TRAVELLER Digest 581

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Zho's and the Empress Wave by E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
  2) Re: Why streamline ships? by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  3) Things to keep in Traveller Mk. IV by Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
  4) construction worker by b.borich@genie.com
  5) Re: MM on AOL by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
  6) YARS-Don't Borrow, Steal by angus.mclellan@almac.co.uk (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
  7) Technology by marcher@cccp.net (Mark Archer)
  8) GDW=Controlling force? by "V.A.G." <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
  9) Re: Why Streamline Spaceships -it's not needed! by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
 10) Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT) by "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
 11) Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT) by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
 12) Jump torps by anders.backman@macademic.se (Anders Backman)
 13) Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT) by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 14) Query by Bri <bri@teleport.com>

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

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 22:58:59 +0000
From: E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
To: traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: Re: Zho's and the Empress Wave
Message-ID: <0099D6DC.D53B1AA0.1@v2.qub.ac.uk>

David sent:

>3)  Somehow, the coreward Longbow stations were affected by
>    it, so it is unlikely Zhodani-specific.

I actually think that the stations reported as being destroyed at the
start of Survival Margin have to be Zhodani stations of some sort, maybe
core expedition support stations. They can't be Longbow stations, as the
RSB identifies Longbow as large baseline Radio/EMS Telescope occupying a
Depot solar system in the Imperium. The confusion probably arises because
GDW mightn't have been clear on what Longbow and the Empress Wave were
exactly when penning the piece put in Survival Margin.


My ideas on the Empress Wave is that Zhodani colonists in the Chitterabl (?)
sector revolted against the focus the Zho Govt put on the Core expeditions,
to the detriment of their sector's development. Chitterabl sector is 250
parsecs coreward of the Consulate, and was, in my opinion, initially developed
to support the coreward missions.

So the sector revolts, some time in the distant past. The Rebel leader recovers
an Ancient psi-amp device (or Grandfather drops it in her path), and fires off
a psionic blast in the direstion of incoming ships. A blast which continues
to propagate rimward.......

What does the wave do? Kill psions? Rob them of their powers? Who knows?

One way out for some Zho Nobles and Intendants could be to use a starship to
'jump' over the wavefront, and become the new rulers on a coreward Zho world.
We know that Jumpspace is very different from Normal Space, so maybe the
Wave doesn't affect people in jump.

Eamon.


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

Date: Sun, 04 Feb 1996 17:13:49 -0700
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why streamline ships?
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960205001349.006f96a8@lynx.csn.net>

At 02:07 am 2/4/96 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Phillip McGregor made some excellent points on the pointlessness of
>atmospheric streamlining for spacecraft.  In summary, he points out that
>if you can hover in a g-field using CG, you can re-enter at 100 mph, waft
>down gently, and not worry about what shape your vehicle is.
>
>I've always thought exactly the same thing!  Especially during the CT/MT
>"thruster plate" era, when delta-vee was practically free and limitless
>(ah, those were the days...), I could never understand why pilots of
>unstreamlined craft didn't just match speeds with the upper atmosphere,
>then drift "straight down" (in the rotating planet's frame, of course) at
>some nice, gentle speed for a soft landing.  Unless starship exteriors are
>made of spun sugar, I can't imagine typical atmospheric stresses on an
>essentially motionless object being a problem.  Now, land in a hurricane,
>and you're in trouble -- but that's probably true for streamlined craft,
>as well.

        That's the way I've always played it. As long as you kept your
airspeed down low, it didn't matter how streamlined you were. Granted, in a
hurricane you don't have as much control over your airspeed ...

>Now, if you're a *military* vehicle, "hanging in mid-air" is equivalent to
>"upcoming cloud of expanding plasma."  So for fighting craft,
>streamlining, even airframing, make perfect sense.  You want atmospheric
>maneuverability if folks are lobbing weapons at you.  But for merchants,
>shuttles, liners, and virtually every other civilian spacecraft,
>streamlining makes no sense.  Even if you want to get from point A to

        Yup. For me, unstreamlined craft have been able to _land_ on most
planets. Maneuvering (or wilderness refueling) was a different story.
Maximum speed would have been under 100kph in an "earth-normal" atmosphere,
going down in higher densities and up in lower densities.

        As for the "Contra Gravity," I was never able to "suspend my
disbelief" for that. "It magically cuts the weight of everything within the
field by 99%" -- I ditched that real quick and assumed that the
ContraGravity generators could generate a force parallel and opposite to
gravity, and proportional to the local gravity (i.e. low gravity -- low
force. High gravity -- high force). That way, they couldn't be used for
horizontal propulsion, which stayed consistent with the way CG actually
worked in TNE. I never got around to figuring out details for how much force
it could exert. I just waved my hands and said each ship's CG was sized to
exactly counteract the ship's local weight and no more. So ships could hover
or land under CG, but needed thrust to go higher or move horizontally.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

  "Faith is not belief without knowledge.
   Faith is trust without reservation." -- unknown


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

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 16:36:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Things to keep in Traveller Mk. IV
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960204163126.16672A-100000@hollywood.cinenet.net>


While we're on the subject of what MM should keep in the upcoming
"Traveller:  The Even Newer Era," let me put my *strong* vote in for
retaining FF&S.  To my way of thinking, FF&S, even with all its warts, is
one of the most remarkable pieces of gaming technology ever developed --
and a lot of people have put a great deal of time and effort into using
and extending it.  Note that with its "alternate technologies," FF&S
could (for example) easily support a conversion back to CT/MT "thruster
plate" M-drives.

Note that I also support a modular shipbuilding approach for all the
non-gearheads out there, but this approach should be compatible with (a
proper subset of) FF&S, with published designs in FF&S terms for the
modular subsystems.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Berry                      CompuServe cancellation ID: 11089132
cberry@cinenet.net               Don't support Net censorship!
---------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Mon,  5 Feb 96 02:14:00 UTC 0000
From: b.borich@genie.com
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: construction worker
Message-ID: <199602050253.AA063858786@relay1.geis.com>

    <I would agree with this; who wants to play a 58th century
construction worker?> I would, given certain types of campaigns available
in TNE, or CT before the background was out (or as it was played when I
first started). Even in MT if some products had reached publication.

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

Date: Sun, 4 Feb 1996 22:37:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: MM on AOL
Message-ID: <199602050337.WAA23707@Central.KeyWest.MPGN.COM>

Forgive me if someone else has answered this, but I have 108 new messages
to go through and I haven't read past this one yet :-)

> <groan> Well that sucks. I wonder how much MM got paid for that one!<snicker>
>  Why dosen't he make a listerv? It would be CHEAPER for everyone
> involve... Oh wait, he's getting paid for this, nevermind.
>  Too many careers? Hardly, they'res not enoufgh.
>  Why not play a construciton worker? Not *everyone* is a commando, you know.

Well thats not quite the way it works.  You see Marc pays AOL his 10.95 +
usage like every other AOL person.  The original poster did not explain where
this was.  In the gaming area under game developers there is a thread of
messages that was started I think by the forum manager about the demise of
GDW and What would happen to Traveller.  He had sent mail to Marc and was
posting his interpretation of Marc's response.  Marc posted the same letter
that he posted here (Jan 7th I think) as well as a complete listing of all
Traveller products published by GDW (which was kinda neet).  The rest of the
commentary is provided by AOL subscribers who are Traveller fans.

The point is:

   a) Marc did not open the forum
   b) It is not a Traveller Specific forum, only a Traveller thread
   c) I doubt he is getting paid, but rather suspect that he is paying...

Rob

--
Rob Miracle (rwm@mpgn.com)   | GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
Contrary to popular belief,  | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
I don't know what I'm doing. | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++

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

Date: Fri, 02 Feb 96 09:59:00 +0100
From: angus.mclellan@almac.co.uk (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: YARS-Don't Borrow, Steal
Message-ID: <8BA0257.1400018EC7.uuout@almac.co.uk>



Baring in mind that only workaholics would design YARS from scratch and
that genius would simply steal the best bits from the previous systems,
here's my suggestions for what to steal from where for Traveller 96.

A few introductory discursions ...
At base CT, CT + the DGP Task System (as per pre-MT TDs) and MT are
roughly the same excepting the personal (really only H-t-H) combat and
starship/design rules.

TTNE has no roots in previous incarnations of Traveller and is an alien
invader from the T2K/2300 universe. This particular alien should be
deported back to whence it came. Bear in mind that MM and the new
Traveller company, not being responsible for T2K or DC, have no vested
interest in supporting this rules system (commonality of basic system
being touted as one of GDW's reasons for TTNE having this particular
rules system).

Basically, I would prefer the rules of CT/MT with the following
exceptions.

1. Starship Combat : Brilliant Lances and Battle Riders are vastly
superior to anything in the CT/MT eras. Whatever system we get, can we
please keep BL/BR. Obviously they aren't perfect, but don't throw the
baby out with the bath water.

2. Skills and Tasks : Megatraveller's task rules were written to be
incomprehensible. Could we have the Digest Group CT/MT task system
(where simple means simple, routine routine, et cetera, rather than the
completely random TTNE task system) written in plain english (or even in
plain murkin). However, there ought to be a thorough clean up. MT had
too many skills - perhaps the TTNE cascade idea could be profitably
introduced. The substitution of one skill for another (e.g. Liaison for
Streetwise) should be cleaned up or removed as in TTNE.

3. Character Generation.
TTNE comes out ahead with a greater variety of careers and the same
level of detail for each. At least everyone won't be from the Navy, Army
or Scouts (well, I never did have Merchant Prince) if a TTNE-type system
is used. The increasingly middle-aged like myself can testify that
reducing skill gains over time is not unrealistic !

4. Ground Combat, Large Scale.
Striker II was a nice system and it would be nice to see something like
it for Traveller 96. As Greg and Frank are supposedly continuing to
develop the CD series, there should be plenty new ideas appearing to
steal for/incorporate in Striker 97 ! Mind you, like BL/BR it needs
tyding up. Without the benefit of huge experience I'd say that HiTech
forces are not as good as I think they should be (in many ways even CDII
has more ways with coping with (relatively) HiTech forces).

5. Ground Combat, Small Scale.
Those who have only seen TTNE's risible combat system will be surprised
to learn that in the good old days combat was actually quite risky. And
so it should be. Bring back a system where you can be injured (or even
killed) by a .22 calibre pistol. But don't bring back MT's hand-to-hand
system, and don't bring back interrupts. The TTNE initiative system (my
sources tell me) works much better than interrupts with MT, and players
find it simpler to understand (although I'm told it wasn't much fun to
try and calculate initiative for long-running characters).

6. Design Sequences.
Please don't have a design sequence for <small> arms. At the level of
detail of CT/MT, one gun is much like another. It might weight a half a
kilo more or less, but otherwise it's the same - seen one BFG, seen them
all.

I don't imagine that I can predict what's going to happen next week, let
alone by 5700. So, please, no irritating smugness over <scientific>
design sequences. I don't care if lasers can't penetrate armour; it's a
game. I don't care if Dave Nilsen doesn't believe in Thrusters (I don't
either); it's still a game. The risk of presenting an SFRPG as
scientific is that people with too much time on their hands (say 10
minutes on past experience) will pick holes in it.

All the same, I'd keep FFS, albeit in some sort of Lite/Diet form. Lots
of it is quite nice. But we can't just turn the clock back to thruster
plates, not now that power plants use believable amounts of fuel. Is
HePLAR here to stay, and should we care ?

Whatever we get, can we have plenty of predesigned ships and vehicles,
clear worked examples of how the thing works and plenty of standard
packages of weapons, sensors and all to plug into home-brew designs. The
Internet is the ideal place to put this part of the system together.

7. World Generation.
What's to say ? TTNE had the MT system complete with some really obvious
old blunders. The Scouts/MT/TTNE system is here to stay, but why not
incorporate the very basics of World Tamers/World Builders too. And
let's have some ideas (stolen from Striker and TCS) on the likely sizes
of the local economy, armed forces and all.

8. History.
I didn't like Virus. I used to thing that Even Harder Times would have
done, but it occurred to me that that would have meant (Solomani Civil
War and all) a universe dominated by Toons. Certainly there'd be no more
Steak and Chips in the Gateway, et cetera.
So we are stuck with things as they are. But MM's multi-era suggestion
offers the hardline anti-New Era folks the chance to do their own thing
and offers everyone the chance of a change from time to time. Way to go.

All opinions are mine alone (except for the ones I stole from my brother
who actually referees Traveller as opposed to my own calling as an
armchair critic).

Angus

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 12:14:34 +0000
From: marcher@cccp.net (Mark Archer)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Technology
Message-ID: 12143496800239@cccp.net

As the which era, is dead (after all the Traveller god has spoken!), I want
to know about the fuzzier area coming from the various era.  Is new
traveller gonna be Hard-Hard like New Era, or Soft-Hard like old Traveller,
ie are we gonna have grav-plates or thrusters, weak laser, Plasma shells and
ETC, or the harder old stuff, do we need to get are silvered suits out or do
we get the cool composites.  I think we should decide which is best, a don't
dispell the new stuff because it New Era, it got a kinda apeal for some of
use (even if its in FF&S 2, a reversal of fortune)

                        Happy Journies
                                        -Mark

PS I though Dangerous Journies killed GDW, anyway for all there faults I'll
miss them.  Oh one final thought has/is MM gonna do anything with 2300AD
(and what about the rest of GDW's stuff, it'll be a shame to see it all die


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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 16:32:27 MET
From: "V.A.G." <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
To: traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: GDW=Controlling force?
Message-ID: <C61A242C52@urt-stud.uni-trier.de>

->.  Like it or not,
-> GDW was the controlling force behind Traveller and IMO, we have to respect that
-> and move forward.  You know what they say, "You can't go home."

That may be true for TNE, but is not necessarily true for CT and MT.
CT is a MM product, at that time MM, in a way WAS GDW.

MT, and it's history, is for the greatest part, the work of DGP. Only
when GDW decided to publish TNE, it took over total control over
Traveller!

Now MM is the old and new controller of Traveller, and it should be
his choice on how to go on!

I feel, that we CAN go back and although TNE is not BAD (i find the
background kind-of-interesting), i also fell, that the CT and MT
background is much more so! All backgrounds have their advantages and
disadvantages, but i think TNE is more limiting in what you can
actually DO, in game terms!

--------------------------------------------------------------
V.A.G.

-Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!!


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

Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 10:06:45 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Streamline Spaceships -it's not needed!
Message-ID: <s115d679.083@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>

Phillip McGregor writes:

>Just an idea that came to me recently -why is there a requirement for
>space-ships to be streamlined in all versions of Traveller if they wish to
>make a planetary landing on a world with an atmosphere?
>
>Or, to be more accurate, as seems to be the case in all versions of
>Traveller *except* TNE.

   Wrong Phil.  Unstreamlined ships may not enter a planetary
atmosphere greater than very thin even with contragrav.  In fact
installing contragrav on your unstreamlined ship is a bit like installing
screen doors on your submarine.  This is according to the rules (FF&S
and Brilliant Lances) and not just well considered opinion.

   As an exercise in logic, truly unstreamlined ships are built in orbit,
and take advantage of the airless, near zero-G environment to build
structures that would otherwise not be possible planetside.  Determining
whether or not your particular unstreamlined ship could *actually* hold up
to the stresses involved in making a soft landing would required the use
of a *really* good calculator, a knowledge of Physics and Engineering
that most Traveller players do not possess, and a series of formulas
that will cause the Liberal Arts majors among us to have math anxiety
seizures.  Not to tell you your business, but don't you have better things
to do?  I know I have.  But what the hell, knock yourself out.  In the
meantime, the rule is still the rule.

   As for the rest of your analysis, mildly interesting, but irrelevant.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 14:13:28 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <s116105b.071@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>

Greetings all,

   Well you go away for a few days and WW III breaks out.  Well since
I'm apparently so late to the battle that my post would consist of a lot of
``me too``s and the pointing out of errors which by now somebody have
been slammed a couple of times over, I just give you my general
impressions.

   I am a solid supporter of TNE--that much is probably clear from my
previous posts to TML (assuming that anyone remembers what I had to
say on the subject of CT vs. TNE).  I also am a fan of what has now
become the historical settings of Traveller.  I came to the conclusion
that the Rebellion concept was pretty much a bad idea from the word go,
and though there are many things I like about the TNE storyline (I'm
currently running a campaign using a homemade TNE setting), there
are some things I don't as well.

   It would appear that those of us who want to keep the TNE game
mechanics around for the FarFuture Enterprises version of Traveller
will not get their way.  Yes, it is still possible that certain aspects of TNE,
such as the Brilliant Lances combat system will be retained, but much
of what we know about how to play Traveller will be going out the
window when FarFuture Enterprises releases ``MegaTraveller 2`` or
``Traveller: From the Ashes`` or whatever the new version will be
called.

   Those who are CT fans should in no way be smug with victory.  The
fact is that not only will Virus still be a part of Traveller orthodoxy, but
the CT game mechanics will not be used either.  The new Traveller
will in all likelihood be something that is not entirely compatible with
any of the previous systems, which means that if you want to continue
your CT era campaigns using the new FFE Traveller, you'll have to buy
a new set of books and learn a new system anyway, just like the
TNE supporters did back in 1993 (TNEers face the prospect of
purchasing yet another rules set--the second in three years--MM faces
an uphill battle marketing to these people, even the writers and
collectors among us).

   So really you already have the answer as to who will win the ``TNE
vs. CT`` debate--everyone loses.  To my fellow TNE supporters I would
say at this point, continue to lobby for those concepts in TNE you most
want to keep (i.e. the idea of FF&S, if perhaps we won't see a FFE
reprint of the original, etc.).  To the CT supporters I would say, you
wanted to kill TNE, and you got your wish.  What happens when you
don't like FFE's Traveller either?  For what's cliche is still true--no matter
how hard we try, we can never really go home again.

Regards,

Harold


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

Date: Mon, 05 Feb 1996 16:08:56 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960205210856.00717880@TanSoft.com>

At 02:13 PM 2/5/96 -0500, Harold Hale wrote:
>   Those who are CT fans should in no way be smug with victory.  The
>fact is that not only will Virus still be a part of Traveller orthodoxy, but
>the CT game mechanics will not be used either.  The new Traveller
>will in all likelihood be something that is not entirely compatible with
>any of the previous systems, which means that if you want to continue
>your CT era campaigns using the new FFE Traveller, you'll have to buy
>a new set of books and learn a new system anyway, just like the
>TNE supporters did back in 1993 (TNEers face the prospect of
>purchasing yet another rules set--the second in three years--MM faces
>an uphill battle marketing to these people, even the writers and
>collectors among us).

We are not smug because we havent won anything yet.  Virus is here, and
probably wont go away, but new material will be out if I want to run a "Long
Night" campaign, or fight the "Nth Intersteller Wars".  MM is giving us
options on the background.  This is cool.

The rules set?  From what I can tell from MM's comments is whatever we get
will be compatible with CT.  While the combat system, the task system, and
other things will most likely be entirely different, if vehicals and
characters and equipment are somewhat standard with the CT rules, then the
$1000 of stuff I have collected can still be used and I will only be out
about $150 of TNE stuff. I guess thats what ticked me off the most about TNE
was the change in character creation.  Suddenly none of my NPCs were valid,
none of my Characters worked without a concerted effort to convert them, and
even then, my CT Pilot-4 had different probablilites than my TNE Pilot-4.
So to me any retreat to the rules of CT that allows me to use that JTAS #5
that I paid $30 for is a good thing.

I think that a FF&S type book would be great to have as long as it meets
three key criteria:

    a) I don't have to use it and an alternate simple system is in place to
       create vehicals and ships.

    b) The rules are clear and straight forward.

    c) You don't need a degree in Physics or Chemistry to use it.  You can
       measure a lasers out put in MegaJoules if you want, but I want a clear
       and concise game mechanic on that that means i.e. 36d6 of damage or
       a 40 penentration value.

The other thing that I really want to see is more Aliens and more worlds
described.  This along with the history and tid-bits of things like project
LongBow are great to build an adventure on.

GDW did a very good job at preserving the world information between systems
(though some would argue that changing the government types may have broken
the system).  Had they preserved the characters then the system may have
been workable.

Something else that I think would be a good product to put out is offical
sector data in an electronic form with a subscription to receive updates so
that when things like the "removed for the Communications Decency Act" of
Trin occur, the sector data can be updated.

Any way, I have talked too much on this subject and I am going to go back to
being a quiet admin.

Rob

--
Rob Miracle (rwm@TanSoft.com)| GCS d-->--- !H s:++ !g !p au+ a34 w+ !v C++>++++
Tantalus Inc.  Key West, FL  | UU++++$ P--- L+ 3 E--- N+++ K-  W+ M-- V-- -po+
"You have a problem?  I have | Y-- t++ 5>++ jx R+++ G'''' tv+++ b D B- e++ u**
a plan!" -- Anton Devious    | h---- f r+++ n---- y++++


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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 22:34:57 +0100
From: anders.backman@macademic.se (Anders Backman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Jump torps
Message-ID: <v02140b00ad3c26c7ae96@[193.12.250.151]>

>It seems that they are *not* non-canon. It therefore seems that some of the
>excellent suggestions as to why they *haven't* replaced the XBoat system that
>have been presented here are obviously more correct than their opponents!

In HG no ship of less than 100 dTons could carry a jumpdrive and thats it.
There was never a clear explanation to this but it was definately "canon".
Why rules covering j-drives in FF&S was so skimpy and loopholed is probably
because the designers didn't like jumpdrives and preferred stutterwarp
(notice that there is more rules about stutterwarp than J-drives. If one is
capable of building something weird in FF&S doesn't make it "canon", what's
canon comes from the history and sociology of the Imperium.
BTW Leviathan had jumptorps but that was done by Games Workshop and doesn't
count in my opinion.

/Backman

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 14:48:59 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?  (TNE vs. CT)
Message-ID: <9602052149.AA04324@Rt66.com>


> I think that a FF&S type book would be great to have as long as it meets
> three key criteria:
>
>     a) I don't have to use it and an alternate simple system is in place to
>        create vehicals and ships.

The first point is already true of FFS, you don't _have_ to use it :-)
The second point is quite true.

>     b) The rules are clear and straight forward.

I would say that most of the stuff in FFS is actually straight forward,
but the whole of it isn't... ummm, the sequence to make things is kooky
frequently, way too much jumping around, but the "6MW/kl" to build a PP
isn't at all complicated.

>     c) You don't need a degree in Physics or Chemistry to use it.  You can
>        measure a lasers out put in MegaJoules if you want, but I want a clear
>        and concise game mechanic on that that means i.e. 36d6 of damage or
>        a 40 penentration value.

This is already true, the final product is a damage value with no
units... this also means that we could make another conversion from
discharge energy to any other "factor" we wish... doing this with an end
result of a USP value would've been a great addition IMO, and would also
have made conversions from HG designs easy.

-Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 14:01:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Query
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960205135827.16836A-100000@linda.teleport.com>

 Today, the Goverment of Quell has issued a request to all defense
contractors and independant design firms within 4 sectors for a new TL-15
main battle tank to meet the coming threats.(Hey, it sounded kinda official)
 The new grav tank must meet the qualifications set by the goverment wich
are detailed below.
Maximum:
 Price: MCr18.5
 Vol: 10m3 and it must have no more then 3 types of ammunition
Minimum:
 Armour: 410 all sides
  Speed: 1100KPH max speed
  20hours endurance

bri <bri@teleport.com>
Hail to the sun god
He sure is a fun god
Ra!  Ra!  Ra!


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 581
***************************
