From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Sat Dec  7 16:47:09 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin11.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id QAA08137; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:47:04 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA18142; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:47:42 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:46:20 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id QAA18065 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:46:19 -0500
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 16:46:19 -0500
Message-Id: <199612072146.QAA18065@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #726
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Saturday, December 7 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 726



(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm'.
Re: A suggestion concerning long/complicated messages.
Looking for Traveller PBeM
The GA needs a home
About the Grand Adventure
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #725
Re: Msg to Goran
Re: Starship Flight Plans
I can hear You knocking but You cant come in!
MegaTraveller Auction #8 (Last Day of Open Bidding!!!!!)
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: Starship Flight Plans
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: The GA needs a home
Re: Starship Flight Plans
Re: Msg to Goran
Re: Review of Starships
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Question for those with Starships
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Non nuke triggered H-bombs (Was: Re: Nuclear Dampers)
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Travel Lags in the imperium

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:19:35 +0000
From: anders.backman@macademic.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

>> Bad points: The same old tired ships.
>
>This is not a bad thing.  I like the old Traveller ships, and I was
>disappointed that the designs were changed in the Main Book.  This
>actually makes me excited about Starships--I was afraid that they
>were going to use the same ships from the Main Book.

If Startships (the book) is supposed to be used in the year 0 campaign this
is definately a bad thing. If the Imperium was ran by old anagathics crazed
Vilani farts I might believe in the same ship designs for 1000 years but
otherwise=8A

Also those of us who have everything ever produced for Traveller (mor or
less) it is boring to buy the same old deckplans all over again.


/Backman

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:19:36 +0000
From: anders.backman@macademic.se (Anders Backman)
Subject: Re: Things that make you go 'Hmmmmm'.

>Clairvoyance in Traveller is not defined as the ability to perceive the
>future, but
>rather distant events.  (I'm at the office, without my books, so I can't
>quote.  I
>really need a second set.)
<snip>

If you had Clairvoyance, one set would do, but then you might possibly
already know what I was about to write ;)


/Backman

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:06:52 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: A suggestion concerning long/complicated messages.

On  7 Dec 96 at 6:22, Dominic Reynolds wrote:


> Thanks for the postings, these will be most helpful when the group I game 
> with get back into Traveller.  Only recently we reinitiated a game using 
> Classic Traveller, having tried MT for a long time and TNE for a short 
> time.  
> 
> BTW What is your local time when you posted these latest items ?
> 
> --
> Dominic Reynolds

Thank you, Dominic.

As for the time, I think I've got a time problem on my computer.  A 
few months ago, somebody said that the time was off.  I went in to 
control panel (windows) and changed it.  Now, low and behold, it's 
off again.  Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

Kenneth. 

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 10:21:37 -0500
From: Clint Fishback <C-Fishback@mail.dec.com>
Subject: Looking for Traveller PBeM

Is anybody running one with an opening or planning on starting up a 
game?  I prefer either Megatraveller or T4 rules.  Thanx.

Clint
c-fishback@mindspring.com

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:53:37 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: The GA needs a home

If anybody out there has a Traveller web page and is interested in 
maintaining the Grand Adventure information on their sites, then 
e-mail me in private.

I am not interested in maintaining a site, but it would be nice if 
this stuff had a home somewhere.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 09:53:36 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: About the Grand Adventure

I think, from the e-mails I've gotten, that most of you like the 
stuff I've put into the Grand Adventure posts, but two of you have 
expressed concern.  I thought it prudent to clarify what the Grand 
Adventure is.

It's simple, really.  I've got a lot of background stuff on my 
current Traveller campaign, and I'm shareing it with you.  

I'm into epic stories.  My last D&D campaign ran 5 years with the 
same players.  I was tired of role playing after that, but I knew 
that I was going to play a Traveller campaign after that.  For the 
next 3 years, I diddled around with things for my campaign.  Last 
year, I started it.  Sometimes I am inspired by a night's gaming, and 
I "novelize" what happens in a short story and mail it out to my 
players.  They eat this up, and I like being creative in this manner.  

Consequently, I have a lot of stuff to share.  I've adopted many 
things from people's web sites and the TML, and, in most cases, they 
have greatly improved my game--whether it's NPCs that I don't have to 
make up or rules I never thought of or bothered with.

Each Grand Adventure post is intended as a gaming resource.  I 
encourage GMs to take what they want from the posts, manipulate it, 
and make it fit your own campaigns.

So far, there have been 4 posts.  The first is an introduction to the 
Grand Adventure and an expected time line for the different 
campaigns.  I don't think you have to worry about me spoiling all of 
these adventures.  We've been playing a year now, and we're not 
through with the Traveller Adventure yet.  I expect it will take 
years to complete what I've laid out.  Many of you still won't be on 
the TML.  Heck, I don't know if I'll still be on the TML.  And, 
there's always the possibility that the entire 23 year (game year) 
adventure will not be finished (although, it's a good bet, judging 
from my 5 year D&D game).

The second and third posts are detailed NPC/PC backgrounds--Shawn 
Grey and Glynn Connal.  At the end of the posts, I list game 
information like where the planets are mentioned in the prose, 
character stats, skills, etc.

Their stories also link in as background information on the Grand 
Adventure, but GMs are encouraged to use these NPCs in anyway they 
see fit.  Need a fully detailed and fleshed out NPC?  Well, here you 
go.

The last post, post #4, is a home grown weapon.  It's a TL 16 neural 
pistol based on the one mentioned in MT.  There's complete stats for 
the weapon, rules for its use, and even a table to give you the hit 
difficulty (converted to T4, naturally).

What do I plan to do in the future with the Grand Adventure?  Well, 
more of the same.  More NPCs, system details, equipment, short 
stories, adventure ideas, rules, and a plethora of other Traveller 
stuff, all free, here on the TML.

The Grand Adventure is a grab bag of gaming supplements.  Take what 
you want, ignore what you will.  It is there if you want it.

I hope this clears up any confusion.

Kenneth.  

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 11:31:33 -0500
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #725

>If you want, I'll start marking the posts as long.

My apologies for misunderstanding your intent.

I was told once when I posted a long message that including the word (LONG)
in the subject line is a kind of courtesy that clues people who don't have a
lot of time to read stuff that they may want to save the message for times
when they have more time to read. It certainly doesn't hurt :)

Also, you might want to consider perhaps breaking your posts up into smaller
bits, and spreading them out more.

I look forward to reading what you have to say. Perhaps someone could
archive these posts and they can eventually find their way onto a website.

                                        Allen

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

Date: 07 Dec 1996 16:11:40 GMT
From: Rob_Prior@nynet.nybe.north-york.on.ca (Rob Prior)
Subject: Re: Msg to Goran

I know Paul, and he wouldn't claim credit for work that isn't his.  He may
well have sent the information to Goran, though, having an extensive
Traveller collection.  I'll pass this on to him next time I see him.

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:09:22 -0600
From: Ernest N Rowland <erowland@ionet.net>
Subject: Re: Starship Flight Plans

> From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
> Space is *huge*. The odds of an accident caused by a ship jumping in
> too close to another are *really* small.

I certainly agree with this point.  Using Earth as an example, the
volume of space around 100 diameters (+/- 1 diameter; I don't know
what kind of tolerance a jump drive requires...) is about 65e15 cubic
kilometers!  Gee, if I'd done the math first...

> >    Restricted space for military purposes would always be a concern -
> They'd either be *inside* the 100 diameter limit, so a jump wouldn't

Don't military ships also try for the 100 diameter limit when jumping
in and out?  I still think that some sort of reserved volume would be
in place, so that:

   1 - supposedly 'outbound' ships heading for the 100d mark aren't
       mixing in with military fleets - too much opportunity for
       mischief.  This would probably be handled by the local
       starport traffic control with little trouble.

   2 - ships jumping in-system would also not be mixing with military
       ships, I personally would tend to be trigger happy when an
       (as-yet) unidentified civilian ship shows up in the middle of
       the fleet staging area...

> >    into a system 'above' the ecliptic plane and jump out 'below'
> This causes problems if you conserve velocity. And it's not
> really necessary.

I agree; somehow I was thinking that ships were jumping in-system
much further out than 100 diameters.  Jumping in that close makes
this idea not too useful.  Even with unknown systems, if an enemy
knew that you tended to jump in above the plane, then that would give
them that much more information to track you...
"The flag is solid red, except where a thin ring-shaped hole has been cut
out of it, through which one can see the sky."-DRH

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

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 10:46:37 -0500
From: Charlie <Brreclus@spectra.net>
Subject: I can hear You knocking but You cant come in!

After following the I can hear You knocking thread for a while it
looks  to me as if the cable idea works only if you destroy a ships
ability to maneuver. This seems to be the case for using a ships boat as
well. Use of the T4 rules would makes it a crap shoot to take out
maneuver drives or controls in order to kill the ships ability to
maneuver. I am thinking of some called shot type of option for drive,
engineering or controls hits. Is there any rules around for this, any
suggestions? 
								        Lost in space.
                                                                           
Charlie

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 19:07:56 GMT
From: sdollar@goodnet.com (Stuart L. Dollar)
Subject: MegaTraveller Auction #8 (Last Day of Open Bidding!!!!!)

Hey gang!  I have the following Traveller/MegaTraveller books
available:

I have the following items available for auction.
(Condition:  5-Mint to 1-Poor)

GDW:
MegaTraveller:  Astrogators' Guide to the Diaspora Sector
Sector Map, UWP stats (MT & Hard Times Era) for Diaspora Sector
Condition: 3  (Wear on Spine) 
Minimum Bid: $3

MegaTraveller:  Fighting Ships of the Shattered Imperium
Condition: 4  (Slight Wear on Spine)
Current high bids:
$14 lynchblo@waikato.ac.nz
$13 hbill@primenet.com

MegaTraveller: Referee's Companion
Condition: 3 (Slight Wear on Spine, Bend on Front Cover) 
Minimum Bid: $8

MegaTraveller: Rebellion Sourcebook
Condition: 4 (Slight Wear on Spine)
$12 hbill@primenet.com

DGP:
Travellers' Digest #19:
Contains 2 Adventures, UWP Stats, Library Data & Sector Maps for Deneb
& Riftspan Reaches Sectors
Condition: 4 (Some Wear on Cover)
$8 misha@crossrds.com
$5 earthshaker@datatek.com

The following are the auction rules:

1) Open bids will be accepted until Midnight MST on Saturday December
7, 1996.  

2)  Two (2) highest bidders as of above deadline will be contacted
individually on Sunday December 8th, and asked to submit a final bid.
They will have until December 10, 1996 Midnight (Tuesday) to submit
this final bid.

3)  Bids will be accepted in minimum increments of $1.  Please note
minimum bids being taken for all items.  Bids of $XX more than highest
bidder will be accepted only during the open bidding period, and will
only be effective for the current day's bidding.

4) Auction updates will be posted daily.

5) All costs do not include freight.

6)  IMPORTANT:  Save bandwidth, please send all bids by e-mail to:
sdollar@goodnet.com.

Stu

Stuart L. Dollar                         sdollar@goodnet.com
Official USENet Spokesperson for Imperium Games
- ------------------------------------------------------------
"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."  -Thomas Jefferson

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:40:14 +0000
From: "Suzette C. Dollar" <suzd@goodnet.com>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

> > Highest TL appears to be 12, I think that was one direct question from the 
> > list.
> 
> Sorry to hear that, too.  Some of us aren't playing in the year 0.

I think we, the existing Traveller fanatics, need to keep something 
in mind.... Marc Miller's Traveller, Starships and the upcoming books 
are not being written just for us.  They are being written for the 
new blood that the system has to attract in order to continue being 
published.  All of us have alot of "canon" material to draw from and 
convert to the new system.  The new player doesn't have enough 
information or any reason to use TL13+ stuff if it was included.  Why 
confuse them?

I will join all of you, however, in hoping that as T4 is developed 
through future supplements, adventures, JTAS, and other licensed 
products, all the things that we wish for and desire will be 
provided.   Maybe even to our mutual satisfaction.  Well, I can dream 
can't I?

Suz




 
Suz Dollar
suzd@goodnet.com

*Nothing is really work, 
 unless you would rather
 be doing something else*
           --James M. Barrie

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:46:48 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Flight Plans

JTAS # 19 has a really cool article on how Starports are run, called "Skyport
Authority."

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:49:04 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

In a message dated 96-12-07 06:21:01 EST, you write:

<< Also those of us who have everything ever produced for Traveller (mor or
 less) it is boring to buy the same old deckplans all over again. >>


Agreed.  However, I'm mostly interested in STARSHIPS so I can build and
rebuild my own designs with T4 rules.  I love that kind of work/play!

Can anyone tell me if STARSHIPS allows designs about TL12?  That's the
clincher for me, as my campaign is in the 1100's.

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:55:21 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: The GA needs a home

In a message dated 96-12-07 10:55:26 EST, you write:

<< I am not interested in maintaining a site, but it would be nice if 
 this stuff had a home somewhere >>

My vote is that it stays RIGHT HERE.  I love reading it, and if I'm not
interested in something and /or think it's too long, I skip it!  Keep up the
good work!

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:59:07 -0500
From: BrianMays@aol.com
Subject: Re: Starship Flight Plans

In a message dated 96-12-07 12:14:20 EST, you write:

<< ven with unknown systems, if an enemy
 knew that you tended to jump in above the plane, then that would give
 them that much more information to track you... >>

Agreed.  In the old SPI game Universe, ships had to get completely OUT of the
ENTIRE SYSTEM's gravity well, meaning there were basically 2 jump points.  It
made defending a system a heck of a lot easier, knowing exactly where these
psionically "jumped" ships HAD to appear. . .

Brian

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:57:41 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Msg to Goran

At 05:36 PM 12/6/96 -0800, you wrote:

>Good luck getting this resolved. Hopefully, with luck, we can get Phil on
>the mailing list, especially if he has more goodies to share. :-)

Good Lord!  "Get him on?"  I seem to recall we had a bugger of a time
getting him to leave the last time he was subscribed!

+----------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net  |
|     Professional Driver - Traveller Guru     |
|        http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/        |
|**********************************************|
| "Life's a journey, not a destination."       |
|                                   -Aerosmith |
+----------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 11:57:53 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Review of Starships

At 02:28 AM 12/7/96 -0500, you wrote:

>I have to agree.  I think the good people at GameScape are programmed to say
>"NO BRIAN WE DO NOT HAVE ANY NEW TRAVELLER STUFF YET!" as soon as I walk
>through the door.  : )
>
>(Of course, I've been bugging them about once every two days . . .)

Hey!  Another 'Scaper!  Which store do you go too?  I used to live at South,
but I live in SF now so I go to the one on Divisidero.

>However, there has been a flood of CT and MT stuff in their used games
>section.  Either people are really fed up, or they are making room on their
>shelves for the T4 stuff.

I got a great haul out of the Palo Alto  store.. last time I looked they had
3 or 4 Black Boxes sitting around for about $8.

+----------------------------------------------+
| Douglas E. Berry          dberry@hooked.net  |
|     Professional Driver - Traveller Guru     |
|        http://www.hooked.net/~dberry/        |
|**********************************************|
| "Life's a journey, not a destination."       |
|                                   -Aerosmith |
+----------------------------------------------+

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:01:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

Hi.

> From: anders.backman@macademic.se (Anders Backman)

> If Startships (the book) is supposed to be used in the year 0 campaign this
> is definately a bad thing. If the Imperium was ran by old anagathics crazed
> Vilani farts I might believe in the same ship designs for 1000 years but
> otherwise=8A

None of the ships has the same deck plans as in CT. The scout ship is
similar (It's still roughly triangle shaped) but it has a HUGE engine
room, no bridge (a cockpit instead), and no air raft. It also has a fair
amount of unlabeled empty space (staterooms?).

None of the ships has iris valves, altho it's hard to tell this for
sure; the deck plans aren't very detailed.

Production values in T4-2 look pretty good. Artwork is nice (and lots of
it). I just bought it, so I haven't noticed whether there are any typos.
The deck plans don't have the same well-thought-out detail of the best
of the old CT plans (in "Safari Ship", "Signal GK", or "Death Station").

Many of the ships look inconveniently laid out, like they were designed
by Frank Lloyd Wright instead of by someone who wants to live in them.
They all have an artistic flair; they are somewhat more stylish than
their CT counterparts --- more like you'd see in a sci-fi movie.

Anyone have a copy of "Traders and Gunboats" they want to sell me?

- -Rob

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:08:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention. The SSDS does have rules for designing
ships upto TL 16. None of listed ready made ships are higher than TL 12.

- -Rob

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

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 1996 15:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

Oh and another thing. The design rules only go up to 5000 tons. (They're
complicated, tho, so I may be missing something.) There are tables for
meson guns, particle accellerators, spinal mounts, meson screens,
nuclear dampers, four and a half pages of hull types, armor types, jump
drives (up to jump 6), contragrav drives, fusion drives, heplar drives,
thruster plate drives, lasers, more lasers, more and more lasers, bay
weapons, black globes, sancasters, controls, electronics, stealth,
masking, life support, G compensation, labs and shops, docking rings,
hangers, launch tubes, cargo hatches, fuel purification plants, fission
reactors, fusion reactors, workstations, accomodations, fire control,
and a few others whose meanings are yet obscure to me.

Whew!

- -Rob

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:40:01 -0800
From: "Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com>
Subject: Question for those with Starships

Hi,

Got a quick question for those who have Starships.  How are the tables, etc.
set out for SSDS?  Is it a better layout than the QSD in the T4 rulebook, or
would people still be better off using the INternet version?

Thanks

_______________________________Peter John Miller
"There's a new home run king in baseball...and his name is Henry Aaron..."
 - announcer, after Hank Aaron breaks Babe Ruth's career home run record
- ------------------------------------------------
Traveller, Prime Directive, AD&D, and the home of the Imperium Games FAQ!
       http://www.dragonfire.net/~pm/

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 14:45:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Anders Backman wrote:

> If Startships (the book) is supposed to be used in the year 0 campaign th=
is
> is definately a bad thing. If the Imperium was ran by old anagathics craz=
ed
> Vilani farts I might believe in the same ship designs for 1000 years but
> otherwise=8A

I finally got a look at starships - at my FLGS - and it does use the same=
=20
ships as in T4, plus others.  That is to say, it's got some of the same=20
ship TYPES we've always had (scout/courier, patrol cruiser, free trader,=20
etc.) but they are designed differently in appearance and of course also=20
in detail since they're designed to TL12 at the most.

That's good, for the reasons you state.

The bad thing about the book, in my opinion, is its lack of traditional=20
deckplans.  The deckplans don't have hex grids, so they're not all that=20
useful for boarding (unless you draw your own hex grid on it, or pull out=
=20
a ruler and use that to determine distance and movement during boarding=20
actions).

The color picture of what appeared to be a damaged "mech" bothered me,=20
too (one of the Foss illos).  I've never associated mechs with=20
Traveller. =20


> Also those of us who have everything ever produced for Traveller (mor or
> less) it is boring to buy the same old deckplans all over again.

Yup.


- -Joe
___________________________________________________________________________=
___
Joseph E. Walsh      |  Atari 8-Bit User and Programmer Since 1982
ransom@iconnect.net  |  Classic Traveller Referee Since 1983
Stuck in the '80s    |  Microsoft-Free and Loving It! :)
       .....Official Reporter of Imperium Games Product Info.....

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:47:47 -0500
From: Thad Coons <104765.503@compuserve.com>
Subject: Non nuke triggered H-bombs (Was: Re: Nuclear Dampers)

Anders Backman writes:

>>To put it another way, you *can't* set off high explosives with a
>>match. They need a pretty fair explosion (M-80 equivalent or better) in
>>the for on a blasting cap or other detonator to set them off. Fusion
>>bombs require a *lot* of energy to set them off. Whether it comes from
>>a fission bomb, or from a modified fusion reactor, the energy
>>requirements are the same.

> Aren't the energy requirements the same (in theory) as for non bomb
> fusion? Why do bomb fusion require more energy? We're not using our
> fusion reactor to generate electricity to power the fusion detonation
> startup, we're using the fusion reactor to start a fusion reaction for
> bomb use and by definition the min size fusion reactor can do that
> (well, not the Fusion+ ones).

> Am I missing omethin here? (obviously)

It's not really _energy_ that's the problem, it's _power_, and the fact
that the temperatures required for thermonuclear fusion are well above 
the boiling points of any known or likely substance.

You can have the same billion megajoules of energy output over decades
(megawatts of power) or a couple of milliseconds (Umptillions of megawatts)
You want the slower, controlled rate for reactors, so you don't heat up the
local humans and their stuff faster than they can use or get rid of it. In
a bomb, of course, you want to do as much vaporization of humans and stuff
as possible. In the bomb trigger, you need to heat your hydrogen to the
point where a few nuclei will fuse, faster than you vaporize the bomb and
its components. 
By the time you get a fusion reaction going hot enough and fast enough to
set off a bomb, it might as well _be_ the bomb... sort of like setting of a
charge of dynamite using dynamite for the blasting cap.
  

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 15:01:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Suzette C. Dollar wrote:

> I think we, the existing Traveller fanatics, need to keep something 
> in mind.... Marc Miller's Traveller, Starships and the upcoming books 
> are not being written just for us.  They are being written for the 
> new blood that the system has to attract in order to continue being 
> published.  All of us have alot of "canon" material to draw from and 
> convert to the new system.  The new player doesn't have enough 
> information or any reason to use TL13+ stuff if it was included.  Why 
> confuse them?

Yeah, I guess you're right.  The stuff provided will probably be plenty 
for the casual gamer; the rest of us can use SSDS to design our own 
ships, and draw our own deckplans.  

I'm gonna try not to be down on Starships.  I'll focus more on the design 
system aspect, since that's really the part that's aimed at us 
old-timers.


> I will join all of you, however, in hoping that as T4 is developed 
> through future supplements, adventures, JTAS, and other licensed 
> products, all the things that we wish for and desire will be 
> provided.   Maybe even to our mutual satisfaction.  Well, I can dream 
> can't I?

Yup - we'll just have to wait and see how Aliens, CSC, Milieu 0, First 
Survey, and Emperor's Arsenal turn out.


- -Joe
______________________________________________________________________________
Joseph E. Walsh      |  Atari 8-Bit User and Programmer Since 1982
ransom@iconnect.net  |  Classic Traveller Referee Since 1983
Stuck in the '80s    |  Microsoft-Free and Loving It! :)
       .....Official Reporter of Imperium Games Product Info.....

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 12:37:32 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Travel Lags in the imperium

Having had to deal with this in many (imperium spanning) campaigns,
assuming 9 days per jump, jump 4, you can get messages from Regina to Core
in about 7 months; most of the military couriers will be j5, reducing this
to about 5.5 months. Criteria: no D,E, or X ports, no interdicted worlds,
fastest route. No rift crossing per se (although some skirting the edge is
fine).

this is about as far as the longer reaches of the byzantine empire. It is
also slightly above the military history taught guideline of control nedds
no more one-way lag time than 6 months. This guideline uses Solomani
months; in imperial months that would be about 6.5 months.

William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #726
**********************************

To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:

unsubscribe traveller-digest

in the body of a message to "traveller-request@MPGN.COM".  If you want
to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from,
such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the
"subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-traveller":

subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net

A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
