TRAVELLER Digest 597

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Guestbook is UP! by "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
  2) Jump drive size problems by "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
  3) Oops by angus.mclellan@ALMAC.CO.UK (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
  4) Computers and skills? by "M.A.T." <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
  5) Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics by Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
  6) Re: TRAVELLER digest 595 by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
  7) Re: TRAVELLER digest 595 by jbogan@pipeline.com (John H Bogan)
  8) RE [2]: why even have a timeline at all? by David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
  9) Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 10) HEPLAR vs. Thruster Plates by fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
 11) Imperial Police by Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
 12) "Vargr" is Old Norse... by Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
 13) RE: HePLaR and fleet tactics by That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
 14) Last Auction Update by muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 01:04:34 -0600
From: "David J. Golden" <goldendj@whip.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Guestbook is UP!
Message-ID: <1.5.4b11.32.19960214070434.0070d6d4@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

        UPDATE! The guestbook is up and running! Who's going to be first to
sign in?
 ___________________________________________________________________
  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: Wed, 14 Feb 96 14:42:00 EST
From: "Upton, Django" <DUpton@vtrnntov.telecom.com.au>
To: GDW-Beta <gdw-beta@qrc.com>, hiwg-list <hiwg-list@fwe.com>,
Subject: Jump drive size problems
Message-ID: <31228198@msmailv0.telecom.com.au>


I've seen several problems brought up on the lists concerning the rules
governing jump drives.

Notably:

1. There is a 100t minimum size limit in CT & MT that is violated in CT Adv
4 with Jump torps and is violated in TNE by a minimum size of JD being set
as 2 m^3.

2. In TNE the larger the ship gets the more of it's surface area is covered
by jump drive radiators.

I propose that jump drive size should be (at least in part) proportional to
the surface area of the ship.
As volume is cubic and SA is squared the smaller the ship is the more volume
is taken up by JD machinery (and fuel) until at some size it becomes
impossible to fit a JD.
There is no upper limit to the size of ship that may be fitted with a JD.
Note that different configurations would require different JD sizes.
Note that it is compatible with the "canon" of jump grids in MT.

Possible formula:

JD Vol = 1% x Jn + SA/s

where s is a scalar selected to give the minimum size ship we want or a
reasonable size JD at some "standard" size ship.
I think s should be about 20.
Though this does allow ships as low as 20 tons to jump, they are limited to
J-1 at this small size.

Your comments on this non-arbitary system are welcome.

Django.

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

Date: Tue, 13 Feb 96 23:48:00 +0100
From: angus.mclellan@ALMAC.CO.UK (ANGUS MCLELLAN)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Oops
Message-ID: <8BAB594.1400019A3B.uuout@almac.co.uk>



I'm afraid that my UWP summary data posted to the list was a bit duff.

1. The yard capacity figures are in billions of UCP tonnes, not
trillions (I thought it looked a bit high ...).

2. The yard capacity shown is half of the correct figure (duh !), and I
should have noted that the figure shown was for starships (i.e. A
starports) only.

Oh, the joys of being stupid !

While I'm at it, here's the data from Fifth Frontier War.

World       Heavy SDBs  System/Reserve Squadron
Jewell      120         BatRon, CruRon
Louzy       500         None
Vilis       100         None
Efate       150         BatRon, CruRon
Alell       10          CruRon
Feri        12          CruRon
Regina      10          2 CruRons
Wochiers    10          CruRon
Equus       12          CruRon
Extolay     10          CruRon
Zivije      120         BatRon, CruRon
Rhylanor    200         None ?
Porozlo     1000        BatRon, CruRon, AssaultRon

These are the local (i.e. reserve and local) major space forces for all
of Jewell, Regina, Lanth, Vilis, and parts of Aramis and Rhylanor.

Let's try and expand this. The first line of Jewell's forces comprised
between 800 kilotons and 1.6 megatons of TL-11/12 battleships and 200 to
800 kilotons of TL-11/12 cruisers. Assuming that a heavy SDB is from 1
to 2 kilotons (Scorpion/Wasp class) or the equivalent in bigger or
smaller vessels, Jewell has around 200 kilotons of SDBs. That gives
Jewell, hardly a powerhouse of the old Marches, between 1.2 and 2.6
megatons of major warships, ignoring the sizable numbers of light
cruisers, destroyers, destroyer escorts, couriers and tankers which
support the major units.

And that's just one moderately important world which faces, even if
defeated by it's old enemy nothing worse than a few months-long
occupation followed by an evacuation come the peace (the Zhodani won't
keep Jewell). How much more firepower would a world like Jewell deploy
in the face of an inhumanly patient and ruthless enemy which seeks the
destruction or enslavement of every single sophont on the planet ? Would
you pay more taxes to save your world from being another Trin ? I would
and so would the good people of the Regency.

Angus

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

Date:          Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:43:09 +0100 (BST)
From: "M.A.T." <mat3@leicester.ac.uk>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Computers and skills?
Message-ID: <C431270706@daisy.le.ac.uk>

Just a question: Given that computers are advancing rapidly in our
present day, and assuming that such an advancement took place in the
Traveller timeline, would not the computers take many of the tasks
*off* the user?  For a present-day example, consider the Microsoft
packages... they 'eat up' quite a lot of space on most people's
hard-drives but, when compared to older packages, are far superior
since they allow the user to access functions which would take longer
using either manual devices (i.e. typewriters) or old packages.

In this case, would not - to use a previous example - an astrogator
be able to "place a cursor on the desired destination" and press
'Go?'  Surely the astrogator would not have to sit around punching
out numbers on a pocket computer to check whether the computer got it
right?  If so, then how far do you want to go?  Would this continue
with another crew member checking with *another* pocket computer,
then another one with a calculator, then another with an abacus?

This may be, as suggested, be represented in MT by 0-level skills.
However, upon the assumption that '0' indicates familiarity with the
object of the skill would it not therefore be logical to extend this
to other skills.  A High Stellar character may have Computer-0, but
why not Swimming-o (they can doggy-paddle), Hand Combat-0 (anyone can
punch), Fencing-0 (almost anyone can swing a sword)... etc.  There
are, of course, problems - yes, you may be able to swing a sword, but
can you do it effectively?  Yet isn't this the whole point with
level-0 skills.

In the TNE system, could not a similar "level-0" skill system be
implemented (if it is not already... I have not read the rules in
ages)?  Surely, having a level-0 skill would suffice.  If probability
is skewed heavily in favour of the character (due to high attributes,
or whatever), then would not increasing the difficulty of the task
suffice?  If not, then how about the GM considering the factors
involved in character's history, careers, etc. to determine a
standard target number for a single dice or successive dice rolls?

--MARK


Mark Trickett, Archaeology/Ancient History
                         Undergrad (Leicester Uni)
mat3@le.ac.uk

"Onwards!  Ever onwards... well, maybe with a bit of
    loitering around the middle bit."
                                                               -MAT

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:59:02 +0000
From: Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics
Message-ID: <m0tmfsl-0001HYC@kiel.netsurf.de>

>heavily, and why not?  The I-Fleet _must_ refuel, and you can wait and
>cream 'em when they try.

Why the I-Fleet have to refuel? I never would design or use ships with fuel
stores for only one jump.  As I understand, each standard TNE ship is able
to store fuel for at least two or three jumps.

As a consequence all I-Fleets have the option to retreat at will and
fighting for a GC is quite useless.

The standard 100t TL15 Scout/Courier as shown on p.366 in TNE, for example,
holds about 50t fuel.  Per jump-1, 100 * 0.03 * 5 / 6 = 2.5t of fuel are
needed. Ignoring fuel for heplar, it could jump up to 20 parsec.  It has
also a cargo space of aditional 11t which alone is enough for 4 more parsec.
(Please correct me, if that calculation is wrong, it seems very high)

The other way around, you could exchange 16,8 G-hours for one J2 if I
analyse the numbers correctly. This gives you 2x J-2 and still 23.2 G-hours.
Not bad.

In TNE it's the Heplar drive which is very fuel consuming. But why not use
this fuel for a emergency jump. So the new heplar design drastically changes
fleet tactics.

The same TL15 Scout designed with MT rules would need 3 jump units and
therefor 3 x 5 = 15t fuel per jump-2. However I don't own the MT player's
book which probably contain the other stats of the Scout/Courier. But I
think, 30t of fuel space should be possible and also in MT
multiple-jump-ships are possible.

The same TL15 Scout designed with CT rules would have an A converter and an
A jump drive needing 100 * 0.1 * 2 + 10 * 2 = 40t fuel for one j2 and 4
weeks running.

It's quite interesting that each Traveller version has completely different
rules of which only the CT rules enforce ship design with one-jump-tanks.

>Now, you're right, the jump, refuel, drive on in is trashed.  But when
>HEPlaR I-fleets jump in they really need to refuel.

No, they needn't. Also a MT I-Fleet probably need not.

>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

Aside the question whether refuel is needed or ships contain enough fuel to
jump back, you could avoid problems in MT and TNE with tankers that refuel
jumped ships before the attack.  In CT because of the very high own fuel
consumption
tankers are impossible.

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


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 23:59:34 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <199602141259.XAA02496@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

> From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@smtpgate.read.tasc.com>
> Subject: Re: USL ships and stuff (as if!)
>
> Phillip McGregor wrote:
>
> >Well, no, I don't think that the only worthwhile campaigns are run by me.
> >However, and lets not get into a flame war over this again, TNE was so
> >wonderful that GDW is still in existence, not!
>
>    Once again Phil, you prove how wonderfully intelligent and articulate
> you are by responding to an attack by ranting.

An observation of a demonstrable fact is ranting? GDW *is* no longer in
existence, and TNE (and its failure for whatever reason) to sell enough
copies to keep it afloat seems to be the reason. My information from local
stores is that CTrav sold well, MTrav sold well, and TNE sold (comparatively)
not at all well. Someone mentioned that they could never get MTrav stuff at
their local store ... perhaps because people were always buying it as fast
as it became available (that was the experience locally) and they also noted
that they could always get TNE ... perhaps because no-one was buying it (again
I am advised this was the case locally). If that's a rant, well, so be it.

>    Everyone is *really* tired of the whole pile of BS, and in particular the
> jig you keep dancing on GDW's grave.
>
>    As for the particulars of your comments:
>
> >Traveller 2300/2300 AD sank (all you could really do was *boring*
> >exploration a la the infamous "Energy Curve" or kill Kafers)
>
>    Perhaps, except for the fact that 2300AD wasn't exclusively
> Frank's--Marc Miller had a major role in this project as well.

Well, granted that my Traveller 2300 stuff is downstairs, so I can't check
right now (it'd take some digging out, which I don't feel like doing at
23:28 local!), but, IIRC (and I'm sure that you'll correct me), Miller's
involvement was mainly with the gaming that created the background? If I am
wrong, then I stand corrected.

>    As for the other products you mention, Frank had varying degrees of
> involvement in all of them, but wasn't necessarily the primary author.

OK, then he allowed the author - Nilsen? Wiseman? To not do the best possible.

> >OK, gearheads like you liked it ... but it wasn't enough to save the
> >company, after all, was it?
>
>    No one supplement or publication will keep a game company in
> business, otherwise GDW will still be living off the glory of their
> Operation Desert Storm Factbook which made the New York Times Best
> Seller List.  The fact that one particular supplement can't save a company
> doesn't make it any less valuable to any one fan of the game.  Atlas of
> the Imperium never sold particularly well, but if you want a head start
> on creating sector stats, there is no substitute.

An interesting analogy. My information is that the Desert Storm Factbook was
a money *loser* for GDW ... or, at least, not as big a money winner as they
thought. I have been told by usually reliable sources that *orders* were
really good, but that *returns* were enormous as well ... they were, after
all, making sales to bookstores (and chain ones at that) on the usual book
rates applicable (i.e. sale or full refund return), and there were, so it
goes, many returns. If you know different, I'd be interested to hear it.

Agreed, one supplement cannot save a game company ... but it was more than
one in the case of TNE. A series of less than optuimum sellers.

> >And the Trading Card caused slump in the RPG industry isn't valid, as all
> >the other dogs died pre-TC games.
>
>    No two gaming industry experts agree on the exact impact of the
> growth of the collectable card industry, but most agree that it did cause
> many hobby stores to decrease the amount of other materials they
> carried so that they could make room for more collectable card games.
> Without question at least some money that consumers would have
> spent on other things (like RPG supplements) went instead to buying
> additional ``booster`` packets for CCGs.  Pinning down exact dollar
> figures is tricky at best, but there was at least some impact.

Yes, but, as you fail to address, the failures that put GDW in such a parlous
position (so it seems) that TNE was a do or die effort were *before* the TC
boom.

> >Sure, if they don't go into superdetail, they'll lose you. But you weren't
> >enough to save TNE and GDW anyway -- the loss of confirmed
> >roleplayers was what put the final nail in its coffin.
>
>    No one person will save any game, nor will any one special interest
> group.  A RPG has to appeal to many different types of people to be
> successful--yes, including the people who like to tinker.  The Chadwick/
> Nilsen regime took a creative gamble in coming up with the TNE storyline.
> That in no way invalidates the mechanics behind it.

Not by itself. However, the fact that they failed (and, OK, you won't *agree*
that they failed, fine. Doesn't worry me. Some agree with both of us - and we
both think the facts stand for themselves) and that they did so because they
pissed off most of their established audience in pursuit of a new one had a
lot to do with it. Sure, some people liked the changes, but, again, I argue
that they were so successful that the whole thing failed. Maybe I'm wrong, it
really doesn't matter ... the thing is, a lot of old customers were annoyed
enough to stop buying (or stop buying everything that was released ... that's
what I did; others of my acquaintance have bought no TNE stuff at all ... but
still scour the convention auctions for CTrav and MTrav stuff). That was lost
sales.

> >*Blunt Hairpins* and *CattleCarriers* (the boardgames) I regard as
> >entirely non-canon as they have HePlaR. Fine. *You* like it. Wonderful.
>
>    As did a *lot* of other people.  As for HePlaR, I liked the fact that it wa
> more realistic, but always felt uncomfortable with the ``gas mileage`` it
> got.  I'm sorry they cause you so much personal heartbreak.

I can live with the fact that you like it. But they're still non-canon insofar
as they complete disagree with 15 years of Thruster Plate *canon*. They are
also one of the major turnoffs for established fans ... to adopt them would
invalidate and make worthless *everything* connected with Space Travel in all
previous material. Sort of reminds me of my dad ... used to be a keen amateur
movie maker (on old 8mm home cameras ... pre-video), even the President of
the local Australian (NSW) Amateur Cine Society. Then the makers of all the
gear - cameras, projectors, film, splicers etc. etc. decided that they had a
wonderful new moneymaking idea ... they'd replace Standard 8mm with "Super
8mm". They'd stop supporting *all* the old stuff and stop making the film for
it. *Everyone* would have to dump their old gear (hundreds of Pounds worth
in the 60's - a *lot* of money) and buy expensive *new* gear that was, as
far as the technology was concerned, identical except for size of the film it
took (and the quality of the pictures were arguably not better, perhaps even
slightly worse). Guess what? A lot of people were so pissed off that they
simply dropped their interest ... my Dad certainly did. Of course, home
movies being what they are, it didn't make a lot of difference to the bottom
line because the demand was inelastic to a degree ... in the case of RPGs,
the demand is much more elastic, so such a strategy is *very* risky. My point
is that the evidence available points to it being a partial failure - and, on
top of all the other runaway *not* successes preceeding it, it was enough to
sink the boat.

> >But TNE was a joke
>
>    Maybe to people who concluded that Traveller died about 1987.  Which
> makes me wonder why you even picked up TNE--habit perhaps?  There
> had to be something about it other than the Traveller logo that made you
> want to buy anything more than just the basic sourcebook, which
> apparently you did.

Actually, if you read carefully, you'd note that I think that Traveller
died, effectively, in 1992. I didn't like the MTrav game system or the
useless vehicle design system, but I *did* like the background and a lot
of the support material. World Builders Handbook is, as far as I am concerned,
the best single Traveller supplement ever produced ... despite its many flaws.

> >In any case, it sounds as if MM is going back to CTrav/MTrav for the
> >"new" traveller ... or so the material on the list seems to indicate ... so
> >he may well not agree with you either.
>
>    Or you, Phil.  It is quite likely the new Traveller will not be exactly wha
> anybody wants.  It is entirely possible that design sequences similar to
> those in TNE will be included--probably not in the basic book, but later on.
> After all, somebody at GDW felt it necessary to come out with Striker,
> Mercenary, High Guard, Merchant Prince, etc. at some point.

Yep, and if you read what I wrote, you'd note that I rather liked all the
above. They had their problems, but none as severe as those of MTrav and
*certainly* not in the earth-shatteringly awful league of TNE!

> >What it boils down to, I suppose, is that we'll have to agree to
> >disagree?!
>
>    Roger that.  Honestly I don't know how you can expect to launch
> missiles against TNE on this mailing list and not expect to get some
> serious return fire.

Return fire never worried me!

>    If you find any further personal offense in the comments I've made
> above, then e-mail direct to hdhale@tasc.com  , don't bother people
> around here.  If you have something to say that everyone would like to
> hear, then please post it here.

What makes you think that I would find anything that you have said worthy
of taking offense at? You have your opinion, I have mine. I can live with
it and so, so you claim, can you. That should end the matter, eh?

Phil McGregor


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:01:54 -0500
From: jbogan@pipeline.com (John H Bogan)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 595
Message-ID: <199602141301.IAA27498@pipe10.nyc.pipeline.com>

> Possible solutions for this problem(?):
> 1. The "Drop Tank" option -
> 2. The "Battle Rider" option -
> 3. The "Kamikaze" option -


Might I suggest option 4?

Tankers! Jump in at a safe distance from the anticipated battle zone,
refuel from tankers, and then fight.

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

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 13:36:00 PST
From: David Elrick <Dave.Elrick@ps.co.uk>
To: "traveller%mpgn.com" <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: RE [2]: why even have a timeline at all?
Message-ID: <312255BD@pc136>



Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de> responded to my comments:

>>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.

Possibly I should have written that paragraph a little more clearly. I ran
demonstration games of TNE at shows in the UK for a year before TNE came
out, for people who wanted to see what it was like (and I also endured a
seemingly endless stream of airheads whining that "GDW had murdered
Traveller"). I also ran demonstrations of CT for many years.

When people who don't know a game sit down to play a demonstration, it is
usually because they are trying to decide whether it is worth buying the
game and learning it. In this instance, of course, the background could be
anything from 'Alice in Wonderland' to 'Virus kills Third Imperium' as long
as the game is fun and it gives the prospective purchasers an idea of how
the game plays.

I prefer to run participation games, rather than demos, for people who come
to a show and want to play their favourite game with a different GM (or,
more commonly, in a different playing style to the one they normally play at
club). In this case, a common background - as you stated later in your post
 - gives all the players a common reference point, which can only be a good
thing.

> Most people realize that rules aren't
> that important and so background is the last (not least) common
denominator.

Properly done, the rules should not get in the way of the suspension of
disbelief which is necessary to allow players to play the game. I have
always subscribed to the view that one of the GMs main tasks is to make the
rules as unobtrusive as possible and allow the players to immerse themselves
in the story.

>>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?

No, GURPS is not a wargame. There are currently about 25 backgrounds in
print for GURPS (and probably that many again that are no longer in print).
However, if you meant 'Is the GURPS rulebook, alone, a wargame?', then the
answer is probably yes (I went home and looked out my copy of the GURPS
rulebook last night - it is about 250 pages long, of which 177 are purely
character, skills and combat information. There is no background presented
in the basic rulebook.).

>> 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
:-)

Let's not start all that again, eh? :-)

> I would claim that a game with too much detailed background will kill
> imagination and creatism and playing it becomes like watching TV.

This was one of the main criticisms of MegaTraveller. In order to be able to
use the background as presented, you had to know about all the different
factions of the rebellion, which in turn meant the reasons for the
rebellion, etc. etc. (I'm paraphrasing Dave Neilson's comments in an
interview he gave to RPI magazine).  I'm sure that, between us, we could
come up with any number of games where the background stifles the game.

However, that was not the point of my original post. I was replying to
someone (whose name I have forgotten - sorry, whoever you are) who was
arguing that, because CT had no background and sold well, and TNE had
background and sold badly, why did we need a background with T:4.

> 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.

But my point to that other poster was that there are people out there who
are happy (in fact they actually expect) to "eat" other people's ideas. The
original Dragonlance series of modules (for the AD&D game) sold so well that
they were repackaged as a trilogy of combined modules, just exactly because
people wanted to play through the plots of the books.

When I started roleplaying [this parrot sh*t's going to be the death of my
uniform :-) ] we were forced to be creative because nobody published
background material - and there were people then who were content to replay
their favourite films and books. One of my most successful CT campaigns from
that era was set in the background of the Dune books.

> 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.

No. Although GDW announced that Virus had destroyed everything except their
published background, which seemed to cut off the possibility of setting up
your own little 'enclave' somewhere else in 'known' space, you always had
the option of having your own pocket empire (a cop-out possibly - I just
rewrote 'history' so that Virus, although devastating, had not destroyed
everything which gave my players an illusion of hope).

> Speculating what's about that back curtain thing is, I think, more
interesting than
> demanding yet another source book about that matter.

How about Lucan, kept alive (barely) by rogue artifact intelligences?

> 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.

We are both in agreement, but for not quite the same reasons.

> buy

I assume that's not a command. :-)

Kind Regards

Dave Elrick

 ----------------------------------------------------------
"The British Governement have been pressing the IRA to decommission arms and
explosives. Well, on Friday we decommissioned half a ton of explosives."

     Comment attributed to Gerry Adams
 ---------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 08:40:40 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics
Message-ID: <9602141540.AA10183@Rt66.com>


> >heavily, and why not?  The I-Fleet _must_ refuel, and you can wait and
>
> Why the I-Fleet have to refuel? I never would design or use ships with fuel
> stores for only one jump.  As I understand, each standard TNE ship is able
> to store fuel for at least two or three jumps.

True.  I was operating under the worst case as a demonstration.  Combat
will burn fuel at 12gturns an hour though (evasion is _good_ :-) so
topping the tanks is still a good idea.

> >Now, you're right, the jump, refuel, drive on in is trashed.  But when
> >HEPlaR I-fleets jump in they really need to refuel.
>
> No, they needn't. Also a MT I-Fleet probably need not.

Well, again, I assumed a long jump in.  Then since they'll have 50gtuns
or so they could bug out even with the jump, but only if they don't try
to fight too much first (assuming they jumped from the closest friendly
world when they jumped in).

As fo the tankers, yeah, you're right.

To start beating the canon horse again---there are 3 different versions
of Jdrive now, which would be best to match history?  Or what
combination of the three?  This would be useful in making an FFS rewrite
to actually match canon.

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:15:28 -0500 (EST)
From: fcain@st6000.sct.edu (Franklin W. Cain)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HEPLAR vs. Thruster Plates
Message-ID: <9602141615.AA35475@st6000.sct.edu>

For whatever it's worth, here's my idea on how to solve the
"HEPLAR vs. Thruster Plate" issue:

HEPLAR becomes available at TL-9 (if I remember correctly).

Thruster plates become available (in my campaign) at TL-11.
Maximum thrust is 2 Gs at TL-11, 4 Gs at TL-12, and 6 Gs at TL-13 (higher
G-ratings at the appropriate TL's, if desired).

Thus, the mostly TL-12 to TL-15 Third Imperium *didn't* *need* to
worry about maneuver fuel, but the mostly TL-9 to TL-11 Reformation
Coalition and pocket empires *do* need to worry about in-system fuel (and
travel times).

The exact TL for thruster plates could be adjusted to better fit
"canon", but I hope you get the basic idea.  Hope this helps.

Franklin W. Cain


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:32:16 +0000
From: Stefan Matthias Aust <sma@kiel.netsurf.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Imperial Police
Message-ID: <m0tmk9C-0001HYC@kiel.netsurf.de>

I wonder whether an Imperal Police organization (like InterPol) exists in
the Imperium. If yes, what kind of crime they investigate in? What's their
structure? If no, why not and would it be desirable to have such organization?

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


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 09:09:09 -0800
From: Christopher_Griffen_at_DMC-SJ3@dmcwave.com (Christopher Griffen)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: "Vargr" is Old Norse...
Message-ID: <12219da0@MailXFER.DMCWAVE.COM>

Responding to Jeff Zeitlin:

>> Incidentally, has anyone noticed that the Old Norse word for
 "wolf" is "vargr", and that the modern Scandinavian tongues use
 variations of that same word for the same purpose even today?  Is
 Marc Miller perhaps a linguist, even amateur?<<

No, I didn't notice that.  Hmm, considering it's common knowledge...

Seriously, though, Jeff, that's an interesting tidbit.  I wonder if the
implication is that first-contact or at least recontact after the Long Night was
first made by the Sword Worlders.  That might explain the use of an Old Norse
term.

--Chris

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:42:20 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: RE: HePLaR and fleet tactics
Message-ID: <199602141642.LAA20221@chopin.udel.edu>

In Reply to Your Message of Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10: 47:26 EST
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:42:20 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@chopin.udel.edu>

: To start beating the canon horse again---there are 3 different versions
: of Jdrive now, which would be best to match history?  Or what
: combination of the three?  This would be useful in making an FFS rewrite
: to actually match canon.

My vote goes to the MT grid model.  I would also probably clobber in
the multiple jumps that TNE allows.  If for no other reason than it
seems to be something many people wanted for a long time.  Maybe use a
formula like the one presented in either TD21 or MTJ4 (can't remember
which) where you would use a variable amount of fuel, but it would be
more than a fraction of your jump rating.  In other words, a j-3 drive
makes a j-1 jump.  The fuel usage is 1/3 the total j-fuel, plus a
little bit more.

       --Jerry

8) Jerry Alexandratos                %  "Nothing inhabits my    (8
8) darkstar@strauss.udel.edu         %   thoughts, and oblivion (8
8) darkstar@canary.pearson.udel.edu  %   drives my desires."    (8

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:50:43 -0600
From: muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com (John Kovalic)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Last Auction Update
Message-ID: <199602141750.LAA11981@fullfeed.msn.fullfeed.com>



Here's the LAST auction update (sounds of cheering!).

To Recap: I'd *like* to sell everything here as a group, so for
*everything*, the first bid at or over $200 gets it automatically.

I will accept conditional bids from here on out (ie: "I will pay $2 over
the highest bid on Azhanti High Lightning, up to $75"), in case anybody is
worried about making tonight's MIDNIGHT, CST, deadline.

Rules to follow.

Group bid for entire auction -- $180 judithmh@aol.com
Total Individual bids for entire auction -- $223

**********************

LOT # 1 - BOARD GAMES

Lot bid -- $90 - philip@psych.utoronto.ca
Total Individual bids for board games -- $96

AZHANTI HIGH LIGHTNING - very good shape, punched, some box wear.
$51 - sudet@well.com
$50 - ilgrouch@aol.com
$40 - rodge@cyberspace.com

AZHANTI HIGH LIGHTNING RULE BOOK - not sure how I got this extra one.
$4 - Scantrontb@aol.com
$2 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

FIFTH FRONTIER WAR - very good shape, punched, slight box wear.
$41 - lucrezi@iinf01.ing.univaq.it
$35 - aholt@cnj.digex.net
$30 - mitch@intersys.com
$25 - rodge@cyberspace.com

**********************

LOT # 2 - ALIEN MODULES

ASLAN (Module 1) - cover wear,  otherwise good shape.
$10 - darkstar@UDel.Edu
$9 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
$8 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$7 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

VARGR (Module 3) - slight cover wear, otherwise very good shape.
$18 - gxh8@psu.edu
$15 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$12 - darkstar@UDel.Edu
$11 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu

**********************

LOT # 3 - JOURNAL OF THE TRAVELLER'S AID SOCIETY

JTAS #3 - slight cover wear, otherwise very good shape.
$22 - PICL115@FSPHY1.HEP.FSU.EDU
$20 - nimrod@dfw.net
$20 - fcain@st6000.sct.edu


JTAS #20 - *very* slight cover wear, otherwise very good shape.
$8 - PICL115@FSPHY1.HEP.FSU.EDU
$6 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$4 - alvin.plummer@sheridanc.on.ca
$3 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK

**********************

LOT # 4 - LARGE BOOKS

THE TRAVELLER BOOK - hardcover, slight cover scuffing, otherwise very good
shape.
$22 - ecy@umich.edu
$20 - sdollar@goodnet.com
$16 - ecy@umich.edu
$15 - sudet@well.com
$12 - dbolack@galaxy.galstar.com

THE TRAVELLER ADVENTURE - very good shape.
$13 - gxh8@psu.edu
$12 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$12 - dbolack@galaxy.galstar.com


**********************

LOT # 5 - SMALL BOOKS

BOOK 5 (High Guard) - very good shape.
$4 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
$3 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk
$3 - vslimm@sky.net

BOOK 6 (Scouts) - very good shape.
$11 - darkstar@UDel.Edu
$10 - aholt@cnj.digex.net
$4 - bri@teleport.com
$3 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$3 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

SUPPLEMENT 1 (1001 Characters) - cover scuffing.
$4 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
$2 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

SUPPLEMENT 4 (Citizens of the Imperium) - cover scuffing.
$5 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
$4 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$2 - E.Watters@Queens-Belfast.AC.UK
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

SUPPLEMENT 6 (76 Patrons) - cover scuffing.
$6 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$4 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
$3 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

ADVENTURE 1 (The Kininur) - cover scuffing.
$4 - koziol@ncsa.uiuc.edu
$3 - ztravlr@icon-stl.net
$2 - A.S.Lilly@hedera.bnr.co.uk

**********************

RULES:

1) All bid increments $1, up to $20. Over $20, bid increments $2. Over $50,
bid increments $3. Over $100, bid increments $4.

2) Buyer pays postage, normally around $5 for UPS shipping. Buyer chooses
shipping method.

3) (You'll like this one) Once checks clear, packages will be shipped
within 7 days, or buyer will receive a 15% refund in purchase price, along
with goods. If packages are not shipped within 14 days, buyer receives a
25% refund, as well as goods.

(My last auction was *much* too big, and I had some delays in getting
packages out in a timely fashion. That should NOT be a problem this time,
nevertheless, this clause is added for the buyers' benefit.)

4) Non-North American bids will be accepted, but shipping charges may be
much higher. In some cases, EXTREMELY so. Thank the post office.

5) Payment of winning bids to arrive within 10 days of notification,
otherwise item will be offered to next-highest bidder. Payment to be made
by check or money order in US funds.

6) (Not really a rule, more like a plea) PLEASE don't bid on anything
unless you REALLY intend to purchase it! Some of the items here were
"bought" in previous auctions, and then never collected.

any questions should be sent to:

John Kovalic
4679 Goodland Park Rd.
Madison, WI 53711

(608) 222-5522

muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com



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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 597
***************************
