TRAVELLER Digest 589

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Starports by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  2) TNE vs CT/MT by odysseus@inetnebr.com (Jeff Kazmierski)
  3) Re: Jump Drives, Improved Performance & Tech Levels by fibbert@golden.net
  4) Re: Jump Drives, Improved Performance & Tech Levels by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  5) USL Ships and Planetary Landings. Why Not?! by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
  6) Re: Release date for Traveller 4 by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
  7) An Unreliable J-Torp. by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
  8) To Streamline or not to streamline by Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
  9) Re: Traveller: Voyages [Traveller 4] :-) by simonm@ramhb.co.nz
 10) Re: Transstar by jbogan@pipeline.com (John H Bogan)
 11) Re: Virus-free future by "John A. King" <jking@interaccess.com>
 12) RE: USL Ships and Planetary Landings. Why Not?! by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 13) Re: Starports by Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
 14) RE: An Unreliable J-Torp. by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 15) Re: USL Ships and Planetary Landings. Why Not?! by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 15:52:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starports
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960208155012.25584A-100000@julie.teleport.com>

--
      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
--
 Rob, I'd like to point out that this would make sense if they were
wet-ships in dry-docks(heh, that sounds wierd).
 I don't think it's construction capability should be based on ship size,
as if your in 0-G, why do you have to build inside the starport at all?
Why not just have a ship being built "200 KM spinward"? out of the lines
of traffic.
 Rather, IMHO, it should be based on the capability of the starport to
manufacture -vs- import the nessicary components for the ship and the time.

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 22:59:39 -0500
From: odysseus@inetnebr.com (Jeff Kazmierski)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: TNE vs CT/MT
Message-ID: <199602090502.XAA09321@falcon.inetnebr.com>

  As an experienced gamer, GM and rules doctor, I can see no reason, with
the possible exception of bull-headed stubbornness, why the TNE rules
system can't be used to run a Pre-Collapse or Pre-Rebellion campaign.
  I've long considered Traveller, in all its incarnations, to be the best
SciFi game ever made.  Bar none.  I've also considered the players of
Traveller to be among the most intelligent in the gaming community.  You
have to be, after all:  it takes a lot of work and imagination to make such
a free-form, relatively limitless system work.  For the discussion over
which direction it should take in the future boil down to a bunch of people
bickering and shouting about oxen gone astray and calling each others'
babies ugly is truly a sad turn of events.
  In my opinion, MT and TNE are both excellent products and reasonably
logical extensions of the Traveller timeline.  Empires do fall, after all.
There's no reason we should have expected the Imperium (or any of the other
Major Sophont Empires, for that matter) to last forever.  To those who
don't like it, I say LIVE WITH IT.  What's been done is done.  It may not
be pleasant, or even good, but it's REALISTIC (well, somewhat).  We
shouldn't waste time arguing over whose version of history is the "true"
one.  TNE has been published, therefore it is part of the "canon" that so
many people seem to be obsessed with these days.
  So, what I'd like to see done is to have the timeline taken _forward_.
About 100 to 150 years or so, enough to get us past the rough rebuilding
period after the Collapse and the Longer Night.  By then, the RC and the
Regency should have met each other, with probably unfortunate consequences.
The Coreward threat to the Zhodani should be closer to materializing.  The
other major races will have recovered nicely (or nastily).  And, probably
most frustrating to "old fogies", NEW COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY will have been
developed to combat Virus!  I kind of envision a "Dune" type atmosphere,
where computers are used only when necessary and humans are trained as
"mentats" or "savants" or some such thing.  But maybe I'm being a bit
presumptuous.
  The point, of course, is this:  Quit wasting time arguing about who's
right and who's wrong and get back to the real business at hand:  plaing
Traveller and writing information and adventures for it.  Write it in
whatever format you use.  Those of us with too much time on our hands will
convert it into the format we use.

                +
                -\        "Hi, honey!  I'm home!
                | |      /       Who the hell are all these guys?"
                | |       _
       _        | |      /@
        \ ______|/______/
_________\ @@@@@@@@@@@@/_________odysseus@inetnebr.com



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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 00:10:18 +0000
From: fibbert@golden.net
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Jump Drives, Improved Performance & Tech Levels
Message-ID: <199602090411.XAA11591@golden.net>

>Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 21:22:03 +1100 (EST)
>From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
>To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
>Subject: Jump Drives, Improved Performance & Tech Levels
>Message-ID: <199602081022.VAA27672@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

>Jump Drives, Improved Performance & Tech Levels
>
>The standard Traveller Jump Drives are *allegedly* available from the
>pseudo-TLs of 9-5 and, basically unchanged from CTrav, require (1 +

..<much stuff removed>...

>So, why should we accept, say, that a TL7 Portable Airlock (as
>described in the Imperial Encyclopaedia, IIRC) is the last and final
>word in Portable Airlock tec even at TL15-16 ... or at higher TLs? Are
>we to accept that such devices can *never* be made more cheaply, of
>lighter but still as strong materials, or less bulky materials? No!
>Nor should we, by this reasonable standard, assume that JDrives never
>improve their efficiency and size for *old* models as *new* models are
>introduced.

What I usually assume is that:

a)  The profit margin on these items is too low to be worth the high
tech planets to bother with (Sort of in the same league as the VW Bug
only being made in S.A. because it would requre Japan and the U.S.
car makers to down-grade equipment to make it ... not worth the
effort).

b)  Any higher tech item (like the airlock example) can and is made,
but is specialized and costs alot more.  It is much lighter/more
efficient/less bulky and similarly more expensive.

Thanks

-Rob

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

Date: Thu, 8 Feb 1996 22:22:06 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Jump Drives, Improved Performance & Tech Levels
Message-ID: <9602090522.AA18305@Rt66.com>


Regarding Jdrives annd efficiency:

Phillip argues that a TL15 J1 drive should have the same fuel costs,
etc. as the J6 drive possible (BTW, I agree with examples like the
airlock he mentioned) at the same TL.

Jump is one place where I don't think this kind of arguement is
airtight.  What if size/cost/fuel use is based on different
_qualitative_ probelms associated with J-space.  To do a J1 requires a
drive unit of some size (2% of total field volume (read 2% of ship:)).
It also takes 10% ship's volume in fuel... regardless of TL.  The tech
is the same, or near enough that the improvements get lost considering
the MCr level of cost.

To do J1 with the efficiency that the J6 drive does, you have to build
the J6 drive, then put in fuel for J1.  The drive is bigger, but you
neeed the bigger thing-a-ma-whatzit to access the J6 area of Jspace.

The other systems with a TL of introduction, then no improvements are a
little odd though.  The problem with Jdrive is that it's so far out
there, any one of us could make up a plausable arguement why whatever we
want is true.

-Merrick

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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 17:20:39 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: USL Ships and Planetary Landings. Why Not?!
Message-ID: <199602090620.RAA19053@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

The whole point of the issue is, as far as I am concerned, that the increase
in the amount of "detail" in the MTrav and FF&S design systems is a *BAD*
thing. There would be no doubt in my mind that USL ships could not land in
CTrav ... there's no explanation of how contragrav or thruster plates work
at any significant level beyond the simple fact that they exist. For that
reason, while I might (it's a *long* time ago!) have thought it silly, I
never objected as, after all, I had no idea what the reason for the prohibition
was!

But MTrav, then FF&S *INSISTED* on giving us all sorts of unnecessary chrome
- and *that* is where the rot set in! Not necessarily the "chrome" per se, but
the way in which it seems to have been just slapped in there with no playtest
at all (not to mention no proofreading!) ... surely a simple logical look at
the new chrome in MTrav and TNE would have revealed the logical flaw in this
(and other!) areas? The real problem is that no-one really gave the thing a
thorough going over by someone not intimately involved with the design (having
done some of this for SJ Games and BTRC for some stuff, I can speak with a
degree of experience here ... not to mention designing stuff myself, FWIW) -
of, if they *did* they ought to sue!

How do I explain it away? Well, you really *cannot* do so without modifying
the rules. The simplest method, I would suggest, is to look at the NOE rules.
AFAIK there is no indication anywhere (please point it out if there *is*)
as to what *height* NOE speeds apply to ... in other words, is there a minimum
altitude to go with the maximum safe speed. This could be manipulated easily
(and logically enough) to require vessels that have no avionics to remain
at "high" altitudes on the understanding that cg lifters cannot be tuned to
the fine control tolerances needed for safe *very* low altitude maneuver (NOE)
without special extra controls (the NOE Avionics, in effect). This doesn't
really stop USL ships from landing. but it *does* explain some things about
them.

As for your argument that USL ships are braced differently and so cannot land
on a planetary surface. Again, you have ignored *completely* what was written.
A USL ship *can* land on a planetary surface ... it just cannot land on the
surface of a planet with an ATMOSPHERE! In other words, if you have a standard
Terran planet with 1 standard G, a USL ship (according to statements in Trav)
cannot land ... but a similar 1 standard G world with *no* atmosphere, and,
well, it *can* land! THIS is the problem that shoots your comments completely
down in flames.

Ultimately, the solution is to not try to be so superdetailed (or be a *hell*
of a lot more careful about it!) as FF&S was. Then there will be no basis on
which an argument such as mine could be supported. In other words, ditch
FF&S *completely* IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

NO, I do NOT mean ditch it forever and a day, but do a COMPLETE rewrite that
involves *NOTHING* of FF&S as it exists. Go back to the roots of CTrav and
work forward from there. If you end up wanting some of the ridiculous non-canon
changes of FF&S/TNE (such as HePlaR drives), well, include *them* too, but
do it from the basis of CTrav's technology base, NOT from the butcher jobs that
MTrav and FF&S did to it (of which the current argument is a case in point!).
That way there will be no problems such as we have here! This is the best
possible solution, stop trying to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear of
FF&S.

You know the thing that *really* pissed me off about FF&S (I was *already*
pissed off by HePlaR replacing 15 years worth of Thruster Plates and changing
*every* important factor about Space Travel and Space Combat)? It was the
inclusion of *non-Traveller* tech to pad it out. I don't *care* about 2300AD
stutterwarps, nor do I want Dean Drives or Subspace Sensors. I wanted standard
Jump Drives, Maneuver Drives, Sensors and the details needed to work with
them. Even the inclusion of tech of levels higher than max Imperial (16+) such
as Matter Transmitters and the like) I regarded as a waste of space. It was
never going to appear as something the players would interact with as more than
"passengers" in a deus ex machina in any campaign I ran, so design parameters
were pointless to give!

Anyway, another 2c worth!

Phil McGregor




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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 02:15:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: Xboat Mailing List <xboat@MPGN.COM>,
Subject: Re: Release date for Traveller 4
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960209020712.22280C-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Hi all.  I have a few questions regarding recent posts concerning Marc
Miller on AOL and the release of the latest Traveller rules.  I've read
estimates that it will be released late this summer or late this
year.  Are these simply speculations, or has MM said something regarding
this?  This seems a little quick, no?  Shouldn't we wait until the body
is cool? (don't flame me, it's just a figure of speech)  I would like to
see this version be the LAST one this century, and as such I hope that
Marc Miller will take the time to play-test and proof-read the heck out
of it.

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>



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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 03:38:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: Xboat Mailing List <xboat@MPGN.COM>,
Subject: An Unreliable J-Torp.
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960209025340.22367A-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Here's an idea I had which might satisfy both sides in the J-torp debate
(though I doubt it :-).  This may be similar to something Wil Hostman (or
someone else?) wrote earlier, in which case I apologize in advance for
stealing his thunder.

The idea is this:  you allow J-Torps, but make them highly unreliable.
Specifically, they get a +5 to the misjump roll (if using CT.  For TNE,
the person launching the torp must roll a formidable test of engineering).
This gives the torp a high chance of misjump (41.66% using CT), and a
small chance of exploding (8.33% using CT).

Why is this a good thing, you ask?  Because such a torp, if reasonably
expensive, could not replace/marginalize the X-boat network, but it could
still be used to send out emergency messages (if they don't arrive where
you want them to go, they might at least arrive _somewhere_) and as
lifeboats.  This also minimizes the problem of J-torps being used as a
weapon (again, assuming relative expense).

One could justify this unreliability by saying that the 100 ton limit is
the limit for safe jumps and that objects below that volume have
problems.  For instance, one might say that objects from 50-99 tons
have a +3 DM to misjump and that anything below 50 tons gets a +5 DM.  These
figures are fairly arbitrary, but you get my drift.

Phil, before you quote FF&S again, I realize it puts no lower limit on
the size of jump capable ships, but that could be for any number
of reasons.  FF&S was supposed to be a technical architecture for all
sorts of backgrounds, and GDW may have wanted to allow the possibility
of small jump-capable craft in backgrounds other than the standard
Traveller one. Also, it may simply have been an ommision.  There are lots of
CT/MT sources which state the 100 ton limit, so I'm going to take it as
canon despite the lack of mention in FF&S.

Finally, I would like to point out that the idea of an unreliable j-torp
is not incompatible with Leviathan.  The description in Leviathan is as
follows:

Jump Message Torpedoes:  Consists of little more than a jump drive, fuel
and a recording unit.  'J-torps' are used to send messages by
automatically broadcasting  a pre-recorded tape at the conclusion of
their jumps.

It says nothing regarding their reliability, and one could assume that
they are included as emergency messengers (yes, I'm playing with
semantics, but it's a minor point :-).

Of course, one can play around with the DM/task difficulty to make the
j-torp more/less reliable.

Comments?  Queries?  Ranting flames?

<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>



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

Date: Thu, 08 Feb 1996 21:35:38 +0800
From: Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: To Streamline or not to streamline
Message-ID: <3119FC2A.1BC6@iap.net.au>

I don't know how right or wrong this is but, if a object is 1 ton or a hundred 
tons they will
still fall at the same rate and increasing to maximin speed(this my be modified 
by surface area),
so there fore a CG USL ship will entry the atmosphere the same as a SL or 
Airframe ship, But a SL
or AF craft will have moveable suface areas to allow it to change its velocity 
and control those
velocity changes.
 With the avionics the computer would control the surface areas to allow a 
smooth ride, i don't
think a USL would have controlable surface area, but could use it main thrust 
to lower it into an
atmosphere, like a rocket.  The problem with this is 1. The directional 
thrusters it uses to
rotate the craft is space would be "i believe" unable to affect the course in a 
atmosphere.  2.
if the USL craft wast to land it would have no landing gear and if landing in a 
liquid the HEPlaR
would explode due to the sudden heat.
 With NOE i don't beleieve a USL craft could control it direction even with CG, 
because of the
points i have made above, with CT/MT thuster plates could be rotated to allow 
change of direction
, but this is not possiable with TNE.

This is my 2 Gold coins worth
(worth more then you local money) :-)
by the way it was 35C today and cloudy in Perth,WA
--
"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the
lamentations of their women! ." - Conan The Barbarian .

 "...and the skies shall be consumed in atomic fires and flesh burnt from
bone. His coming would be marked by war and fear and his dynasty would
have been known for its savage cruelty...
    ...save for one lone warrior."



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

Date: Sat, 10 Feb 96 01:36 NZDT
From: simonm@ramhb.co.nz
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Traveller: Voyages [Traveller 4] :-)
Message-ID: <m0tks4Q-0002hoC@mail.ramhb.co.nz>

Here's my two cents worth on the subject of what the new Traveller Books should
contain.

I get the feeling from reading these threads that there seems to be a large
group of people ( not necessarily players or refs ) who seem hell-bent on
turning what was once a really enjoyable game into a hard-science simulation of
a possible future ( despite the conjecture which surrounds such
vapour-technology ). Such an approach generates volumes of rules designed to
cover every possible situation ( doomed to fail since this is a moving target -
but great for third party publishers ) and changes the referee from a person
responsible for running fun adventures, into either a nervous wreck or a
techno-engineer.

Sure new timelines and campaign backgrounds are a great idea when used to
provide stimulous for adventures. And there's nothing wrong with Traveller ( as
a wholistic product line ) catering for those who'd rather get their numbers and
rules right than play the game. There will always be those who prefer designing
things to playing with them, or wargaming with miniatures or other non-personal
techniques, and good for them.

But Traveller ( The Roll Playing Game ) is not about that ( in my opinion ). It
is about a group of intelligent, imaginative, enthusiatic players getting around
a table with some dice, paper, pens ( and only the minimum amount of rules ),
and having a memorable experience. After all, Roll Playing is about experiencing
an alternate reality for a while, through the medium of the referee, and the
environment created by the Traveller Universe ( or whatever game you're playing
). It's about fun, not rules.

I'd like to see a LOT more space dedicated to letting new players know HOW to
roll play in the far future ( we do want new players don't we ? I know a lot of
us have been around for a while. Could we be feeling a bit jaded with our
campaigns perhaps ? ). After all, there should be enough experienced players out
there by now to know what makes a good campaign. How about condensing that
experience, and sharing it.

I remember my first few campaigns. I couldn't figure out why it was so hard to
translate my vision of life in this future universe to my players. I'd bought
ALL the books ( at that time ), had no previous roll playing experience, but was
 really enthusiastic about Traveller. Here was the game for me. However, I
expected the books to tell be how to roll play, and how to run a fun campaign,
but the books were simply full of rules, so I tried to use the rules to explain
the universe to the players using numbers, and short descriptions. It was pretty
bad.

And be honest. How many of you get more of a kick out of rolling up a character
than actually playing it ??

I suggest Mark spends a bit more effort helping new ( and maybe not so new )
players and referees understand how to enjoy the game, and less time generating
new volumes of intimidating rules and tables.

I thought T2300s Task system was a terrific way of replacing large numbers of
specific rules with a simple "handle anything" resolution system. It's easy to
learn, and only lacks a couple of pages of gaming examples to be the perfect way
to play.

Which brings me to the idea of writing a rule book which reads more like the
story of a group of adventurers ( and their referee ) and explains the rules in
the context of the adventure, rather than as a bunch of cold facts and tables (
sure, use the publishing package to make the facts stand out for easy
reference... ).

OK, Maybe two bucks worth rather than two cents, but thats what I think...


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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 08:15:46 -0500
From: jbogan@pipeline.com (John H Bogan)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Transstar
Message-ID: <199602091315.IAA19865@pipe10.nyc.pipeline.com>

Catching up after a few days' posts.

A few quibbles with the Transstar write-up:

You say Transstar became a major shipping and
economic force in Old Expanses by 1130, but that
seems to be based on the assumtion that:

1) the Solomani took Old Expanses (which they did); and
2) they KEPT it (which, for the most part, they DIDN'T).

The Old Expanses sector government surrendered to
the Solomani (thanks to Lucan stripping their defences),
but at their height, around 1118, the Solomani only
effectively controlled about 75% of the sector.
     On top of that, they were pushed back about 10 parsecs
by campaigns from Margaret's Domain, so by 1120 they
only controlled about half.
     Things stabilized there for a couple of years, but by
1123, the economic effects of the Hard Times began to
be felt in a major way, and Solomani control deteriorated rapidly.
     [what are now] Aubaine and Oriflamme subsectors were
"frontier" zones, officially "Provisional Members of the
Solomani Confederation", and dangerously close to Wilds
regions in Diaspora and elsewhere in Old Expanses.
    These weren't exactly high times for commercial shipping,
which is what Transstar primarily did.

Let me suggest an alternative:

Transstar set up provisional offices on Fija to handle the new
provisional territories, and kept them open even though
traffic was way, way down from initial expectations. (After
all, things can only get better, right?).

BTW, bravo for choosing Fija, its about time we heard from
someplace other than Aubaine and Oriflamme.

Another quibble:

Isn't Transstar's fealty to the Solomani Party a little out of
place in the RC? After all, this is the place where 'breaking
with the corrupt past' is a big thing, all the planets rename
themselves, people spit on 'Imperials', etc. And I don't think
the RC government would be too keen on having one of
their major shippers even theoretically beholden to an
outside power. Even if they keep the 'Transstar' name,
just make them a _Fijan_ company.


--
John H Bogan           jbogan@nyc.pipeline.com

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

Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 08:29:09 -0600
From: "John A. King" <jking@interaccess.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Virus-free future
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960209142909.0068cc70@pop.interaccess.com>

"Number One, deactivate the lurking device."

I have only been a subscriber for a short time, but as I have a congenital
death wish, I will post a germ of an idea I thought of as I read the last
digest. If this thread has been addressed before, I apologise. Gentlemen,
start your flamers!

I think that Mr. Pogue's post is a good stab at one possible thread of
post-Virus Traveller. What has struck me about all the supplements to date
is the willingness for everyone out there to use pre-existing computer
technology, basically unchanged from pre-Virus days. All the computers in
the Galaxy are still open to infection from Virus. Some are more  or less
shielded, but a smart Virus can still infect any computer out there.

I would put forth, as another possible thread of the future, that Anti-Virus
feelings are much stronger than portrayed by TNE. In fact, a movement will
arise whose goal is the eradication of all comuters (cf. the "Butlerian
Jyhad" in Herbert's Dune series). Work is being done (in a Pocket Empire?,
in the Zhodani Consulate?) on techniques that allow minimal or no use of
computers for star travel (or in general, for that matter). Some form of
psionic precognition will be needed to navigate starships (the "Guild
Navigators"), some psionic super-memory and analysis disciplines will have
to be developed (the "Mentats"), and etc. If this was to be your time line,
many years would have to pass before this new paradigm could be entrenched.
Of course, you would also move your campaign away from more or less "hard"
science and more into "fantasy" science, but if you allow psionics in the
first place, this could be a viable option.

I have just come up with this, and I am not advocating it as in any way
fully-baked (in fact, it hasn't even gone in the oven yet), so please
remeber that when you comment.

Thanks,
John A. King
jking @interaccess.com

"Remember, Arthur, that evil is bad and good.....isn't!" - The Tick


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

Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:40:32 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: USL Ships and Planetary Landings. Why Not?!
Message-ID: <199602091440.JAA02488@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Fri, 09 Feb 1996 01: 27:58 EST
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:40:31 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: You know the thing that *really* pissed me off about FF&S (I was
: *already* pissed off by HePlaR replacing 15 years worth of Thruster
: Plates and changing *every* important factor about Space Travel and
: Space Combat)?  It was the inclusion of *non-Traveller* tech to pad it
: out.  I don't *care* about 2300AD stutterwarps, nor do I want Dean
: Drives or Subspace Sensors.  I wanted standar d Jump Drives, Maneuver
: Drives, Sensors and the details needed to work with them.  Even the
: inclusion of tech of levels higher than max Imperial (16+) suc h as
: Matter Transmitters and the like) I regarded as a waste of space.  It
: was never going to appear as something the players would interact with
: as more th an "passengers" in a deus ex machina in any campaign I ran,
: so design parameters were pointless to give!

I'll just throw in my two cents from the other end of the spectrum.  I
can see and agree about your argument for HEPlaR replacing Thrusters.
That was a change that was obviously put in to energize BL combat via
the threat of Bingo Fuel et al.  Dumb idea?  Maybe not.  Should it
have been a mandatory change?  Probably not.  Bring back Thruster
Plates?  Yeah.

However, I must admit that the one thing I did like about FFS was that
it did present alternative technology.  Just because some people don't
deviate from the "standard" Traveller campaign doesn't mean that there
aren't others out there that wouldn't like to do something different.
Even if it's just once-in-a-while.  I really thought that alt tech was
one of FFS's strong-points and I hope it stays in the next version
too.

As for TL16+ those are kinda necessary for constructing Ancient
artifacts.  And making the other occasional TL18 lost civilization in
some far-off sector isn't too bad too.

       --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: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:46:34 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rwm@MPGN.COM>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Starports
Message-ID: <2.2.32.19960209144634.0070946c@central.keywest.mpgn.com>

At 06:53 PM 2/8/96 -0500, bri wrote:
>--
>      digit = tons of displacment exponent

> I don't think it's construction capability should be based on ship size,
>as if your in 0-G, why do you have to build inside the starport at all?
>Why not just have a ship being built "200 KM spinward"? out of the lines
>of traffic.

> Rather, IMHO, it should be based on the capability of the starport to
>manufacture -vs- import the nessicary components for the ship and the time.

I dont think that it was intended to say "within the starport" as much as
that main world's ship construction capabilities.  Where isn't mentioned,
but the capacity to build.  The orginal post had values that had X meaning
no capabilites, 1-9 was the tons of displacement exponent, 0 ment military
construction.  I was just suggesting that to follow the Traveller standard
where 0 means no capabilities, 1-9 appropriate size, A-F used for Exotic
situations, such as Military Only.

Depending on the system, the ship construction facilities may be at a
lagrange point, while the trading docks are at another.

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: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 09:50:32 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: An Unreliable J-Torp.
Message-ID: <199602091450.JAA02897@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Fri, 09 Feb 1996 03: 38:24 EST
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:50:31 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: Specifically, they get a +5 to the misjump roll (if using CT.  For TNE,
: the person launching the torp must roll a formidable test of engineering).
: This gives the torp a high chance of misjump (41.66% using CT), and a
: small chance of exploding (8.33% using CT).

Many people have mentioned this.  I think this is the best solution
and probably the most plausible.  It explains why they're possible but
not feasible to use for regular runs.

: Phil, before you quote FF&S again, I realize it puts no lower limit on
: the size of jump capable ships, but that could be for any number
: of reasons.  FF&S was supposed to be a technical architecture for all
: sorts of backgrounds, and GDW may have wanted to allow the possibility
: of small jump-capable craft in backgrounds other than the standard
: Traveller one. Also, it may simply have been an ommision.  There are lots of
: CT/MT sources which state the 100 ton limit, so I'm going to take it as
: canon despite the lack of mention in FF&S.

Now, I'm not sure so please correct me if I'm wrong.  The reason that
FFS doesn't impose a 100 ton limit was to make it fit in with some
original CT stuff.  I always assumed this to be j-torps and the like.
I clearly remember the 100 ton limit being in MT, but I don't remember
it being explicitly stated in CT.  Granted, CT is the only era that I
don't have everything for, so I may be missing something.

As for the standard Traveller background.  In TNE, there are under 100
ton j-capable starships.  They can all be found in the RSB, and the
most notable one would be the jboat.

       --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: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 10:35:11 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: USL Ships and Planetary Landings. Why Not?!
Message-ID: <9602091735.AA08311@Rt66.com>


> The whole point of the issue is, as far as I am concerned, that the increase
> in the amount of "detail" in the MTrav and FF&S design systems is a *BAD*
> thing. There would be no doubt in my mind that USL ships could not land in
> CTrav ... there's no explanation of how contragrav or thruster plates work
> at any significant level beyond the simple fact that they exist. For that
> reason, while I might (it's a *long* time ago!) have thought it silly, I
>never objected as, after all, I had no idea what the reason for the prohibition
> was!

[other snipped for digest people]

Of course I always thought reactionless drives were goofy, so, since it
isn't mentioned in CT (HG, etc., though maybe in a JTAS---not all of
those articles are canon, BTW, Loren wrote a letter from the editor
about it once in JTAS) I never even considered the drives to be
reactionless.

Your basic point is (correct me if wrong) that detail provides too much
of a focus on things that should not be looked at too closely.  I agree
with that to some degree.

I disagree that all of FFS should be thrown out the window, however.

My solution is to ditch the bad, fix the ugly, and keep the good.  You
mention a simple fix regarding the NOE speed rules.  Great!  It's
simple, write it out in a clear way, and throw it out here for the rest
of us to use.  One down, you're perceptive enough to find and fix a
bunch more, so just fix 'em.  The really bad problems you throw away.
You'll find that you're preaching to the choir regarding the lack of
playtesting, BTW, I think we all agree about it :-)

> As for your argument that USL ships are braced differently and so cannot land
> on a planetary surface. Again, you have ignored *completely* what was written.
> A USL ship *can* land on a planetary surface ... it just cannot land on the
> surface of a planet with an ATMOSPHERE! In other words, if you have a standard
> Terran planet with 1 standard G, a USL ship (according to statements in Trav)
> cannot land ... but a similar 1 standard G world with *no* atmosphere, and,
> well, it *can* land! THIS is the problem that shoots your comments completely
> down in flames.

True enough, but then again you need a high rms velocity on your
atmosphere atoms to not have an atmosphere on an earth size planet :-)
But you're right, this is an oversight in the rules.  But all rules have
broken bits in 'em.  Fix them.

What about rock-throwing?  I don't wanna start the super KE weapons
thing again, but you either limit CT rules in an arbitrary way, or any
nut with a lifeboat can kill your planet.  My point is that all such
rules are broken to some degree.

> Ultimately, the solution is to not try to be so superdetailed (or be a *hell*
> of a lot more careful about it!) as FF&S was. Then there will be no basis on
> which an argument such as mine could be supported. In other words, ditch
> FF&S *completely* IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

I totally agree.  Fix FFS, and be careful.  Playtest the extremes so
that it still fits the universe we play in.  If you mean by "in its
current form" that if anything is wrong, then we toss the whole thing, I
disagree.  Keep what isn't broken, trash the rest that can't be fixed
(and a lot can with not much more than clarifications, IMHO).

A lot of FFS makes sense.  There will be physics limits on most tech.
You need x amount of energy delivered to a unit areea to burn a hole.
Period.  Non-FTL sensors will obey EM physics, so those are physics
limited.  Etc., that's a good thing about FFS.  I think that a rewrite
is required, BTW, and a major one at that, don't get me wrong.  Funny, I
think we actually agree about most of this :-)

I could also live without a bunch of the alternate stuff.  Much of it is
useful for the reasons Jerry mentioned, though.  And the higher TL stuff
gives some neat ideas regarding what research is being done in the
Imperium, etc..  The key is that the higher TL stuff needs to fit with
the plans for future developements in the universe (something the I
doubt was thought of---they designed the rules for FFS, then applied the
higher TLs to the RSB.  They needed to know what the Regency would look
like, etc., then do the higher tech.)

Regards,
Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 589
***************************
