TRAVELLER Digest 585

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: TRAVELLER digest 583
by library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  2) Re: CG "physics"
by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  3) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  4) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  5) Re: Task Systems
by Chris Lloyd <cdl@delcam.com>
  6) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  7) Re: TRAVELLER digest 584
by topgenor@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (Tom Opgenorth)
  8) the end??
by danny richmond <DRRICH0@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
  9) Re: TRAVELLER digest 584
by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
 10) Losing Limbs and Unstreamlined Ships
by chriscox@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Christopher Cox )
 11) RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 12)
by mitch@intersys.com (Mitch Schwartz)

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

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 13:07:40 -0600
From: library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 583
Message-ID: <199602072305.NAA06375@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

Dave asked:
>(Hmm, interesting side tought:  Could the race that built the Annic
>Nova be the same people responsible for the Empress Wave?  Inquiring
>minds would like to know....)

In my campaign, the Annic Nova is a hand-built Droyne starship from
somewhere like Candory or Andor. OK, so it was a long way to the
Regina subsector - the went the back way. ;-)

Yes, I know the thing has been declared non-canonical (the solar collector
cannot, apparently, collect enough energy to power the jump drives) but I
said "Why not?" After all, it takes the damn thing 2 weeks to power up -
that's a sufficient enough reason not to use the idea commercially, and
let it go at that.

After all, at one stage you could use the energy absorbed by a _black globe_
to power your jump drives - this was rated as non-canonical by none other than
MM himself. However, you can still allow this rule - it is YOUR game, after all.

This is also an important point for people who insist on canon vs non-canon
rules: _everyone_ I know has "house rules" for their game, no matter what system
they are playing (AD&D, Traveller, Cthulhu, GURPS, whatever). Reasonable GM's
realise that rules don't cover everthing, for example. In their game, they may
well ignore rules that other GM's insist are "the core of Traveller, it's just
not the same without it".

BTW, I *personally* don't like rules changes that alter the _background_, such
as giving ships of less than 100t the ability to jump, or realistic rules that
alter manoeverability from high tactical/low strategic to low tactical/higher
stategic, or _chrome_ "jump exit flashes" that people suddenly decide should be
visible to sensors. But always remember that this is just *my* opinion, and
others have no problem with some of these things.

>   You mean you can't see the plot possibilities as a party of player
>characters consisting of a construction worker, a policeman, a gang
>member, a barbarian, a farmer, and a navy seaman (all with minimal
>Song and Dance skills) roam the galaxy in search of adventure?

Loved this, Harold - but I think you are showing your age!

- Hyphen
(David Jaques-Watson)


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

Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:39:09 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM (traveller)
Subject: Re: CG "physics"
Message-ID: <9602070539.AA05872@Rt66.com>


Hmm, interesting comments.  Got me thinking about CG.  The assumption of
CG (anybody with better ideas jump on in :-) is that at TL9 (!) where it
appears one can control the gravitational force.  I guess CG allows
enough control to prevent the exchange of whatever particles
(gravitons (presumed)) moderate gravitation.  It basically makes a black
globe-like screen that flickers at 99% and only blocks gravitons (or
reflects them or something magic).

At TL10, we get AG.  AG allows the creation of such exchange particles
without having to have mass around to do, just some juice.  Wow.

Now the CG does, indeed, create some interesting problems.  A possible
solution that has the added bonus of making sense of the streamlining
issue is to change the assumption of the way CG works slightly.  What
you'd do is not say that CG blocks 99% of all gravitons that come by,
but to actually say that CG blocks X gravitons for Y MWs.

Above X, Y blows up big time to the point of being impossible (as it
says in FFS).  The field is power for radius of effect (displacement),
just like CG in FFS.  You'd have to add something like the
15*displacement rule for Mdrives---beyond such and such a ship mass, you
don't get as much negation (flux of gravitons having to do with the mass
of both ship and world).

What happens then is that you make a field that would block all the
exchange particles for worlds below a certain size (mass), and you'd get
less and less benefit from CG as the size went above this.  The asteroid
problem Dave mentioned wouldn't happen, and CG wouldn't really help for
fuel skimming since gas giants are so massive.

This is, of course, all hand waving, and I was never a particle person,
but it seems to make more sense than FFS has CG.

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 06:35:34 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <01I0X55ONF1295T8MS@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  6-FEB-1996 10:18:36.61
To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:05:10 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Sender: traveller@MPGN.COM

In Reply to Your Message of Tue, 06 Feb 1996 05: 21:13 EST
Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 12:04:43 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>


:  But you have never said that you don't think TNE will not be
:  supproted.  You have said that you don't want TNE to be supported.
:  Please don't go back on your original argument now.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: Spare me. It's typical that you would want things to stay frozen.
: I've already stated that, to me, putting the TNE setting lower in
: priority than the CT ot MT one is equivalent to no support so please
: try to pay closer attention.

 Uhm no.  That's not what sparked this discussion.  Please recall, if
 you will that you said to do away with TNE.  Afterwards you said to
 just give it low priority which would achieve the same effects as no
 support.  I have been paying attention.  Please check the archives if
 you must to make sure that we're talking about the same thing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Funny how you missed the context (as well as the "get back CT" part.
Well just to jog your memory try
to recall that I was illustrating my point by making a concession &
then demonstrating that it made no difference anyway. Guessed you mis-
sed it. Or do you really believe there's a difference between axing the
TNE background altogether & moving it so far down the list that it gets
nothing anyway. Either way TNE gets nothing, so what's the difference?
So as I said; Go ahead & put TNE at the bottom of the list. I think it'll
get about as much support there as the DGP canon,(remember the 'Sparklers'?)
that GDW chose to disregard, did.

:  As for MM's resources, we don't know what resources he has available.
:  The argument isn't one about viability, it's about your attitude to do
:  to other players what GDW did to you.  Pardon me if I tend to find
:  that hypocritical.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: Well the feeling is quite mutual. If the TNE setting was viable then
: GDW would still be around. But it failed & it's time to get back to
: what was successful. Your impractical, "let's support *everything*
: with limited resources", strike me as somewhat hyposcritical inasmuchas
: *that* would be the fastest way to put Traveller under for good. That
: doesn't sound like "supporting traveller" to me.

 Oh god no!  Do you have any idea what the gaming market is like right
 now.  From your post it would seem not!  Your rationalization is so
 way off it's ridiculous.  First, if you really think that TNE was the
 only reason GDW went under, then you're absolutely crazy.  Look at the
 gaming market.  In the past month, one major player (GDW) has gone
 completely out of business, another has cut their entire line of RPG's
 (Wizards of the Coast), another company which is relatively successful
 (White Wolf) laid-off a bunch of people, others are selling off rights
 to some previously popular games, smaller companies have had to revise
 their entire release schedule and pare it down (BTRC, Grey Ghost, even
 WEG), and still others have gone on hiatus until this trend dies.  And
 then there are still the slew of distributors that are going out of
 business weekly and defaulting on what they owe the gaming companies.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All of which just makes your scheme even more impractical than when you
first presented it. Talk about "crazy". I guess you muct think that money
literally grows on trees & that MM just has to pick the 'leaves' off to
get the capital to get Traveller going again.
=============================================

 Or how about rising paper and printing costs?  Just last week Omni
 magazine announced that it will have to suspend publishing in a paper
 format for the time being.  Look at comic books.  2.95 to 4.95 per?
 Hell, I still remember the great debate about raising them to 65
 cents!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just more reasons why your grandiose scheme can't work. The new Traveller
will definitely have to be a limited operation. Anf that means that there
*won't* be enough to go around for everything that MM has proposed.
=====================================================================

 As for my impractical "let's support everything" attitude, please
 realize it's only based on the trends in the gaming market and not
 what I feel.  That's the difference between your argument and mine.
 Think I'm wrong, look at what's selling and what's not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sure let's look at TSR. Hey, let's be like them! Ooops! Where's all
the MONEY going to come from? Uh-oh.
=====================================

: No, I believe that you said that TNE should be axed completely.  I
: believe you said that there were a ton of reasons that you prefered CT
: over TNE and that's what made you judgement okay.  If I thought you
: were making a logical argument originally, do think I would keep
: flooding people's mailboxes with our trite?
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
:  Now. Now. How in the world could have missed so much of what I posted?
:  Do you seriously mean to say that you never saw any text from me con-
:  cerning getting back to what worked? Really?

 I didn't miss so much of anything that you've posted.  Please read
 what I said.  You said to away with TNE for good.  I said that's no
 better than what GDW did. You THEN said give it zero priority support
 which in effect is similar to no support.  I then said, give it a
 fighting chance with at least one sourcebook and see how it does.  You
 then said that this is silly because even though you obviously have no
 grasp of business markets that this would stretch resources that we
 have no idea about.  I then said that you need to pick up a textbook
 on economics and another on marketing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You make the silly suggestions that you have & then accuse me of not
knowing any business concepts? Don't make me laugh. Spreading oneself
too thin with limited resources, as you propose, is one of the most
common business errors. You also don't seem to understand the idea
of "maximizing return" by concentrating on what sells the best.
===============================================================

:  No, it doesn't bother me to see someone stand up for CT.  I truly
:  believe that people should play and stand by whatever version they
:  like the best.  What bother's me is your poor attitude.  You would
:  rather have Traveller pander to you and leave others in the cold
:  rather than even think of making as broad an audience as possible
:  happy.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:
: So I'm standing by CT. And you're upset. I also find it strange that
: I didn't see you jumping up in protest when all those "if you want support
: than provide it itself" msgs came out when myself or anyone else expressed
: a desire to see more than TNE stuff before GDW went under. Maybe time for
: the 'H' word again?
:
: So you can't accept that there won't be enough money to support everything.
: Fine. Just don't expect me to buy into it.

 I'm not upset that you're standing by CT.  I'm missing what you're
 trying to say with your second sentence, so I'll take a guess.  You're
 telling me that you find it hypocritical that I didn't say release
 more than TNE stuff.  Man where the hell have you been.  I argued for
 that stuff years ago!  Do you know what the answer that I got was?  Of
 course you do.  GDW said to me "No".  We don't plan to, we don't
 appreciate you arguing with us about our position on the matter, etc.
 So when did I become a hypocrite, before or after you started paying
 attention to what I post?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, was your protest to them as vociferous as the one you making to me?
Or do I only have to say what they said to get you to back down?
================================================================

:  You want to talk about resources and capital.  That's real easy.  If
:  Traveller comes out in any form reminicent of ANY previous release, it
:  will be dead with the initial rulebook.  Why?  There is one hell of a
:  stigmata that hangs over the Traveller line.  Shops are weary to carry
:  it and players don't think that it compares to today's games.  Look at
:  the top selling sci-fi games of today.  Star Wars, Battlelords of the
:  23rd Century and Battletech.  Traveller has nothing in common with any
:  of them while they all have that space opera feel to them.  Go to a
:  gaming shop and ask people why they would rather spend their money on
:  these products than anything that ever carried the Traveller moniker.
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: If it's not "reminescent" of earlier versions then it won't be "Traveller"
: any more than '2300AD' was. Which means in name only. This is what you
: call a desire to support Traveller? The stigmata that Trav carries is
: carried by the name. Stores will be reluctant to carry it no matter what.
: Your strategy will just repeat GDW's previous mistakes. They've already
: tried it, twice, & it failed both times. I said I wanted "Traveller",
: not something "that has nothing in common" with it but the name. It may
: as well just be dead it that case.

 I didn't say that this was my position.  No where in the above do I
 attribute this as my plan for Traveller.  Phil, stop confusing facts
 about the Real World (tm) with what I personally believe.  When I tell
 you something is my opinion, you will see words like "I think, I
 believe, it appears to me, etc..."  Plain and simple, what I said is
 look at what sells, look at what shop owners and distributors believe,
 look at what people are and aren't buying.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Go back and read the sentence "If Traveller comes out.........release".
You posted that didn't you? And now you say that you didn't really
mean it? It's not you position? Sounds to me like it's you who are getting
a little confused here. & changing your story to boot. The very same thing
you've recently been accusing me of doing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 I agree with you that I want Traveller.  Which rules?  Doesn't matter.
 If I prefer one set of mechanics over another, I'll use them.  If I
 want to use GURPS or FUDGE, I'll use it.  Do I still want the basic
 system to look and feel like Traveller?  Hell yes!  Do I think that
 the original black books should be reprinted verbatim?  Hell no!  Do I
 think that there is a good middle ground of CT/MT that can be molded
 and massaged (until the bugs and typos are gone)?  Definitely.  Do I
 think that it will sell?  Not in today's market.  Maybe in a year or
 two, but not until CCG's die and RPG's start to have an upswing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I believe that Traveller has only one shot left. It'll be a bootstrap
operation & whatever comes out first will be what Traveller becomes.
If it comes out trying to pander to current fads, like TNE did, then
it won't matter to me whether it fails or not because it won't be Travel-
ler anymore, & I won't support it.
==================================

 GDW forced a major revision
 with no questions asked, no quarter (or support) given for what they
 just revised.  That's the last thing I'm proposing.  And that's the
 basis of our debate.  You're saying screw everyone but the CT players
 and I'm saying that that isn't a viable answer in today's gaming
 market.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
TNE was a major mistake. Perpetuating that mistake is not the way
to preserve Traveller. The TNE people have already been screwed by
GDW. (Welcome to the club) That can't be undone.Right now *everything*
is dead. There's no way I can see that
it will ever be possible to revive it all. So, I propose that what
was successful should be what gets priority. And that's won't be TNE.
================================================================

  You mistake words like "today" as meaning "produce crappy
 systems, that are internally inconsistent."  When I say today, I mean
 produce a Traveller for today's market.  What does that mean?  Quite
 simply you will need to provide source material that people are
 looking for.  Does this mean we can's use CT/MT based rules?  Of
 course not.  Go to those rules, publish them.  But make sure you pay
 attention to what the trends are.  Like I said enough of us have so
 much Traveller stuff we don't really need more.  Especially if all it
 is just a reprint of what we've already got (which in essense is what
 you're suggesting).  Like I said, we need to feed everyone, not just
 the privileged few.

       --Jerry
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You keep bringing rules to discuss while I'm talking about backgrounds.
The rules don't matter, IMO. The background is what made CT great & when
MT shredded it & TNE finished it off, Traveller(tm) went down the tubes
right along with it. TNE *was* "Trav. for today's market" & so was MT. Or
at least that's what GDW thought. Let's not make that mistake again. Put
Traveller back where it flourished. With the background that allowed it
to prosper. W/o squandering limited resources on backgrounds that have
already failed.

Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

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

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 06:47:47 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <01I0X7XM6CUK95T8MS@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  6-FEB-1996 18:06:22.19
To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 18:55:04 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Sender: traveller@MPGN.COM
Phil sums up by saying:

>You need to drop your grandiose dreams of a resurgent Traveller that
>will exceed even it's own Golden Years. It's not gonna' happen. The
>time for that is long past. GDW tried your "new markets" scheme twice
>& it failed, twice. This strategy will only bury it for good. Traveller needs
>to go back to what worked for it previosly & then build from there.
>Otherwise it may just as well be, "Traveller -AD&D", "Traveller -The
>Clans", or something else that wouldn't be Traveller at all.

   What say we cut the level of pure bullsh_t around here folks?  You
hate TNE and everything it stood for, you've made that abudantly clear
AD NAUSEAM--that doesn't mean that the TNE storyline deserves any
less support than any other aspect of the Traveller background.  This is
not an episode of ``Dallas``, Strephon will not be walking out of the
shower to let everyone know the Rebellion and the Collapse didn't
happen.  Perhaps if we all put as much effort in figuring out how to end
the story of the Post-Collapse Era as we did griping for this or that era,
Marc Miller would have a large sourcebook on the subject ready to
publish as soon as FarFuture Enterprises gets off the ground.

Regards,

Harold
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Face it Harold. TNE died not because I don't like it but because
it failed to generate the necessary support. So, as you said, cut
the bullsh*t & admit that you don't really care how little support
TNE garnered, you just want it because it's what you want. Nothing
wrong with that but don't expect me to agree to squander limited
resources on a scheme that's already failed. And, yes, it's failure
*does* mean it is entitled to less, quite a bit less.

Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu







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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 11:15:26 GMT
From: Chris Lloyd <cdl@delcam.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Task Systems
Message-ID: <8652.9602071115@pcdev7.delcam.com>

With all this recent discussion as to which system is easier to use, I
feel I must support the TNE task system (well someone has to).

I'm a recent addition to Traveller, having only joined since the
release of TNE, but personally I feel the T2300 task system, and the
MT task system as recently posted:

> Success: 2d + Skill Level +(Att/5)
> Success targets of 3+/7+/11+/15+/19+ for the five difficulty levels.

is awkward, cumbersome, and time consuming, where as the TNE system:

Skill Level + Attribute, double or halve (rounding down) until it just
exceeds the d20 roll to find level of success.  If you're interested
in criticals only then do you need to work out how much the dice roll
exceeds the level of success.

is faster and easier to understand, particularly to new players with
experience in other games.

I'd rather see a new system based on TNE, than one based on the (roll
some dice, add some numbers, compare to (target with modifiers
applied)) that seems to be the MT system.

Chris.


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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:02:55 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <9602071502.AA24326@Rt66.com>

Hey guys,

please take this off the list.  It isn't really a problem for me as I
don't get digests, but I imagine it's a real pain in the ass for some of
the people on the list to keep seeing all the quoted material (even
assuming they have no feeling about the content).

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 09:08:00 -0700
From: topgenor@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (Tom Opgenorth)
To: traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 584
Message-ID: <199602071607.JAA15247@valis.worldgate.edmonton.ab.ca>

>The Zhodani core expiditions were getting too close to Grandfather, so he
>hit them where it would hurt, the glue of their civilization.  When the
>Ancient's War was over, Grandfather retired to the clean environment of the
>core(compared to the devastated area of known space).

Stop me if I am wrong, as it has been a while since I last read CT's Alien
Module 5, Droyne, but didn't Yaskodray pinch himself off a pocket universe
seperate from this one?
=========================================================================
Dunlap's Laws of Physics:
1.  Fact is solidified opinion.
2.  Facts may weaken under extreme heat and pressure.
3.  Truth is elastic.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Opgenorth                             topgenor@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada                          topgenor@worldgate.com
                                       http://www.worldgate.com/~topgenor
=========================================================================


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

Date:         Wed, 07 Feb 96 11:48:27 EST
From: danny richmond <DRRICH0@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
To: list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: the end??
Message-ID:   <960207.115106.EST.DRRICH0@ukcc.uky.edu>

Dear Sires,
           i have been a gamer for a no. of years and my favoriets were made by
 GDW. i was wanting to join your list. i would like to see thenew era stats on
the Xboat tender and the abomination tank...
                                             Dan Richmond

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 22:35:17 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 584
Message-ID: <199602071135.WAA26098@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

> From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
> Subject: Re: Why Streamline Spaceships -it's not needed!
> Message-ID: <s1179564.035@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
>
> Phillip McGregor writes:
>
> >Well, yes, on page #10 of FF&S, column #2, second paragraph it *does*
> >say that "unstreamlined hulls may do neither" ... i.e. neither skim gas
> >giants as streamlined hulls nor land on planets with an atmosphere as
> >aerofoil hulls.
> >
> >But my point is, *so what*?!
>
>    In that case my 4 mm gauss pistol does 20D6 of damage with a
> penetration rating of 20.  I know what the rules say, but--so what?

Look, it's obvious we disagree fundamentally on this. I am looking at the
logic of the situation and the logic is that there is no fundamental reason,
regardless of what is stated in some sections of the rules, why USL ships
cannot make a *slow* atmospheric re-entry. The systems provided in FF&S are
detailed enough to contradict the statements to the contrary. As you well
know, however, the 4mm Gauss Pistol cannot *logically* do 20d6 damage. There
is nothing anywhere in the rules that I can think of offhand that justifies
this. If you cannot see the difference between the two cases, then there
is obviously no point in continuing to discuss the matter as there is no
possible basis for any agreement on the matter.

> >There is information elsewhere that makes that statement a nonsense.
> >The two key points -
> >
> >* F&S, pg. #16, Section #8: Atmospheric Speed = notes that spacecraft
> >with contragrav lifters "may fly NOE" <snip>
>
>    They are specifically referring to spacecraft that can enter an
> atmosphere according to the rules.

Yep, but, again, so what? The rules elsewhere make it quite plain - see page
10 of FF&S - that there is no structural mass difference between a USL, SL,
and Aerofoil Hull. They all mass the same, their internal structure all
masses the same. All these structures are modified by the G Rating of the
(presumably) HePlaR engines in the same way. They can perform maneuvers that
will stress the hull in a variety of different ways that will make the simple
act of sitting on a planetary surface in a 1G gravity well seem completely
inconsequential. Given that there is no mass difference between the different
hull types, and that the hulls need bracing to meet the same maneuver elements,
then there seems little likelihood that the hull would be unable to stand up
to gently floating down on cg lifters at around 40 kph. We're not talking
high speed re-entry here.

> >Assuming that you accept this as canon -and, gee, Chadwick and
> >Nilsen have said it in FF&S, the "holy book", haven't they?! - then it
> >makes it quite plain that craft with Thruster Plates (CT/MTrav) and
> >contragrav lifters (TNE) have a "stall speed" of less than 40 kph!
>
>    No, what is plain is that if a vehicle or vessel with no NOE avionics
> is limited to 40 kph, for they go any faster, they will go out of control and
> crash.

Yes, but you deliberately ignore the point that they *can* make the 40 kph.
Given that the major problem in re-entry with USL vessels is *not* hull
structure or bracing (see above), then the only possible difference is going
to be in shaping the hull to reduce aerodynamic friction heating effects -
and the extra cost is almost certainly going to be in the form of special
materials to coat the hull to reduce these effects (like the tiles on the
space shuttle). Thus, as long as the vessel can make the 40 kph it can make
a controlled "re-entry" ... after all, if it can do NOE, it must be capable
of being controlled to as fine a degree as a re-entry would require of a
SL/Aerofoil hull vessel.

> >Ergo, they do not need to be streamlined.
>
>    Ergo one of your basic premises is shot down and your conclusion
> false.

Well, sez you. I believe that I have shown why my premise is the case and
that you have failed to do so on any basis other than to say "the word of
the rules is law - even when contradicted by internal logic". Well, that's
what I see, anyway.

> >As an exercise in logic, consider this. We have a USL vessel, built in
> >orbit, with 6G Maneuver drives. Are you seriously telling me that it is
> >going to be less structurally sound than one built on a planetary
> >surface?
>
>    Of course not.  On the other hand, to do what you want to do, you will
> have to take into account:
>
>    The speed of rotation of the planet at the point you wish to enter the
> atmosphere, the speed of the atmosphere itself, any atmospheric
> turbulence--including so-called ``jet streams``, ability of certain external

Hmm, yes, but with CG lifters these are much easier to control ... you have the
6G (or whatver) thrust you just don't use it to do more than a couple of
hundred kph *relative*. Especially if you install computerised controls - yep,
NOE computers on a USL vessel! That should provide the fine control needed -
after all, flying NOE at the high speeds possible in Traveller means that the
presence of much less forceful winds at NOE altitudes, and the ability to make
nanosecond implemented course corrections should make USL re-entries child's
play. In any case, consider that the USL vessel could be under ground approach
control and brought down to avoid the worst weather patterns ... and could
probably detect them from orbit in any case. Less flexible than SL and Aerofoil
vessels who can land without ground control and in all weathers, but, hey, it's
a cheap alternative.

> devices such as antennas to withstand the additional stress placed on
> them by friction--something you don't have to account for in space,
> electrical or magnetic disturbances that may effect critical components--

Sure, but there is an implication that antennae etc. are built to be retract-
able regardless of streamlining or lack of it. There is a note that space and
jump-vessels need to have armour equal to 10 x G Rating to allow for hitting
micrometeors and other space garbage. Ergo, it is logical that Sensors would
need to be protected when relatively high density dust clouds (for the speed
of travel) and the like are being passed through ... in other words, they
need to be able to be retraced!

> can you say ``giant lightning rod``?, heating of certain surfaces
> regardless of how slow you ooze into the atmosphere, the effects the
> additional atmospheric pressure will have on certain areas of the ship,
> and well anyway you get the idea.

This seems quite ridiculous. You are not getting any significant friction
heating at 40 kph, or even at 140 kph, re-entry speeds. As for the effects
of atmospheric pressure. The hulls of all ships *and* their internal bracing
is specifically stated as being *identical* in mass - and given that their
performance in space is identical, you can reasonably presume that it must be
doing *something*. I would suspect that for all except Open Frame hulls that
the external armour would be more than enough to make the effects of any
normal atmospheric pressure irrelevant. In any case, aren't you missing
something obvious here? As long as you are re-entering a planet with a
breathable atmosphere, you are entering a planet where the external pressure
is the *same* as the internal pressure ... so, *what* "additional" pressure
are you waffling on about? Think it through!!!

OK, so you *might* be talking about gas giant refuelling. However, note that
the proposal was that the vessel simply float down to its natural bouyancy
level and then *pump in* rather than scoop in the gas. At this level, the
pressure is, I presume, not going to be much higher than 1 atmosphere? Any
engineering types out there who can say yea or nay? OK, at worst, it reduces
the possibility of frontier refuelling ... they'd simply have to float down
under power and to higher levels.

> >>As for the rest of your analysis, mildly interesting, but irrelevant.
> >
> >As for your comments, it would have been nice if you'd actually *read*
> >the relevant sections of FF&S before putting pen to paper, or foot in
> >mouth.
>
>    I did read the relevant sections, and stand by what the rules say.
> If you want to allow unstreamlined ships to sink into the atmosphere, go
> ahead--I'm not the Traveller Orthodoxy Police.  Besides, I don't think the
> U.S. - Australia extradiction treaty covers trivial disagreements over
> currently out-of-print science-fiction role playing games.

You still haven't read through FF&S or what I said. But, like I said, that
doesn't worry me. DO things any way you want - but the facts are, as I have
pointed out, quite conclusive in overturning the simple statement that USL
ships cannot do re-entries. You may *wish* it were otherwise, and obviously
do, but so what? The facts are that the FF&S rules are so contradictory that
they can be used to prove damn near anything you want them to! Too much damn
detail!

>    Lighten up.  Smile, it's summer where you live while I'm current stuck
> in -1 degree C weather.

Like I said, sorry for being so sensitive, you were getting part of a blast
aimed at someone else who was even more offensively smug on even less basis
in the "facts". Anyway, I'll trade the weather with you, hey? I always did
prefer to head north for the southern summer ... no sweaty, sticky, beaches
for me, thank you very much! How about it, ship me some of that weather and
I'll ship the humid sticky weather we're having!

Phil

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:02:40 -0800
From: chriscox@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence Christopher Cox )
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Losing Limbs and Unstreamlined Ships
Message-ID: <199602071702.JAA15397@ix4.ix.netcom.com>

Dave Golden wrote:
>       3. Put on my grav belt, which generates a field
>around it. 99% of my weight magically disappears. Stick my
>arm outside the field. Now everything up to my elbow is
>only feeling 0.01G. Everything beyond my elbow is feeling
>1G. *SNAP* *RIP* Now I don't have anything past my elbow.

Let me see If I have this straight.  1G of force acting on
eveything below my elbow would come out to about 7 pounds of
force.  This would be the same as the force that is
currently being applied to my arm by gravity! OH MY GOD!
IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE *SNAP* *RIP*!!  I MUST ACT
QUICKLY OR MY LIMBS WILL BE LOST!!!

Also regarding ContraGrav, Unstreamlined Ships and
Planetfalls, I believe its is not only possable but
allowable to have Unstreamlined Ships land on worlds with
atmospheres provided they do so slowly.  Streamlining in
FF&S and all versions of Traveller is mostly about how
aerodynamic a ship and not how structural sound it is.
Remember that an Unstreamline Ship can enter a gravity well
and land every bit as easily as any streamlined ship can
provide that there is little if any atmosphere.  This means
that unstreamlined ships will not collapse under their own
weight.  Also FF&S states that the capabilities of
streamline can be modified if the vessel is equiped with
someform of weigth compensating drive, such as contra-grav
(FF&S page 10, 2nd column, 2.97 inches from the top of the
page).  That pretty much tells me that you can land an
unsteamlined ship with contra-grav on a planet.

Good Travelling

Chris Cox
DESPERATELY BUILDING AN EXOSKELETON IN NEW YORK CITY
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

P.S. I never really cared for that 99% weight free Contra-Grav either.

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

Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:44:49 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <199602071444.JAA16057@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Wed, 07 Feb 1996 08: 37:51 EST
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 09:44:49 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Phil
:
: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
:

Forget it Phil.  You can have the last word.  People have asked us to
stop and I'm going to respect their wishes.

       --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: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 12:40:20 -0500
From: mitch@intersys.com (Mitch Schwartz)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Message-ID: <96Feb7.125642est.20486@gateway.intersys.com>

From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: So we're all assuming that everywhere is hugely devastated, yes?

Uh, no.  It's not an "assumption."  It's a statement by GDW about "this is how
the universe is.  Everywhere.  With a major exception behind the claw and a
few minor places.

: Isn't there
: the plausible excuse that the TNE stuff only presents this concept because
: the books (including the rule book) are clearly all written from the
: viewpoint of the RC, who have no contact with anyone outside them?

No, because;
1. GDW said it is not a "local" effect; it includes the Hivers, the K'kree,
the Aslan,
the Solomani, the Vargr, and the Imperium.

2. If it were only a local effect, don't you think that within 70 years,
someone would
have come back? If only from the Regency, where it is (by GDW fiat) not an
issue?

But no explorers, merchants, Aslan colonizing fleets have appeared.

No, GDW by fiat killed space to create the space viking RCES.  And paid the
price.
The only way to undo it is for FarFutures to publish something saying
"ignore large
chunks of published TNE history."

                                                                        Ted7
Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more
difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing in the tempting place.
                    -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

Official:                                                Unofficial:
mitch@intersys.com                     Ted7@world.std.com
                                                     http://world.std.com/~Ted7


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 585
***************************
