TRAVELLER Digest 588

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  2) Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
by PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
  3) Merchant Ships of the Shattered Imperium -- ecash
by Jo Grant/DUB/Lotus <Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com>
  4) Re: TRAVELLER digest 587
by Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
  5) why even have a timeline at all?
by Will  Richards <richarwt@jtasc.acom.mil>
  6) Re: TRAVELLER digest 587
by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
  7) Re: Starports...
by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 586/ USL/SL/AF
by t01bpa@abdn.ac.uk
  9) Re: TRAVELLER digest 585
by t01bpa@abdn.ac.uk
 10) RE: Virus Is Rare!!!
by fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
 11) Re: TRAVELLER digest 587
by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 12) Traveller: Voyages [Traveller 4] :-)
by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
 13) Re: Traveller: Voyages [Traveller 4] :-)
by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
 14) Re: TRAVELLER digest 583
by "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
 15) Re: TRAVELLER digest 576
by "Lorenz E. Pogue" <lpogue@notes.cc.bellcore.com>
 16) Infantry in TNE
by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
 17) Description/Explanation of Traveller Space Combat
by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 03:42:09 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <01I0YFHEDOC295T2UK@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  7-FEB-1996 13:08:15.79
To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 14:45:50 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Sender: traveller@MPGN.COM

   The problem is this--do you now abandon any attempt at advancing
the timeline so that you can spend eternity delving into the past?  Even
if you said, ``OK, it's now X years later, and this is a brief summary
of what happened in the interim,`` that would be better than just leaving
everything hanging.

   That's my major concern in all this.  OK fine, MM thinks the TNE game
mechanics don't work for Traveller--his game, his rules.  You still have
to advance the timeline at _some_ point, whether you do that in detail
from 1202 or 2000 is irrelevant.  The story has to continue.

Regards,

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

Well, there's always the "multiple timeline" suggestion that someone else
has already made. It would be possible to start from, say, 1110 or so &
advance a timeline that wouldn't necessarily lead to the same results that
DGP produced in their CT/MT transition. Alternatively, it would also be
possible to advance so far that any part of the 'past' could be dismissed
as fable. Either way, it would, for all intents & purposes, discard part/
parts of what the "story" is now. If earlier eras are *really* going to
be supported I think it will eventually become necessary to establish
alternate timelines so that players won't feel 'trapped' by the already
established future.

Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu




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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 04:03:02 -0700
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Message-ID: <01I0YGMBBOE695T2UK@pimacc.pima.edu>

From:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  7-FEB-1996 08:36:00.60
To:IN%"traveller@MPGN.COM"  "Multiple recipients of list"
CC:
Subj:RE: Discarding TNE?!, & various...

From: merrick@rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
Subject: Re: Discarding TNE?!, & various...
Sender: traveller@MPGN.COM

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
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Well I've said my piece & I don't see much chance of reconciling the
opposing views so I'm dropping out.

Phil

ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


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

Date:  8 Feb 96 12:19:02 EST
From: Jo Grant/DUB/Lotus <Jo_Grant/DUB/Lotus.LOTUSINT@crd.lotus.com>
To: xboat <xboat@MPGN.COM>, traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Merchant Ships of the Shattered Imperium -- ecash
Message-ID: <9602081215.AA01400@internet1.lotus.com>

Greetings Folks!
  As several of you have found out DigiCash decided to stop
issuing free e-cash just prior to my launch. The good news is
that you can still download the software and I will transfer you
(a smaller quantity) of starting cash.
  You can follow the instructions below to retreive the software
under my Username. You can then use it to set up and account
with your e-mail address as your Account ID. When you have done
this please inform me and I will transfer some money over to your
account.
  I would remind you that this is an experiement in the suitability of
using internet commerce for RPG sales, specifically Traveller.
Please let me know any problems that you encounter so I can
roll them into my final report.
     Cheers,
             Jo Grant
              jo_grant@crd.lotus.com


Welcome to ecash!

Thank you for your patience, with some delay you now receive your
ecash account information.

Thausands of people have opened ecash accounts on Macintosh, MS Windows
and UNIX (both line mode and X Window System) platforms over the last
couple of months and over 100 ecash-accepting shops have opened.

The latest news is that starting 23 October 1995, Mark Twain Bank (USA)
offers ecash in real US-dollars. Detailed information and how to apply
can be found at:
   http://www.digicash.com/publish/ec_pres3.html
   http://www.marktwain.com/ecash.html

The following information will for a limited time allow you to obtain
the ecash software, establish an ecash account and receive your
complimentary 100 CyberBucks:

Software and installation instructions can be found at:
   http://www.digicash.com/ecash/trial.html  and
   http://www.digicash.com/ecash/help.html

For downloading the software (in your WWW-client):
   Username:     jo_grant
   Password:     2DZ2UH9D

When you download and run the software for the first time it will help
you open an account. Then all you have to do is withdraw some of the
CyberBucks from your account into your computer and start making
and receiving payments. Please read the section 'Starting a shop' on our
server to find out how easy it is to start an ecash accepting shop yourself.

If you want to use ecash from an additional machine, you can open another
CyberBucks account using a different account ID and no password.

We look forward to hearing from you:
   - feedback:          ecash-feedback@digicash.com
   - bug reports:       ecash-bugs@digicash.com
   - technical support: ecash-support@digicash.com

We hope you enjoy your ecash!

Paul Dinnissen
ecash-team

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 07:47:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Ellis <tellis@telerama.lm.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 587
Message-ID: <Pine.BSD.3.91.960208074622.2465C-100000@ganesh.lm.com>

Why is someone sending MIME attachments to the list?  The last digest I
got had about half taken up by gibberish embedded in it.

It would make more sense to post such things on the WWW or an ftp site
and send just a URL to the list.

Take Care all, Happy Travelling

_______________________________________________________
Tom Ellis
tellis@telerama.lm.com
http://www.lm.com/~tellis/

** Insert Grandiose Signature Here **

   All Original Material Copyright 1996, Tom Ellis
_______________________________________________________


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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 08:08:59 -0500
From: Will  Richards <richarwt@jtasc.acom.mil>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: why even have a timeline at all?
Message-ID: <2.2.16.19960208130859.36efa772@137.246.1.196>

   Why even have a time line associated with the new rules at all? by not
having one every one (most every one) can continue to play in their favorite
time line,
with out having to worry about stepping on anyone else's toes.
   Besides CT was a large success without having any kind of story
associated with it other than the blerb about Jamison (captain of the beowulf).

Will



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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 00:06:05 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 587
Message-ID: <199602081306.AAA07062@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

> 1.      STREAMLINING
>
> >From Merrick:
> >I still (personally) tend towards the definition:
> >Any ship that can't land is USL.
> >A ship that can only land with CG is SL.
> >A ship that can fly (land without CG) is AF.

But wait a minute. As someone pointed out (thanks *very* much for doing so
and getting us away from all the trees so that we can see the forest as a
whole!) the variable here is *planetary atmosphere* NOT, and I repeat that,
*NOT - NOT - NOT* Gravity. A USL vessel can land on a planet *as long as the
planet has no atmosphere*. The GRAVITY is irrelevant ... as it notes quite
specifically in *all* the Traveller material ... see FF&S page #10 for a
start, "In general, airframe hulls may enter any planetary ATMOSPHERE to
land on the surface or skim fuel; streamlined hulls may skim gas giants
but may not land on planetary surfaces with ATMOSPHERES of greater than
Thin; and unstreamlined hulls may do neither."

Interesting, hear that hissing sound? It's the argument that several people
have been using to counter my comments to the effect that USL hulls cannot
stand the gravitational stress of re-entry. Or, to put it another way, bzzzt!
Sorry, wrong answer ... FF&S (and all previous Traveller stuff IIRC, and I'm
pretty certain here) states that it is the ATMOSPHERE that is the problem.
And implies (states negatively, in fact) that USL vessels can land on a 1G
(or 6G, for that matter) planetary surface *as long as it does not have an
ATMOSPHERE*!!!!!

Ergo, the active factor they are presuming would make this impossible *cannot*
be gravity. It must be, as I have pointed out, atmospheric resistance - or
aerodynamic heating ... so this means that, since we know (as I have pointed
out) that vessels on CG lifters can float/power down at 40 kph, they can, quite
obviously also make atmospheric re-entries. The gravity has no effect!!!

Or are you going to seriously tell us that atmosphere has some mysterious
magical effect that negates only spacecraft mounted cg lifters, but not (say)
Grave Tank or Air Raft cg lifters? Get real!

Face it, FF&S and all the other Traveller stuff may *say* that USL ships
cannot enter atmospheres, but the technology descriptions make it plain that
this is *NOT* the case.

Nice try guys! But no banana!

(And, yes, *I'm* being insufferably smug at this point!).

Phil McGregor



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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 09:14:56 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starports...
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960208141456.007172a8@central.keywest.mpgn.com>

At 05:51 PM 2/7/96 -0500, Jeff Zeitlin wrote:
>The Universal Extended Starport Profile
>
>The format of a Universal Extended Starship Profile (UESP) is as
>follows:

You are right,  you are under employeed :-)  Someone asked how I was doing
the other day.  I said "Underworked and Overpayed". :-)

Jeff, this is a pretty good peice of thinkin', but I do have a few comments
(since you asked for them anyway)

>starport.  Note that no distinction between orbital ports and ground
>ports are made; it may be assumed that ports with an OV of A or B have
>orbital components; C ports may or may not, and all other ports are
>ground-based only.

If you are going to break ship construction out of the OV (when the
description of that class star port describes the construction anyway) then
you should break out the orbital component as well.  And what Kind of orbital:

     Geo-stationary
     free-orbit
     lagrange point?

Some planets the whole starport may be orbital (which would explain some of
these worlds were the population is 5, but has a type A starport and a Navy
Base present), or the Orbital facility may refuse to handled streamlined
ships due to limited capacity.  As a GM looking for assistance, describing
the differing orbital/down components is an area where I would like some help.

>Ship Construction Capability
>
>Numeric codes larger than 0 represent an exponent of 10 that denotes
>the displacement of the largest starship that can be constructed at
>the port.

I would prefer that these (particularly numeric codes follow the Traveller
standard.  I would rework this to be:

      digit = tons of displacment exponent
      0 = No Construction Capabilities
      1 = 1-10 tons (can build a launch)
      2 = 11-100 tons (ships boats, and other non-starships, + scouts)
      3 = 100-1000 tons (basic Traveller Starships)
      etc.
      9 = REALLY BIG SHIPS

You could then use letter codes (A-F) to represent exotic features like
Military Only, etc.

>Dock Size

See above

>Business Facilities
>
>This code describes the ability of the shipowner or operator to
>conduct business without leaving the starport.

Your idea here is great, but the code system seems negative.  In your
previous examples, the letter 'H' for hooved animals indicates a presense
of.  Now 'B' -- Barristers not available is an absence.  Maybe this would be
best a numeric lookup code like Law Level or Goverment Type.


Keep up the good work!!!
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: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:15:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: t01bpa@abdn.ac.uk
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 586/ USL/SL/AF
Message-ID: <S9602081615.AA10194@sysc.abdn.ac.uk>


I think the idea around CG is that they displace not all of the displacement
of the ship, so any ship can float down to a 1G surface.
Howver, getting back up without suffering damage would be a problem
for any USL or SL in dense atsmophere.
So yes CG will support your gentle floating down, but the atsmophere and
buffeting of the laminar/high altitude wind flow an speeds IMHO may
cause a bit of a problem with an USL ship, don't you think.
Not to discount the weather.

So IMHO any ship can land using CG's, the question is would it survive
intact, as by definition any USL ship would be at the mercy of the planet's
weather systems and as would SL in dense atsmopheres.
"Woops, there goes our antenna".

AF would be able to withstand any *normal* atsmopheric effects.
By normal I mean an average day where the spacecraft was built.
I would look forward for publication of:
" Table 1.1 random events per 100 meters descent of a USL space craft.
  Table 1.2 random events per 100 meters descent of a SL spacecarft landing
        in a dense atsmophere.
  Table 1.3 random disasters per 1Km descent of a spacecraft with respect
        to atsmopheric conditions, just to spice the adventure up a bit."

Example:
You try lowering the voyager probe say at a very small rate of descent and
tell me that it would be unaffected by atsmopheric conditions as it takes
ages for it's USL body to hit the earth.  CG's would slow descent in order
to prevent friction.  However as it isn't streamlined, external conditions
would buffer the probe.

It is a known fact that wind speed near the ground is only a fraction of
wind speed further up.  Plus electrostatic charges, particles, aerosols
and the odd frozen chicken fired at the spaceship would cause a little
pitting of any protusions.



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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 16:21:23 +0000 (GMT)
From: t01bpa@abdn.ac.uk
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 585
Message-ID: <S9602081621.AA11287@sysc.abdn.ac.uk>


TNE:  'I can't damage them with my NPC's"
simple:  Use d10's for all damage dice.  Guns are ment to kill arn't they?



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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 10:47:09 -0600
From: fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: Virus Is Rare!!!
Message-ID: <199602081647.KAA08490@osh1.datasync.com>

>5> What about those lurking viruses? The ones that are out there are
>obviously NOT self-destructive; even in the wilds, the base chance of
>encounter is 1/3, modified for starport types; assuming the usual 2 checks
>per system per trip (1 at jump-in, 1 at arrival at planet, and same on way
>out) even 1 in 36 chance makes for a lot of viruses left throughout the
>wilds. [this is really poor game design, not a background issue, but the
>two factors ARE linked].
>
>summary: Virus permanently changes the TNE universe so that a traditional
>"imperial" type gov't will not rise again. Hidden fears, paranoia, and
>xenophobia are problematic.

I see where you get a 1 in 3 chance, but this (as you pointed out) must be
modified for Starport Type.  The chance is as follows:

        Type            Chance          Percent
         A              4 in 6           66.7%
         B              3 in 6           50.0%
        C&D             2 in 6           33.3%
         E              1 in 6           16.7%
         X              0 in 6            0.0%

The chance of finding a starport above E in the wilds is slim.  When you add
to that the chance of an encounter being a Virus ship (I think I figured it
out to be 1 in 60) the possibility of running across a Virus ship is rare
indeed.

This says nothing about the fact that the encounter tables are for points
when the referee's imagination is lacking and not a dictate of storyline.

I would agree that Virus limits the possibility of a future Imperium ever
rising to the magnatude that it existed before Strephon's murder, but that
is due to othe facts, not its current rampant existence.  Virus effects the
future possibilities because it:

        1. Destroyed all (Regency excluded) of the areas of civilization
left untouched by the Rebellion.  A different ending to the Rebellion would
have at least left large pockets of untouched civilization. (I believe the
arguement about the mass destruction and change describer in Survival Margin
is null as well.  Survival Margin was a TNE GDW product.  Note the Product
number and the section on converting characters.)
        2. fundamentally changed the TNE areas of civilization.  The RC is
vehemently against ideas (ie, nobility, secrecy) that the Imperium stood
for.  They even look at technology differently.  The Regency has mutated
into something that would severely frighten a Imperial citizen of say 1108.
Psionics are accepted and even used for the military.  Nobles no longer
control the government.  The Aslan & Vargr invaders have been assimilated
rather than fought off.  The evil nasty Zhodani are not only our friends,
but we even let them move onto our planets.  All of this is directly related
to the Regency closing its borders which happened because of Virus.

Basically, I believe that the rules support the facts that A) Virus is
currently rare, and B) the effects of Virus are severe.


Paul (tiger)

"54-40 of Fight!!" -TBWSK


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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 09:55:29 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 587
Message-ID: <9602081655.AA18508@Rt66.com>


> But wait a minute. As someone pointed out (thanks *very* much for doing so
> and getting us away from all the trees so that we can see the forest as a
> whole!) the variable here is *planetary atmosphere* NOT, and I repeat that,
> *NOT - NOT - NOT* Gravity. A USL vessel can land on a planet *as long as the
> planet has no atmosphere*. The GRAVITY is irrelevant ... as it notes quite
> specifically in *all* the Traveller material ... see FF&S page #10 for a
> start, "In general, airframe hulls may enter any planetary ATMOSPHERE to
> land on the surface or skim fuel; streamlined hulls may skim gas giants
> but may not land on planetary surfaces with ATMOSPHERES of greater than
> Thin; and unstreamlined hulls may do neither."

True enough.  I still stand by a caveat to your use of CG.

They must use CG along the axis they are braced for.  They may not land
on worlds with a larger surface gravity than they are braced for.  I
would let SL ships land on larger sized worlds, and AF hulls land on
worlds larger still regardless of the internal bracing (AF hulls are
more braced than the others---the MV is multiplied by an additional 1.3
when doing the actual hull).  Besdies there has to be some benefit to
SL+ options.  This is a gravity effect, not an atmospheric one.

Having said all this, what do you think is a good solution to the
problem?  What problem?  Well, I _like_ having different types of ships
with trade-offs on what they can and can't do, so I'd like to see USL
ships that can't land.

Maybe there is a simple interpretation of CG that'll allow us to require,
say, a closed hull form for CG lifters to work.  I'm waving my hands
right now, but you get the idea.  A simple rule that adds to the design
rules as an option would be a good thing... it also wouldn't void canon
since I seem to recall ships that can't land on worlds.

Regards,
Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 96 15:52:00 PST
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: "traveller%mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Traveller: Voyages [Traveller 4] :-)
Message-ID: <311A8CCB@pc136>



>  - TRAVELLER 4: A main rules book that includes:  basic character
> generation         (human and alien) for multiple careers (at least ten),
>basic world/system         gen charts, basic starship/equipment/vehicle
>design sequences (FF&S extra         lean and lite :*), basic trade
>guidelines, basic combat guidelines, lots         of
>equipment/vehicles/starships, basic task resolution, a major detailed
>timeline (including maps of the imperium at such&such a date), a short
>write-up about each of the main time periods available, and at least
>three mini adventures (one for each of the three main time perions:
>CT/MT/TNE and any new time periods you want to include).  The size of
>this book would be along the size of the TNE book, but must be well
>organized, well proofed, and readable.  I know this is a major work, but
>it may be the only way to at least soothe everyone. (300-500pgs(possibly
>in a 3-ring binder))

Hmm. Actually I'd prefer to see this in two books, the two totalling 3-500
pages. The first book containing all the rules, and the second containing
the background (separated into the three time periods, natch). The books
available together or separately.

This would allow those people who don't actually use the
Imperial/Rebellion/Hard Times/Virus backgrounds to continue with their own
campaigns and it would allow the diehard [insert whichever Traveller rules
set or variant you actually use] referees to use the background (or at least
the parts they agree with) without having to sully themselves buying/reading
through a complete new rules set. :-)

Rob. At the risk of starting another ruckus, is it worth having a poll to
see which eras (or even separate backgrounds) people are playing? [no flame,
no flame, it was just an idea.....]

Finally. To whoever asked about the Vargr (sorry, I can't find the original
question under all the bile :-0 ), the simple answer is that Vargr already
are 'domesticated' (that's probably not the right word though). The
differences in behaviour between a Vargr raised in Vargr society and a Vargr
raised in a predominantly Human society would be minimal. The Vargr would be
used to the more stable Human society and his relatively unchanging charisma
in relation to it and would be less prone to the sort of 'high charisma
gain' actions that Vargr in Vargr society would take for granted.

If you want to mail me the original question again (straight to me at
dave.elrick@ps.co.uk) I'll try to be a bit more specific.

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick

 ---------------------------------------
Curiousity killed the cat.
The Hiver took notes.

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

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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 14:25:06 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Traveller: Voyages [Traveller 4] :-)
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960208192506.0073259c@central.keywest.mpgn.com>

At 01:46 PM 2/8/96 -0500, David Elrick wrote:
>>  - TRAVELLER 4: A main rules book that includes:  basic character
>> generation         (human and alien) for multiple careers (at least ten),
>>basic world/system         gen charts, basic starship/equipment/vehicle

>Hmm. Actually I'd prefer to see this in two books, the two totalling 3-500
>pages. The first book containing all the rules, and the second containing
>the background (separated into the three time periods, natch). The books
>available together or separately.

I want Player and Equipment stuff in one book, and ref oriented stuff in a
seperate book.  It was reall tough trying to get characters created and work
on flushing out a world when there is but one book.  GM's will invariably be
putting final touches on their adventure just before it starts, and if the
players are busy passing the book around, it becomes difficult.

I would like a players book that has:
    Intro  Story
    Character Generation
    Skill Descriptions
    Character Improvement
    Equipment (Standard, dont waste space on building items here)
    Core Task/Combat System (personal, ground, and space)
    Players Map of the a few of the campaign areas
    Library Data (Players Version)
    Psionics (Player Info)

Then in a Refs Guide
    FF&S ultra-light
    World Building
    Trade
    Psionics (refs info)
    How to run an adventure
    Character Improvment from the GM's standpoint
    NPCs & Patrons
    Animals
    Aliens (Non-Player types for stocking unexplored worlds etc.)
    Library Data (refs version)
    History from Era A to Era Z

Then have each era represented in a seperate Era Book.

>Rob. At the risk of starting another ruckus, is it worth having a poll to
>see which eras (or even separate backgrounds) people are playing? [no flame,
>no flame, it was just an idea.....]

I thought about it, but it would probably end up with the same debate and
flaming going on.  Marc already knows what he wants to do and I suspect that
he is looking for ideas like this message thread presented (types of books
and content) rather than CT/MT vs. TNE or Pre Rebellion vs. Rebellion vs.
Virus.  So do a Poll if you want, though the results may not be of any use.

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: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 12:08:29 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 583
Message-ID: <199602082008.MAA15853@mom.hooked.net>


>Date: Tue, 06 Feb 1996 10:32:26 -0500
>From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
>To: traveller@MPGN.COM
>Subject: Re: construction worker
>Message-ID: <s1172df3.053@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
>
>Date: Mon,  5 Feb 96 02:14:00 UTC 0000
>Someone said:
>
>>I would agree with this; who wants to play a 58th century construction
>>worker?
>
>   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?
>
>   Have you no sense of camp?  :-)

(Cue disco music)

"I met him down at the TRAV-EL-LERS' AID!"

"In the (Imperial) Navy, you can blast a dirty, Vargr!"


Douglas E. Berry-dberry@hooked.net
who is ashamed to admit he rembers these songs


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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 14:43:58 -0500
From: "Lorenz E. Pogue" <lpogue@notes.cc.bellcore.com>
To: "traveller" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 576
Message-ID: <199602081943.AA16708@notesgw2.cc.bellcore.com>

With all the flames going on about TNE, which I am admittedly only passingly
familiar, has anyone
considered the possibility of a semi-Virus free future.  I understand rules
changes aside that Virus
is the core of many complaints.  Let us posulate that such a thing as Virus
does ravage space and
the Imperium.  Then suppose man, or another sophont race (in their ever spine
tingling war with
technology) discovers (possibly cooperatively with a Virus form) a means to
"put Virus in it's place"
as it were.  The end result would be a TL16 type of future where Virus has been
tamed and transformed
into Hyper Artificial Intelligent Computer systems (where the viruses seem to
reside).  In effect, man could not have super-smart computers, that might
achieve some other techno-advances from TNE or beyond,
however "man" would still have to tolerate certain strains of Virus and their
personality traits/disorders
to exist in their operating systems.  Perhaps somehow "man" has imposed the
three laws of robotics
upon the logical circuitry of Virus computers and subjugated them to "man's"
will.

At least this explains the TNE past, bridges past it, opens up new
technological fronts, and makes man
once again dominant.  Which seems to be the major point of disatisfaction with
TNE that Viruses seem to run the show.  The setting could take place as short
as one hundred years after TNE, or as far as four hundred.  Either way it would
seem unnecessary to prolong the Short Night (a phrase I have heard coined that
I particularly liked.

Well anyway, this is just a bone thrown out for the dogs to chew on.

Lorenz Pogue

"There is no dark side of the moon, really.
As a matter of fact, it's all dark."

-Pink Floyd

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 12:26:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: tml <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Infantry in TNE
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960208122505.3578A-100000@linda.teleport.com>

 I've noticed something... In TNE, infantry is useless.
 It can only hurt other infantry. So this thought line continues, and you
come to the conclusion of why not just make all tank and drone units?
 Against the pathetic vehicles in the RCVG, infantry can do something
with it's missiles(but the tanks can just fly over them:P), but against a
properly armourd TL-15 vehicle(av410 all around), infantry cannot hurt them.

bri <bri@teleport.com>
The Holocost was an obscene period in our nation's history...
This century's history... We all lived in this century.
I didn't live in this century. -- Dan Quayle


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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 17:45:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: Xboat Mailing List <xboat@MPGN.COM>,
Subject: Description/Explanation of Traveller Space Combat
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960208171904.20751A-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Hi All.  I have often had to explain in great detail to my players the
physics and feel of Traveller space combat (TSC).  For people used to seeing
X-wings bank and barrel-roll, the realism of TSC is distinctly alien.  So
I was thinking of writing up a short article describing basic vector
concepts, and my vision of TSC being somewhat similar in feel to Submarine
warfare (with firing being somewhat similar to anti-aircraft fire or
artillery).  Does anyone know of a similar article already in
print/electronic format?

Charles.

<0>         "The past is as unknowable as the future..."<0>
<0> Charles Collin (charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca), <0>
<0> Psychology Department, McGill University.  <0>
<0> 1205 Dr. Penfield, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, H3A 1B1.  <0>




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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 588
***************************
