TRAVELLER Digest 598

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) Re: Micro-jumps by fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
  2) infantry vs Bri's drone by bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
  3) HEPLaR vs thruster plates by bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
  4) Re: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au> by Bri <bri@teleport.com>
  5) Ancient Starships by aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
  6) Re: [T594] RICE Archives by jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
  7) Reality Bits! by marcher@cccp.net (Mark Archer)
  8) Transstar Quibbles by lewis@chara.gsu.edu
  9) Please don't flame me too much but.. by t01bpa@abdn.ac.uk
 10) Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
 11) HEPlaR Effect upon cannon by anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
 12) Computers and skills by Paajanen Jyrki JYP <jyrki.paajanen@ttgroup.fi>
 13) Re: TRAVELLER digest 597 by shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
 14) Question-HULL size by Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
 15) Anomalies with Material Tech in FF&S (and others) by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
 16) High-Tech Lo-Tech Computers by Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
 17) Them Holidays by "V.A.G." <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
 18) Re: High-Tech Lo-Tech Computers by merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 12:43:55 -0600
From: fredm@datasync.com (Paul Walker)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Micro-jumps
Message-ID: <199602141843.MAA28040@osh1.datasync.com>

Just another monkey wrench to throw into the discussion.  When a ship in
J-space reaches a point 100 diameters out from a world, it emerges from
J-space, sometimes violently.  With a long distance between MW & GG it seems
this chance would increase with an in-system jump.  Picture this:

0400 Bridge Report (Navigator Reporting):
    "Sir, we can't micro-jump to attack Terra until 1800 hours tomorrow."
Captain:
    "Why not?  We're scheduled to finish refueling the fleet in an hour!!"
Navigator:
    "You see, Mars is aligned with Saturn, and Jupiter is rising in Gemini."
Captain:
    "Very well, blast this systems orbitals!"

O.K. I'm being a bit dramatic, but I think the chance for a violent
emergence from J-space due to getting too close to a gravity source would be
greater during in-system jumps.

Paul {tiger}

"54-40 or Fight!" - TBWSK


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 10:51:14 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: infantry vs Bri's drone
Message-ID: <9602141851.AA02071@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu>


TL16 20-cm SEFOP IR homing missile has mass about 60kg (+30kg for launcher),
range 1km, PV 233. It's pretty hefty for non-powered infantry, of course...
but great for ambushing drones out of upper-story windows, especially since
the drone (lacking a turret) can't fire on the move. (It wouldn't do
much against a real AV500 tank, of course.)

There aren't any rules for hypervelocity KEAP rockets or missiles, but
with a little extrapolation one can come up with some. A TL16 5cm
KEAP rocket with a TL8 SF rocket engine can be designed with max range 400m,
penetration 2400 at that range (penetration 500 at 100m, unfortunately
drops rapidly at shorter ranges as the rocket needs time to accelerate.)
It weights 5kg and costs Cr32. Bad news for drones and tanks. (You don't even
want to think about the EAPLaC version. Trust me.)

Kinetic energy weapon penetrations need to level off at high muzzle energies -
something like PV=14*sqrt(energy) at energies above 12 Mj would work.

For comparisons between drones and tanks, Bri needs to do a version of his
drone with a person inside it, and see how much more it costs or how much
less effective it is.

Bruce

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 11:07:23 -0800
From: bmac@astro.ucla.edu (Bruce Alan Macintosh)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HEPLaR vs thruster plates
Message-ID: <9602141907.AA02195@eggneb.astro.ucla.edu>


Part of Traveller's niche, relative to (say) Space Opera or more recent SF
games, was that it tried to be (somewhat) hard-SF, with only a few
deviations from extrapolated physical laws. It doesn't do that perfectly, of
course, but it always seemed to be trying harder than most other games.

Thruster plates (or any reactionless drive) violate both conservation of
energy and conservation of momentum.  True, all SF breaks some physical laws,
but those are *really* fundamental laws; without them, you're only a few steps
away from inertialess drives, or Star Wars. Merrick's world-wrecking lifeboat
is a direct consequence of this - a tiny little fusion plant can use thruster
plates to put rather a lot of kinetic energy into a ship.

I know that HEPlaR bends conservation of energy (I prefer to assume that
some fraction of the HEPlaR reaction mass undergoes fusion, which brings it
back into energy balance.) Still, on the balance, I like it; I would imagine
it adds something to roleplaying by giving more detail to space travel.
I think T4 should keep it, possibly tweaked a little (decreasing FC values
with tech level would be my suggestion, as the fusion gets more efficient.)

Besides, it gives a reason for all the ships to have little exhaust nozzles
like all the deckplans show :-)

Bruce
P.S. Pop science quiz: which other physical law, just as fundamental as
CofE and CofM, do all versions of Traveller (including T2300AD) break?
Answer will be posted in a few days.

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 13:24:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Bri <bri@teleport.com>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960214132323.28523E-100000@linda.teleport.com>

 We said "why don't we take it to e-mail so no one has to read this", yet
you in your childish desire to get the last word in have to respond
publicley.
 Take it to email, I am sick and tired of your rantings.
(BTW: The reason why I'm getting on your case more then his is becuase
all your arguments are _opinion_, while most of his are fact)

bri <bri@teleport.com
The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich, as well as the
poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal
bread.      -- Anatole France


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 22:23 GMT
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Ancient Starships
Message-ID: <memo.776884@cix.compulink.co.uk>

When dealing with Grandfather's toys, the general rule of thumb is: they
can do whatever the hell they like. Forget FF&S - it doesn't go up as far
as the TLs you're dealing with. Try not to break too many laws of physics,
but basically anything goes.

---===---
Andrew Boulton

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 17:34:00 -0500
From: jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com (JEFF ZEITLIN)
To: TRAVELLER@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: [T594] RICE Archives
Message-ID: <8BAC41E.010006AA1D.uuout@execnet.com>


Dave Golden writes, wrt my being able to place the RICE Archives
on-line...

T::>        Hmmm ... does this mean I should discontinue my own offerings?

 Not at all - unless you _want_ to discontinue!  The more places
 this stuff is available, the better; if nothing else, it prevents
 any one site from getting bogged down (not that this is likely to
 happen because of the RICE Archives, but...).  Also, the current
 Archives are limited to 5MB of data; upgrading beyond that will
 co$t me more.  Having you as a backup/mirror/overflow will allow
 for a relatively simple way of appearing to keep everything in one
 place - I'll just start sticking in links to your site for the
 stuff I don't have room for! :)

T::>                                                                       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 ...

 That _would_ be appreciated!  I can handle either PKZip or gzip; I
 can also manage lharc/lha and arj.  In a real pinch, Mac format
 files are possible, but they'll take me a few extra days to unpack
 and post.

 Also, while I think of it - Marc Miller, if you're reading this
 list (to be devoutly hoped), I've "borrowed" the motif for the
 original Traveller books as the "banner" for the RICE Archives
 home page, and I've stuck a disclaimer under it.  I'd _really_
 appreciate it if you'd give them a look-see, and let me know if
 there are any problems with what I've done.  If there are, I'll
 make any reasonable changes I can - just do let me know...

==========================================================================
Jeff Zeitlin                                      jeff.zeitlin@execnet.com
---
  OLXWin 1.00a  Genitalia is not an Italian airline...


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 22:19:54 +0000
From: marcher@cccp.net (Mark Archer)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Reality Bits!
Message-ID: 22195404500298@cccp.net

First, this isn't a flame or an attack on anyone Traveller-belief-system, or
any form of my view is better than yours, your'll see why later.

The lovely, conservitive Phil :) made some comments about 2300 ad, now I'm
not saying he wrong, he's actually right (large gasp comes from readers :)
), but it got me thinking about why 2300 ad appeals to people like me, and a
reason why (though not an excuse) GDW choose to use the TNE background.

Simply put the Imperium is just to big, a very daunhting task for realitive
newbies or old hats alike.  And I know, just use a sector, but what if your
player all decide to head to Capital one day or like me your a complitists
and want to know all about the Imperium as a whole (hey that an idea, Mr
Miller, sir, can we have a Imperium source book, Please!).  Thats what the
new era try's (and maybe fails), by limiting the area the players have less
choice and the GM needs to now less, and going beyond the boundries can be
an adventure, as there going were no one (well at least in recent time) gone
before.

Well want do you think (as if I have to ask :) )

                Happy Travelling
                                -Mark

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Mark Archer (marcher@cccp.net)
 member googolplex of the inner circle of wraiths,
 relatively unknown everywhere else

 Funny line under construcion, sorry for any inconvience
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 18:26:28 -0500
From: lewis@chara.gsu.edu
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Transstar Quibbles
Message-ID: <9602142326.AA26206@chara.gsu.edu>

John Bogan wrote:
>A few quibbles about the Transstar write-up:

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

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

I agree with everything you say.  I was trying to comment on the Solomani's
plans, and it came out as history.  I'll make up a paragraph that explains
that Hard Times disrupted their plans. I'll include that in version 1.1
when I get around to doing that.


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

I disagree with some of this.  One the RC is a very loose government,
its only a few years old, and probably doesn't have laws carefully
regulating commerce and most aspects of interstellar life.  They are
making it up as they go along. So even if they didn't like Transstar, I
don't think the legal machinery is there to do anything about it.  The
obvious answer to this is why don't they make a law against Transstar.
Well Transstar has been on Fija for seventy some years, they have
gotten themselves wrapped up in its economy pretty well, so the Fijan
senators would fight to protect it.  Transstar also takes care of
Senators that it likes, not bribing them, but giving as much money as
legally possible.

  Also the current board of Transstar wasn't even alive when the
Solomani were around, if tomorrow a Solomani Party representive was to
show up on Fija and demand control of the company, the Board of
Directors wouldn't just hand over power to a complete stranger.  They
would start negotiations, whether they agreed to a merger, a take over
or eventually refused to yeild the company, I don't know, It'll have to
wait until it happens in my campaign.    Another benifit of maintaining
their link with the Solomani Party is that if they find some small
pocket of Transstar in the Wilds, they could take it over.  Alpha
Crucis Sector was always under Solomani control, and its rimward of
Aubaine subsector.  (If you want Transstar to be secretly Solomani
style human supremists, then they might want to be taken over by their
Solomani brethren. But I am leaving up to each individual referee)

     Another point, is that Fija is a very lawful society, laws and
order must be upheld.  Transstar's is legally bound to the Solomani
party, through what ever paperwork that talks about who owns a
corporation.  They can't just ignore that.  It would be the same as if
one of General Motor's division decided it wasn't going to be part of
General Motors anymore.  Of course, the Solomani Party doesn't exist in
any recognizable form right now, but that is what the law says, and the
law must be followed.   (This argument depends on the view I have of
the Fija culture, if you have a different view, it doesn't work as well.)

BTW, The reason I used Transstar and didn't create a totally original
corporation, was that there is a sense of history and connection to the
previous Era. This is what I've always liked about Traveller.

Thanks for the comments.
Lewis


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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 00:22:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: t01bpa@abdn.ac.uk
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Please don't flame me too much but..
Message-ID: <S9602150022.AA06445@sysc.abdn.ac.uk>


has it ever occured to you that the reason that TNE fell through
might be because of the legacy of CT or T2300?
TNE was a good idea.

one slight moan about starship generation tables.
In future could you proof read it so that weight dosn't change from
wt/tonnage/kg etc through the book.
And a slight suggestion would be a full page calculation at the end
(4 pages one for a spaceship/ etc) that could be used like a flow
chart to spot any errors.

I liked T2300 and TNE but CT had less challenge for me.


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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 19:09:14 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: HePLaR and fleet tactics
Message-ID: <9602150209.AA29983@Rt66.com>


> 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)

It should be:

(42*5)/2 = 110kl (7.5 tons)  You used a J6 drive, and it's a J2!

This is enough for 6 jumps of 1 parsec.

-Merrick

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:09:59 -0900
From: anwfh@acad2.alaska.edu (William F. Hostman)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: HEPlaR Effect upon cannon
Message-ID: <v01530500ad4878f86df9@[137.229.100.88]>

One of the items I have noticed is that the change to HEPlaR from T-Plates
has had three noticeable effects upon the cannonical setting history:

1> It increased Jump mobility

2> It decreased in system mobility

3> It makes ship operations more expensive.

In the first case: No rule ever prevented one from having more fuel than
one jump of maximum range, AFAIK. I desigtned ships with multiple jumps
under all three editions. HEPlaR simply requires maneuver fuel, which,
being identical to the jump fuel in nature, is useable for an extra jump
(assuming enough remains). Most designs under CT/MT did not have this much
non-jump fuel around.

As for in system mobility, I am referring to N-Space mobility. Evan an SDB
under TNE would benefit from a J-Drive. J1 is all any SDB needs. But with
J1, you have plenty of spare maneuver fuel if you choose to use it that way
while on station (say, at the GG?). Under CT/MT, such vessels didn't really
benefit from having a J-Drive; the space was better spent on weapons, ammo,
and crew.

The third point is a key impact upon players: fuel costs (per kl), and ship
incomes, have not changed  in the transition. However, the fuel cost per
ship has gone up, as more fuel is used per ship. Which makes marginally
profityable PC Craft like the Fat Trader (Subsidized Merchant) even more
marginable.

Fuel fexibility has made up for much of the problem. It takes only 2-3
G-Turns for merchant craft to make it to jump. Most times, my players use a
total of 7 burns total on peaceful operations. When they have combat, they
run the Jump fuel dry fighting, then refuel.

There is one other major background change of MAJOR note in TNE:

POWER PLANT FUEL IS NOW A BASELINE OF 1 YEAR!

As opposed to the one month standard fuel of CT, and the "Reccomended" MT
minimum of 1 month. This also makes a big diference to long range military
craft. Under CT/MT, PP Fuel was a major consideration in in-system ops an
maneuver; no power = no LS + no maneuver + no weapons. While the equation
is still true, the fact is that TNE Ships don't run out of PP Fuel during
normal ops; while CT/MT ships could if they didn't plan thoroughly. Also,
it is possible to sacrifice much of the PP Fuel for 1 more Burn on many
craft.



Summary:

TNE's HEPlaR made jump drives more vital to all facets of space exploration
and exploitation, while also making the fuel factors LESS important for
jump operations. Its changes cause changes not just in military, but also
in merchant thought. The tactical and system operational timeframes are
expanded, and costs are higher. From a gaming standpoint, it also changes
the hooks available for adventure/plot possibilities around fuel (Which is
neither a good nor a bad thing).

So it invalidates much of the detail extant in CT & MT about the mainstream
history. The net effect on the overall is minor, but the minutiae are
immensly different,  and now invalid. (If HEPlaR is cannon).

-Wil

William F. Hostman

EMail:          ANWFH@Orion.Alaska.EDU
HomePage:       http://orion.alaska.edu/~aswfh/index.html



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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 09:41:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: Paajanen Jyrki JYP <jyrki.paajanen@ttgroup.fi>
To: traveller <traveller@MPGN.COM>
Subject: Computers and skills
Message-ID: <31231CC3@ttmsm04>


In TNE there are "level-0" system (even swimming-0 is there). I use the MT's
"unskilled OK" system (difficulty remains the same even if person doesn't
have necessary skill) in the situations like the astrogator example. It is
practically the same as having level-0 skill, but it saves some
bookkeepping. Of course, the same people that could use ship's computer for
astrogation has no idea how to navigate without it.

Jyrki Paajanen

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

Date: Wed, 14 Feb 96 22:35:43 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: TRAVELLER digest 597
Message-ID: <9TuBJD1w165w@krypton.rain.com>

"M.A.T." <mat3@leicester.ac.uk> writes:

> 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?

I suggest that you look at what moderrn naval vessels do. They've got
the fancy GPS receivers, and other navigational aids. They *also* have
someone taking sightings with a sextant and "reducing" the sightings
"by hand" (calculators are used, but aren't all *that* necessary).

There are two reasons for this. First, it provides a vaulable check on
the more advanced systems. It's rumored that there's a mode where the
DOD can tell the GPS satellites to *lie* to everybody but folks with
special decoder rigs. And other "advanced" navigational aids can be
spoofed to one extent or another.

Second, if the fancy gear gets knocked out, that sextant, your watch,
and the *printed* tables in the Nautical Almanac may be all you've got
to determine where the ship is.

Likewise, I expect that both military *and* civilian ships in Traveller
carry the gear for making star sightings, and printed tables of
planetary positions for various systems. It's cheap, doesn't take much
room, and just might save your ass in an emergency.

Sure, there'll be "point and shoot" interfaces available too. But
you'll find that they are *not* intended for laymen! A display or
interface that gives the experienced professional all the options *he*
wants is *not* going to be very friendly to someone who has no
training. There's an *inherent* complexity involved.

Example:
If you want to get from point A to point B inside the same
system, you've got a *lot* of choices. You can burn a lot of fuel and
get there quickly. You can burn a little fuel and take a long time.
And, depending on your current velocity, and that of your destination,
you may just be able to get there "quickly" without much fuel use, or
have to use lots of fuel and *still* take a long time to get there. It
may not even be *possible to get from A to B with your ship. Or it may
be possible to get to another point, from which you can *then* get to
your destination.

Astorgation is *never* going to be all that cut and dried.

And since we don't really know much about jumps, we can't really say
*what* it takes to do jump navigation. But even with what we do know,
it's not going to be simple. An "easy" interface might let you try to
jump from the *surface* of a planet, because the *professional*
navgator had it set up to not argue with him in case he had to make
emergency maneuevers...

<sigh>

I wish I had thought to write down the author and title of a book I
once checked out of the base library. It dealt with astrogation and
space combat. That is, the author assumed no magic drives, no hand
waving. And then tried to figure out how you'd fight and navigate.

He missed a few bets, as the book was written in the late fifties or
early sixties. So no lasers or particle beams. But the astrogational
calcs would still be valid, as would the weapons. They just wouldn't be
the *only* weapons.

Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com<--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com<--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 19:19:19 +0800
From: Benjy Barton <Benjy@iap.net.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Question-HULL size
Message-ID: <312316B7.7643@iap.net.au>

How Do I Get on the HULL SIZE TABLE(FFS) the MV(material volume) and
L(length) form the Rate ?.  As i am designing a speadsheet for Starships
and if i could use formula for Material volume and Length it would make
it easier.

Today was 41.5 C, there has been eleven days plus 30 C
--
"What is best in life?"
"To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the
lamentations of their women! ." - Conan The Barbarian .

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


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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 22:47:46 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: Anomalies with Material Tech in FF&S (and others)
Message-ID: <199602151147.WAA23856@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

Just looking at the FF&S Smallarms/Weapons design rules yesterday and I noted
something of an anomaly ... nothing like the USL problem (if only in terms of
absolute scale!), but still very significant ...

The problem is related to materials technology ... consider this, there is a
very specific developmental sequence for hull materials for spacecraft, with
a given mass becoming tougher and cheaper. Reasonable? I certainly see it
that way.

However, look at the Small Arms design sequence ... there is *nothing* like
this sort of sequence. The assumption is that all weapons from TL4 thru TL10+
are all made of materials that, for a given mass, always cost the same and
never become tougher. There is *nothing* in the design sequence that allows
for this. You can't even stretch existing things such as reductions in barrel
length (the barrels should still mass/cost less for a given toughness) etc.
The same sort of problem exists with Gauss Weapons, too.

This came up because I was thinking about Portable Airlocks - and someone's
statement that they are never improved beyond TL9 simply because they cannot
be! This seems quite ridiculous ... if hull materials are improved throughout
the TL system, then I can see no argument at all that a general improvement
in all materials do not occur.

So, consider this (based on the material in FF&S) -

TL      Relative Cost of Materials      Relative Mass for Standard Toughness

7       1                               1
8       0.76                            0.76
9*      0.7                             0.735
10      0.64                            0.71
11*     0.605                           0.66
12      0.57                            0.61
13*     0.57                            0.455
14      0.57                            0.3
15*     0.596                           0.27
16*     0.523                           0.24
17      0.5                             0.21

Taking TL7 as "1" and extrapolating those levels marked with an asterisk.
(Measured by taking a mass with the same Toughness - 4 - as TL7 Light
Composite)

Thus, a TL9 Portable Airlock rates as -

TL      Cost        Mass

7       1430        8.16
8       1086        6.2
9       1000        6
10      914         5.8
11      864         5.39
12      814         4.98
13      814         3.71
14      814         2.45
15      780         2.2
16      747         1.96
17      714         1.71

One could assume that similar cost and mass reductions would be possible for
smallarms and gauss weapons (or any other weapon, for that matter!) - though
the effect on existing designs would be enough in some cases to require some
redesign (for recoil purposes, mainly). Certainly there is no good reason that
such reductions in mass and cost *not* apply for, basically, *everything*
once it is introduced ... at least for future tech levels if not for previous
ones.

Just a thought.

Phil McGregor








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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 23:14:59 +1100 (EST)
From: Phillip McGregor <aspqrz@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>
To: Traveller@MPGN.COM, xboat@MPGN.COM
Subject: High-Tech Lo-Tech Computers
Message-ID: <199602151215.XAA29831@sydney.DIALix.oz.au>

Ever wondered *why* you can't have a TL11 (say) version of a TL5 computer?
For example, Scout/Couriers have always had Model 1bis computers (TL6) - and
are normally constructed at TL11 (minimum for Jump2) ... but do they *really*
expect us to believe that a TL11 version of a Model 1bis is going to be
identical in mass, power requirements etc. to a TL5 one? Obviously they do!

But why *should* this be the case? No reason at all. Even now, you can buy
computers that come with varying capacities that, at our present TL, represent
everything from current "state of the art" to something that approximates the
computing power of one a TL or two (in Traveller terms) less in a laptop,
notebook, or even palmtop package at (in relative pricing, mass, and power
requirement terms) *much* less than they were produced at originally. It is
eminently reasonable to assume that this will continue to be the case in the
future.

Thus, using MTrav or CTrav (you can't really do it with TNE because the stats
that are required to make the calculations possible no longer exist in it), you
can simply divide the base model's Max CP input by the CP input of the lower
TL model required (or the CP multiplier, take your pick) and then divide the
mass, power required, cost etc by that factor.

Thus, a TL6 Model 1 bis masses 5 tons, has a volume of 20 displacement tons,
requires 0.03 MW power and costs 9 MCr (as per MTrav, Referee's Manual,
pg. #81). A TL15 Model 9bis masses 8.8 tons, has a volume of 35 displacement
tons, requires 0.02 MW power and costs 43 MCr.

The Model 9bis has CP Input of 500 million and CP Multiplier of 120; the Model
1bis has a CP Input of 7500 and a CP Multiplier of 15. If you use the CP Input
as the determinant, then the reduction factor for a TL15 Model 1bis
*equivalent* is 0.000015 ... giving it a mass of 0.075 kg. volume of 0.3 l,
power requirements of 0.0000004 Mw and costs 135 Credits! If you use the CP
Multiplier you get a reduction factor of 0.125 ... giving the TL15 model 1bis
a mass of 250 kg, a volume of 2.5 tons, power requirement of 0.00375 Mw, and
will cost 1.125 MCr.

Based on the fact that a TL11 Hand Computer (MTrav, Imperial Encyclopaedia,
pg. #56) which is stated as having the equivalent of a Model 1 (TL5) in
computing power costs 1000 Cr, masses 0.5 kg and has a volume of 0.2 liters
(even allowing for the fact that it may not have the same beefed up avionic
rating as aerospace computers and may have a slower CPU) I personally suggest
that the 135 Cr TL 15 Model 1bis massing 75g and being powered by batteries
is the way to go!

Of course, you can always declare the Hand Computer "non-canon" ... which
seems to be a standard excuse for some people. Its in the rules, it makes
sense on what we know and can reasonably project (and if HePlaR is more
"reasonable" than Thruster Plates, and so must be adopted, surely "realistic"
computers should be as well?

Excuses for ignoring logic are eagerly awaited!

Phil McGregor



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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 13:40:37 MET
From: "V.A.G." <GREI5001@uni-trier.de>
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Them Holidays
Message-ID: <474780308E@urt-stud.uni-trier.de>

To list-admin
I'll be gone from my account for 3 weeks until the 10th of March.
Could you please remove me from the list temporarily?
Thanks
--------------------------------------------------------------
V.A.G.

-Don't hold me up: I am just barely ahead of insanity!!!!


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

Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 07:28:13 -0700 (MST)
From: merrick@Rt66.com (Merrick Burkhardt)
To: traveller@MPGN.COM
Subject: Re: High-Tech Lo-Tech Computers
Message-ID: <9602151428.AA23073@Rt66.com>


> Of course, you can always declare the Hand Computer "non-canon" ... which
> seems to be a standard excuse for some people. Its in the rules, it makes
> sense on what we know and can reasonably project (and if HePlaR is more
> "reasonable" than Thruster Plates, and so must be adopted, surely "realistic"
> computers should be as well?

I agree, the computers have always been goofy.  In the same way that one
might come up with an explanation for a crappy world UPP with huge
population, and a great world next door with near no population here's
my rationale for existing computers:

The computer volumes (certainly in CT) include all the wiring,
workstations etc. throughout the ship.  The actual CPU unit is hand
sized and could be powered by a battery (and is in emergencies).

In FFS you can't make this rationalization (note that this is a support
of Phil's arguement regarding detail and suspension of disbelief).  The
solution is to change the computer rules in the future so that either
the actual computers are smaller/cheaper, or that at least some of the
workstations are included in the computer volume.

I see a fairly simple fix to this, although I'll have to check it
against bigger ships to see what it does to existing designs...

We say that the computer includes the displays, etc. throughout the
ship, but only some certain number of displays per computer.  An
acceleration couch would be required for some of these stations, but
many wouldn't need more than a display (can you say "engineering staions
:-).  If your total wkstation requirement is more than you have with the
basic number of computers installed, you then add wkstations (which are
display units that plug into the network, and an acceleration couch).

The old rules making for making a bridge based on total volume would
actually supply the chairs/couches, etc..

I'd like to see a way to make things like the hand computer as well.
Then a table for storage per volume, etc..  Then we add displays.  When
we're done we could make the crazy, huge computers in the table once we
require x displays, y storage, z cpus.

Thoughts?

-Merrick

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

End of TRAVELLER Digest 598
***************************
