Traveller-digest           Tuesday, 23 July 1996       Volume 1996 : Number 280

(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

         1. Re: Fighters and acceleration
         2. Re: Fighters and acceleration
         3. Re: A paid commercial announcement
         4. Re: Terran History:  Canada
         5. Vanier college (off topic)
         6. Re: Fighters and acceleration
         7. Re: mispronounced names
         8. Re: Psionic auto-mindprobe? (Td V96#271)
         9. Fighters and Excessive G's
        10. Re: Virus of my Virus
        11. Re: Fighters and acceleration
        12. The G Thing
        13. Re: Jump Drives
        14. Re: Fighters in SPACE
        15. Re: Magazine Name
        16. Re: Black Curtain
        17. Re: Psionic auto-mindprobe? (Td V96#271)

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

From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 17:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters and acceleration

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Eris Reddoch wrote:

> 1.  Given 6g compensators, then 9g has the effect of 3g..not 9!
> While 3g would be uncomfortable a conditioned ( and that includes chemically
> conditioned ), and properly positioned pilot could
> handle 3g's for several hours.
 I relize that, and it is possible with stock FFnS, but there are - diff
mods.

> 2.  Excess g's above 6 would contribute to a ship's agility.
> Agility would involve jinking and quick turns with timings in the seconds NOT
> half-hour.  A few seconds at 15g *could* be
> survived..given gravity compensation..and that would make *big*
> differences in combat.
 Hmm 15gs would make a big diff in dodging direct fire and KKMs, the
question is how do you know _when_ to apply the thrust?

> 3.  Your reference to half-hour relates to set game turns.  I don't play
> wargames with Traveller, I roleplay.  Half-hour's are fine for a wargame, but
> not for roleplaying a combat.
 Rember, the viability of everything and anything is based purley on game
rules. This is not to say that you don't have the right and the duty to
change it if it dosen't aggree with you.

> Finally, a question...if your fighter's cockpit was flooded with water
> providing neutral buoyancy for the pilot, and the computer system controlled
> both the grav compensators and water pressure, couldn't a pilot handle g
> forces in the 2 digit range?
 G-Tanks, their in FFnS.

bri <bri@teleport.com>
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the
poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread.      -- Anatole France


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

From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@usa.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 18:42:13 -0600
Subject: Re: Fighters and acceleration

At 10:20 pm 7/22/96 +0200, you wrote:
>James Lindsay wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, 22 Jul 1996 09:26:41 +0000, Glenn Crawford wrote:
>> 
>> > I always wondered why the 6G limit?
>>
>> The 6G limit is for maximum acceleration purposes of T-Plate and HEPlaR
>> drives only.
>
> Does it really state in FF&S that 6G is a limit? I can't recall 
>having read that. I quess I'll have to read the relevant pages 
>again. 

        It does not say that 6G is the upper limit for a ship. What it does
do is describe the game effects of uncompensated G's, that is G's above the
intertial compensation .

        And it does not describe anywhere a limit on T-Plate and HEPlaR
acceleration. T-Plate maybe you could wave your hands at and justify. But
since HEPlaR is just fancy reaction drive, Reality [(C) 4,004BC, God] laughs
at your feeble handwaving.
- --________________________________________________________________
   Dave Golden                           PGP Public Key available 
   goldendj@usa.net     http://www.usa.net/~goldendj/default.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


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

From: Darryl Adams <dtadams@ar.ar.com.au>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:43:59 +1000
Subject: Re: A paid commercial announcement

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Glenn M. Goffin wrote:

> >From: Darryl Adams <dtadams@ar.ar.com.au>
> 
> >Speak English ! There are no subtitles in this mailing list!!!
> 
> Tired of all those Vegans, Vilani, and Vargr polluting your race and
> language with their impossible to remember, let alone pronounce, words and
> phrases?  Losing touch with your kids because when you listen to their phone
> calls they're speaking 21st Century Japanese?  
> 
Gee, cant even quote the Goon show anymore. Next thing I know, the 
thought police will raid my place for having TNE in my collection.

Excuse me, the door is knocking... :-)

Darryl

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

From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <gpvll@hk.super.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:00:05 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: Re: Terran History:  Canada

        Darrly Adams wrote:

>
>From: Darryl Adams <dtadams@ar.ar.com.au>
>Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 16:45:18 +1000
>Subject: Re: Terran History: Canada
>
>On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:
>
>>         Maintenant, pour ceux d'entre nous qui ne parlons pas l'Allemand,
>> pourrais-tu nous traduire tout ca pour qu'on puisse decider s'il faut te
>> flamber ou non :)?
>
>Speak English ! There are no subtitles in this mailing list!!!
>
>
>(Misquting one of my favourate Goon Show lines :-)
>
>Darryl


        Oh, va donc chier, maudit Anglais :)! <--- the irony of this comment
is palpable...

        Actually, the whole French posting thing was in response to Glenn's
comment about Canada in German; I was just asking him to translate it so
that we non-German speakers could decide whether to flame him or not :).


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         From the desk of either                       |
|                                                                       |
|    Roderick Darroch Elliott                   John Stephen Wishart    |
|                                                                       |
|                           gpvll@hk.super.net                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


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

From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <gpvll@hk.super.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:00:09 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: Vanier college (off topic)

Ross Coburn wrote:

>
>Well, if you all want to compare poorly-designed buildings, take my
>(former) school, Vanier College in Montreal.
>
>Built in a cnoverted nunnery, the so-called New Building (imaginative,
>what) is located between a pair of cemeteries and over buried chemical
>waste. 

        Hmm... and so you, and Alan, and Steph all went there?  Explains a
lot...:)


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         From the desk of either                       |
|                                                                       |
|    Roderick Darroch Elliott                   John Stephen Wishart    |
|                                                                       |
|                           gpvll@hk.super.net                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 19:12:59 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters and acceleration

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Glenn Crawford wrote:

> > why use fighters...
>
> I always wondered why the 6G limit?
> Modern jets can routinely pull up to 10 or more.
> The only reaso I can think of is that maybe there was a dep't of
> health study and they decided that not only were all fighters to be
> non-smoking, there were not to pull more than compensated G's

Well, my players have kinda fractured that rule once or twice blasting
their drives at higher than their G rating.  Of course, the kinda
fractured their drives too.

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <gpvll@hk.super.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 10:17:41 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: Re: mispronounced names

Eris Reddoch wrote:

>
>On 07/22/96 at 08:53 AM,  Roderick Darroch Elliott
><gpvll@hk.super.net> said:
>
>>        Dude, I can relate.  I normally use my middle name,
>>"Darroch", which is pronounced much as it's spelled save for the last
>>"ch" which is this wierd Gaelic hard-ch deathrattle noise.  
>
>Pleased to meet you, I'm James Eris Reddoch..<g>..and it's more like
>clearing your throat than a deathrattle...but then I've never
>*actually* heard a deathrattle.  <g> I also go by my middle name, in
>honor of my Great Uncle Eris, so I know all about strange and
>mispronounced names.
>
>Eris

        Yeah... the "deathrattle" line is just something of an inside joke
:).  Strangely enough, I was also named for a greatuncle (my mother's), and
a godfather...

        In passing, if you think Standard North American English speakers
have a hard time pronouncing either "Darroch" or "Reddoch" properly, you
should hear Cantonese speakers.  On the other hand, my Cantonese
pronunciation is far, far worse, so..:)


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                         From the desk of either                       |
|                                                                       |
|    Roderick Darroch Elliott                   John Stephen Wishart    |
|                                                                       |
|                           gpvll@hk.super.net                          |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 19:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Psionic auto-mindprobe? (Td V96#271)

On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Derek Wildstar wrote:

> > Or is there a danger for an infinite recursive loop?
> > A finite recursive loop?
>
> Maybe.  Having the character go catatonic or into a coma wouldn't be very
> interesting for her player.  This could be an excuse for skipping a few
> sessions, though.  Bring it up as a possible risk, though - so that the
> player can feel good for sucessfully avoiding _that_ risk.

Norman Spinrad wrote a fairly relevant short story by the name of
_Carcinoma Angels_ in which a very motivated person sought to fight off
his cancer through an internal battle.   I was kinda like a major acid
trip/soul searching, and he did manage to fight off his cancer...he just
never woke up---he got stuck inside himself, so to speak.   I can't recall
where it showed up, IIRC it was in an Arthur C. Clarke edited short story
anthology (incidentally, with another story that would shed some insight
on the Virus debates...).

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Charles Pratt <tminus@u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 19:24:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fighters and Excessive G's

How much can a person in a Low Berth take G-wise?  And could this
technology be adapted for prolonged fighter G manuvers?  Once could set a
burn, get shut down in a Low Berth-type system, and then be roused after
the burn...I suppose it would be a little awkward, but I bet the G's that
could be taken would get up there...

- -----

        "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
        Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
"The gods do not protect fools. Fools are protected by more capable fools"
                                          -- Larry Niven, _Ringworld_


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Virus of my Virus

Thus spake derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>:

[Derek makes a minor RC/Regency mixup, and I zing him for it]

> You know I should have known this, and you are the first person to zing 
> me on it.  I was thinking about Peacemakers and Snakes.  There is a 
> section in the main TNE book about domesticated Viri in the Regency but 
> this is super secret.  Shhhhhhhh!!!  Don't tell anyone Shhhhhhhh!!!

Huh?  What?  I'm sorry; I wasn't paying attention.  I was busy wondering 
if the Regency Navy was trying to pull some sort of 'fast one' with their 
'Man Out Of the Loop' control systems for the Project Blackhart raider 
ships.  I'm probably just being paranoid.  I had a great uncle that used 
to live on Trin, y'know...

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@rt66.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:34:39 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters and acceleration

 
> I believe I read somewhere that the astronauts experience somewhere in the
> neighbourhood of about 3 G's of acceleration (1 of these Gees coming from
> the Earth's gravity of course).  The shuttle goes through a LOT of fuel
> during this time and it only has to travel a relatively short distance, so
> it might not really be a fair comparison either  :-)

How long is it to MECO?  A couple hundred seconds, I think.
 
- -Merrick

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

From: Les Howie <lhowie@novalis.ca>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 00:34:30 -0300
Subject: The G Thing

A little data.

Dole (Habitable Planets for Man) quotes some experiments on subjects WITHOUT
G SUITS but seated (averages)

5 G - 2 minutes to blackout
4 G - 8 minutes
3 G - an hour IN SOME SUBJECTS

Mobility was also interesting.  Subject had to move 7.5 feet under various
accelerations.  Average took 1.85 seconds under 1 G, 21.86 seconds under
3.16 G (did I mention they were allowed to crawl?) STRONGEST took 18.15
seconds under 4G (rest could not move)

On task completion -- average of 5 times as long to put on a parachute at 3
G as at 1G.

These numbers should be kept in mind when using over-G operation. I believe
FF&S gives some advantage for workstation, g-tank etc (totalling about 3G
max IIRC).  But damage control is gonna be a b****.  

While some high numbers have been quoted for fighter pilots in modern
G-suits, keep in mind that sudden lateral accelerations can be very
dangerous.  I knew a man who had flown a Spitfire in the Battle of Britain.
Did a high-G roll to get out of the way of the bullets.  He survived (much
to the doctor's surprise) and eventually most of his internal organs
returned to their accustomed places, but he never flew a fighter again.

My own guess (not backed up by traveller rules, but how I would play it) for
Over-G (that is, acceleration over compensation numbers)

1. Over-G is endurable on a fighter, but causes severe fatigue with matching
performance loss over time.  On a large ship, Over-G maneuvers cause a
percentaige of crew casualties, based primarily on alert status and damage
control.  Also causes increased crew fatigue.

2. No damage control activities during over-g maneuvers.  Crew casulaties on
large ships are multiplied by the number of G's over compensation
(workstations rip out, crew hit by flying debris.

While we're on a roll:

Ever notice that most ship deck plans have down facing lateral to the line
of acceleration -- rather like driving a car (or a Star Trek Starship, which
is much the same thing).  Seems nuts to me.  Bring her up to one G and you
are spending 1G to make down the floor, and another G to neutralize forward
thrust. Im MY universe, designs like that have an effective G compensation 1
less than they are designed for.  

Even if you don't do that, remember that as you go over G compensation down
slowly shifts from the floor, to the corner, to the back wall (say, is that
your coffee cup accelerating toward the captain at 3G?).  SO a 3
G-compensation ship doing 6G with a conventional design? Down is at about 45
degrees.  May as well stay in your chair, there aint NOTHING flat to stand
on.  What does that do to, say, the automatic missile reload system?  Not
only do things get heavier, they get heavier in directions they did not
start out being heavy in.  

This suggests that some systems should be more failure-prone at high G's.
Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
NovaLIS Technologies
Halifax NS
lhowie@novalis.ca


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 20:42:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Jump Drives

Thus spake Stewart Eyres <spe@astro.keele.ac.uk>:

>  Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu> said:
> 
> >As it stands, barring some error during the transition to J-space, or
> >the destruction of the ship, nothing that happens on board will change
> >the duration or destination of the voyage.

[Stewart reminds us of the hazards of hull breaches (and their effects on 
 the hull grid) before, during and after jump transition]
 
I believe one of the "Old Timer" anecdotes in the SOM involves the loss 
of the ship's medic-- a minute flaw in one of the capacitors (zuchai 
crystals) resulted in a hole being blown into the hull, the intrusion of 
the jump field into the medic's quarters, and the subsequent loss of the 
medic.  What happened to him/her?  I don't know.  He/she probably 
precipitated randomly out of J-space over the next week.  Ever hear about 
the battle rider that accidentally detached from its tender and contacted 
the field bubble during jump?  Somebody found part of one of its airlocks 
hundreds of years later and quite a few parsecs away.  Jump Space is Bad 
For You.

Of course, there can also be errors that, although subtler, are no less 
catastrophic.  In "The Madness Effect," an adventure published in one of 
the Challenge magazines (#75, I believe), a minute error in the 
computations led to a flaw in the jump field bubble, which began to 
unravel during the course of the trip through j-space, as the wierd 
physics of j-space began to leak in.  The ship in question became a very 
bad place to be, but actually survived the trip more or less intact.

In my campaign, the players have actually gotten into serious trouble for 
ejecting material from the ship while in jumpspace.  Of course, if the 
RQS inspectors ever learned that it was a rival, rather than a few cubic 
meters of garbage, that had gone jump-swimming, then they'd have been in 
even more trouble...

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Fighters in SPACE

Thus spake "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>:

[more snippage]

> Another possible advantage, non-canonical, which should/can be given to
> fighters and certain other small craft is a higher G limit.  I know, you
> say, 6G is the limit, but consider; Big vessels with large crews have the
> need for their crew to walk around and work at full acceleration.  This
> means the (canonical) limit of 6G is a restriction of the inertial
> compensators, not the actual manuver drive (whatever that may be).  You
> know as well as I do that fighter pilots in atmosphere have been known to
> take as much as 9G for brief periods of time.   We also know that there
> should be no barrier to increased acceleration with an increased manuver
> drive size and power input.  I would therefore postulate that a Traveller
> fighter craft could routinely accelerate at about 9G, this being 6G of
> 'compensated' acceleration and 3G of 'uncompensated' acceleration. 

Actually, you're not too far off canon, although there are no 'official' 
designs that I'm aware of that can pull better than 6G acceleration.  
With FF&S, this limitation becomes more and more artificial but, still, 
nobody seemed willing to break the 6G barrier.  At TL-15, inertial 
compensators can offset 6Gs and have everybody still moving about 
freely.  If they're strapped down in their workstations, the compensation 
figure is 7Gs.  What does this mean for small craft (like fighters) that 
have their crew strapped down in acceleration couches?  It means that 
even the most out of shape fighter pilots, not wearing g-suits, can 
regularly pull 9G maneuvers, because they're only actually feeling two or 
three Gs.  Imagine if all of the creature comforts afforded contemporary 
fighter pilots (excellent physical shape, reclined acceleration couches, 
g-suits) were combined with inertial compensators.  Fighters could be 
capable of incredible acceleration without fear of causing their pilots 
to black out.  
 
[what I've just typed pretty much mirrors Pete's next comment, which I 
 snipped] 

There are designs for missiles that exceed the 6G barrier.  For that 
matter, the external 'pod' that's maneuvered about by the gravitic 
manipulator (tractor/repulsor combination) on a Darrian Patrol Cruiser 
(from "Regency Sourcebook") can be pushed at 12Gs (although the inertial 
compensator can only offset 6 or 7 Gs).

> The problem now is that this makes fighters and small craft too important.
> Fighters now make critical long-range sensor platforms ("The eyes and
> ears" of a fleet or ship).  Plus, no small vessel will ever be able to
> outrun a fighter equipped unit in a straight chase.

The balance that needs to be struck for maximum playability, in my 
opinion, is one where large capital ships (battleships, dreadnoughts, and 
cruisers) are not invalidated by fighters and carriers, but where there 
is still a niche that fighters can fill.  Currently, there seems to be no 
significant cost advantage of fighter/carrier fleets as opposed to 
battleship-based fleets.  The difference is in how the fleet commanders 
utilize those respective assets.  My 'wild-ass guess' of employment 
involves battleships being the main striking arm of a fleet that does the 
close-in brawling with the opposition, while the carrier component of a 
fleet provides a stand-off capability, using its fighters to locate the 
enemy and engage him from a distance.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Magazine Name

Thus spake anwfh@orion.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman):

> >  So, it's time to come back to the lists, and ask for ideas.
> >  So that's what I'm doing.  Let me know what you think, both of
> >  my names, and of what you think a good name might be.
> 
> Electronic Imperial Information Exchange (EIIE)
> 
> Imperial Review
> 
> Imperial Wanderings
> 
> William F. Hostman

Those all seem like good suggestions, although it's not immediately 
apparent to me why he'd want to name his E-zine "William F. Hostman".

Oh, that's your .SIG!  Sorry...

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Payne, known to you as:  n9548326@cc.wwu.edu
Western Washington University -- Bellingham, WA -- The Great Northwet!  
"What is FUN?  Why is it usually colored BRIGHT PINK, and where does
 it go when JESSE HELMS comes around?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

From: derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:20:51 -0700
Subject: Re: Black Curtain

bill hutchinson wrote:
> 
> I notice the black curtain on pg.79 in new era 001-1201 map.
> What is it????
> 
> The black curtain is an event horizon of sorts.  Nothing comes out and 
nothing that goes in comes out.  No one knows what's in there.  the Black 
Curtian is Traveller the New Era's equivelent of a large sign reading, 
"Here be Dragons."  

Derek Stanley

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

From: derek stanley <dstanley@direct.ca>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:30:22 -0700
Subject: Re: Psionic auto-mindprobe? (Td V96#271)

Tom Ellis wrote:
> 
>Derek commented the a poor ref would simply disallow this, and I 
>diagree. In my campaign telepathy has no effect on the telepath for a 
>reason.  They do not read their own "frequency", to be brief.  Self 
>probe would be a "Special" talent in my Imperium.

I hope you're refering to the other Derek, Derek Wildstar that is.  By 
the way nice spelling of your name there Derek, pretty classy name.

I haven't commented on this, yet...  I've been giving it a fair amount of 
thought.  I think you should be able to do it, but not without 
supervision otherwise you might get lost in there.  Or you might 
encounter something you didn't particularly want to find.  Though this is 
up to the GM as to what the player finds.  I think the largest problem 
would be figuring out how to break the connection once initiated, it's 
kind of a loop that you might never find an end to.

Don't try this at home kids.

Derek Stanley

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #280
**********************************
