From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Thu Dec 12 02:11:32 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin29.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id CAA15820; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:11:27 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA01217; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:11:27 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:10:49 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id CAA01149 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:10:48 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:10:48 -0500
Message-Id: <199612120710.CAA01149@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #744
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Thursday, December 12 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 744



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Constructive Criticism for Starships
Re: Bitter Starships Review
Re: Bitter Starships Review
Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.
T-Plates and HEPlaR - The Need For Speed
Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.
Re: Canon, and K'kree symbols
Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.
Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.
Handwaving: Starports and UWPs.
Re: Mechs in Traveller

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 22:07:30 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Constructive Criticism for Starships

Well, I called my local gaming store today, and low and behold, they 
had Starships!

I was excited.  I've been reading the recent posts condeming the 
book, but I ran down to the store to get it anyway.  I've been 
waiting too long, and I was thinking 
that people were nit-picking.  Starships probably had some 
problems--so did the main book, but it cannot be that bad.

I've got to admit that the posts did make me a little apprehensive, 
but all that went away when I saw it there on the shelf.  I really 
don't like Foss' art, but the book did look good sitting there with 
the other new items.  My first impression was that this wasn't really 
going to be that bad.  I picked it up and flipped it over.  The pick 
on the back was cool too.  The T4 covers have been pretty good so 
far.

One thing that I noticed was that the book seemed a little thin as I 
carried it up to the counter.  A red flag went up, but this was 
probably because of all the bad press it has gotten so far on the 
TML.  I slapped down my 20 bucks plus tax and took my prize out to my 
car to retrieve it from the shrink wrap and immerse myself in its 
pages.

And...I can't believe how bad this book is.  I sat there in my car 
astonished.  It was the same feeling I got when I bought Fighting 
Ships for MT (I think I've cracked that book twice since it came 
out--both times just to scan through it).

I sure didn't want this to happen.  Massive dissappointment set in.  
The posts are correct.  Starships is a ripoff.

My first inclination was to join the others and say how much I 
dislike this book.  But, a second thought hit me.  Everytime we bad 
mouth the game, it hurts the chances that T4 will become a success.  
A first time player (or long ago player who hasn't seen the game in a 
while) finds the TML to learn about T4, and what do they get?  
"Starships stinks", that's what.  

I feel a certain responsibility to promote T4--thereby promoting my 
favorite rpg in an effort to do my part in its success.  But, you can 
think about it another way too.  It is obvious that many people are 
disappointed with Starships.  If we don't tell IG about it, they may 
continue doing what they're doing, and T4 will fail.  People won't 
play it if they are unhappy with it.  In this sense, I feel a 
responsibility to report what I do not like about Starships as a 
consumer.  

So, given that thought, what I want to do with this post is not only 
point out what I do not like about the book, but to also say what IG 
could have done to make me happy.  They obviously think they have a 
pretty good product on their hands, and they may be scratching their 
heads wondering why we don't like it.

Well, this is why I'm really upset about the book.  Let's take it in 
logical, specific topics.

Content

If you look at Starships, what you are basically getting is a 
reprinting of the Imperial calender (which is fine, because it does 
need to be included somewhere in the T4 rules though I question why 
they chose the book on starships to put it into), 30 pre-generated 
ships with deckplans, 7 NPC characters, and a more fleshed out ship design 
system than was in the basic book.  

$20 does seem a bit steep for bacically 30 ships and a design system. 
 Compare what you get for $20 in other rpgs, and it does seem like an 
inequity.  For $20, you can buy a hard bound Star Wars book full of 
good art, well thought out rules, and tons of information.  There 
just is no comparison with T4's Starships.

What would have made me excited about the book as far as content 
goes?  

Well, I would have liked to see more things about Starships.  There 
is more in two pages of DGPs Starship Operators' Manual that in all 
of Starships.  The book should have had loads of info about space and 
ships.  There should have been sidebars and essays on jumpspace, the 
different types of m-drives, communications, and various other 
techno-babble.  The IG site said that Starships would have the 
function of each ship described.  I got the impression that there 
would be "interviews" with Imperial Navy pilots and scouts about the 
pros and cons of different ships.  A better ship combat system would have 
been a nice inclusion too.  I don't know if the one in the main book is missing 
something or what, but it is pretty unuseable.  I thought that they would take 
old Mayday rules and incorporate them into the book.  Looks like I'll have to
wait on that.

I could carry this on forever, but I think you can see what I'm saying.  
There could have been much more in Starships.  I wanted it to be a book 
of "Everything you wanted to know about starships, and then some".  
What I got was something I wish I hadn't bought.

The only thing about the book that looks like it was done right is 
the Standard Ship Design System.  I will have to run through the 
system before giving it a more elaborate comment, but on the surface, 
the system does look to be complete.  

With this being the only thing of value I find in the book, you will 
agree that $20 for the book is way too much.

And, I can't help but wonder what IG did to produce the book and why 
it took so long.  I mean, the Imperial calendar is a simple reprint 
from its incarnation in CT and MT's Referee's Companion.  Of the 30 
ships in the book, 17 are from the original book.  There are 13 new 
ships, but members of this list designed 7 of them.  The SSDS was 
designed by list members.  The art was done by Chris Foss.  So, just 
what put IG behind so on this book?  They didn't do much with it but 
edit other peoples' work.  Each of the 2 or 3 lines that Don Perrin 
wrote for each ship is a simple, fill in the blanks statement about 
each ship.  I don't know.  Maybe the hold up not IG fault at all.  
Maybe they were waiting on a painting or a sketch to be done, or 
maybe their were final touches to the SSDS.  The point is, IG served 
as an editor on this project--not a creator.

Deck Plans

The deck plans are horrible and, for me, unusable.  I can only guess 
that Ashe Marler used the old Judges Guild supplements as a guide 
when he designed the deck plans.  Anybody on this list could create 
these things in an evening.

And you know, it was acceptible to have these types of deck plans 20 
years ago when Traveller first came out.  As I said, the Judges Guild 
products were notorious for this simple style of deck plan.  But that 
was OK back then.  The JG products were produces at a very low cost 
on recycled, newsprint style paper--and they didn't cost a lot 
either.  Today, in 1996, this is just not acceptible.  

We want plans like DGP used to do regulary in the Traveller's Digest 
and the MegaTraveller Journal.  Heck, look at the Beowulf in the 
Starship Operator's Guide.

And what is the deal with the Scout/Courier?  The deck plans are 
triangular like the 1100 era Scout, but the picture is round.  

I draw better deck plans on the spot, during a game.  IG should be 
embarrassed that these were produced in their product.

ART

Art is subjective.  But, I believe if I took a poll of all the people 
who play Traveller, an overwhelming majority would vote against the 
down right ugly designs in Starships.  How many GMs want to hold up 
one of these pictures and say, this is what your ship looks like?  
I'm sure that I'd get an answer like, "Why can't we play the Star 
Wars game?  They've got cool looking ships."

I want Traveller to have cool looking ships.  Foss is not doing that. 
I even like the ships in the MT Fighting Ships supplement better, and 
I thought that most of those looked stupid.

I'm not crazy about the Foss color plates, but I can live with them.  
The other ships, though, have to change.  I know that they won't look 
like that in my game.  I'll find pictures of other ships, probably 
from DGP, and use those.

How would I have put this book together?

First, I would have changed the art.  I believe the game's atmosphere 
should be reflected in its art.  This is not happening with T4.  
There is no way I would have approved the ship drawings, and I would 
have chosen another artist for the color plates.

The art I would have chosen would have been more realistic looking.  
I feel like the Foss stuff is very Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon.  

Next, I would have added more content.  Essays by Imperial Navy 
personnell and such as I stated above.  I would have included a ship 
combat system.

The deck plans would be more like the DGP deck plans, and I would 
condense the ship's stats, plans, and picture to about a page.  I'd 
use the extra space to write about the particular ships and give 
details about the plans.  I'd have some ships selected for additional 
illustrations of the bridge, engineering, cabin, etc.

Yes, if Starships would have had all of this, I wouldn't be writing 
this post and telling my players not to bother buying this book.  I'd 
be writing a very different post and ecouraging my group to get the 
book as soon as possible.

There is a saying that I usually adhere to--"You get what you pay 
for."  In the case of Starships (and I hate to admit it), I did not 
get even $10 worth.

Kenneth.  

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:23:52 -0500
From: jpb@miamisci.org (Joe Block)
Subject: Re: Bitter Starships Review

In article <96111111594720146@mychelle.other-plane.miamisci.org>, Clint
Fishback <C-Fishback@mail.dec.com> wrote:

> It may just be me, but the campaigns I've played in and enjoyed the 
> most we flew ships under 1000tons.  The PCs were the crew.  Maybe we 
> had to hire an extra engineer or two.  The only ships we saw even 
> close to that size were military war vessels, and we steered clear of 
> them.  Do that many people play games were PCs are in charge of 
> vessels larger than 5000tons?

I've been in (and run) the occasional military campaign where the players
are in control of a destroyer or other military vessel above 5ktons, and it
was fun.

I was also in a campaign where we were the crew of a long-term market
development craft - we had a surplused (helps to have an Imperial Charter,
although it stick us with a useless bastard daughter of a Duke as Captain)
12Kton destroyer (Sir Francis Drake) that had several bays weaponry yanked
and replaced with cargo.   We went on a two year cruise outside the borders
of the Empire (was a non-canon game universe) to find and exploit new
worlds.
Joe Block <jpb@miamisci.org>

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:52:28 -0500
From: jpb@miamisci.org (Joe Block)
Subject: Re: Bitter Starships Review

In article <9611111849025777@mychelle.other-plane.miamisci.org>, Craig
Berry <cberry@cinenet.net> wrote:
> > Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:52:39 -0800
> > From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
> > 
> > While most of the time I prefer the smaller vessels, I am currently planning
> > a game set aboard the I.N.S Coronation (BB-216), a 75,000 ton TL 12
> > battleship.  The players will control various characters from the senior
> > officers to the ship's Marines.  I'm stealing the idea from Ars Magica.

An excellent example in fiction is _Honor Among Enemies_ by David Weber,
which details  what happens to Honor Harrington when she is assigned
command of a Q-ship squadron.  I won't go into more detail for fear of
spoiling it, but it (and the others in the Honor Harrington series) are
good references for a military campaign.

> Of course, one could argue that Star Trek (especially TNG) suffers from
> the same problem -- and this is true.  Trek manages to manufacture tension
> by throwing an absurd number of extremely unusual situations at the
> Enterprise and her crew.  It's really more "space opera" than "hard SF,"
> when you come right down to it.  Also, Picard appears to have far more
> leeway than I'd expect an officer in his position to have, given that
> (barring plot devices) they never seem to be out of contact with Starfleet
> HQ via subspace radio.  We won't even talk about *Kirk*'s leeway. :)

IMO, one of the best reasons to keep communication limited to jump speed.

I'd go with either a wartime scenario, patrol the frontier, or explore new
subsector(s) mission.  That way, they have a goal, but nothing more
specific than "be in hex 0308 in three months to meet a courier" in the way
of supervision.

Of course, when you get back to civilization, you may have to explain your
actions - we had to explain several unfortunate incidents, all of which
boiled down to "it was the Captain."  The fact that her final stupidity got
her killed went a long way towards proving our point.
Joe Block <jpb@miamisci.org>

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 00:16:54 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.

David J. Golden wrote:

[my stuff snipped]
>
>        It was another one of those canon-things. The limit was put in to
>allow ships to travel freely through most of the solar system, but not out
>to the Kuiper belt, located around and beyond Pluto's orbit. The Kuiper belt
>is supposedly a big belt of icy bodies, which would be perfect for refueling
>(say, an invading fleet).
>
>        But canon says that the main areas for refueling for anybody are:
>starports, large bodies of water, and gas giants. If you can efficiently use
>the Kuiper belt, there's no reason to try a gas giant. Which breaks all the
>history, feel and flavor for wilderness refueling and invasions.
>
>        So, in our haste (one week from being asked to create SSDS to having
>to turn in the results), we grabbed at a hand-waving limitation. Naturally,
>there are ways to get around it (I personally think most major military
>vessels will have HEPlaR boosters as well as thrusters, anyway, and HEPlaR
>works fine out there). Your mileage may vary.


        Hm.  I see.  So it's canon-related, then.  Ok, then, inshallah.
I'll just go start growing my beard and go buy a prayer mat.  Dunno how I'm
going to have to break the chador to my GF, though :).

        Agreed on the HEPlaR backup; if your main drive is as crippled as
T-plates are with the 1000d limit, you're going to need it.

        It's too bad that the Kuiper Belt/Oort Cloud is not a popular place
to hang in in Traveller; ever since I read Carl Sagan's _Comet_ I've had a
thing about the Oort.  In fact, I have this really cool idea about a
culture of comet miners that I may use in this Milieu 0 campaign that I
have slowly gelling; in order to celebrate the founding of the Imperium
they fire a whonking great big huge comet they custom-built for the
occasion real close to Sylea; the biggest fireworks display the universe
has ever seen...


>
>>        Personally, I think that it's  annoying, and would use the
[my stuff snipped]
>>just bootstraps itself along.
>
>        Except that the generator which creates the force on the plates will
>experience an equal and opposite force on itself, cancelling out. Try
>lifting yourself up by your bootstraps some time--it just don't work.

        Why would the generator absolutely have to experience an equal
opposite force though?  What about the Gruuvashilli bozotronic
mumble-handwave Principle of gravitics that states that a Huugaaplonk
flaparms-mutter-quantantrum bounded gravity field projected outside its
generator has no effect on the generator itself ;)?


Joseph "Chepe" Lockett wrote:

>Quoth Roderick Darroch Elliott:
>> T-plates have two major subsystems; a gravity field generator and a big
[my stuff snipped]
>> with it.  Essentially, the ship just bootstraps itself along.
>
>But that's the classic recipe for a Perpetual Motion Machine, and gives
>many gamers hives.  To give a simpler example, it's like moving a train
>car I'm riding in by pulling on a rope attached to the back wall....
>It's fine for your campaign if it doesn't bother you:  but on gdw-beta we
>were striving mightily for at least a scientific fig-leaf.


        Well, as I pointed out to Dave, one could handwave around it, and
to a certain extent, the bootstrap analogy was a bad one; it's not so much
that the grav field generators in my explanation would be directly
_pulling_ on the plates; they'd be creating conditions so that the plates
would be falling towards them; the grav generators, being outside the
field, would not be subject to the same gravitational influence, ie
connected in any way to the motive force; hence the motion, the plates
being attached to the generators.

        I dunno; it does sort of bother me, and I'm dead sure it would give
Sir Isaac Newton fits, but then again, it does involve a fundamental force
of nature that we haven't fully theorized yet being mucked about with by
extremely high technologies that we don't know are even possible, much less
how to build.  I can accept for game purposes that terajoules of
electricity suddenly being pumped in the right flow patters into a
lanthanum grid embedded in the hull will tear a bubble of space out of our
space-time continuum, wrap it around the ship, and send it hurtling through
another continuum somewhat contiguous to ours to emerge a week later
light-years away, rather than just simply vaporizing it.  I think that
bootstrapping T-plates aren't that much of a stretch in comparison, and
certainly have hard-sf precedents; look at Niven's gravity polarizer-driven
ships...

>If you do the
>math, you'll probably find that, to fit the system in a reasonable volume
>and yet have it yield appreciable acceleration, you're rapidly going to
>create a quantum black hole.  And that makes the system even heavier to
>lug around....


        Hm.  OK... my understanding of physics is limited; I've read some
popularizations, but that's about it.  I have no idea of the numbers
involved...


>
>> causes them to glow, emitting  photons; as the photons "jump the curb" out
>> of the area of sharply bent space surrounding the plate into normally
>> curved space, they emit Cerenkov radiation.
>
>Only if the speed of light differs in highly curved space from what it is
>in flat space, which I don't believe is so: Cerenkov radiation requires a
>medium in which the speed of light is lower that it is in vacuum, not some
>exotic gravitation bounding condition (which I'm not mathematically
>qualified enough to calculate, though it gives me the willies thinking
>about it).

        Hm again.  OK... it was a valiant effort at dealing with the
blue-glow problem, and I'm certainly not qualified to handle the math
either :).  The main thrust of the idea was that travelling over the curb
would impart excess energy to the photons which they would then dump as
Cerenkov radiation as they emerged into unmangled space.  Maybe there's a
slight "raised rim" to the curb.  Whatever.  Anyhow, I have to get back to
work... I hate end of term.

*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| Roderick D. Elliott... rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca              |
|                        elliot_r@lsa.lan.mcgill.ca           |
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| "...an imperfect plan implemented immediately and violently |
| will always succeed better than a perfect plan."            |
|                        -Gen. George S. Patton.              |
*-------------------------------------------------------------*

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:17:58 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: T-Plates and HEPlaR - The Need For Speed

The T4 description of Thruster plates has some interesting 
ramifications about the design , capabilities, and operations of military and 
custom-designed ships.

Many of these ships will want the ability to operate in deep space 
and will thus require HEPlaR drives.  They will also want to operate 
within solar systems without having to be concerned about limited 
fuel, and will thus require T-plates.  

So what happens the ship uses both drives at the same time?  Does 3G 
from T-plates plus 3G from HEPlaR equal 6G?  

To carry it one step further, does 4G from T-plates plus 4 G from 
HEPlaR equal 8 Gs of acceleration?  Is there any limit other that 
what you can stuff into a hull?  

I think that 6 G from T-plates can be easily justified by 
Traveller-pseudo-physics as an absolute limit, based on 
a limit on maximum gravitic potential or some such thing.  This 
could also make 6G the maximum that can be compensated 
for.  This ties in nicely with everything from CT on.

HEPlaR is more problematic.  I'm not sure I  can justify any restriction
on the maximum acceleration of a reaction drive other than the ability of 
the ship and/or crew to survive it.  IMHO, a fit crew should be able 
to survive, for the duration of a starship combat turn, an 
uncompensated acceleration of 1G easily, 2G with some discomfort, and 
3G with degraded performance. They would probably survive 4G, but 
wouldn't be fit for duty for some time. (This is based on some hazy 
recollection of something I read about US Air Force? tests of physical 
endurance under acceleration in a centrifuge.  If you have more 
accurate knowledge, please share it.)

So if you design a ship with  6G T-plates and a 3G HEPlaR drive, can 
it accelerate at 9G, with the crew being subjected to an 
uncompensated 3G?  This makes a lot of sense to me, but has 
wide-ranging implications for space combat.  

What do _you_ think?

WKH

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 23:17:58 +0000
From: "Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.

> From:          "David J. Golden" <goldendj@usa.net>
>...  But canon says that the main areas for refueling for anybody are:
> starports, large bodies of water, and gas giants. If you can efficiently use
> the Kuiper belt, there's no reason to try a gas giant. Which breaks all the
> history, feel and flavor for wilderness refueling and invasions.
> 
>         So, in our haste (one week from being asked to create SSDS to having
> to turn in the results), we grabbed at a hand-waving limitation. Naturally,
> there are ways to get around it (I personally think most major military
> vessels will have HEPlaR boosters as well as thrusters, anyway, and HEPlaR
> works fine out there). Your mileage may vary.
> 
David, thanks for the explanation.  It actually makes sense.  I agree 
that it captures most of the flavor of CT. 

The point about auxiliary  HEPlaR thrusters is very interesting.  I 
have been thinking about this for a few weeks and have come to the 
conclusion that _all_ military ships in my campaign will have at 
least 1G HEPlaR auxiliaries if I can squeeze it in.

WKH

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

Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 23:35:18 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Canon, and K'kree symbols

K.C. Komosky solicited:
>	Secondly, I really liked the MT idea of each faction/ nation having a 
>symbol. Well, I'm starting to work on my K'kree homepages (the LSAT is over 
>- finally. hooray!). And I was wondering if anyone had any billiant ideas 
>for a symbol for the 2000 Worlds.
>
>	To date the best I've come up with is a tree, but that somehow seems a 
>little too peaceful for the K'kree.
>
>	Any ideas? I'd be most grateful!

To me the ideal K'kree symbol would have to have something to do with the 
sky. Their empire is named the 2,000 worlds, they're severely 
claustrophobic... I picture in my minds eye a stylized half-circle view 
of the horizon with a half dozen bright stars... hmmmm.... is it still 
too peaceful? Perhaps stylized hooves reared up (ready to trample the 
horizon) in the background of the stylized black canopy of the sky?

- --Glenn H. 

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 01:02:18 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.

Roderick Rote:
>        Well, as I pointed out to Dave, one could handwave around it, and
>to a certain extent, the bootstrap analogy was a bad one; it's not so much
>that the grav field generators in my explanation would be directly
>_pulling_ on the plates; they'd be creating conditions so that the plates
>would be falling towards them; the grav generators, being outside the
>field, would not be subject to the same gravitational influence, ie
>connected in any way to the motive force; hence the motion, the plates
>being attached to the generators.

I've been following with some interest these thrust plate/gravitic 
threads and the quote above reminded me of something I read some time 
ago, back in those heady pre-teen days. I got the first of a series of 
Time/Life books (I think it was Time/Life) on the paranormal, and this 
one was about UFOs, extraterrestrials n' such. They had a neat artists 
conception of a real UFO and some conjectured mumbo jumbo on how they 
might work.

The only kind of propulsion technology we know of, like rocketry, is 
strictly "pushing" objects around. The analogy they gave in the UFO book, 
which btw stuck with me all these years, is that if you have a train with 
many cars, and you try to push it down some tracks, you (a) Are not 
moving that train very efficiently and (b) are causing all kind of 
unneeded stress on components of that train. (I wish I had the little 
drawing of a train with all its cars sort-of haphazardly zig-zagging out 
of their characteristic straight line)

They (the authors of this article in the UFO book) figgerd that an alien 
UFO maneuvers so spectacularly through the sky, turning at 90 degree 
angles and so forth, because they propel it by using gravity to "pull" it 
around. They project a gravitic field _in front of the UFO in the 
direction of travel_.

Which brings me to my idea

<heresy alert!>

Thruster plates indeed use gravitic technology to create a warping of 
space-time (a gravity field "dimple" in space time) projected in the 
direction of accelleration. IIRC, somewhere in canon it states (was it 
DGP's Starship Ops?) that there is a certain angle within which thruster 
plates provide their thrust:

       | |  /
       | | /         
       | |/   no thrust possible here
       | |\ 
       | | \
       | |  \

I want to throw canon out the window and say that thruster plates point 
in the direction of acceleration "projecting" a gravity field behind them 
(away from the ship). In short, a ship with *aft* thruster plates can 
only accelerate *backwards*. (Would that part of the ship still be called 
"aft" then? hmmmm...)

Before I'm drowned with a chorus of boos and hisses, let me explain how 
this would solve some nagging little nits:

Since thruster plates and Hep' drives operate by accelerating in opposite 
directions, Heplar and T-plate drives *can't* be used in series. No 
addition of G's. (assuming, of course, that they're mounted on the same 
side of the ship. I can't see how it would be efficient in terms of 
streamlining and engineering placement to do it any differently, and 
besides, what would happen if the gravity field intersected the ship? 
Don't open that can of worms or we'll get into the Horiz/Vert debate 
ag'in -- but I digress) 

I have no problem with t-plates "pulling" the ship. When you decelerate 
with HEPlaR drives, you have to turn the ship around, it's just the 
opposite effect with t-plates, turn around to *accelerate* face "forward" 
to *decelerate*.

And before anybody pulls out the Laws of Newton and wacks me on the 'ead 
wit' 'em -- Action-Reaction Satisfaction... Riddle me this: How do 
inertial compensators and artificial gravity circumvent them? How come 
the artificial gravity field that accelerated (oops... M0...) er.. *will* 
accelerate Olaf hault-Plankwell towards the floor of his dreadnaught 
isn't counteracted by an equal and opposite force. Or am I stepping in it 
here? Howzzat "normal" force work again? Those mechanics classes are a 
foggy memory now...

In any event, if an artificial gravity field can be created *within* the 
ship to keep everyone accelerating towards the floor without moving the 
ship as well, why cant the pesky field be created to move the ship 
towards a "phantom" floor outside the ship?

OK. I'm ready to be raked over the coals for this.

Signing off. <steeling myself>

PS. One major flaw in my rambling (it's late, forgive me) is this 1000d 
limit thing. If T-plates work on the same gravitic principles as the 
artificial gravity on board the ship, then shouldn't artificial gravity 
"conk out" at 1000d as well? erk. My brain hurts. I'm going to bed now.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 00:49:55 -0500
From: eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)
Subject: Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.

On 12/12/96 at 12:16 AM,  rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch
Elliott) said:

>        Except that the generator which creates the force on the plates will
>experience an equal and opposite force on itself, cancelling out. Try
>lifting yourself up by your bootstraps some time--it just don't work.

>         Why would the generator absolutely have to experience an equal
> opposite force though?  

You know why!  <g> But if you want to handwave it away...OTOH, you might
not have to.

> ...it's not so much that the grav field generators in my explanation
> would be directly _pulling_ on the plates; they'd be creating conditions
> so that the plates would be falling towards them; the grav generators,
> being outside the field, would not be subject to the same gravitational
> influence, ie connected in any way to the motive force; hence the motion,
> the plates being attached to the generators.

I know it's not exactly what you're talking about, but your description
sort of reminds me of the Alcubierre Warp Drive.  His drive is based around
the use of "exotic matter.", and a sort of negative gravity.  

Check the web site, www.islandone.org/propulsion/alcubierre.html

It's not clear to me whether his drive would create a *real* acceleration
or a *pseudo* acceleration.  In any case, the technological implementation
in the Imperium could be limited in some way keeping the drive to some
small fraction of c...

Something to think about.

Eris
- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
eris@pen.net (Eris Reddoch)    using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:04:01 -0500
From: Thad Coons <104765.503@compuserve.com>
Subject: Handwaving: Starports and UWPs.

Michael Barry writes

>  Here are some suggestions for explaining some 'unusual' starport/UWP 
>  combinations: 
   
>>  Port A/B; Size 0  = port asteroid-based, no orbital port necessary

Orbital and ground facilities combined in one site!

>  Port A/B; Atm B/C = orbital port, possibly nil or minimal ground 
>  installation 
>  Port A/B; Hyd A = waterworld, floating or island downport; possibly
>  no downport 

No, _some_ downside facilities are necessary. Otherwise the upside is cut
off from the inhabitants of the planet. Landing of starships at the
downport, however, would be discouraged or prohibited. Most of the traffic
would be shuttlecraft especially designed for the environmental
requirements. Even underwater facitilites are imaginable.

> Port A/B/C; low Pop = starport highly or entirely automated/robotic.

Type C is manageable by a low population world, but would dominate the
local economy. Type B: inhabitants are wealthy. Type A: Inhabitants are
filthy rich.
As capable as they may be at their designed function, robots are less
flexible (physically and mentally) than humans, and unsuited for tasks that
demand extensive interaction with free-willed humanoids. Expensive, too.

> Port A/B; tech 9- = starport operated by offworld owners 

It's actually possible to maintain an orbiting component with as low as
TL-7 (e.g. early Terran orbiting stations) if supplemented by imperial
know-how. Class B is about the best they could do with native tech, and
some imports would be required in any case.
        Good thoughts!

  

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 02:11:12 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Mechs in Traveller

Daniel Poulin writes:

>It is possible to imagine a mech unit that would not go into
>the ground everytime it attempts to walk by putting grav units into it,
>but wouldn't it make it even more useless?  It also doesn't change the 
>signature of these units and their relative fragility.

   Using FF&S, the problem with adding gravitics to a combat walker (aka
mech) is not the gravitic generator--it's the heplar fuel volume needed
for thrust.  That's why it makes sense to mount a gravitic generator if
you can (that way you can get over obstacles when required), but only
carry enough heplar fuel for short duration flights.

   Properly built combat walkers would be low to the ground, thus
providing them with an extremely low silhouette.  They would also have
multiple legs like spiders, so that they would be less vulnerable to
mobility kills when they get a leg blown off.  

   In terms of flexibility in deployment, walker type vehicles are
better in rough terrain than wheeled or tracked vehicles.  They can go
anywhere (within reason) a legged creature can go, and even some places
they can't.

>Why not build a grav tank instead?

   Naturally you would, because grav vehicles are better than walkers. 
However, if you don't have gravitic generators, or they are so scare
and/or expensive you can't afford to put them in your military vehicles,
you are going to have to develop something else.  Combat walkers would
be one solution.  

   Most gravitic combat walkers are going to be retrofit jobs.  An
attempt at saving money, especially if you've got a whole bunch of the
beasties sitting around and you can't afford to build a whole new fleet
of grav tanks/APCs, etc.

>Suddenly, the nobles were being picked out by peasants (how
>embarassing).

   Of course if this were 17th century Japan, you could always round up
all the gravitic generators and keep them out of the hands of the
peasents.

>  The same thing would happen to your high tech knights
>when they would be facing an army.  The only use these units would have
>would be to fight other units of their type.  When facing a regular tank
>they would rapidly die.

   The only way a combat walker (mech) would survive such an encounter
would be to lay low and wait for the grav tank to come in range and then
ambush it.  In general, I agree that they would not stand up very well
in a one-on-one engagement on the open plains.

>It is important to remember that I am referring to the technology of
>Trav (not some imagined technology).  In traveller terms, a mech is
>useless in warfare.  You can imagine that it could have some use as a
>pleasure vehicle for racing or fighting between youg nobles, but I don't
>think it is possible to justify their existence as a military vehicle.

   The only way you can is if there is additional technological
developments that would allow them to reduce the amount of space they
have to devote to things like transmissions.  I posted a long time ago
my draft of a FF&S Revised Walker Design Sequence.  Perhaps it is time
to dust it off and present here again.

Regards,

Harold

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #744
**********************************

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".
