TRAVELLER Digest 594

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Infantry is NOT useless by "'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@u.washington.edu>
  2) Public Apology by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  3) Re: TRAVELLER digest 591 by "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
  4) Re: Vargr Questions by Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
  5) Re: TRAVELLER digest 592 by library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  6) HePLaR and fleet tactics by Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
  7) Re: The RICE Archives are on-line! by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  8) Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  9) In-system micro-jumps...? by "'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@u.washington.edu>
 10) Why use Infantry? by A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
 11) Re : TRAVELLER digest 589 by angus.mclellan@almac.co.uk (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
 12) Empress Wave Rubbish by angus.mclellan@almac.co.uk (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
 13) Re: why even have a timeline at all? by Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
 14) Request for Ideas by Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
 15) Near Bootes Commonwealth Updates by "Ronald J. Bailey" <ab871@seorf.ohiou.edu>

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:05:25 -0800 (PST)
From: "'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@u.washington.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Infantry is NOT useless
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91j.960212155551.152243C-100000@homer30.u.washington.
edu>


On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, George Herbert wrote:

>
> From: "'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@u.washington.edu>
> >> >  Sprite class TL-16 combat drone
> >> > Total cost: MCr4.988
> >> 5MCr is a bunch of money :-)
> >
> >For smart, mobile military tech, that's relatively low.  Consider that a
> >top of the line laser guided bomb costs about a million dollars (like the
> >one they used to plaster that bomb shelter in Iraq).  So, if the tactical
> >value of this drone is high enough, that's a cheap price tag.
>
> Umm, no, laser guided bombs run $3k to $12k except for the GBU-28(29?)
> which they custom-built to take out those deep bunkers.

Are you absolutely sure about that?  I remember reading that those
missles were indeed custom built (they hadn't even been fully developed by
the beginning of the "conflict") and I remember the pricetag being much
MUCH higher that $3000.  Also, the Phoenix missles that are standard
armament on the Tomcat cost a ton of money.  But that's the military.
The military is not into cutting costs, they spend a lot of money on what
they do spend it on because that stuff LASTS.  Granted, some of the stuff
has been flops (can you say SDI), but for the most part, the United
States military is an extremely efficient force (my hat's off to them).

> A few of the long range standoff precision guided munitions cost
> in the neighborhood of $1m (SLAM).  Most of them are under $100k,
> with a few over that (JSOW, a few others).  Laser guided bombs
> are dirt cheap.  Even Maverick missiles are pretty cheap...

"The parties herein have agreed to disagree" about your figures and mine
;)  I'll see if I can dig up anything official just for the sake of knowing.

Still, in favor of 5 MCr pricetag for the drone: the drone has increased
expendability, is cheaper than any human piloted craft, apparently does
more damage (watching the debate over it's armament), and, the most
important aspect---multiple drones can be overseen by relatively few
operators, giving infantry ground forces more bang (pun intended) for the
buck.  That drone looks like something the Marines would be drooling
over, what with their desire for high mobility (hopefully low
maintenance) weaponry.

> (Try making one in FF&S, it's roughly accurage in the $1-2 per Cr
> translation range 8-)
>
> -george william herbert
> gherbert@crl.com
>
>

-----

 "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
         Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
    "MORDE MANUBRIUM MEUM."


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 17:11:04 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au
Subject: Public Apology
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960212231104.0070c9e0@lynx.csn.net>

        A few days ago I responded to a post from Philip McGregor about the
level of detail in FF&S. After reviewing what I said, I've come to the
conclusion my response was out of line. I'd like to apologize.

        While I still stand by _what_ I said, I was excessively acerbic and
negative. Phil, I didn't intend that as a personal attack, and I sincerely
apologize.

        What I opposed was the idea that since _some_ don't like detail, it
shouldn't be published at all, even as a supplement. If that's not what you
meant to say, I misunderstood, and I apologize for that. But even if it is
what you meant, there was no call for me to be so negative.

        Now, let's get back to generating ideas for Mr. Miller that will
satisfy _everybody_.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

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


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 16:26:48 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 591
Message-ID: <199602130026.QAA04009@mom.hooked.net>

At 01:07 PM 2/11/96 -0500, you wrote:

>--
> How would this infantry possibly defend against a tank or a drone?

You might ask the same question today.  The job of the infantry isn't to win
battles, it is to hold ground.  It is a tremendous waste of resources to
attack infantry with a tank, especially when that infantry have ATGMs,
artillery and air support on call, and are in prepared positions.

Picture this:  You are riding to victory in your multi-million ruble T-72
when WHAM!  A LAW rocket blows your right tread off.  Your war machine is
now a paper weight, and will soon attrack all sorts of attention.  I'm
certain that the 57th Century groundpounders will have a complete bag of
tricks for dealing with pesky grav tanks.  (Example:  One shot fusion mine,
triggered by a CG field passing overhead in NOE)

Digression:  Many gamers and artists put *all* their troops in battledress
or some other type of sealed armor.  Take a look at the cost breakdown of
equipping an infantry divison (8-14,000 troops) with BD and fusion weapons.
Now see how many troops you could outfit with Combat Enviroment Suits and
Gauss Rifles for the same cost.  At a nearly 25:1 advantage, the more
"lightly" armed force wins every time.

The basic jobs of the combat arms:

Infantry: Take and hold ground
Armor: Close with and destoy the enemy
Artillery: Kill and supress the enemy.

****************************************************************************
********
* Douglas E. Berry-dberry@hooked.net  *  "God does not play dice        *
* Writer, Professional Driver, Pervert       *  with the Universe." -Einstein  *
* Phone/ S-Mail on request                    *  "We do." -countless GMs      *
****************************************************************************
********


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:25:14 -0500 (EST)
From: Charles Collin <charles@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>
To: Trav Mailing List <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Vargr Questions
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960212201257.15088A-100000@hebb.psych.mcgill.ca>

Chris writes:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That's a good point and so is the rest of your argument, but I think
letting the player off by saying, "Just act like a human and we'll just
suppose that's the type of quirky Vargr you are," is a bit of a cop out.
I don't want to dictate how other refs should run their campaigns, but
playing aliens and trying to emulate at least a portion of their unique
personalities should be part of the challenge.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I could not agree more.  I was not implying that Vargr should be
played in any way desired at any time.  I was speaking to Paul's
particular situation (was it Paul who posted this question originally? I'm
not sure.).  Most Vargr will have Vargr tendencies as spelled out in the
Alien module, but because of great variability, just about anything is
possible on an individual basis.  This is true of all races, and even more
so of the Vargr (IMO).

The challenge of roleplaying an actual alien with alien
motivations and an alien psyche is one of the best parts of Traveller.
But the Vargr were specifically made easy to roleplay by having them be so
chaotic that just about anything is allowed on an individual basis
(there's a quote to this effect in the Vargr module somewhere, but I don't
have it with me).  Still, your point is well taken:  carrying this sort of
thing too far leads to Vargr being humans in furry suits.

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: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:06:49 -0600
From: library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 592
Message-ID: <199602140004.OAA02454@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

Merrick said:
>For anything that needs a computer to actually perform the
>task, sure, why not let anybody have a crack at it?  Anybody with no
>skill level in computers must be able to use them just to read mail, do
>their banking, etc. at the point in history we're talking about.

You can represent this by a level-0 skill, as used in MT. In MT char gen,
characters are given a set of level-0 skills depending on the
characteristics of their homeworld (eg. TL 8, Wheeled Vehicle-0: TL 10+, Grav
Vehicle-0, etc).

Totally unskilled charaters have the difficulty level raised by one (Simple
becomes Routine, etc). Level-0 gives you no bonuses, BUT the difficulty is
not increased.

BTW, my players have found that the MT system was OK, but the TNE system is
easier to use. In MT, you need to divide your stat by 5, add it to your
skill, then roll and add that number, then remember another set of numbers
for success (3-7-11-15-19) - 4 steps. In TNE, your asset is
already known: you just *2 for Routine and roll under it - 2 steps.

MT is more flexible - a skill is not tied to a stat - but TNE is easier.
It is also possible to succeed in an Impossible task (rolling a 1) which
is not possible AT ALL in MT.

- Hyphen
(David Jaques-Watson)
Library
Dept. of Social Security
Box 7788
Canberra Mail Centre ACT 2610


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 20:31:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HePLaR and fleet tactics
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960212200311.10837A-100000@hollywood.cinenet.net>


In all the "is not!" - "is too!" debate over the canonical status of
HePLaR drives vs. thruster plates, I've seen little discussion -- some,
but very little -- about the tactical and strategic implications of this
drive change.  It seems to me that moving from practically free (in
energy and reaction mass), practically limitless (months/years of
duration, regardless of use) drives to very energy/mass expensive, very
limited drives must have major military implications.  Here are some of
my musings on the topic.

First off, assume that a "standard" wartime fleet engagement consists of
an Intruder fleet (I-fleet) jumping into a star system and attempting to
control the mainworld -- where control might mean interdicting,
bombarding, landing troops on, or whatever.  Meanwhile, a Native fleet
(N-fleet) is attempting to stop this from happening.

Book Five, High Guard, took its title from a (formerly) canonical element
of fleet doctrine in such engagements.  Where possible, it was presumed
that the I-fleet would jump in-system near a gas giant, allowing immediate
refueling of tanks emptied by the jump -- thereby giving the I-fleet the
option of running away at need, important to any competent commander.
However, ships doing wilderness refueling at a GG are vulnerable -- in
atmosphere, deep in a g-well, etc. -- so other ships would orbit above
them, covering their refueling in the "High Guard" position.  Nice
concept.

Alas, it all starts to fall apart under HePLaR.  In the Good Old Days of
thruster plates, you could refuel at the GG, then burn in-system at max
gee, flip over at midpoint, then decelerate at max gee the rest of the
way, arriving with tanks still full at the mainworld a couple of days
later.  Try that in a HePLaR ship and your fuel gauge will be on E before
you've cleared the GG's outer moons (okay, I'm exaggerating -- but you
see my point).  Instead, you have to boost a bit, coast a *long* time,
then reverse thrust a bit, arriving at the MW with slightly low tanks,
but (hopefully) still enough to maneuver and jump.

Now, for a good healthy GG/MW separation, and using a typical ship, while
maintaining adequate fuel reserves to fight and leave, we're talking
*weeks* of travel to get to the MW!  Now huge amounts of canon --
including the game Fifth Frontier War, along with lots of other background
material -- are based on the military rhythm of one week jumping, one week
playing around in-system.  The whole pace of strategic action falls apart
if you spend a week tavelling between the stars, then most of the rest of
a month plodding around in your target system.

I see two extremes available to fleet commanders, with endless room for
optimization in between:

(1) Hypercautious: Jump to GG, refuel, then slide in *slow* to inner
system, arriving with tanks nearly full.
    ADVANTAGE:    Lots of options stay open as long as possible.
    DISADVANTAGE: Conflict is over before your first assaults take place --
and it didn't end in your favor.

(2) Hyperoptimistic: Jump directly to MW.  Win.  Refuel at leisure from
oceans or captured facilities on MW.
    ADVANTAGE:    Maximum pace of strategic advance...possible to jump
in, paste the natives, refuel, and be on your way to the next system in
just a day or two.
    DISADVANTAGE: You're in deep dudou (a noxious weed found on many
worlds in Lanth and Vilis subsectors) if the natives start winning.

My point is, if we accept HePLaR, we really need to take a serious new
look at naval tactics.  Anybody want to extend or refute my analysis? I
haven't even mentioned the interesting possibilities of in-system jumps
yet -- Douglas, you up to handling that?

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


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:17:36 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: The RICE Archives are on-line!
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960213041736.007069c8@lynx.csn.net>

At 06:31 pm 2/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>  This situation has been alleviated somewhat.  We have been using
>  a private data service for our transmissions; this service has
>  recently upgraded its capabilities with regards to allowing its
>  clients to make information available (without upgrading the
>  costs!).  Portions of our archives are now available directly on
>  the Web, and as we are able to convert other information to a
>  Web-acceptable format, more will become available.  We therefore
>  invite researchers and travellers from all over the Regency, and
>  the other Spinward States where Web access is available, to visit
>  the Rice Archives On-Line.  The Uniform Resource Locator (URL) is
>  http://www.execnet.com/~jeffz/travellr.html (note carefully the
>  spelling!).

        Hmmm ... does this mean I should discontinue my own offerings? If
so, let me know. Either way, would you like me to zip up and e-mail the ones
I've already HTML'd? Ought to save you a bit of time in converting ...
 ___________________________________________________________________
  Dave Golden                              PGP Public Key available
  goldendj@whip.com        http://www.whip.com/~goldendj/index.html

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


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 22:11:19 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics
Message-ID: <9602130511.AA20168@Rt66.com>


First let's throw out, then forget the fact that limitless delta v makes
KE weapons really, really frightening.  That's a whole can-o-worms with
thruster plates.

[stuff about HG and GG refueling snipped]

Well, 2 things.  One, GG refueling as a "real" behavior (TCS players
jump in here) was always kinda dubious tactically, FFW mechanics not
withstanding.

Two, if this does take place, it's no safer jumping first to the GG
since the MW _knows_ they have to go there.  The GG is defended,
heavily, and why not?  The I-Fleet _must_ refuel, and you can wait and
cream 'em when they try.

[stuff about GG refueling not happening due to delta v limits on ships
under HEPlaR snipped]

Now, you're right, the jump, refuel, drive on in is trashed.  But when
HEPlaR I-fleets jump in they really need to refuel.  Badly.  They are
forced to fight if the fuel is defended, and they are forced to right
away since time is on the defender's side.  Given the so-so nature of GG
fueling in CT, it makes, if anything, more sense with HEPlaR!  It's much
easier to skim a GG than it is to land on the mainworld for fuel.  And
given either history the GG is heavily defended (under the assumption it
would really be used).

In CT, you may as well go for the mainworld right off:

Scenario 1
I-fleet jumps to GG.  GG heavily defended (everyone jumps to the GG,
it's important!).  I-fleet fights.  If it loses, they're dead.  If it
wins, they fuel. Then I-fleet attacks mainworld.  Same kind of fight,
but this time they can leave.

Scenario 2
I-fleet jumps to mainworld.  MW heavily defended (we can't lose MW!).
I-fleet fights.  If they lose, they're dead.  If they win, they can
fuel.  If they want, they can go fight again at the GG (why?).

TNE Scenario 1
I-fleet jumps to GG.  GG heavily defended.  I-fleet fights to fuel.  If
they lose, they're dead.  If they win, they fuel.  Jump to MW.  Fight
again.  It's a small jump, so they can jump back to GG if they need to.

TNE Scenario 2
I-fleet jumps to MW.  MW heavily defended.  Fight or die.  Ends up the
same as Scenario 2 above.

The problem is that if GG refueling is sooo important, then the GG will
be defended very well, and for good reason. In both cases the ships that
fuel up before tackling MW have more options than the direct attack.
GG attacks will warn MW regardless, but in the CT example they will be
heading to MW for sure (just watch 'em get bigger in the telescope).  In
the TNE example, you'll see them disappear on the telescope and wonder
if they're jumping to MW, or off to another system.

My few credits worth to be torn to shreds :-)

-Merrick

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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 21:38:42 -0800 (PST)
From: "'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@u.washington.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: In-system micro-jumps...?
Message-ID: <Pine.A32.3.91j.960212213541.59003B-100000@homer05.u.washington.edu>


Are there any rules out there for in-system micro-jumps.

For instance, moving from orbit 7 to orbit 10 at a modest 15G-hours of
acceleration (necessitating 15g-hours of deceleration) it would take
close to a year (which reflects reality).  So how much fuel does a
micro-jump take for this distance (which is covered in only a week)?

-----

 "Life is a disease of matter." --- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
         Charles Pratt tminus@u.washington.edu -- when in doubt, sail.
    "MORDE MANUBRIUM MEUM."


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:09:09 +0000
From: A.S.Lilly@bnr.co.uk (Andy Lilly)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Why use Infantry?
Message-ID: <199602131117.GAA07763@Ambassador.MPGN.COM>

Drones of the size and intelligence given in previous e-mails would not be
as suitable as normal troops for taking positions which you do not want to
devastate. When talking about combat in 'civilian' areas, the massed
firepower of heavy fusion tanks (or robots) is useless if you are trying to
pick off small enemy units without destroying the entire
city/base/starport/whatever. Also, close-in combat within built-up areas
allows the enemy to get their (perhaps weaker) anti-tank (or anti-robot?)
weaponry so close to your tanks/robots that their armour suddenly doesn't
give them such a great advantage.

All such weapons have their place but they are not a 'universal' solution.
It should also be noted that such high tech robots require high tech worlds
to create them and high tech engineering facilities to maintain them on or
close to the battlefield.

Lastly, I seem to remember that the Imperium (and hence perhaps the Regency
in TNE times) had quite strict laws about robots, i.e. any true AI robot had
the same rights as a living being, and also that (due to some trojan horse
robot exploding and destroying a major war vessel many years back in
Imperial history) there were limitations on their use and armament. I think
these are given in the MT Encyclopaedia - I remember researching them for an
Geneering/Robotics article for the Traveller Chronicle.

On the subject of the penetrations making drone/mass-driver/Trepida grav
tank such short combats based on who fires first wins, this is probably a
fairly accurate reflection of modern tank combat, as experienced in the Gulf
War, i.e. Brit or US tanks approaching 20 Iraqi tanks in defensive hull-down
berms on a ridge... fifteen seconds later same number of our tanks, zero
Iraqi tanks operational. Technology in modern weaponry really can be that
decisive...

Andy Lilly
Coordinating BITS (British Isles Traveller Support)


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

Date: Mon, 12 Feb 96 22:35:00 +0100
From: angus.mclellan@almac.co.uk (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re : TRAVELLER digest 589
Message-ID: <8BAA54B.1400019923.uuout@almac.co.uk>


In article <2.2.32.19960209142909.0068cc70@pop.interaccess.com>
"John A. King" <jking@interaccess.com> writes
Re : Virus-Free future
<snip>
>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).

A good point. Surely the SSMM (Society for the Supremacy of Man over
Machine, an organisation traditional associated mainly with Solomani
supremacist groups) is bound to be one of the most powerful political
pressure groups in the Regency.
Mind you, given the traditionally ultra-conservative nature of the SSMM,
it's hard to visualise them suddenly accepting joyfully the need for
genetically engineered superbrains (especially with the SSMM's
traditionally Solomani background and the Solomani attitude to genereed
supermen as a result of the Gene War).
However, there are quite a few Megacorporations with a vested interest
in the continuing use of computers, as well as groups opposed to
geneering. It isn't quite as clear-cut as all that. And there are
religious pro-Technology groups like the Apostles of Clarke's Law.
I suspect that computers are here to stay in the Traveller universe.

Angus

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 10:35:00 +0100
From: angus.mclellan@almac.co.uk (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Empress Wave Rubbish
Message-ID: <8BAB27B.1400019924.uuout@almac.co.uk>


TO: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM

In article <199602091944.NAA15172@osh1.datasync.com>
fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker) writes>Message-ID:

>In conjunction with this I am working on a short term timelinefor the
>immediate future(25-35 years) of the RC and Regency.  I'm at a loss as
>to the Empress Wave though (it seems my original theory wasn't
>cannonical. :)).  If anyone has any suggestions I'd love to hear them.
>I'll post my ideas in a few days(after I have some weekend time to work
>on them.)  Thanks!

The Empress Wave (EW) is an idea which we will have absolutely huge
difficulties reconciling with canonical information presented in sources
like Zhodani (GDW), Vilani & Vargr (DGP), Vargr (GDW) and others.

Facts about the EW are (per the RSB) ...
1. It is a light speed wave coming from the region of the galactic core.
2. It is supposedly responsible for the outflow of refugees from the
Zhodani Consulate to the Regency.
3. First signs of the EW are visible around 1115 or thereabouts.
4. The EW will arrive at the 1116 border in around 1205.

First, a few astrographical facts to screw up the EW.

Distances coreward from the old Imperial border :-
To Zhodani Chtierabl sector 300 pc
To Zhodani Itvikiastaf sector (coremost sector of main part of ZC) 80 pc
To coreward edge of the pro-Imperial Thoengling Empire 30 pc
To coreward edge of Varroerth Empire 90 pc
To coreward edge of Julian Protectorate 45 pc

At light speed, it takes over 3 years to cover one hex, 130 years to
travel from coreward to rimward across a sector. The EW should
therefore have begun impacting the above areas quite a while ago. The
approximate year that the EW should have reached various places is
listed below.
Coreward edge of Zhodani Chtierabl sector in 227 Imperial
Coreward edge of Zhodani Itvikiastaf sector in 944 Imperial
Coreward edge of Thoengling Empire (Gvurrdon sector) in 1107 Imperial
Coreward edge of Varroerth Empire (Knaeleng sector) in 912 Imperial
Coreward edge of Julian Protectorate (Trenchan sector) in 1060 Imperial
Lair planetary system in 1081 Imperial
Arrived in 2000 Worlds circa 1080-ish (Transrift outposts)

Now, call me an naive balding old dimwit if you like, but I think that
someone might just have noticed the apocalyptic events occurring (or
not) at Lair in the 1080s. Therefore, when (or if) the EW reached such
backwater unknown places as Lair and Gashikan, no-one noticed it. Hmm.

When the EW passed through the rimward parts of Gvurrdon in the 1150s,
no-one seems to have noticed it either.

Now, unless the arrival of the wave in Itvikiastaf triggered the 3rd
Frontier War and at Lair the 4th, I can't help thinking that this is a
piece of nonsense.

Given the general concurrence that the background of Traveller is a good
deal more important than the minutiae of the rules, this is probably one
of the bigger problematica in TTNE (Traveller : The Nilsen Era).

Angus

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:10:19 +0000
From: Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: why even have a timeline at all?
Message-ID: <m0tmKWA-0001HYC@kiel.netsurf.de>

>Will  Richards <richarwt@jtasc.acom.mil> said:
>>   Why even have a time line associated with the new rules at all?

And David Elrick answered:
[early rpgs had little backgrund]
>Fortunately or unfortunately, times have moved on. Roleplaying appeals to a
>much wider market which mostly expects to be able to pick up a game and play
>it straight away, with no generating your game world/background and little
>or no having to make snap judgements where the rules don't cover something

>A 'standard' background is also useful to someone like me who routinely runs
>demo and participation games at shows. It allows people to sit down and join
>in directly, without a great deal of explanation.

Well, if people "don't know a game" they mostly neither know rules nor
background. So they shouldn't bother. If they do, why do the take part in an
demonstration? Of course you could demo a game background without its rules
or do it the other way around. At isn't the main point, IMHO.

A common background helps to "unify" the players of a game, being the commom
part to talk about without long explanations. This is the base ground to
exchange experiences and adventures. Most people realize that rules aren't
that important and so background is the last (not least) common denominator.

>What it comes down to is: a rules set without a background is just a
>wargame.

I wouldn't subscribe to this. Is GURPS a wargame? Don't confuse the rule
system with only combat rules. They aren't that important. A game (or
gamers) without imagination become a wargame!

> With a background, it *can* be something more (although some
>so-called RPGs are just wargames - look at anything by Leading Edge for a
>start).

This, I would subscribe. I also would extent it to games published by GDW :-)

>To appeal to new roleplayers - and God knows, they're thin enough on the
>ground these days - Traveller IV [Traveller: Voyages was just my little joke
> - please Marc, no!] has to be complete and playable out of the box (book,
>tablets etched with letters of fire, whatever). Traveller without a
>background would die on the vine faster than anything predicted by others on
>this list.

I would claim that a game with too much detailed background will kill
imagination and creatism and playing it becomes like watching TV. You
passively consume entertainment. It's fine, but I think it's too little and
I'm expecting more from a rpg.

I agree, that no background at all will be the wrong decission, but
background info should challenge the players to think about and be become
creative and not to make them only to read one book after the other,
"eating" other people's ideas.

With CT there were great "blank regions" where players could add their own
ideas. This led to a lot of creative contributions to the setting.

With TNE, GDW refused any help, announcing to provide the whole, complete
story of their game, driving all players to the audience seats only. IMHO, a
bad move and wrong decission I hope which will not repeated with T4.

A statement, what parts of the background are up to the players and will
(probably) never offically developed by the publisher would be of more help
than some announcements of new supplements. Speculating what's about that
back curtain thing is, I think, more interesting than demanding yet another
source book about that matter.

To come to a point, have some background but not too much. Help the players
to become creative participants but no consuming audiance. Use background as
common denominator but don't explain every mystery away.

buy
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  ...come on, kiss the frog!
        http://www.kiel.netsurf.de/homes/sma/


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 14:10:17 +0000
From: Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Request for Ideas
Message-ID: <m0tmKW9-0001GsC@kiel.netsurf.de>

Hi!

Although my problem isn't directly related to the official Traveller
universe, it might be interesting for some of you to tinker around with it.
I'm looking for a practical procedure to enforce an interstellar neutral
zone, preventing ships to enter it.

My universe is quite similar to the official one, although a bit more
peaceful. My Imperium had no major conflict for to last four decades. (which
was an independence war which the Imperium let successfully happen.) The
last interstellar war was fought against the Estadh of Bezidhar
(reptilian-like creatures, a race unknown in Traveller) about 100 years ago.
It was the Bezidhann who offered peace, aborting their attack war against
the Imperium. They demanded a 10 parsec deep neutral zone of no-man's land
in the former war zone, prohibiting any further Imperial settlements in
these regions. It's up to the Imperium to keep it's people away from that
subsectors. The Estadh will patrol the other border, announcing a ninth war
if any kind of activity will be detected. They didn't want any further
contact to neither military nor civil ships of the Imperium.

At the time of the war, the Imperium lasted already for some 850 years. The
time before was the Long Night, which followed the decay of the great
Fwilani trading empire. The Imperium reached TL 14. The Bezidhann were at
TL15. They initiated eight attack wars against the Imperium (for unknown
reasons) with overwhelming forces. The Imperium could barely defend itself.
It was the Imperium's fortune that the Estadh's fleets always had major
problems with supply and could eventually fought off. The Bezidhann Wars
ended 885, at this time the Imperium also had access to TL15 technologies.
This didn't changed very much until now, which is 986.

One big difference to Traveller is jump time in my universe. It is depend to
ship volume. The larger the star ship, the longer the time.

Jh = log(t)^3 + 60 + 1D6
Jh: jump time in hours
t: ships displacement tons
1D6: a random factor

(ships with less than 10t are too instable to jump)

This makes a jump taking about 3-4 days for smaller ships. Larger ships with
more than 100,000t are slower as in Traveller and it's possible to overtake
a larger ship.

As a consequence, most Imperial war ships are about 1,000t - 20,000t.
Bezidhann ships were larger. The largest ship of the Estadh was the T-Rex
with a displacement of 80,000t. Their jump time will be calculated as
(log(t)^3)/2 + 60 + 1D6 and the lower limit is 20t because jump stress is
greater. The Estadh probably already reached TL16 at 986.

I'm not sure if it should be possible to detect done jumps and if, how long
after the jump it's detectable. Should it be possible to determine the
targeted exit point and/or the jump distance?  If it's useful for explaining
the border blockade, I'll introduce such rules.

At 986, after 100 years, this former iron wall is full of hole as a
moth-eaten curtain. In the meantime, the majority of the worlds near this
border declared independent (which the empress let taken place), fought each
other or had other duties than maintaining a border patrol.  Only a handful
Imperial worlds and fleet depots keep the flag. However, officially they all
still respect the border.

I'm interested in the beginning of that project to close a part of space, as
large as three (some 30 parsec high and 10 parsec wide) subsectors. Any ideas?

Thanks,
bye
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  ...come on, kiss the frog!
        http://www.kiel.netsurf.de/homes/sma/


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 11:00:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "Ronald J. Bailey" <ab871@seorf.ohiou.edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Near Bootes Commonwealth Updates
Message-ID: <199602131600.LAA21765@ra.cs.ohiou.edu>

Could they be posted on the list as well as on Gvran's site?
--
Ronald J. Bailey-ab871@seorf.ohiou.edu SouthEast Ohio Regional FreeNet
"To infinity and beyond!"-Buzz Lightyear
"The Earth is DOOMED!  DOOMED, I tell you!  DOOMED, in case you didn't
hear me!"-Earthworm Jim


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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 594
***************************
