From ???@??? Thu Aug 01 22:41:38 1996
X-State:  3
X-Total-length:     32801
Received: from NS.MPGN.COM (NS.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.254]) by mail-e2b-service.gnn.com (8.7.1/8.6.9) with SMTP id EAA18995; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 04:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by NS.MPGN.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) id DAA27938 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 29 Jul 1996 03:20:28 -0400
X-UIDL: 838963120.143
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 03:20:28 -0400
Message-Id: <199607290720.DAA27938@NS.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
To: traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
Subject:   Traveller-digest V1996 #296
Reply-To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Errors-To: owner-traveller-digest@MPGN.COM
Precedence: bulk


Traveller-digest            Monday, 29 July 1996        Volume 1996 : Number 296

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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

         1. Re: Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick...
         2. Terra: 1965 / Atmomic Safety
         3. ***!!!! ID4 SPOILER !!! ****
         4. TRTOOLS for Windows
         5. Re: J-drives
         6. Re: J-drives
         7. Re: Announcement and request for help
         8. Re: ID4 SPOILER WARNING!!
         9. A plea for help...
        10. Re: Starship configuration and slope effects on armor
        11. **** ID4 SPOILER ALERT ****
        12. Re: Traveller - Tactics, fighters and acceleration.
        13. Re: FF&S 2: Hulls (aka the G thing)

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

From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 01:45:52 PST
Subject: Re: Nitpick, nitpick, nitpick...

In mail you write:

> Thus spake shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson):
>
>> A lot of these things are *toxic*, which is a different matter. Arsenic
>> is 30 times more toxic than plutonium. 
>
> I might have read the Guiness Book of World Records wrong, but I think 
> that it's the other way 'round.  Plutonium is the most toxic material 
> known (or at least was in 1985 or so).

Plutonium's *chemical toxicity* is 1/30th that of Arsenic. The much
vaunted "most toxic material on earth" bit is based on what the
radaition does if the plutonium gets into your bones and sits there for
a long time. In more realistic terms, plutonium isn't even in the
running.

The amount it takes to kill you (via long term cancer or the like) is a
lot larger than things like botulina toxin.

> Of course, it's got lots of other 
> nasty properties, too.  For instance, it's so reactive that it'll spark 
> on contact with other metals.  If it's being machined, it must occur in 
> an inert gas atmosphere to keep the shavings from bursting into flame on 
> contact with oxygen.  Once it's burning, it's damn hard to extinguish.

That's true of a *lot* of metals. most of the metals from the
transition sections of the periodic chart are either very stable (the
iron/nickel/cobalt group and the platinum and rhodium groups) or else
they are very reactive.

Heck, there's a specific type of fire extinguisher for "exotic metal
fires" (Class D). 

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

From: Les Howie <lhowie@novalis.ca>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 14:12:00 -0300
Subject: Terra: 1965 / Atmomic Safety

Wildstar  wrote:

>Back in the 50's, not as much was known about the hazards of radiation.  To
>make the "Terra: 1965" setting workable, you'd have to assume that the
>radiation hazard from fission power was a lot lower in that "universe".

You're not suggesting that "our friend the atom" is dangerous, are you? Hey,
you must be some kind of commie! Police!

Seriously, I would halve the required shielding, and take a good look at the
long term effects of radiation exposure. Remember, this is 1965, and an
accelerated technology version at that.  Leornard wanted a dark future,
here's part of it.

PS: I was 8 in 1965.  Even in the real future, the ecology movement was
still not on anybodies mind where I lived.
Les Howie
Senior Software Developer
NovaLIS Technologies
Halifax NS
lhowie@novalis.ca


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

From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 15:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: ***!!!! ID4 SPOILER !!! ****

**** !!!!! WARNING! THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS SPOILERS OF INDEPENDENCE DAY 
**** !!!!

Oliver Stone's screenplay of ID4 was unfortunately rejected, but went 
something like this:

A young Bill Gates worked for a time at Area 51 as a civilian contractor,
analyzing the Roswell vehicle.  The Roswell vehicle's systems have always
been more or less functional.  He figured out how its computer software
worked, and realized that it could be run, but slowly, on IBM mainframes. 
When he left Area 51, he set out to develop DOS, which is based entirely
on alien algorithms (as anyone who has used DOS will testify).  DOS
eventually mutated into Windows, and effectively conquered the world. 

The aliens arrive and are able to take over our satellite systems because
their communications software is compatible with ours.  (Query whether 
the Roswell crash was really an accident -- or did the aliens want to 
saddle us with computer operating systems that would keep us weak and 
off-balance?)

They then begin their swath of destruction and conquest.  David ends up in
Area 51, and spends a little time with the Roswell craft.  He soon
realizes that the whole world is actually running alien software on 75% of
its computers (or whatever Microsoft's market share is).  He also realizes
that the software is inherently kludgy and prone to failure, and starts to
write a simple virus on his PowerPC (so Apple gets its product placement,
but the virus is still IBM/MS compatible) to take advantage of the
weaknesses in the Windows BEM ("Bug Eyed Monsters") operating system.  He
soon realizes, however, that he'll never get the virus done in time to
save the world, but in flash of inspiration realizes that a virus that
maximizes the problems of the Windows system already exists! 

Soon, he and Capt. Hiller are aloft and being captured by the mother ship. 
The mother ship contacts the Roswell craft.  After the mother ship's and
the Roswell craft's computers have shaken hands, David uploads his virus,
which causes all systems aboard the mother ship and every ship linked to
it to crash as their computers' memories get completely consumed. 

That's right, David uploads Windows95.

- --Glenn


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

From: Michael Bailey <mickb@thehub.com.au>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 09:06:10 -0900
Subject: TRTOOLS for Windows

Blery Hell meneer...yet another verdomde piece of Traveller software
(sorry...just read Larry Bond's 'Vortex').

TRTOOLS for Windows is in it's early, bug ridden stages.  In a couple of
days it'll even have limited functionality, so I thought that I'd call for
volunteers to check it out and help me nail down the bugs.  I'm writing it
mainly to learn the ins and outs of Windows programming using TPW 1.5, so
don't expect too much at this early stage.

However, if you do want to take a look, give me a yell, and as soon as I get
it into some sort of shape, I'll send it off.

Thanx,

Michael (bloody Windows API...) Bailey


Michael Bailey 

'quick to judge, quick to anger, slow to understand.  Ignorance and
prejudice and fear walk hand in hand.'
                             Rush, 'The Witchhunt'


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

From: Paul Kestner <pjwk@erols.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 19:44:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: J-drives

At 08:00 7/24/96 -0400, Stu wrote:
>
Quoted From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
       Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 22:56:12 -0800

> On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, David Jaques-Watson wrote:
> 
> > 2.	RESTRICTED J-DRIVE SALES
> > 
> > Now, here is an interesting topic. Does the Imperium restrict jump drives?
> > 
>I think that there is 1 very simple restriction that would keep high 
>j-drives from being used in most applications: economics.  If you use 
>the old 10% of hull fuel capacity for the drives, it just isn't 
>economical to be cavorting around in a J-6 ship...unless of course 
>you're a naval vessel, or something else that is run without regard 
>to cost...

    yes and no... The Third Imperium did control who got the J-5 and J-6
ships by means of having repersentitives on or in all the major banks that
would finance the purchase of same.   If some group that was not to well
thought of did come up with the capital, the bureaucratic mase of forms and
permits would prevent delivery until a 'construction accident' could be
arranged to force a complete scrap of the hull and starting again.  With
construction times excceding a year, this is not a insignifficant delay, so,
most people would take there insurance payoff and quit.  All sorts of things
could happen to affect the construction, the shipyard could be put into
bankruptcey, the shipyard could loose it certification licence.   And most
of these subtle forms of control, with some lesser effect, would extend to
client state areas and fringe border worlds.
    This control by means of influence is not by any means 'airtight', it is
just a filter so to speak.  J-6 ships will get built before there owners get
identified as hostile to Imperial/Megacorperation/Local High Noble
interests.   The new owners have there own influence and bureaucratic
manuvering skill to bring to bear.  A few high jump capacity ships in
non-imperial forces / non-megacorperation hands is not seen as a direct
threat, but something to be watched.  The most concern would be a rival to
the J-6 information relay network, which would be very hard to do with just
one ship.   As a rival on trade routes the megacorps (or even large corps)
would move in there own J-6 ships and under bid you until you went away, if
this was a trade route they really wanted.
   As a final back-up, if the owners are truly hostile to Imperial well
being, they will break some law, and become the targets of the Imperial navy
and/or law enforcement.

All of this is 'In My Humble Opinion', and how I run my campaign.
....
Paul Kestner  a.k.a.  pjwk@erols.com
parting remark: "The Devil hides in the details."
....


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

From: "Stuart L. Dollar" <sdollar@goodnet.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 18:02:02 -0800
Subject: Re: J-drives

On 28 Jul 96 at 19:44, Paul Kestner spewed:

> At 08:00 7/24/96 -0400, Stu wrote:
> >
> > > Now, here is an interesting topic. Does the Imperium restrict jump drives?
> > > 
> >I think that there is 1 very simple restriction that would keep high 
> >j-drives from being used in most applications: economics.  If you use 
> >the old 10% of hull fuel capacity for the drives, it just isn't 
> >economical to be cavorting around in a J-6 ship...unless of course 
> >you're a naval vessel, or something else that is run without regard 
> >to cost...
> 
>     yes and no... The Third Imperium did control who got the J-5 and J-6
> ships by means of having repersentitives on or in all the major banks that
> would finance the purchase of same.   If some group that was not to well

I doubt the Third Imperium would have this pervasive of 
control...  And define a major bank...  Probably any bank that had 
operations on any world with a decent size pop, a class A starport 
and a TL 14-15 world...which is what we're talking about at Jump 5 or 
6...is going to be able to finance the construction of starships...  
We'd be talking hundreds of banks on any single world...  Yes there 
might be a few major players with major market share, but Fred's 
community bank on Australia should be able to fund a few starships...

Of course, going back to my economic argument...  They might have a 
hard time justifying where the money is going to come from to pay 
back the loan, if they're a small operation...

It won't be exclusively megacorps that run J-5 & 6 ships, but if 
you've got PC's running independently owned Jump 6 ships as tramp 
freighters, things are particularly realistic either.

I say again, that its going to take a fairly large operation to be 
able to afford to run expensive J-6 ships that can't in and of 
themselves break even carrying cargo or speculative cargoes...

It isn't even really a good investment for planetary navies to run 
J-6 ships...      

Stu

> bankruptcey, the shipyard could loose it certification licence.   And most
> of these subtle forms of control, with some lesser effect, would extend to
> client state areas and fringe border worlds.

Actually, everything I've seen of the Imperium tells me that they 
wouldn't interfere in such matters unless they perceived them to be a 
grave threat to internal/external security...

If Earth is any example, the Imperium will be very reluctant to sell 
their best technology to any but the best of friends under most 
circumstances...

Generally speaking, its going to take a large operation to do 
this...and a larger operation is either going to tow the Imperial 
line...at least outwardly, or they'll get squashed like a bug by a 
Megacorp/Imperial combination...  

The Imperium could probably give a rip about whether a PC group owns 
a J-5 or 6 ship, as long as they pay the bills, and don't engage in 
piracy...  But if they start buying lots of them, and begin running a J-6 
Fed Ex style service???  Then things would get sticky...

Stu
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" -Isaac Asimov, from "Foundation"
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tagline brought to you by Big Ed's Taco Emporium, conveniently located next to
Bob's Pet Shop.
Stuart L. Dollar           sdollar@goodnet.com    

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

From: Larry Hadley <lhadley@knet.flemingc.on.ca>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 21:12:35 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Announcement and request for help

On Sat, 27 Jul 1996, Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> What I need from y'all is some feedback on what you want to see in ACQ.
> Remember short range for now, so discussion of telescopic scopes and the
> like are right out.  I want a combat system that will leave players sweating
> as they wonder if they should spend their last two AP and open the hatch, or
> cower with gun ready..
> 
> Ball is in your court, ladies and gentlemen and Vargr, oops, sorry.. that's
> a hand grenade.

  Cover fire (overwatch) and suppression fire are an absolute necessity.
Any system that doesn't take that into account is nothing but an arcade
shoot-em-up. I like to see a system where realistic tactics work.

  Make people predeclare their AP usage before following up. eg: "I'm
firing a burst and ducking behind the barrel" 

- -- DLH "Warhammer"                           lhadley@knet.flemingc.on.ca
   Traveller stuff for sale/trade.
   http://www.knet.flemingc.on.ca/~lhadley/Profile.html

"...I do my job the best way I know. I'll keep on doing that. If somebody
gets killed, OK. Nobody lives forever, and I don't have any friends on the
other end of the muzzle"
  - Danny Pritchard



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

From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <gpvll@hk.super.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 10:21:09 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: Re: ID4 SPOILER WARNING!!

        It is now clear that ID$, rather than going down in cinematic
history as "yet another promising SF film ruined by a really stupid ending
with titanic alien vessels getting nuked in orbit, just like Stargate which
was also directed by whatsisname", will instead become venerated in years to
come as a repository of collected tidbits of wisdom, much like the Analects
of Confucius or Aristotle's Ethics.

        It may be presumptuous, but I would like to add the following to the
no-doubt endlessly growing canon of interpretation that viewers of ID$, in
awe of its profundity, will compile:

"41.    Aliens are so dumb that they'll build mother ships 1/4 the size of
Earth's Moon, fleets of flying saucers the size of cities, and swarms of
attack craft to conduct a planetary invasion, yet they will draw the line at
deploying a few simple communications satellites.  Instead, they prefer to
use the target planet's satellite network, no matter how primitive and
unfamiliar the technology, thereby causing interference that mere cable
repairmen can decode,  permitting him to foil their nefarious plans."

"42.    Aliens don't have the Bomb."

"43.    Aliens are so dumb that they build 20-km wide Destroyers, at a
no-doubt enormous cost, to wipe out cities when all they had to do was
utilize Earth's own gravity well against us and wipe out our cities by
dropping rocks on them."
 

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


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

From: Roderick Darroch Elliott <gpvll@hk.super.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:28:29 +0800 (HKT)
Subject: A plea for help...

        As part of an ongoing discussion pertaining to an upcoming Traveller
campaign, to be ref'd by TML subscriber Ross Coburn (aka The Prince of
Darkness), a friend (who shall remain anonymous for his character's safety)
wrote me the following:

>
>okay, ross says I'm not supposed to tell you about fusion or plasma weapons,
>so I won't.
>

        So... is there anyone out there willing to brief me (via private
email so that Ross can't see it happening; it'll drive him nuts) on plasma
and fusion weapons and anything else of a lethal nature that he wouldn't
want me knowing about?

        Thanks in advance...

:)
 

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


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

From: Paul Kestner <pjwk@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 00:19:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Starship configuration and slope effects on armor

   Has anyone considered the slope effects of armor caused by hull
configuration?
Example: a  wedge shape recieving hostile (or freindly) fire from the bow-on
direction, if hit someplace other than right on the nose, would likely
encounter a 60 degree plus angle slope to the hull.   If this was a vehicle
vice starship design that armor slope would cause a doubling of the armor
effect.
   I suppose that effects could be calculated for all twenty surface areas
of the ship, but an additional complication for recieving fire from the
broadside arc is ship rotation around it's main fore/aft axis.  At one point
in the rotation the angle of incoming fire could be close to 90 degrees,
(hull surface location 10) coming down from the top side of the ship.   As
the ship rotates around the angle of incoming fire would see more and more
'slope' until the ship was edge-on (hull surface locations 7,9,13, and 15)
as viewed from the attacker.   Futher rotation would bring you back to
almost a 90 degree incomming angle (hull surface location 11) as shots come
up at the bottom of the ship.

Any ideas on a playable solution to this?
....
Paul Kestner  a.k.a.  pjwk@erols.com
parting remark: "The Devil hides in the details."
....


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

From: sudet@well.com (Glenn M. Goffin)
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 22:48:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: **** ID4 SPOILER ALERT ****

**** THIS MESSAGE CONTAINS INDEPENDENCE DAY SPOILERS.*****

***** ID4 SPOILERS ARE COMING UP *****




**** JUST A FEW MORE LINES TO THE ID4 SPOILERS *****



Oliver Stone's screenplay for Independence Day was unfortunately rejected,
but went something like this:

A young Bill Gates worked for a time at Area 51 as a civilian contractor,
analyzing the Roswell vehicle.  The Roswell vehicle's systems have always
been more or less functional.  Gates figured out how its computer software
worked, and realized that it could be run, but slowly, on IBM mainframes.
When he left Area 51, he set out to develop DOS, which is based entirely on
the Roswell craft's computer's alien algorithms (as anyone who has used DOS
will testify).  DOS eventually mutated into Windows, and effectively
conquered the world.

The aliens arrive and are able to take over our satellite systems because
their communications software is compatible with ours -- query whether the
Roswell crash was actual an intentional act by the aliens, to give us
computer systems that would keep us perpetually off-balance and weak.  

The aliens then begin their swath of destruction and conquest.  David ends
up in Area 51, more or less per the final script, and then spends some time
with the Roswell craft. He soon realizes that the whole world is actually
running alien software on 75% of its computers (or whatever Microsoft's
market share is).  He also realizes that the software is inherently kludgy
and prone to failure, and starts to write a simple virus on his PowerPC (so
Apple gets its product placement, but the virus is still IBM/MS compatible)
to take advantage of the weaknesses in the WindowsBEM ("Bug Eyed Monsters")
operating system.  He soon realizes, however, that he'll never get the virus
done in time to save the world, but in flash of inspiration realizes that a
virus that maximizes the problems of the Windows system already exists!

Soon, he and Capt. Hiller are aloft and are captured by the mother ship.
The mother ship contacts the Roswell craft.  After the mother ship's and the
Roswell craft's computers have shaken hands, David uploads his virus, which
causes all systems aboard the mother ship and every ship linked to it to
crash as their computers' memories get completely consumed. 

That's right, David uploaded Windows95.

- --Glenn


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

From: Paul Kestner <pjwk@erols.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 02:53:25 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Traveller - Tactics, fighters and acceleration.

Quoted from: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
    on Date: 22 Jul 96 12:47:47 +1000
         in: Traveller-digest V1996 #277

     Why use fighters if they can't achieve greater acceleration than a 
     capital ship? Because they're FASTER. 
     
     ?Huh? It's true. A fighter in space can be launched with the same 
     initial speed as the carrier, PLUS whatever velocity the launch tubes 
     give (don't tell me that launch tubes are just long gunbarrels that 
     the fighter flies down, a la some crummy space opera - those buggers 
     are magnetic railguns that shoot fighters into the sky). 
     
     So a 6G carrier accelerating towards its target launches a squadron of 
     fighters, giving maybe a 20-30G boost over the length of the launch 
     tubes (catch your lunch, flyboy). This would have your fighter leaving 
     the carrier at maybe 500m/s faster than the carrier itself (somebody 
     check my calculations, please!). The carrier can then peel off and 
     withdraw to a safe distance, leaving the relatively 'disposable' 
     fighters to hit the enemy capital ships. 
 <snip>

   Nice idea, but it needs work.

   The problem is 'only' 500m/s faster than the mothership would not be
significant in game terms of 30,000 km per hex.   A speed change of 16,667
m/s is needed to alter you velocity by one hex. (or range band)  I got that
figure by dividing the distance of 30,000,000 meters (one hex or range band)
by a game turn (1/2 hour or 1800 seconds).
   And, I think I may have found a way to do this....
   I didn't use a magnetic mass driver because of the G forces put upon the
pilot (300 plus G's) would kill them.
   Instead, I used artifical gravity tractors  <tractors / repulsors are is
FF&S chapter 6 Defensive Systems>.  A gravity field would accellerate all
parts of an object equally, so no G forces would be felt by any parts of the
object.   No G stress,  neat , huh...

   Mount the tractors around the opening at one end of the launch tube.
Insert object at the other end and the tractors start pulling it towards
them.   Accelleration continues, (except for the last 100 meter or so of the
launch tube where the tractors are appliying course correcting pulls to
prevent the now very very fast object from hitting the sides of the launch
tube), untill the missile emerges from the launch tube.   If you have
repulsors, you may now start pushing away the object giving it more speed.
   The formula for speed is accelleration muliplied by time.
  < V = A * T >
   Time depends on the lenght of the launch tube and the accelleration
applied. (the more accelleration you use, the faster you go.   The faster
you go, the less amount of time your in the launch tube.)  So, there is a
formula to figure out time.   It is  'Time equals Square Root of ( distance
divided by acceleration )
 < T = Sqrt ( D / A ) >
   So... let us take a 1/2 ton missile, a 1000 meter launch tube, (a hugh
ship with needle configureation to carry it), and plug in some numbers and
see what speed we get....  (we will count only 900 meters of the launch
tube, as we are using the last 100 meters for course corrections)  And lets
use 900 G's for acceleration at 9.8 m/s for 1 G.
  T = square root ( 900 / (900*9.8) ) equals 0.135526 seconds (time under
acceleration)
  V = ( 900 * 0.319438 )              equals 287.5 meters per second
  (someone please check my math -- I'm not sure if I inserted the 9.8 meter
per second for 1 gravity in the right place.  It makes a diferance if its
done before or after the square rooting.  thanks)

  I see that a launch tube lenght of 1000 meters is not enough, but at T.L.
14 tractors with a effective range of 10 kilometers are available.  Of
course you can't mount a 10,000 meter long launch tube on any ship, (maybe a
fortress moon or a big space station).   
  How about taking a ring shaped ship (like the 'Lab ship' only bigger),
mounting the tractors on the inner side of the dounut, and tossing a missile
/ fighter out, grabing it via tractors when it is 10 klicks away, and see
what speeds you get then, accerating it right thru the open middle of the
dounut / ship.   You don't need a launch tube for this idea to work, just a
long distance to accellerate in.

  Do you think it would work ???
  Do you think it works well enough to devote the hugh amounts of tonnage /
volume required for the tractors into a design.  And power, this thing would
drink megawatts of power.

....
Paul Kestner  a.k.a.  pjwk@erols.com
parting remark: "The Devil hides in the details."
....


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

From: Wes Payne <n9548326@cc.wwu.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 00:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: FF&S 2: Hulls (aka the G thing)

Thus spake "Matthew K. McLaughlin" <mkm@umr.edu>:

> David J. Golden wrote:

[snip]

> >         YES! I was afraid I'd get slammed as TOO detailed for suggesting a
> > merchant probably couldn't maneuver as quickly as a military vessel. But
> > this has been on my mind for some time. Say, several different levels of
> > "ACS packages" -- wallowing pig up to hummingbird.
> 
> This definitely needs to be looked at to some extent - it's the key to
> the whole fighter vs dreadnaught maneuverability thing.

[big snip]

> Even if the maneuver drive necessary to impart this energy and the
> structural reinforcement necessary to take the acceleration in varying
> directions is ignored, the energy output will obviously limit the
> maneuverability (agility) of large ships.  Particularly since the
> fighter can afford to burn all its fuel in a couple of hours and refuel,
> while the ships of the line need to be able to hold out for a while.
> 
> There is a drastic need to put an agility fix in the rules.

Of course, the ship combat rules will need to be written to account for 
differences in agility as well.  In Brilliant Lances, the only 
'maneuverability' determinant was acceleration; ships that had higher 
accelerations could devote some of their burns (g-turns) to evasion and 
still have some left over to alter their vector.  Any variations in 
agility (rate of turn, or whatever) between different ships with 
identical acceleration ratings had no effect.

The fix?  In MT, the design rules included allocating energy for agility, 
but it was unclear how this energy was spent, which bugged me.  Sure, 
some of it could be spent overdriving thruster plates, and I imagine that 
such a thing could be done with HEPlaR drives, but this doesn't help with 
the (admittedly rare) cases where the ship is being pushed by a thruster 
that doesn't require wattage (such as chemical rockets).  The "Starship 
Operator's Manual" (also for MT) paid some lip service to internal gyro 
systems that were used to rapidly change a ship's orientation, but these 
gyros were not factored in anywhere in the design or combat rules.  
Where, for instance, does the immense damage caused by a free-spinning 
and errant gyroscope come into play?

Anyway, I hate to throw this in now that at least two versions of the 
ship design rules have been finished, but how 'bout this:  Put gyroscopes 
back into the rules which affect a ship's agility depending on the amount 
of energy input.  After all, the SOM stated that the gyro used gravitic 
generators which imparted rotational forces on the ship by pushing 
against the spinning gyro mass.  A more agile ship would have a greater 
gyro mass (relative to the ship's total mass) than a less agile ship, and 
would have more power allocated to running it.  Especially on thruster 
ships, this would serve to offset the advantage over ships requiring 
reaction mass, such as those using HEPlaR drives.  The dangers of gyro 
systems would be, of course, the potential damage caused by a 
free-spinning mass tearing its way through the ship, and the potential 
loss of maneuverability caused by gyro failure, especially if the gyro 
itself had to be ejected from the ship to prevent internal damage.

Naturally, large ships would also require greater internal bracing to 
withstand the stresses caused by sudden rotational forces.  I also 
suspect, although I don't have the required texts/formulae handy, that 
there would be some sort of diminishing return as ships got larger, so 
that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to build large ships as 
agile as smaller ones.  Of course, a little gravitic handwaving would 
also accomplish this.

Is this food for thought, or did I just confuse the issue even more?

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
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?" 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------


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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #296
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.COM".  If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
