when you're busy |Mark Fletcher@St-Andrews     \
 \ making other plans" John Lennon       |1995 (mf1@st-and.ac.uk)      /
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 08:34:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@magmacom.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: List of detailed worlds?
Message-ID: <199511211334.IAA30771@mag1.magmacom.com>


Since RICE papers seem to be quite popular, I was
wondering if anyone has assembled a complete list
of planets/systems that have already been described
in greater-than-UPP detail by GDW/DGP.

It wouldn't be an actual reproduction of said material,
merely a list of things that have been done in "the canon"
somewhere so people don't walk over previous material.

(Everyone is free to ignore canon, of course, but I think this
would still be useful.)

Maybe I'll go through my own collection this weekend...
I don't have any issues of Challenge, Traveller's Journal,
MT Journal, etc, so people who have big article collections
are welcome to email me with a world/article/magazine lists.

That is, if anyone thinks this might be useful...

Ethan

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 13:50:25 +0100
From: HA282PMR01@ntu.ac.uk (Paul Radford)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: No maps!
Message-ID: <95112113502479@newvax.ntu.ac.uk>

To specifically:

Andy Lilly
Shalom Zaidfeld
Eric G. Ackermann
Goeran Damberg
Bill Currie
David C. Broussard (broussa@connecti.com)
Scott Nolan
James England
Lewis Roberts
vogel@wam.umd.edu
Eamon Watters, CNG0016@v2.qub.ac.uk.

Sorry there are no maps with the adventure but i hate drawing maps in any
form! If any of the above have not received a 32k file from me, then let me
know and i'll send it again.

Paul


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 11:04:33 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 490
Message-ID: <s0b1b310.002@smtpwpo.dayt.tasc.com>

Steven Bonneville writes regarding the Solar system:

>Alvin Plummer wrote:
>>         Neither Venus, Luna, or
>>         Mars has been terraformed
>>         in 3700 year's of star
>>         travel and high technology?

   Why spend the tremendous resources it takes to terraform worlds
as hostile as Venus or Mars, let alone Luna, when starships permit the
relatively cheap travel of large numbers of colonists to worlds that need
little or no effort to make them habitable for humans?  If you ever wonder
why something isn't being done, say `money` or `economics` and you're
right 99 times out of 100.

>Luna has an active "environmentalist" movement that wants to limit
>human impact on Luna as much as possible, and clean up old eyesores
>like the strip-mining scars on Mare Imbrium from the Long Night era,
>according to Marc Miller's Dragon article.

   Note that this kind of landscaping is much cheaper than the effort
required to give Luna a breathable atmosphere, something I'm not even
sure Luna has the mass to retain in any event.

>DGP mentioned that Venus is believed to be an Ancient site, and it's a
>hard terraforming job anyway.

   This is correct according to ``Rats and Cats``.  Venus would
probably not worth being terraformed, since the resulting world would
still be too hot to permit large scale habitation.  This makes one wonder
what the Ancients were *really* doing there, since the ``terraforming
project ran amonk`` theory doesn't wash from a scientific perspective.

>  They also say that Mars *is* being terraformed, and has been for
>seven centuries.  This may seem like a late start, but it may be that the
>effort was begun and abandoned previously.  Besides, traditionally,
>terraforming efforts in Traveller are rare, expensive, and incomplete.

   It's possible that an effort was started during the Long Night (when
starship travel was expensive and rather dangerous outside certain
areas), but again, economically speaking it is far cheaper to ship the
colonists to Prometheus than it is to make an Earth-like world out of
Mars.  A better question is why did anyone start terraforming Mars
at all, and the answer could be a political one.  Afterall, it was not
economical to send men to the Moon in 1969, but it gave loads of good
PR to the US, and demonstrated their technological superiority over the
Soviet Union.

Edward Swatschek writes of Mars:

>   With a UPP of F43056A-F, I assume Mars has been terraformed to
>build up the atmosphere.  It's present day atmosphere stat should be
>either 1 or A, depending on just how thin that CO2 atmosphere is.

   Mars stats in 1995 AD should be:  X410000-0.  You could argue for
X420000-0 or even X430000-0, but I was always under the impression
that a very thin atmosphere permitted you to breathe with a compressor,
and you would need more than that to breathe on Mars today.


Dave Golden writes about continuing Traveller without GDW:

>Why not just continue as we are now? Some people _like_ the RC.
>Some people _like_ the Regency. Some people _like_ the Rebellion.
>Some people _like_ the Unshattered Imperium. And some people _like_
>their own home-rolled campaign. Everybody just continues developing
>the parts they like, and people can pick and choose the best ideas from
>each.

   Why not ask this question: Is Traveller just a collection of three
generations of a science-fiction game, or is it something more than that?

    Look, at this point GDW is still around, and it is conceivable that they
could continue to operate with Loren Wiseman and Frank Chadwick
doing the creative end of things from now until they retire--that could
be 20 years from now or longer--much longer.  Hopefully Loren will
get back on TML here (my understanding is that he has been beyond
busy) and tell us what GDW's plans are for the future.


David Jaques-Watson (Hyphen) writes regarding modules and
multiverse:

>a.What price a multiverse?
>
>Can the system support multiple "histories" - or is the one, solid history
>the backbone of Traveller, without which it will perish?

   If we are willing to borrow from other science-fiction sources, there
are a number of ways we could shake things up.

   One way would be to permit wormholes that allow characters to
travel to other parts of the galaxy, even parts of the Universe.  That way
if someone wanted to introduce another alien major race, or human
empires that have nothing what-so-ever to do with the current setting,
they could do so without fear of contradiction.

   Another way would be to set up a number of parallel universes, each
on the same point of the timeline, but with different (sometimes radically
different) storylines.  This would allow players to use the standard TNE
setting, a setting where the Rebellion continues on into 1202, a setting
where the Zhodani win the Frontier Wars, even settings where there
was no Vilani Imperium, or the laws of physics permit sutterwarp or
prevent contragrav.

   Still another would be to permit time travel.  Thus characters could
hop from major setting to major setting, changing history (sometimes with
unintended consequences--I wrote a short story once where a time
traveler helped a German soldier who had been blinded in a gas attack
during WW I--of course the soldier was Hitler), or just adventuring for
adventurings sake.

   We could also of course combine the above, permiting multiple
universes at various stages on the timeline.  Of course coordinating
development would be a nightmare, but then so were the MegaTraveller
starship design rules and we muddled through them (OK, it was a *joke*,
sheesh....).  What price would we pay?  I don't know that there is a price
to be paid.  Some of our time perhaps?

>GDW has livened up its act with the RC trilogy - these almost make me
>want to play a RC campaign for its own sake (almost - I'm still a native
>of the Marches!). We should be saying, "More! More!"

   GDW continues to turn out excellent product, and there's something
for everyone who plays Traveller in every product they produce.
If you are not buying TNE products because you are still pissed about
the Imperium dying, you are missing out on some first rate gaming
material.

>Are more modules a possibility, or are we limited to magazine
>scenarios?

   Modules take a lot more time and energy to develop than magazine
scenarios.  I speak from personal experience.  With magazine scenarios
most of the basic premises have been thought out in advance for you,
giving you a nice base to work from.  In developing a module, you have
to start almost literally from scratch, developing explanations (in the
form of background) for data you probably developed yourself.  It is a
very time consuming process, the final step of which is to tie everything
together and make sure you haven't contradicted yourself at some point
(making sure that the biography of leader `X` fits with the storyline for
planet `Y`, etc.).  Ultimately I think it's worth the effort, but it isn't for
everyone.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date:          Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:06:37 +0100 (BST)
From: "M.A. Trickett" <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Terraforming Mars...
Message-ID: <11B597269A4@daisy.le.ac.uk>

Should it really take 700 years or more?  What's the current state of
nanotechnology in the New Era/Regency/whatever?  Thousands of years
was an estimate in a sci-fi book I read (relatively recently), but it went
seriously down when one added nanotech into the equation.

While I'm (kind of) on the subject, what is the state of technology
in the "Imperium?"  Sure, I know about the relatively standard things
like jump drive, nuclear physics, etc.... what about
robotics/nanotechnology?  Genetic engineering (sounds Solomani to
me), biotechnology and that sort of thing.  Sorry if this sounds too
"Cyberpunk" but I think that after some 3700 years (?) of a
space-faring culture (with only a few falls along the way) you would
have some rather radical advances.  Did they stop with the discovery
of the j-drive or something?  Okay, this may only apply in the
Regency where you don't have the virus doing nasty things to computer
archives, but what about the Regency?

Any answers to this would be appreciated.  I found it to be the one
flaw of the Traveller universe... the technology didn't seem to add
up!

--MARK

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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:48:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: Mark Fletcher <mf1@st-andrews.ac.uk>
To: Traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: RICE papers on Reformation Coalition.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951121164142.10892B-100000@pasta>

Hi,

Did anybody ever write any RICE papers on the worlds of the RC? If so
drop me a liner.

Thanks,

Mark Fletcher.

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 /"Life is what happens when you're busy |Mark Fletcher@St-Andrews     \
 \ making other plans" John Lennon       |1995 (mf1@st-and.ac.uk)      /
  ---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 16:47:47 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Deep-space refueling
Message-ID: <9511212147.AA51201@st6000.sct.edu>

The deep-space refueling scheme is designed to improve interstellar
commerce within the RC; therefore, it is public knowledge.  I imagine that
the price for refined fuel would be twice normal (after all, deep-space is
"hazardous duty").

If the RC Navy didn't want the responsibility of this project, the systemm
navies for Oriflamme and Baldur could do it themselves (assuming
Shenandoah doesn't object).  The only real difficulty they would have is
getting the Clipper Modules on-site.

Franklin W. Cain


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

Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 17:04:49 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin Cain)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Drop tanks for starships
Message-ID: <9511212204.AA52621@st6000.sct.edu>

I never thought of the idea of *renting* drop tanks.  Have you considered
the means of recovering the drop tanks (must be economical) and the amount
of "security deposit" required (must be large enough to replace the drop
tanks, yet be low enough to be affordable by your customers)?

I have never liked the idea of using drop tanks on starships.  They just
aren't economically feasible.  (OK, that *certainly* wouldn't stop the
military -- I know this for a fact -- but it would give a merchant pause.)
Your starship can have its atmospheric streamlining degraded, its jump drives
don't stretch as far (a J-1 free trader w/ drop tanks isn't going
*anywhere*), and if you do drop them, that's money down the fresher drain!

In my RC campaign, many J-1 free traders and fat traders have internal
dismountable tanks giving them the fuel capacity for an extra one-parsec
jump (since so many stars are two parsecs or more apart).  Sure, they
still take an extra week, but at least they can make it!

The ultimate form of additional fuel tankage is the collapsable fuel
bladder.  Because of the wear-and-tear this type of tankage would be
expected to endure, I can't see any of the ships in the Wilds with this
kind of tank.  But for merchants in the RC wanting to stretch their legs,
this is the way to go.

Franklin W. Cain


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

Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:15:18 -0600
From: library@dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 490
Message-ID: <199511230012.OAA08381@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

In digest 490, Steve Bonneville replied:
>Sure.  It'll be done by the starport authority, and the planetary
>government won't even get into it.

and Glenn M. Goffin replied:
>No, this isn't fully thought out.  Imperial trade law
>applies in space, not on worlds.  If a _world's_ law
>prohibits drugs, etc., then _its_ customs station, at the
>gate between the starport and the world, will search for
>them.

..and:
>Let me develop the "enforcement nightmare" issue a little.

I was looking at the issue from the Imperial standpoint, I guess. I *never*
assumed that the planetary authority would be involved, just the Imperial
authorities. I asked the question based on the assumption that "Imperial Law" is
sort-of law level 1. Things like murder, possession of nukes by private
individuals or companies, possession of psi drugs (pre-Regency) and K'kree
highleaf, etc would be illegal in imperial space.

This is in addition to the convention (the unwritten "rules of war") that say
that severe disruption of trade is a no-no, and will be jumped upon.

Note that it is not really law level 1: the Imperium will not stop you from
possessing or transporting energy weapon, poision gas, grenades, etc. Perhaps
an expanded law profile is required for space?
eg. base = 0, trade = 0, personal = 1, mil wpns = 0 (rats, I've forgotten what
they all mean - I'll have to look the profile up tonight).

- Hyphen
(David Jaques-Watson)


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 491
***************************
