TRAVELLER Digest 518

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Big Guns by George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
  2) Re: TRAVELLER digest 517 by aswfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
  3) Space Life Sciences Database Goes On-Line by kevin.mccarthy@gsfc.nasa.gov (Kevin Mc Carthy)
  4) Please resub me... by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  5) Regency Combat Vehicles Sourcebook by George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
  6) RE: TRAVELLER digest 517 by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
  7) Re: Crunch Guns (Td#517) by Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
  8) Space: Above and Beyond by mhclark@iastate.edu
  9) by gdw.support@genie.com
 10) Re: RCVG: A little spoiler speculation... by Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
 11) 3G by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 12) Re: Guns by bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
 13) RE: 3G by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 14) RE: Guns by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 14:38:45 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Big Guns
Message-ID: <199512172238.AA24968@mail.crl.com>


Along the lines of the guns thread, let me put forth a design I did
for something which is in progress (no more details lest it spoil any
suprises...).


BFG-2070-B (TL 10 superheavy ACR)
Fires the 20x70ETCPC cartridge with Ea=90,000J
Dam=20 Pen=2-2-2 (Ball) 1-1-1 (Ds) Range=300/600/1200/2400
Recoil: SS:1 3:3 5:3 10:6
Empty mass: 21.5kg
113cm hvy bbl=3.4kg
Reciever: Crystaliron, 0.3125 of "base" wt ( (2/8)/(8/10) )
Mass=14.2 kg
Explosive Power Generator CPC HPG built into firing chamber
Bayonet Lug, Grenade Adapter, Long Muzzle Brake, SA stock, Gyro Comp,
Image Enhancement Scope, Laser Sight
Cost: Cr16,830 single

Ammo: 20 round magazine is 0.3kg empty, 4.8kg full
Ball ammo is Cr 4.94/shot
DS ammo is Cr9.34/shot


Note that two rule modifications and one rule bend (maybe) are included
in the above weapon.  Modification #1 is an allowance for hi-tech materials
in the reciever... basically, assume that the FF&S recievers are all steel,
and use the armor material hardness tables and such to work from there
to higher strength receivers.  Modification #2 is to assume that ETC
hand weapons use the same input energy requirement calculation as ETC
cannons do, which in this case ups the weapon mass (due to the big
honking cartridges...).  The rule bend (maybe) is that the input energy
is generated by putting a Explosive Power Generator/HPG built in to
the firing chamber and the cartridges being built into the ammo...
It's not documented as "legal", but it doesn't use any components which
aren't in the design tables, so it should be ok.  The result is that the
ammo mass is feasible rather than completely unreasonable.

Those having been made, just *look* at the weapon.  It's a man portable,
relatively lightweight (about 100 lbs loaded), controllable on full auto
*by an un-battledressed-human* light cannon.  It can punch through modern
APCs at range.  It will make mincemeat out of anyone's battledress at
extreme range.  Experienced troops can fire it full auto and hit things
with it at almost 2500 meters.

I don't know if this models the real world or not; I don't think anyone has
ever made a weapon of this nature in real life, so I don't know if the design
rules are accurate or not.  But the weapons capabilities obsolete nearly all
Imperial-standard hand weapons and armor.  It does use some rule mods, but
they are defensible based on the rest of FF&S.  The more I work on designs
for FF&S the more it amazes me how little GDW has officially explored the
implications of FF&S (you think handguns are bad, try tanks for a while...
every one GDW has published so far is so badly optimized that my 6-ton
MCr2 TL10 tanks can beat their 10 and 20 ton MCr16+ TL15 tanks when
mine are outnumbered).

-george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com


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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 14:46:31 -0900
From: aswfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 517
Message-ID: <v01530500acfa5824b768@[137.229.100.69]>

>: FF&S really breaks down when designing large caliber and small caliber
>: weapons.  They make no allowence for materials technology really.  Like what
>: if I want a wooden stock, or how about a composite laminate receiver, or a
>: non-mettalic weapon?  These things just aren't addressed, then again
>: compared to the Shadowrun Design system HA!, GURPS, HO, or any other game
>: (Rifts anyone? hehehehheheheh) FF&S is the best hands down.  I mean at least
>: we CAN argue about its failings, when most systems just don't have a system
>: to argue about.
>
>Some games say that we should concentrate on the characters and not
>the goodies.  Hah, what do they know!  8)

Well, good goodies make the game more enjoyable, and *I* want goog goodies
too! Too bad the FF&S dfoesn't deliver what it promises; MT was better
overall for vehicle designs (including wet naval), and the only decent way
to deal with weapons is do real world stats.

>: BTW: has anyone used 3G's weapons design system.  I have it, and am planning
>: on trying it out over the holiday (I only get the 25th off).  I will let you
>: know!
>
>I worship it!  I love it because it allows me to create a weapons and
>then convert them to my favorite games (TNE, MT, GURPS).  The only
>thing is that I've had some problems converting some TNE weapons from
>FFS to 3G^3.  Try designing the 10mm round for a snub pistol.
>FFS=606j, 3G^3=900j.  Obviously something doesn't jive here.  Now to
>find the fault (gives me something to do while I wait for Santa).

3G3 is the single smothest design sequence I've ever used. I used it
extensively with MT, gurps, and cyberpunk. My favorite weapon was a 2mm
10:1 hypervel smoothbore PISTOL, traveller TL 15 (3g3 tl 18!), caseless,
semi auto. weights 2-3 kilos, and throws the DU slug at mach 5+. It
converts well to MT,as it's damage is 3 versus an unarmoured target
(overpenetration) and it does 8 by concunssion to an armored target.

3g3 can be used to make such extreme weapons because it assumes propellants
will get more and more powerfull as the tech level increases. FF&S assumes
that no further developments occur after TL 11 or so (I'm not looking it up
at the moment), and powder is the final answer. That, and the mass
factor/density of traveller weapons is way wrong. Puts the SG aroung 15 for
all weapons. Steel is only around 7.5. (don't quote 3g3 at me; it has some
errors, too, primarily for simplicity; check Perry's ChemEngr's Hndbk)

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ASWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html



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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 19:00:06 -0500
From: kevin.mccarthy@gsfc.nasa.gov (Kevin Mc Carthy)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Space Life Sciences Database Goes On-Line
Message-ID: <v02120d00acfa5f69cf5f@[192.225.68.194]>

FYI



>Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:16:22 -0500
>From: NASANews@luna.osf.hq.nasa.gov (NASA HQ Public Affairs Office)
>To: press-release-nasa@mercury.hq.nasa.gov
>Subject: Space Life Sciences Database Goes On-Line
>Sender: NASANews@hq.nasa.gov
>Precedence: bulk
>Status: RO
>
>Michael Braukus
>Headquarters, Washington, DC           December 15, 1995
>(Phone:  202/358-1979)
>
>Robert Mehnert
>National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD
>(Phone:  301/496-6308)
>
>INTERNET ADVISORY:  I95-17
>
>SPACE LIFE SCIENCES DATABASE GOES ON-LINE
>
>        NASA and the National Library of Medicine have made available
>on the Internet a jointly developed database of space life sciences
>research dating from 1961 to the present.
>
>        The database, called SPACELINE, was designed by NASA's Office
>of Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications and the National
>Institutes of Health's National Library of Medicine (NLM) to consolidate
>the results of the growing amount of space life sciences research into
>a single, easily accessible resource.
>
>        SPACELINE contains results of ground-based and flight research.  Its
>references pertain to the health and productivity of humans in space, the
>physical and psychological effects of gravity and the space environment on
>living systems and the applications of space life sciences research and
>exobiology.  The types of publications include journal articles, technical
>reports, books, book chapters, meeting papers and meeting abstracts.
>
>        Much of SPACELINE's contents are derived from several of NLM's
>databases.  NLM is internationally known for providing accessible on-line
>databases in the biomedical sciences.  A unique feature of SPACELINE is
>the space flight mission field which allows experiments conducted on any
>NASA space mission to be found.
>
>        The SPACELINE project, which is just one of several NASA-NIH
>cooperative activities, developed as a result of NASA's
>efforts to disseminate information on space life sciences
>research and lay the foundation for research on the
>International Space Station.
>
>        SPACELINE can be accessed via modem or the Internet.  There
>is a nominal fee for use of this service.  The charge is a result of
>Congressional direction to offset the cost of the service.
>The database can be searched either directly using NLM command
>language or through Grateful Med, NLM's user-friendly software package.
>
>     To request a brochure or to obtain additional information about SPACELINE,
>contact: SPACELINE, Department of Physiology, USUHS, 4301 Jones Bridge Road,
>Bethesda, MD 20814-4799 (phone: 301/295-2482; fax: 301/295-5271) or
>e-mail: SPACELINE@usuhsb.usuhs.mil
>
>                    - end -
>
>NASA press releases and other information are available
>automatically by sending an Internet electronic mail message
>to domo@hq.nasa.gov.  In the body of the message (not the
>subject line) users should type the words "subscribe
>press-release" (no quotes).  The system will reply with a
>confirmation via E-mail of each subscription.  A second
>automatic message will include additional information on the
>service.  Questions should be directed to (202) 358-4043.
>



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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 95 19:17:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Please resub me...
Message-ID: <8B71485.0100063C3F.uuout@execnet.com>

Hi, all - I can't find my instructions, and I've been down for about the last
500 hours.  In that time, I'm sure that there have been enough bounces to knock
me off the list.  I want back on - could someone please see that this is done
for me (Jeff Zeitlin, jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com)?

Thanks in advance.

===============================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                           jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
  XWeb 1201  Even Virus couldn't take me out permanently...

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 17:08:12 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Regency Combat Vehicles Sourcebook
Message-ID: <199512180108.AA13251@mail.crl.com>


Something was itching and I went and looked at a couple of sources...
The initial quote, from one regency ground forces commander talking
about (presumably) his command vehicle, the Thunderbolt, has quite
a historical precedence.

The "Thunderbolt" was the name of the tank that later-to-be Maj. Gen.
Abrams commanded in WW II; later, after Gen Abrams sheperded the M-1
tank through the US procurement system (and then retired), the vehicle
was officially named after him (As a type), and the first M-1 delivered
was named the "Thunderbolt" as an individual vehicle nickname to additionally
honor Gen Abrams.

I will avoid comment on the sillyness of having a comment about Maggart
in the Regency book, but the Thunderbolt reference makes some sense 8-)

-george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 21:22:26 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: TRAVELLER digest 517
Message-ID: <199512180222.VAA03132@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Sun, 17 Dec 1995 18: 43:25 EST
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 21:22:26 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

[stuff deleted]
: Well, good goodies make the game more enjoyable, and *I* want goog goodies
: too! Too bad the FF&S dfoesn't deliver what it promises; MT was better
: overall for vehicle designs (including wet naval), and the only decent way
: to deal with weapons is do real world stats.

MT didn't really deliver wet ships.  Remember, aircraft were covered
in COACC which came out about two years after MT and wet ships were
covered in a series of three Challenge articles which also came out
about two years after MT.

: >thing is that I've had some problems converting some TNE weapons from
: >FFS to 3G^3.  Try designing the 10mm round for a snub pistol.
: >FFS=606j, 3G^3=900j.  Obviously something doesn't jive here.  Now to
: >find the fault (gives me something to do while I wait for Santa).
:
: 3g3 can be used to make such extreme weapons because it assumes propellants
: will get more and more powerfull as the tech level increases. FF&S assumes
: that no further developments occur after TL 11 or so (I'm not looking it up
: at the moment), and powder is the final answer. That, and the mass
: all weapons. Steel is only around 7.5. (don't quote 3g3 at me; it has some
: errors, too, primarily for simplicity; check Perry's ChemEngr's Hndbk)

It may be the SG.  Remember the snub pistol is TL8 FFS and TL11 3G^3.
So, there shouldn't be any problem with the power of the propellant.
I think that the big drawback in FFS is that it bases the energy of
the round on the size of the projectile, and doesn't factor in the
cartridge length.  So, a 10mm 2:1 (twice as long as it's diameter for
the non-3G^3 users) is just as powerful as a 3:1 or 1:1, even though
one cartridge obviously holds more powder and the other less.  As I
said, if I use the cartridge length in the equation for figuring out
the round's average energy, I get similar results.  Do you have any
idea what the real-world (tm) stats for similar ammunition would be?

How about as a treat for the holidays we whip up some weapons for
everyone to use?  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: Sun, 17 Dec 95 23:30:56 -0500
From: Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: broussa@ConnectI.com, darkstar@Udel.edu
Subject: Re: Crunch Guns (Td#517)
Message-ID: <9512180430.AA21452@qrc.com>

[Sorry for spamming the list with that post; my terminal session crashed
 while I was editing my reply, and that was sent by accident; my actual
 reply follows the mistaken one in Td#715.]

broussa@ConnectI.com (David C. Broussard) wrote:
> BTW: has anyone used 3G's weapons design system.

Yes.

> I have it, and am planning on trying it out over the holiday (I only get
> the 25th off).  I will let you know!

Let me know what you think; personally, I feel that 3G3 is considerably
better than FF&S, for those items that 3G3 covers.  FF&S is, quite
frankly, about an edition or two behind 3G3 - FF&S has promise, *IF*
GDW would put it though a couple of cycles of playtesting and revision.


That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu> wrote:
> [...] I've had some problems converting some TNE weapons from
> FFS to 3G^3.  Try designing the 10mm round for a snub pistol.
> FFS=606j, 3G^3=900j.  Obviously something doesn't jive here.  Now to
> find the fault (gives me something to do while I wait for Santa).

FF&S and 3G3 use different values for propellant energy and gun efficency.
While it's debatable which is correct (though it's my feeling that 3G3's
values are a better fit over a broader range of TLs), the net result is that
given the same cartridge dimensions, you will arrive at different energies
in the two systems.

This gives you two choices:
1) Stick with the known dimensions, and just accept the different ranges,
   damage values, and penetrations; or
2) Use FF&S to figure out what the energies for the Traveller weapons
   *should* be, and then design 3G3 weapons to those energies, despite
   the differences in cartridge dimensions and other statistics.

Offhand, I'd say you could probably do a lot worse than re-designing all
of the Traveller small arms with 3G3; at least then you'd have an internally
consistent set of weapons for your game (as I recall, some ambitious soul
actually did this for MegaTraveller, and posted the results to the TML).


Guy Garnett
wildstar@qrc.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        "Terrorist on the TML"

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

Date: Sun, 17 Dec 1995 23:05:57 CST
From: mhclark@iastate.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Space: Above and Beyond
Message-ID: <9512180505.AA15361@las2.iastate.edu>

  I'm curious if anyone else has been watching this show.  It's been on
the Fox network on Sundays before The Simpsons (my favorite 1/2 hour of
TV), so I've watched a few episodes.  When I saw the ads, I thought it
would be a fun, Traveller/Starship Troopers/Forever War sort of thing.
Problem is, it seems like it's light on science and heavy on feelings and
character interaction.  The show reminds me of nothing so much as a bad
World War II buddy movie with women and some odd references to people
raised via clone-like tech..

  On the other hand, the animation of the space battles looks pretty cool,
and seems fairly Traveller-like.  The one starship I saw up-close had the
manuever engines mounted out on pylons - very sensible, extra arm for
rotational moves.  The ground actions are more primitive than the space
tech - the troops look like they are wearing current USA field equipment
with a camera stuck on the helmet.

  Anyway, since I've only seen a couple of whole shows, is it worth it to
try and catch it more often, or does it suck consistantly (I assume it
does since I haven't seen it mentioned here)?

---
Mark H Clark
mhclark@iastate.edu

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 95 06:28:00 UTC 0000
From: gdw.support@genie.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <199512180725.AA278011506@relay1.geis.com>

 Dave Golden:
 > And could this possibly have anything to do with GDW's
 > financial problems?

 It has more to do with some personal matters that have soaked up 102%
 of my attention for several months.

 ANd will continue to do so for a while longer.
     LKW

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:21:26 -0600
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: RCVG: A little spoiler speculation...
Message-ID: <199512181621.KAA07830@natasha.itlabs.umn.edu>

Bri <bri@teleport.com> wrote:

> On the inside page, it reads:
>"  To Major General Lon E. Maggart, custodian of the future of mounted
>operations in this and all possible futures that are worth a damn: Forge
>the Thunderbolt!"
>  Maggart is in the Reformation Coalition, right?(Hence, Maggart ships),
>and the Thunderbolt is Imperial Army/Marines... So why is it associated
>with him?
> Maybe it's just me, but I see a possible sign as to the times to come
>from this statement.

A little research on the net turned up the interesting information that
Major General Lon E. Maggart, USA, is the commander of the US Army Armor
Center at Fort Knox.  Ain't the Internet wonderful? :)

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>


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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:03:25 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: 3G
Message-ID: <0d5ae070@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

>>: BTW: has anyone used 3G's weapons design system.  I have it, and am planning
: on trying it out over the holiday (I only get the 25th off).  I will let you
: know!

>>I worship it!  I love it because it allows me to create a weapons and
then convert them to my favorite games (TNE, MT, GURPS).  The only
thing is that I've had some problems converting some TNE weapons from
FFS to 3G^3.  Try designing the 10mm round for a snub pistol.
FFS=606j, 3G^3=900j.  Obviously something doesn't jive here.  Now to
find the fault (gives me something to do while I wait for Santa).<<


Uh, what may I ask is 3G?

--Chris

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 10:32:43 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: wildstar@qrc.com
Subject: Re: Guns
Message-ID: <9512181832.AA25641@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu>


re: hyper-velocity gas guns:
The SHARP gun has a muzzle velocity of a few kilometers per second, which is
inadequate to hit evading targets at more than a f few kilometers range, or
even non-evading targets in atmosphere at more than a few tens of kilometers.

Also, it has a rate of fire of one shot every few hours.

Peter Fiske, who's probably one of the authors of the paper originally cited,
has an office just down the hall from me at Lawrence Livermore.

Derek Wildstar <wildstar@qrc.com> writes:
>[the crunch gun]
>        With DS ammunition (a TL-8 item), these weapons have damage
>        and penetration equal to (or better than, particularly at
>        longer ranges) the FGMP-14 and FGMP-15 and can effectively
>        defeat all forms of personal armor, as well as the side,
>        deck, belly, and turret armor of the G-Carrier and the Grav Tank.

I hadn't realized the Grav Tank was quite so under-armoured. Are the more
recent designs (Regency Equipment, etc.) that bad too?

How does the crunch gun compare to energy weapons now that they've been
upgraded?

Bruce

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

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:38:51 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: 3G
Message-ID: <199512181838.NAA08189@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13: 00:49 EST
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13:38:51 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: >>: BTW: has anyone used 3G's weapons design system.  I have it, and am plann
ing
: : on trying it out over the holiday (I only get the 25th off).  I will let yo
u
: : know!
:
: >>I worship it!  I love it because it allows me to create a weapons and
: then convert them to my favorite games (TNE, MT, GURPS).  The only
: thing is that I've had some problems converting some TNE weapons from
: FFS to 3G^3.  Try designing the 10mm round for a snub pistol.
: FFS=606j, 3G^3=900j.  Obviously something doesn't jive here.  Now to
: find the fault (gives me something to do while I wait for Santa).<<
:
:
: Uh, what may I ask is 3G?

Guns! Guns! Guns!, Third edition (or 3G^3) for short is a weapons
design system put out by Blacksburg Tactical Research Center (BTRC).
Originally meant as a design system for BTRC's TimeLords game, it
expanded into a universal system.  It allows you to design weapons and
convert them from 3G^3 stats to (off the top of my head),
MegaTraveller, Twilight:2000, TORG, GURPS, Cyberpunk, CORPS,
TimeLords, and HERO.  It also contains notes on how to go about
converting to any other system.

The big plus is that it allows you to create a weapon and use it in
many games.  The big ones for us would be stuff like TNE, MT, and
GURPSify Traveller.

As a side note, it is currently being redrafted and a new printing
should be out in early 1996.  The only drawback is that the new
printing will not include the conversion notes for MT. 8(

I would also recommend getting it's companion piece More Guns!.  It
includes descriptions for over 500 weapons and conversion stats for
all of the aforementioned systems.  It also expands on the original
conversion notes presented in 3G^3.

And in case anyone is wondering, I have no affiliation with BTRC other
than being an absolutely satisfied customer.

       --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: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:36:33 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Guns
Message-ID: <199512181936.OAA11987@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Mon, 18 Dec 1995 13: 33:21 EST
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:36:33 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: >        defeat all forms of personal armor, as well as the side,
: >        deck, belly, and turret armor of the G-Carrier and the Grav Tank.
:
: I hadn't realized the Grav Tank was quite so under-armoured. Are the more
: recent designs (Regency Equipment, etc.) that bad too?

I think what Dave Nielsen says at the beginning of the RVSB explains
everything.  To sum up, the TNE conversions tried to be faithful to
the original CT and MT incarnations of our favorite toys.
Unfortunately not everything is completely transferable between the
Striker/MT/FFS design sequences.

So, what are we to do?  Personally, I leave the designs alone.
There's no use picking on them when all they're trying to be is
historically accurate.

       --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 518
***************************
