From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Sun Dec  8 07:30:05 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin31.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id HAA19965; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:30:01 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id HAA05982; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:29:23 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:28:26 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id HAA05885 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:28:25 -0500
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 07:28:25 -0500
Message-Id: <199612081228.HAA05885@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #729
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest      Sunday, December 8 1996      Volume 1996 : Number 729



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

RE: The New Look of Traveller
Re: Foss Art
Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
Return Addresses
Re: Foss Art
Re: The New Look of Traveller
Re: Starship Deckplans
RE: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)
RE: The New Look of Traveller
Re: 
Re: Foss Art
Re: Foss Art
MILIEU 0 vs. TNE
Basic Traveller
Representation
No Grids
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #728
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #727
Re: Non nuke triggered H-bombs (Was: Re: Nuclear Dampers)
Alternative Vehicle Designs: A Proposal
Re: Starship Deckplans
Duplicate post...
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #726
Long Messages
Followup to "Starships--Got It"

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:09:16 -0500
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: RE: The New Look of Traveller

I had occasion to take a look at T4 and Starships (Official notice:
Starships reached the Wash. DC area at least by 12/6/96) at my FLGS Holiday
party tonight and came to the conclusion that Foss et al's artwork (I am NOT
a fan!) is a good idea.  Why?  I looked all around T4 and saw the pile of
other RPGs - horror, Sci-fi, fantasy, etc., on the new products table - and
T4's artwork looked GOOD by comparison.  I've seen several comments about
how the artwork is good, but is NOT Traveller (I agree), but that's not the
issue. The artwork doesn't add (much) information.  My scouts still look
like CT scouts...  What the artwork DOES do is grab the attention of the
card collectors, comic readers, Games Workshop junkies, and random other NEW
people that we need for T4 to succeed!  They flip through the book, say
"Cool!", and read a bit; then, perhaps, they pick up a copy.  When the next
shop game's underway, they show up to watch and maybe play... 
- - Bill




- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 00:54:04 -0700
From: David Malnati <dmalnati@absi.com>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

I don't think any of the Foss art that IG is using was originally created
for traveller. I have some Foss art books & an art card set, that were all
released before GDW went under & all of the artwork in the T4 rule book (I
have not seen starships) is in them. I think IG used the artwork to help
make T4 look more professional, like something you would find in a
bookstore, not a game store. So I don't think that they are necessarily
ment to represent what the traveller universe looks like.

David Malnati
dmalnati@usa.net

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 02:53:58 -0500
From: Constant Hazard <hazard@potomac.net>
Subject: Re: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

Robert Flammang wrote:
> 
> 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").

Now that I have the book too, I agree.  The deck plans seem like just a
mish-mash of rooms.  Also, another couple of caveats...  Why the 'ell
did they leave out the grid, and what's with all the black surrounding
the deck plans?!

Someone recently stated that the deck plans are useless... I now see
why.
- -- 
                          David  Kent  
                             -aka-
                        Constant Hazard
                    \----------------------/
                     \ hazard@potomac.net /
                      \------------------/

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 03:25:41 -0500
From: Bill Rutherford <worj@topgun.cinecom.com>
Subject: Return Addresses

I'm on the TML and not the digest.  the From line on all of my msg headers
is traveller@mpgn.com.  The only way I can respond directly to TML members
is when you include yr email address in yr msg.  Sometimes I want to do this
to comment w/o jamming the TML.  This may just be me being ignorant - I use
Eudora Pro and haven't yet found a way to reveal a secret return address
beyond that which I noted above...  I do, however, note that one can compose
a canned signature line - I do and include my email address.  If there's a
way for me to extract one's return address from a TML post, pls advise!
Otherwise, I humbly request that more folk include their email addresses in
the bodies of their posts (unless, as may be wise, you'd as soon not hear
from me!) 
- - Bill




- ---------------
Bill Rutherford
worj@topgun.cinecom.com

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:52:42 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

On  8 Dec 96 at 0:54, David Malnati wrote:

> I don't think any of the Foss art that IG is using was originally created
> for traveller. I have some Foss art books & an art card set, that were all
> released before GDW went under & all of the artwork in the T4 rule book (I
> have not seen starships) is in them. I think IG used the artwork to help
> make T4 look more professional, like something you would find in a
> bookstore, not a game store. So I don't think that they are necessarily
> ment to represent what the traveller universe looks like.

I thought that the IG web site said that this art work was all 
original.  Now that you mention it, I recognize the style, but 
couldn't tell you if I've seen the exact paintings or just some other 
Foss stuff.  He definitely has a style.  

Too bad it is not Traveller.

Kenneth.
> 
> David Malnati
> dmalnati@usa.net
> 
> 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:52:42 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: The New Look of Traveller

On  8 Dec 96 at 0:20, sturm wrote:


> I can't believe that Marc Miller is that out of touch with the core
> Traveller audience.  People play Traveller because they love hard sci-fi
> (hell, I still love 2300AD and think its the best hard sci-fi game evert
> created).

Now, that game had some cool cover art.  I use it to reflect my 
Traveller game.

> The new art for Traveller IMHO, is crap.  I like Foss's art and Elmores,
> BUT NOT IN TRAVELLER.  If Miller would have done his homework, he should
> have gotten David Deitrick, Blair Reynolds and Mike Vilardi.  Their art
> fits the Traveller universe like a glove.

Give me David Deitrick any day.

> Again, this is all IMHO

And mine too.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:52:42 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Deckplans

On  8 Dec 96 at 0:42, BrianMays@aol.com wrote:

 
> I would love to see them.  I am always in the market for deck 
plans! 

Yesss!!!  Post deck plans.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:52:42 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: RE: Starships--Got IT! (fwd)

On  7 Dec 96 at 23:13, Eric Freitas wrote:


> What do people (on this list) look for in good starship deck-
> plans?  I have a number of ship deckplans, that I may not have
> originally designed for Traveller, but have either been or can
> be.  If people are interested maybe I'll make them available
> somehow.

Post them here!

Kenneth. 

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:52:43 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: RE: The New Look of Traveller

On  8 Dec 96 at 3:09, Bill Rutherford wrote:

> I had occasion to take a look at T4 and Starships (Official notice:
> Starships reached the Wash. DC area at least by 12/6/96) at my FLGS Holiday
> party tonight and came to the conclusion that Foss et al's artwork (I am NOT
> a fan!) is a good idea.  Why?  I looked all around T4 and saw the pile of
> other RPGs - horror, Sci-fi, fantasy, etc., on the new products table - and
> T4's artwork looked GOOD by comparison.  I've seen several comments about
> how the artwork is good, but is NOT Traveller (I agree), but that's not the
> issue.

Actually, I'm a firm believer that Traveller art work can be both 
good and Traveller-esque.  Foss is not doing that.

An RPG's artwork should reflect the flavor of the game.  Vampire does 
a great job of this (although I don't play).  Star Wars, too.  

Foss' stuff is OK, but it does not suit my tastes as far as Traveller 
goes.  There's got to be another way.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 02:55:33 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: 

On  7 Dec 96 at 23:53, Mused wrote:


> Ken, post all the bloody huge posts you want. Even if I don't use a single thing from them, 
> someone else might. 
> And that is reason enough for them!

That's what I like about Mused--no bullshit and right between the 
eyes.

So, really, Mused, where do you really stand:)

Kenneth. 

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 03:58:25 -0500
From: Constant Hazard <hazard@potomac.net>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> 
> Am I the only one here who really dislikes Mr. Foss' artwork? 
> Nevermind that every piece in Traveller is a reprint, his bizarre take
> on perspective...

Well, the small size of the reproducitons in T4 of his artwork do not
give his work justice.  I have a Chris Foss poster book with many of the
same illustrations, and the artwork looks much better in the larger
format.

> and engineering have always reminded me more of pulp SF than the Hard
> SF the Traveller has always drawn on.

Actually, I have never associated Foss' work with pulp sci-fi...  But I
do admit that it is not as hard edged as it should be for Traveller.  My
only real problem with seeing Foss' work paired with the game is that
the scale of most of the spacecraft he draws is way too large for
traveller, IMHO.  Most of what he draws is simply immense.
- -- 
                          David  Kent  
                             -aka-
                        Constant Hazard
                    \----------------------/
                     \ hazard@potomac.net /
                      \------------------/

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 04:09:34 -0500
From: Constant Hazard <hazard@potomac.net>
Subject: Re: Foss Art

David Malnati wrote:
> 
> I don't think any of the Foss art that IG is using was originally
> created for traveller. I have some Foss art books & an art card set,
> that were all released before GDW went under & all of the artwork in
> the T4 rule book (I have not seen starships) is in them.

None of the color illustrations are new.  I'm not sure about some of the
b+w ones though.
- -- 
                          David  Kent  
                             -aka-
                        Constant Hazard
                    \----------------------/
                     \ hazard@potomac.net /
                      \------------------/

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

Date: 08 Dec 96 04:27:09 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: MILIEU 0 vs. TNE

This discussion crystalized one of my problems with TNE. In CT, the average
character knew what the other Powers in his personal universe were. Navy, Army
System defence, pirates etc. With TNE, the Virus infected robots, the Vampire
Ships, all this gubbins, smacked very heavily of D&D Gods; overpowered
adversaries with rather transparent rationales. Far from travelling - for any
reason - most sensible characters would stay at home. Or maybe not. No, don't
take this up. I just realized I'm slipping back into Bash the Virus and I
promised...

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------] | Hugh Foster
100326,446       | |   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster
| | An aetheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.  | | (John
Buchan)                                                |
[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: 08 Dec 96 04:27:10 EST
From: Hugh Foster <100326.446@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Basic Traveller

>> The question comes when they list a fourth version: "Basic Traveller" -   to
what are they referring?  Which version of the Traveller rules was   "Basic
Traveler?" Was it the three little black books (the products that list these
four are all from the era when TTB and the two-book (Rules, Forms &   Charts)
verson were dominant)?  I don't believe I've seen a boxed set of   the three
black books that is designated "basic traveller."  Was there a   third boxed set
that I don't know about?  Or was this just something used   internally at GDW,
but not on an actual product box? <<

My buddy Allan had the Black Box of Three Black Books - not the deluxe, which I
picked up 2nd hand in 1985 (in memoriam Games of Liverpool!) - which didn't, as
I recall, have any edition name at all; I think it was just "Traveller - science
fiction adventure in the Far Future" on the front. This, I'd say, is what Basic
Traveller meant; Books 1-3.

[------------------------------oOo-----------------------------] | Hugh Foster
100326,446       | |   http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Hugh_Foster
| | What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody  | | to do it.
| [------------------------------oOo-----------------------------]

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:34:08 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Representation

>Not wanting to start a flame war or anything, but how do you two know that
>you represent the majority of the list.  I for one enjoyed reading over the
>bakcstories, and am looking forward to seeing more of the Grand Adventure.
>
I don't, and never have, claimed to represent the majority. I am part of a
very vocal minority. But (no offense to Ken intended), His extensive
backhistory is of limited interest. And I have felt since the announcement
of T4 that there should be a mechanics & technologies list and a historical
list; none of them need be by game system. Rather, I am a gearhead and
system mechanics otaku; I have players work out with me their own
backhistories at start of every campaign.

Overall, it's the kind of thing that belongs on a web page, not the list,
IMNSHO. (No, I have no delusions of humility; only of reality.) His own
recent post suggests it as better for a web page. Heck, I'd rather his
combat system have been on a web site; it would have been far easier to d/l
than to snag from digests.

William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:34:12 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: No Grids

Simple solution to _Starships_' lack of grids:

        1 find/make a grid the right size/type
        2 copy it onto a transparency
        3 put it over the plan
        4 copy the plan through the transparency

        Voila'-- a gridded plan

Maybe they should have included such a grid... anyone remember T$R's
Forgotten Realms Boxed set? they had ~5 hx/in grids on transparencies for
their maps. Maybe 2nd printing could include such grid sheets? <hint hint
nudge nudge>

(please don't take my sarcastic tone wrong -- long BAD day)


William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:54:11 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #728

<Rant Mode on>

Sorry, but *no way* would I want to see Foss as an artist for Space Opera
(not that I'm likely to need a say, or even get one - but if anyone does
plan a reprint, *and* they ask the original authors, I'll put in an
{attempted} veto).

For *years*, even when it was difficult to get US editions of SF here in
Oz, I *refused* to get UK editions - the reason? The predominance of Foss
so-called "artwork". He may be good with colours, but a SF artist he ain't.
In fact, I'd pay extra for a T4 edition *without* his godawful garbage-art.

<End Rant>

Phil McGregor

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 21:47:49 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #727

> From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> Subject: Re: Carriers & Fighters
> 
> One problem that leapt out at me as I read you post was you are making
the
> fighters' "roost" a very tempting target.  Since the majority of the
> docking/pilot access gear is *outside* the CVs hull, it isn't defended by
> armor, and, as any BL player will tell you, surface hits scour away
things
> like docking rings and external grapples like a sandblaster.

But carriers aren't *meant* to be in the "line of battle"! They have CAP
(Combat Air Patrol) to defend them, with lots and lots of escorts to
provide a ring defence and *good* ESM/ECM/ECCM to detect any threat that
gets too close. The Fighters are the vessel's defences, and can be launched
even more quickly than those of a moden CV/CVN. So you argument is not
relevant.

> Picture the scene as the Approach Control Officer of the CV Boyington
tries
> to deal with returning fighters, telling them that the ship is fine, just
> that 2/3rds of the "landing area" is gone!

Well, so what? A CV/CVN is pretty much a "one shot" weapon against any
enemy that is capable of getting close enough to do that. So, if the Space
Carrier doesn't survive, so what - their "alpha strike" has probably wiped
out more tonnage than the carrier anyway. However, the carrier isn't likely
to get close enough for this to happen - unless the Imperial Navy is
commanded by ex-IJN Carrier Admirals!

> It wouldn't even require a heavy effort... one CE/DE getting through and
> blasting away with lasers from a decent range.  Of course, the Carrier
could
> hold some fighters back, but then you've lost the advantage of the
increased
> numbers anyway.

Unlikely to happen before the strike is launched given halfway competent
leadership. Remember, a space carrier is able to launch the fighters from
*hundreds* of hours out, after all, they have PPlants worth (assuming
Fusion Plus for maximum internal space) at least 3000 hours between
maintenance. And the Fighters/Strike Craft have a 6G speed as a matter of
course, of course!

> The reason that US Carriers tended to steam with planes on deck during
WWII
> was that we had far more planes than ships!  It's a lot easier to build a
> F4-F Wildcat or F4-U Corsair than the ship to carry them.  We got used to
> doing it that way, so now the Navy keeps most of the birds parked on deck
> when possible.

No. This is wrong. Well, not entirely wrong. You *did* have more planes
than ships, but that certainly *wasn't* the reason for spotting the planes
on deck. Now, IIRC, the US had begun experiments with this before the war
but had abandoned it for full scale deployments because of the increased
corrosion damage to the exposed aircraft - peacetime budgets made this a
no-no, those aircraft had to last a set time. During wartime, corrosion was
*not* the reason most of those aircraft went to an early reward, and so did
not figure in planning. The reason they were spotted on deck was quite
simply what I said - the USN wanted to have more aircraft on the carriers,
and that was that.

> >Seems that we have more Vilani conservatism here!

Still seems to be the case!

Phil

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

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

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1996 23:03:10 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Non nuke triggered H-bombs (Was: Re: Nuclear Dampers)

In mail you write:

>>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?

No. For example, if you light a match to dynamite or C-4 it'll *burn*,
not explode. With fusion reactions, it's even worse. Without enough
energy input, the reaction will stop as soon as you remove the energy
input. 

> 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 like trying to light a big log. Hold a flame to it, and it'll char
a little. But remove the flame and it goes out. You not only have to
get it reacting, you have to get *enough* reacting at the same time.

To get an explosion, you have to concentrate enough energy to get "all"
the hydrogen to fuse at once. And a good chunk of the energy has to be
used to compress the hydrogen so that it stays packed tightly long
enough for the "boom". Without the pressure, you get a "fizzle". A
small explosion that just scatters the hydrogen before much of it can
react.

For any sort of fusion reaction you need three things: heat, pressure,
and time. You need high temp & pressure for a short time, or lower for
longer. But the reaction rate depend on temp & pressure. For a bomb,
you need a reaction rate measured in kg per microsecond. Which requires
very high temps and pressures. And the means high energy input. 

The temp & pressure are related to the energy input *and* the amount of
material. For a fusion reactor, you need to bring *small* amounts of
material to fusion conditions (much less than a gram at any time). For
bomb you need to bring kilograms to those conditions.

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

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 22:18:34 +1100
From: "Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au>
Subject: Alternative Vehicle Designs: A Proposal

Since I've just started two months holidays (a fortnight's Long Service
Leave - sort of a sabbatical to you Yanks - and six weeks end of academic
year holidays), I have some time on my hands and, apart from playing
computer games, completing my *own* SF RPGs and having a life, I have
decided to do a -

*Alternate Simple Vehicle Design System*

This will sort of be a cross between Rigger Black Book (FASA, and by yours
truly), Car Wars (SJ Games), Maximum Metal (R Talsorian Games) and my own
"Ad Astra" system. What will it be like? Well -

* It *won't* be SVDS*

The prime assumptions that it is based on will be -

1) Vehicles are a *plot device*. All players and GMs need (apart from the
gearheads, who don't count in this, because FF&S and SVDS are basically
unusable) to know are such things as - Speed, Range, Fuel Consumption,
Cargo Capacity. The volume of the suspension or the Mw rating of the radio
are irrelevant for PCs and GMs alike.

2) Military Vehicles are even *more* a "plot device". They are what the GM
wants them to be. It is unlikely that PCs will ever own them, only have to
run away from them or fight from them. The data on how they operate is
really what the GM wants it to be. If he wants the PCs to be
detected/caught or to get away, then he'll manipulate things to work that
way anyhow, regardless of what the SVDS numbers say. Sorry, only gearheads
(and not even all of them) are so ignorant of role playing that they'll
have the PCs killed out of hand just because they don't have good sensors,
fast legs, tough armour, or whatever. Just doesn't work that way.

3) The system will be built about the concept of the "space" (as used in
RBB, CW and MM - hey, why waste a good idea!), which will be mutable. It
will basically be equivalent to one cramped passenger seat (for
passengers), but may not directly equate with a "space" for electronics or
weapons.

4) Differentiation between Military and Civilian "spaces", maintenance
effects on internal space availability, and the possibility (and type) of
minor (and major) inherent design flaws will also be covered.

5) Design will be built around basic hull types (Cars, Vans, Pickups, Light
Aircraft, AFVs etc.) and each type will have a base speed, range, and fuel
consumption which will be modifiable, but no space will be provided for in
the basic hull form. Tech effects will improve base fuel consumption, speed
per volume of "standard" engine etc.

Like I say, this will be more along the lines of the RBB - and the
assumption that the system will provide "reasonable" figures. They may not
work out exactly the way that SVDS does, but they *will* be internally
consistent and will provide figures that players and GMs will be able to
live with. And, after all, that's all that counts, isn't it.

Anyone with any ideas and inputs is welcome to email me with them. Be
warned, however, that when I did RBB some years ago, it took a *long* time
- - basically all of my then Xmas hols, and I don't intend to spend that sort
of time on this. So it may well take a lot longer, but something will be
available in the first quarter of 97 - probably in parts, and probably in
Dark Star (and probably thereafter in a complete one-volume format).

Phil McGregor
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip McGregor | aspqrz@.curie.dialix.oz.au
Have Game Designer, Will Travel

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

Date: Sun, 08 Dec 1996 03:34:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Trent Smith <TFSMITH@POMONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Starship Deckplans

     I've been quiet for awhile, for a variety of reasons, but I'm still 
here.  What brought me out is that Kenneth Bearden (apparently) is
encouraging people to post starship deck plans to this list.  Now, I don't
care what the topic or length of a post is, I can easily delete or save
anything I want (BTW, I've downloaded all those rule-posts from KB but 
haven't given them a really thurough study yet), but if someone posts 
deck-plans they'll either be in some sort of weird useless ASCII format or
somehow encoded, both of which are both completely useless to me and a 
huge waste of space for folks on the digest version.
    Obviously, this is the sort of thing that should be put on a web-page
or sent via private mail.
    Sorry to break my silence for something so trivial (although the ongoing
debate over Chris Foss's artwork doesn't seem much better...)

Trent Smith

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 06:54:09 -0500
From: Clint Fishback <C-Fishback@mail.dec.com>
Subject: Duplicate post...

Has anyone else been getting 2 of every post?  I noticed it the other 
day when I got behind in reading email.  Any ideas?

Beowulfe

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 96 07:28:58 -0400
From: FKiesche@concentric.net
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #726

>and Emperor's Arsenal turn out.


Oh? (he said in a inquisitive tone of voice)

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche@concentric.net)

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 96 07:29:02 -0400
From: FKiesche@concentric.net
Subject: Long Messages

Greetings:

I get TML in digest form. I vote for long messages...any messages...as 
long as they are not offffff topic (like endless discussions of religion 
vs. roleplaying...).

You can always edit, you can always scroll past: I have done for hundreds 
of useless messages in the various mailing lists I belong to.

I would rather not have items posted directly to a webpage as it is more 
difficult for me to download, save and peruse at a later date web 
information that it is for me to call up a old mailing list issue (I've 
kept them all!--except when the list have bombed!)

Thanks.

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche@concentric.net)

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

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 96 07:29:07 -0400
From: FKiesche@concentric.net
Subject: Followup to "Starships--Got It"

Greetings:

Provider and phone lines are back for now...

I shoudl not have said "the book is the same old tired ships". I should 
have been clear that there are several new designs in the book, mostly 
those by list members (I especially like the Corsair and the illo that 
comes with it).

However, the ships from the T4 book are here...again...it's those tired 
ships that I was referring to. Also, I am having a major problem 
reconciling some of the illos with the deckplans--the "Type S" scout 
being the biggest problem here. And, as somebody pointed out, some of the 
plans are ultra-vague: Where are the staterooms in the scout? 

As for Tech Levels, it goes up to 15+ in the design sequence--just not 
12+ designs in the front part of the book. I haven't run through the 
sequence yet.

On grids: Yes, no grids. Next to each overhead plan is a square marked 
"2m". So they give you a reference square, marked 2 meters, but don't 
extend it to the plan itself.

On plans, my favorites are a toss up between FASA's and the ones that 
appeared in DGP/SGS products. Especially the Beowulf in the SO book. Of 
course, you could not have done that level of detail (a ship tour) in 
Starships, but plans with a little more detail would have been nice. 

I'm hoping that IG can pump several more of the promised products out the 
door before the end of the first quarter of 1997. Sure, Traveller is 
popular...but I think that they'll have to reach a certain critical mass 
of background products before it gets to the point of sustainability. A 
lot of us have CT, MT or TNE items to flesh out our backgrounds. Many 
more, especially the crucial new audience that we need to get into the 
fold (in order to keep this thing going) do not have older items. So, I 
think it is crucial that Aliens, M0 and the supply catalogs get out  as 
soon as possible (and for a more important reason than sit under the ol 
Yuletide tree for me to open!).

Thanks for listening.

Fred Kiesche
(FKiesche@concentric.net)

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #729
**********************************

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".
