TRAVELLER Digest 596

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Mini Drones by George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
  2) Re: Military tactics: T-plates vs. HEPLAR by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
  3) Change of Address by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  4) by Nathan & Terri Mezel <hotchip@oeonline.com>
  5) Disintergraters, FF&S Style? by Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
  6) Re:  TRAVELLER digest 595 by "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
  7) Travelling & Passengers by Andrew Madden <amadden@pcug.org.au>
  8) Re: TRAVELLER digest 595 by library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
  9) Re: TRAVELLER digest 595 by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 10) Re: TRAVELLER digest 595 by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
 11) Re: Disintergraters, FF&S Style? by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 12) Re: TRAVELLER digest 595 by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 13) Re: Infantry is NOT useless & Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics & by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
 14) HePlaR, microjumps, fleet tactics by Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
 15) Signal GK. by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 16:15:58 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Cc: gherbert@crl.com
Subject: Mini Drones
Message-ID: <199602140015.AA01851@mail.crl.com>


I'm going to post some designs of mine at some point shortly,
to show some more FF&S inspired tank designs.  Not the good ones,
until I know for sure what's up with Steve Higginbotham's strategic
campaign, but some of the vehicles...

As a few general comments, the fusion weapons are about as bad a choice
as you can get for the main weapon.  I use (in mostly TL-10 designs)
a mixture of mass drivers, ETC cannons, lasers, and light meson cannon
(oh yes, life gets interesting... ;-).  Fusion guns don't cut it.
The standard background vehicles don't cut it either, they're lightly
enough armoured that you can pry them open with a TL-10 can opener.
I baseline a minimum of 500 for all around armor for tanks, if not 1000
or 2000.  Remember, in FF&S with gravitics, armor is basically free.
You just go slower.  You don't need supersonic tanks; honestly, doing
combat sims, my units can't deal with combat advances through hostile
terrain at faster than 200kph or so.  With that sort of speed, not having
all around armor kills you fast (because then you *do* run over and past
infantry in foxholes with AT missiles, who pop a shot into the rear or
belly and boom go the tank).  Not having armor 500 and up is exquisitely
poor planning... it's trivial to frontally penetrate the "book" TL-15
MBTs from the front with TL-8 and 9 and 10 weapons.

-george

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:15:23 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Military tactics: T-plates vs. HEPLAR
Message-ID: <9602140015.AA00322@Rt66.com>


> 1) It's true that the gas giant will be defended, but will it be defended
> as heavily as the main world?  It would be difficult to do this,
> especially if there are more than a couple of gas giants.  In the Sol
> system, you'd be spreading yourself thin to cover Earth and 4 GGs (not to
> mention colonies).  In other systems, you'd also have to cover any planets
> or moons with appreciable water coverage.  Also, couldn't a large fleet
> jump into the asteroid belt or Oort cloud, melt an ice-asteroid and dip
> from it (just a thought, this may be full of holes)?  Basically, I
> think covering all sources of fuel with effective numbers would be
> difficult.

But in the CT universe, is it worth the protection?  Here's another
interesting monkey wrench to throw into the gears...

I need to do the math, but at turn-around what is the velocity of your
fleet zipping to MW with thruster plates gonna be?  MW will see you
coming (a single picket ship at each GG).  They will see you move, too.
There really isn't a good way to hide.  All they need do is throw some
missiles with clouds of small particles (sand, water, whatever) in your
path. Boom!

> 2) Refueling at the GG then jumping in system would require 1 whole
> parsec's worth of fuel according to what I've read.  I'm not sure, but I
> think Merrick was implying that a short jump in system would require only
> a fraction of this.  Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Yes, it would.  I haven't assumed better microjumps.  All military ships
are J3 at least.  That's 3 in-system jumps after they refuel.

Another tactic would be the use of tankers.  You jump to empty space 1
parsec from the target, top the tanks, then jump in with enough fuel to
bug out.  This is a good idea in either universe.

This presents interesting tactics:  you can commit all ships to GG
refueling for mutual protection (in which case none can jump to escape),
or you can send them in piecemeallll to smoke out the enemy.
Interesting.

-Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 17:34:58 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Change of Address
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960213233458.00711008@lynx.csn.net>

        ANNOUNCING
   A CHANGE OF ADDRESS
           for

  Dave's Traveller Site

I'm switching providers, because my current one wants a ridiculous fee for
the ability to run _any_ scripts at all. Hopefully, I'll be able to get a
GuestBook script running on my new one soon ... still a few bugs. But the
new URL is

        http://www.usa.net/~goldendj/Traveller/Traveller.html

Note the capitalization!

The old site is still up for now, but hasn't been updated since I started
working on the transfer.
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 19:26:35 -0500
From: Nathan & Terri Mezel <hotchip@oeonline.com>
To: "'Traveller Mail List'" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Message-ID: <01BAFA49.38D2B6C0@oe207.oeonline.com>

>In all the smoke and confusion right now, does anyone have any =
information
>on the status of the Traveller novels? I have the first of what was
>supposed to be a trilogy, I'd heard the second was released but haven't
>seen it. Without a publisher, are the novels history? Who owns the=20
>copyright now?

The second book was released, titled "To Dream of Chaos" (only a die =
hard Traveller junkie like me would read it cover to cover though.  The =
characters are pretty thin and the plot was anti climatic.  If your =
hoping for a RC/Solee epic, you'll be disappointed).

Wow! do I ever digress :0

I don't know the status of the third novel "The Backwards Mask". Somehow =
I doubt it will ever see print.

 >Is Marc Miller perhaps a linguist, even amateur?
I believe he majored in history, very evident in Traveller.


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 20:55:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Alvin Plummer <alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca>
To: traveller@mpgn.com
Subject: Disintergraters, FF&S Style?
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960213205149.17199A-100000@atlas.sheridanc.on.ca>


1) Has anyone here tried to set up a flow-chart to build a disintergrator,
FF&S style?

I really, really need to build a starship armed with TL 16 disintergrators...

2) How would a TL 16 jumpdrive be built?  The standard jumpdrive used
fusion power, but at TL 16+, antimatter power becomes available.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Plummer, the unrepentant Imperialist
"Preserve what we created, Norris, and remember what we stood for."
                               - Strephon, 179-1126

Reply to: alvin.plummer@SHERIDANC.ON.CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 18:03:27 -0800
From: "Kelly St.Clair" <kstclair@PEAK.ORG>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re:  TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <199602140203.SAA02188@PEAK.ORG>

I find it very ironic that, at the same time some people are still
  debating whether J-torps should be canon and how much of an effect
  their presence would have on the established Traveller background,
  we're also seeing the radical changes brought about by another
  "minor" change - HEPlaR drives.

John King makes some very good points about how the new, extremely
  strict fuel restrictions reduce the dynamic fleet campaigns of
  the various Frontier Wars to static, bloody trench warfare.  Because
  an invading force is always at a disadvantage to the defenders in
  fuel (now even more vital than the famed deep meson sites), attacking
  is something you do as a last resort.  War becomes a matter of seeing
  who blinks first and thereby loses half their navy.

This is a radical change to how interstellar war is fought in Traveller,
  even more so if you believe the substitution of HEPlaR for thruster
  plates is retroactive.  Entrenched defenses and massive strike fleets
  (that take even more massive casualties) join the one-week lag of
  communications as a central, necessary element.

As I understand it, HEPlaR drives were introduced to make Traveller
  players worry about fuel in combat.  It did that, certainly - many
  players agonize more over G-turns than armament these days.  At the
  same time, it also rendered M-drives useless for in-system travel
  (easier to just make a microjump), extended the time PCs "waste" in
  flight from days to weeks, and (as we now see) completely redefines
  the strategy of interstellar war.

Something to consider when you talk about making "one little change"...


---------------------------
Kelly St.Clair
kstclair@kira.peak.org

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:30:07 +1100
From: Andrew Madden <amadden@pcug.org.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Travelling & Passengers
Message-ID: <199602140230.NAA11955@pcug.org.au>

Having considered cargo, and trading previously, I wanted to get a feel for
the number of people travelling from port to port.

Does anyone have any feelings as for what percentage of time an average
person would spend away from home, particularly at interstellar distances?

How about tourism; what would be the average duration (and therefore
distance) that an individual family would take for holidays?

With this sort of info, we should be able to make a reasoned estimation of
the passenger trade through an area.

A P Madden
__________________________________________________________
Kambah Computer Services                     Andrew Madden
PO Box 1304                            amadden@pcug.org.au
Tuggeranong, ACT 2900                  Ph:  +61 6 231 5177
Australia                              Fax: +61 6 231 5576


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:20:24 -0600
From: library@babylon5.dss.gov.au (DSS Library)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <199602142318.NAA04062@babylon5.dss.gov.au>

Dear Folks -

1.STARPORTS

I liked Jeff Zeitland's article. I believe that an extended UESP is a good idea
(at least it gets away from the idea of "B-" or "D+" starport ratings).

A few points:
a.I would prefer alphabetic ratings, as per all other "profiles", starting
at "A" and going from there.
eg. Starport Construction
RatingTonnage
A500,000 - 1,000,000
B100,000 - 500,000
C 10,000 - 100,000
D  5,000 - 10,000
E  1,000 - 5,000
F    500 - 1,000
G     10 - 500
XN/A
Z1,000,000+
Note: I consider "Z" 'ports to be a special case. These are RARE; not
many 'ports would build ships this size on a regular basis. I would
even suggest that there are *none* left in the Regency.

2.      ANCIENT SHIPS

Paul Walker asked how to design an Ancient's ship.

Firstly, define the TL. At a mere TL 17, for example, you would use
antimatter. However, at TL 21, you would use an energy sink coupled to
a pinched-off pocket universe, via portal technology. Fuel supply is derived
from a continuously-operational fuel refinery located on the seashore of the
world inside the pocket universe. Therefore, it is virtually infinite - you
could *even* use <gasp> HePlar without running out of fuel (can you tell
I'm a fan of grav plates? ;-)

The ship is J6, 6G - heck, why not make it 20G, you can pump heaps of power
into your TL 21 inertial dampers and grav plates.

See _Adventure 12: The Secret of the Ancients_ for more details. In that
ship *each compartment* could be detached from the main ship and fly
around.

Its the Ancients, man - think *magic*!!

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


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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:27:53 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <9602140527.AA05979@Rt66.com>


> John King makes some very good points about how the new, extremely
>   strict fuel restrictions reduce the dynamic fleet campaigns of
>   the various Frontier Wars to static, bloody trench warfare.  Because
[snip]

This is somewhat true.  Less so if the attacker bothers with logistics
(tankers, small jumps, etc.).  I don't really understand the idea that
insystem fighting is a quick and dirty thing with SDBs driving around
the oort cloud and all.

> As I understand it, HEPlaR drives were introduced to make Traveller
>   players worry about fuel in combat.  It did that, certainly - many
>   players agonize more over G-turns than armament these days.  At the
>   same time, it also rendered M-drives useless for in-system travel
>   (easier to just make a microjump), extended the time PCs "waste" in
>   flight from days to weeks, and (as we now see) completely redefines
>   the strategy of interstellar war.

Well, not useless, just slower :-)  What about a month at 6gs and the
stray planet gets in the way of your boat (a consequence of unlimited
delta v)?  I'm not saying that the point at which stuff goes bingo in BL
should stay that way in the future, but I do think that there needs to
be a limit on delta v.

Depending on the distance it was better to make microjumps in CT as
well.  BTW, a typical Earth/Jupiter run would be better jumped in CT
(slightly worse at closest approach for a couple months a year) even at
6g.

Also, if your fleet doesn't want to be killed by well placed water or
sand it'll need to keep the velocity down to dogleg the route a little.

> Something to consider when you talk about making "one little change"...

Agreed.  A major flaw with the new stuff, IMHO.  It wasn't well tested
against the history as I see it.  I happen by chance to agree with some
of the changes in the system, though.  It makes me look like a defender
of all that is new, when in fact more is my own predjudices.  I do
think, however, that the canon might have a few flaws in this regard as
well.  How do you make FFW attack factors from a HG design?  Was FFW
actually tested with HG battles?  It seems like nit-picking, but I bet
we could argue similar things and change it from CT vs. TNE to HG vs.
FFW---does this make any sense?

On a slight tangent---at what point do you (all of you) think that a
limit on Mdrive delta v is useful, but could be within canon?  Does
everyone agree that trying to pretend that a lifeboat isn't a
planet-killer in CT is harder than saying that there is actually some
limit on total delta v?  How many g-turns?  100 is too few it seems to
most.  1000?  Just curious.

-Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:38:27 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960214043827.00706d40@lynx.csn.net>

At 09:35 pm 2/13/96 -0500, Hyphen (David Jaques-Watson) wrote:
>Paul Walker asked how to design an Ancient's ship.

             /*snip*/

>Its the Ancients, man - think *magic*!!

        That's exactly the way to approach it. There is no way to provide an
"Ancients Design Sequence" because _each_ and _every_ one of Yaskoydray's
offspring (and the ol' geezer himself) did things differently, often
inventing technology on the spot, and then doing it again another way the
next time.

        The only real reason for a detailed design sequence like FF&S is so
you can consistently design common items. Ancients aren't consistent, and
their artifacts should be extremely uncommon. So figure out what you want
the game effects to be, and wing it!
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:33:58 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Disintergraters, FF&S Style?
Message-ID: <9602140533.AA06577@Rt66.com>


> 1) Has anyone here tried to set up a flow-chart to build a disintergrator,
> FF&S style?

Nope, _I_ haven't.  Dunno about anybody else :-)  What would the range
limits be on a strong force weapon...  you could use the damper turret
design rules as a model, actually.

> I really, really need to build a starship armed with TL 16 disintergrators...

My copy of MT has them at TL17 only, BTW.

> 2) How would a TL 16 jumpdrive be built?  The standard jumpdrive used
> fusion power, but at TL 16+, antimatter power becomes available.

Good question.  I wondered that during that TL16 design contest.

-Merrick

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 22:42:43 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <9602140542.AA07614@Rt66.com>

> >Paul Walker asked how to design an Ancient's ship.
>
>              /*snip*/
>
> >Its the Ancients, man - think *magic*!!
>
>         The only real reason for a detailed design sequence like FF&S is so
> you can consistently design common items. Ancients aren't consistent, and
> their artifacts should be extremely uncommon. So figure out what you want
> the game effects to be, and wing it!

Dave's right, but I'll throw some ideas in.

If you use/like FFS, use it as a guideline for the directions things
head from a tech point of view.  Also, remember that some things might
be a big can of worms to open unless you've thought out the
implications, and maybe some fallback ideas to hobble it should it
become too much to have around unlimited by something (vague enough?).

If you use HEPlaR, for example, you could have reactionless drives
happen at higher TLs.  Or add jumpgates.  Or jump-commo.  Or
stutterwarp, even.  Make up some new materials for armor/structure.

The magic part should be there, but not too unbalancing (and hard to
copy unless you want them across the Imperium in a few years :-).

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 12:13:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: "'TML'" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Re: Infantry is NOT useless & Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics &
Message-ID: <31226251@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


"'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@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.
 -----------------------------------------------

3-15k for the paveway style add-ons that have been around since Vietnam.
The special bunker busters were different.

 -----------------------------------------------
  Also, the Phoenix missles that are standard
armament on the Tomcat cost a ton of money.
 ------------------------------------------------

Not that it has anything to do with LGB's but....
Approx $3M a shot I think. I read somewhere they cost $0.5M in 1975 dollars
and that was before they were upgraded. It is this and the general aging of
the F-14's that is seeing a change to a greater proportion of F-18's and
using AMRAAM instead.

 -------------------------------------------------
......  but for the most part, the United States military is an extremely
efficient force (my hat's off to them).
 -------------------------------------------------

Powerful yes, efficient no. While being reasonably well trained and not
being all that large it _is_ the most lavishly and expensively equipped
force in the world.

 -------------------------------------------------
> 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.
 --------------------------------------------------

He's right about the costs you know... except that LGB's aren't _dirt_
cheap, iron bombs are. ;)

"Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net> writes:

 -----------------------------------
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.
 -------------------------------------

Remember to pay for the troops training and upkeep.

I see 3 "classes" of troops (assumed TL13-15):

1. Elite. These are Jump troops, Marines, Commandoes etc. They are often
carried on ships etc so they need the maximum firepower, protection and
mobility they can get in a limited space. BD, Fusion guns, nothing is too
expensive to use here!

2. Regulars. These are the Mechanised infantry and Armour etc. High
firepower and protection and mobility are needed for a reasonable cost.
Mobility can be provided by vehicles so infantry is usually equipped with
Combat armour and RAM GLs, lasers etc.

3. Militia. These are the security troops etc. Equip with CEV's and gauss
rifles. Carried in unarmoured vehicles or APC's.

 ---------------------------------------
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.
 ---------------------------------------

You left out Cavalry: Recon and Rapid reaction.

merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt) writes:

 --------------------------------
[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.
 -----------------------------------

Why not?
1. The I fleet ought to be more powerful than the N fleet, otherwise why
would you be trying to attack with it?
2. The N fleet is spread across all the targets in the system. If it
concentrates then other areas (eg GGs) get less protection.

 -----------------------------------
[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).
 ----------------------------------

It seems to me that recon by light ships would be very important.
If the I fleet can get intelligence on the disposition of the N fleet then
it can plan to hit them where they are weakest.
Light forces could also be sent in to take a GG prior to the main force
arriving or to distract the main N force.
The skirmishing between light ships over GGs might even be the _major_
deciding factor in these battles!

 ----------------------------------
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.
 ----------------------------------

Assuming only 1 GG and of course the defender's forces _are_ split up....

 ----------------------------------
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?).
 -------------------------------

To stop a relieving fleet using it as a secure base insystem.

 -------------------------------
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.
 -------------------------------

See Scenario 1 response above

 -------------------------------
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.
 -------------------------------

You're forgetting one very important thing; there is normally _more_ than
one GG insystem! This forces the N fleet to disperse across 3-5 locations
while the I fleet can hit one all at once. As the N fleet must guard against
the MW being assulted directly most of the N fleet will be concentrated
there thus leaving the GGs with only light protection.

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

You said it!

"'Jomama' Charles Pratt" <tminus@u.washington.edu> writes:

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

I don't know about officially but it seems to be consensus here that it uses
1/2 the fuel of a J-1 (ie. 5% of ship vol in fuel) and takes a week in
J-Space.

Django.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 23:30:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@hollywood.cinenet.net>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HePlaR, microjumps, fleet tactics
Message-ID: <Pine.SV4.3.91.960213230644.28093A-100000@hollywood.cinenet.net>


On the continuing discussion regarding changed fleet tactics when using
HePlaR vs. thruster plates:

Several posters seem to think that a microjump would cost less fuel than
a 1-parsec jump.  Alas, it's not so.  The 1-parsec fuel cost is the
minimum cost for any jump.  So jumping to the GG, refueling, then
microjumping in-system is a wash if you J-1'd into the system, but does
offer advantages if you J-2+'d in.

I think the general consensus that's emerging is that, under HePlaR, it's
harder on the I-fleet than it was under thrusters.  As someone pointed
out, most naval vessels aren't going to carry enough fuel for two jumps,
one in and one out.  Obviously, if you're attacking with a modern (J-4 or
more) fleet across a 1-parsec gap, you'll have plenty of reserve after
your J-1 for fleeing or moving on.  But a more typical scenario would be
a J-3 into the target system, given the typical stellar separations and
need to keep the assault moving into enemy territory.  After a J-3, most
ships will need to refuel to get home.

In the Good Old Days, you attacked a gas giant to refuel.  Now, as
was mentioned, the N-fleet is going to defend potential refueling points
as a matter of course; but as was also pointed out, many systems will
have several GG's, along with water-bearing worlds and asteroids other
than the MW, so the defender's necessarily going to be spread rather
thinly trying to cover all of them.  Note that this means that systems
with only one GG and no other fuel sources, and *especially* cases like
Regina where the MW orbits the sole GG, are going to be tough nuts to
crack for the I-fleet.  Cases with *no* wilderness refueling opportunites
really demand you bring in tankers or the like; you can't risk the
N-fleet blowing the fuel storage facilities when it's clear they've lost.

Under HePlaR, though, your choices get more constrained.  Quite frankly,
I'm starting to convince myself that the only viable option in most
"standard" cases (GG far from MW) is to attack a GG, top off the tanks,
then microjump to the mainworld.  You end up shaving off 1 parsec from
your strategic mobility if you decide to leave early, but you'd spend that
much fuel or more powering in on M-drives in any reasonable length of
time.  In addition, the microjump gives you an element of uncertainty.
Scenario: I-fleet arrives, pastes defenders at small outer GG, refuels,
jumps out.  Did they move along to another system?  Or will they pop into
orbit over your head a week from now?  With an M-drive approach, the
N-fleet knows the whole way in who's coming and from what direction.
With the microjump, the N-fleet can never be certain.

So, I see a typical "rhythm of advance" for an aggressor fleet being:

- Jump to target system (1 week)
- Secure and refuel at GG (2 days (?))
- Microjump to MW (1 week)
- Secure MW (2 days (?))

Then either
(a) If possible, refuel at MW (1 day)
(b) Otherwise, microjump to GG and refuel there (8 days)

For a grand total of 19 to 26 days in the "strategic cycle" of a rapid
advance, as compared to around 14 under thruster plates.  Not a big
difference, really, but enough to modify some canonical descriptions of
system invasions.

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


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 13:58:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: GDW-Beta <gdw-beta@qrc.com>, hiwg-list <hiwg-list@fwe.com>,
Subject: Signal GK.
Message-ID: <3122778E@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


Does anyone out there have an email address for someone involved in running
"Signal GK" magazine?

Thanks in advance,

Django.

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 596
***************************
