From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Thu Dec 12 20:29:38 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin10.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id UAA10687; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:29:33 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id UAA28420; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:29:40 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:28:58 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id UAA28351 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:28:57 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:28:57 -0500
Message-Id: <199612130128.UAA28351@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #747
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Thursday, December 12 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 747



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Constructive Criticism for Starships
K'kree Symbols
Re: SSDS and Drives [...and Life Support]
Re: ThrustPlates and such
RE: Bitter Starships Review
Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: Massice Attack of Gravity
Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit
Re: T-Plates and HEPlaR - The Need For Speed
RE: Bitter Starships Review
Re:Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Traveller PBeM help
Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan
RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products 
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #746
Inertial compensation

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:11:40 -0800
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Constructive Criticism for Starships

John Kovalic wrote:
> 
> "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com> wrote:
> >
> >(Lots of GREAT observations snipped)
> >I sure didn't want this to happen.  Massive dissappointment set in.
> >The posts are correct.
> >(Lots MORE great observations snipped)
> 
> Good LORD, I can't believe how strongly I agree with your entire post!
> 
> The deckplans alone were my main warning signal. Non-artists in my group
> could do better! The similarities to Judges Guild is dead on. It's very
> unfortunate.
> 
> I think one of the problems is that Imperium Games seems to lack a decent
> graphic artist. Someone in charge of the overall look and feel of the line.
> Someone with enough know-how to say "Hold on - this is going to get laughed
> off the shelves" when it comes to layout and design. Someone who knows
> enough to seek out Blair Reynolds for freelance illustrations. (GDW
> suffered the same fate later on in the final releases of T:TNE: some of the
> products, cover and interior art was just UGLY to look at).
> 
> While I still Believe in Traveller, I think Imperium would do well to slow
> down with their release schedule until they get some of the basics
> straightened out (yes, I know delays have slowed it down plenty as is - but
> I'd rather see them concentrate on one GOOD release every two or three
> months than running around trying to rush out one mediocre/poor release
> everyone or two months). In fact, I would have LOVED to have seen T4
> released *next* summer instead of last, so that it could have been properly
> playtested, edited, and smoothed out. Why the rush (and it WAS a rush) as
> soon as GDW folded?
> 
> People here know my views on the Foss art. It's good. It's recycled. It's
> not Traveller. (Those are for the Starships. The vehicles and equipment
> illos in T4 are just ill-conceived). "Starships" IS thin - did no-one look
> at DGP's "Starship..." to see just WHAT a Traveller supplement should look
> like?

I do have to agree,the deckplans in particular were extremely 
disappointing,but overall it is a useful book,if badly laid out.             
                                                             Neil

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

Date: 13 Dec 96 09:14:45 +1100
From: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
Subject: K'kree Symbols

     ...a hoof, stamping on a human face, *forever*...

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:21:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>
Subject: Re: SSDS and Drives [...and Life Support]

"Bill Hopper" <whopper@pobox.com> wrote:

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

Yes.  I recall glimpsing a ship design that does this in _Starships_.
Fine by me; eventually you'll overload those compensators anyway....

> 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.  

I've played with this as legal in TNE (big HEPlaR drives) and yes, 
there are implications.  In TNE, the fuel constraints seems to deal
with those to some extent, as well as the nasty reduced-efficiency
rules for over-acceleration in combat.

Joseph "Chepe" Lockett <jlockett@io.com> wrote:

> The solution, of course, was to limit the "magic" of thruster plates to
> within an (admittedly tiny) gravitational field.  I did the math (could
> dig it up again if people are interested)... the cutoff ends up being at
> about 400 nanogravities or so, which gives stars a _very_ generous space
> but limits the "window" of opportunity around, say, rogue comets to just a
> few kilometers or even meters.

Oh, kilometers at least.  Thruster plates are supposed to depend on the
curvature of the field, not intensity, so they should have a 1000 diameter
range around the comet, I'd think.  Still not much to work with, but just
enough to manage if you jump in with a vector *just* right.  You'd want
to be good at navigation, though, since jump exits can be a bit off, so
this still isn't as safe, and therefore should still work as intended.


On another note, "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com> wrote:

> Standard Life Support only take up
> 1.6 m^3 for a 200 ton hull?  That's several weeks food (minimum) + Air and
> water purfication.  The value for FF&S would be 22.4 m^3 which sounds a

Hm.  1.6 displacement tons == 22.4 m^3....  Sure you read the units right?
Or is it a typo?

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 14:27:25 -0800
From: "David P. Summers" <dsummers@mail.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:04:14 -0500 (EST), From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
>I can't accept the idea that T-plates only work within a 1000 diam. limit
>of a planetary or stellar mass. It only makes sense when thrusting away
>from the mass; I don't understand how T-plates "push against" a gravity
>field when they are thrusting *towards* it. Can someone explain how this is
>supposed to work?

My guess (and this is sheer speculation) is that they are seen as
operating by exchanging gravitons/anti-gravitons with a nearby
mass.  Gravitons pull toward the object and anti-gravitons push
away (which is how antigravity works).  The 1000 diam. limit
is based on how far you exchange (anit)gravitons and is consitent
with the fact that (even if you added in enough life support)
air rafts can't be used for interplanetary travel.

>I'm leaning towards getting rid of T-Plates in my own campaign (a
>non-Imperium future history),

I never liked them, but that was a matter of taste ("everyone knows"
that spaceships are suppost to whine and kick up dust when they
land!  And "everyone knows" you should be able to use the thrusters
as emergency weapons!  :-)

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:21:57 -0500
From: Clint Fishback <C-Fishback@mail.dec.com>
Subject: RE: Bitter Starships Review

- ----------
From: 	K.C. Komosky[SMTP:kc@mb.sympatico.ca]
Sent: 	Wednesday, December 11, 1996 7:06 PM
To: 	'traveller@MPGN.COM'
Subject: 	RE: Bitter Starships Review

You're completely right - the players freedom of choice is severely
restricted. On the other hand, it makes it very easy for the Referee 
to get
his players to go where he wants them to ;-)

It was rather entertaining, but I wouldn't want to do it forever. But 
some
players do get a kick out of 'owning' (more or less), a Tigress class 
Dreadnaught.

K.C. Komosky
kc@mb.sympatico.ca

But to me that takes the fun out of gaming.  In our campaigns, it 
wasn't about what the GM had setup for us.  It was about what we 
wanted to do.  He had several ideas and would throw adventure hooks at 
us, if we chose not to follow it then he'd just store it away for a 
later date.

There again, Traveller is not supposed to be a militaristic game 
correct?  But by "owning" dreadnaught, you turn it into such.

Clint

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:13:47 -0500
From: "Christopher Weuve" <caw@intercon.com>
Subject: Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

- --part_AED5FBDA001165AA00000008
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: Inline

Joe Walsh wrote in a letter to IG: 
>D)  Art 
>    1)  Use original art 
>    2)  Use less of it, or use smaller pictures 
>    3)  Keep the useful content (i.e., not the art) high, sacrificing 
>        art if necessary. 
  
K.C. Komosky responded:
> I can't disagree with this more. I've stayed out of the whole Foss 
> art debate,... but TRAVELLER NEEDS ART! The days when CT could get by 
> with no cover art, and very minimal (well, make that no) internal art 
> are gone. IMHO, the very drab and colourless nature of many of the 
> TNE products really hurt the game on the FNGS store shelves. 

Remember the old saying about not getting a second chance to make a first 
impression?   The first impression in this case is the art, and while I agree 
with K.C. that "Traveller needs art", I think it is important to qualify that 
it needs to be _good_ art.  

While "art" (including deckplans) is a nebulous term, and generalizations may 
not apply in every instance, so far there appears to be three opinions:
1) The art/deckplans is pleasing to look at and fits Traveller.
2) The art/deckplans is pleasing to look at but does not fit Traveller.
3) The art/deckplans is not pleasing to look at.

I for one am definitely in group #3. I can't say that any of the artwork/
deckplans -- from the Chris Foss art (which is lame, aside from being non-
Traveller and/or recycled) to the incredibly poor weapons illustrations -- 
qualifies as "pleasing to look at", let alone "pleasing enough to pay extra 
for".  

Some have accused the group #2 people may just be yearning for the past; on 
the other hand, the better the art ties in with the game, the more likely it 
is that people who find the art interesting will be attracted to the game -- 
and more importantly, the _less_ likely it is that people who will be 
atrracted to the game will not be put off by the art.  When someone points out 
that an illustration isn't "Traveller-esque", that doesn't mean that the 
problem is that the ship designs look different from what we are used to -- 
the problem is that the ships don't look like anything the design rules would 
produce.   For example, you wouldn't include Star Wars-type illustrations with 
a 2300-type game -- the Star Wars-type game people won't like the game, and 
the 2300-type game people will be put off by the illustrations.

If the art can't make a GOOD first impression, we need to prevent it from 
making a BAD first impression -- and that means not having it if it detracts 
from the product.  Maybe the answer is to pull the current art out altogether 
and use the old art and deckplans.  I like the idea of new artwork (Traveller 
has always had the problem with every Far Trader looking alike) and I 
certainly don't think that Milieu 0 ships should look exactly like ships a 
thousand years later, but presenting the old deckplans/illustrations as 
"typical" with lots of "useful content" (e.g., DGP-style starship operations 
stuff, lots of stats, ship design, cargo systems, the works) is a preferable 
option to the current one one (bad art with little content).

Jerry Alexandratos said:
> Honestly though, I think a lot of the problems with Starships was that 
> Don Perrin made the foolhardy mistake of giving us what we asked for. 
> It may not have been exactly how we wanted it, but it did fit the 
> original parameters (looking through digest I see things like "I want 
> it to be like the little black books," "no sidebars if you can help 
> it," etc...). 

We asked Don Perrin to not abandon FF&S in favor of a ship design system which 
was broken 20 years ago, and to his credit, he did what was asked -- that was 
a very good sign.  I don't recall anybody, however, asking for a thin 
expensive book with bad art, bad deckplans, few ship descriptions, or any of 
the other things we got.  I bought T4 and _Starships_ DESPITE the art, which 
is so bad that both products would have been better if it had been left out 
altogether (even if the price didn't decrease as a result).

I don't claim to represent the roleplaying (or even the Traveller) mainstream, 
and I think that some Traveller players sometimes have a tendency to take 
their game a little too seriously, sometimes forgetting in the process that 
the writers are human beings with feelings and their own visions -- and 
constraints concerning what they can and can't do.  I do know, though, that 
there are a lot of other books and games available to spend my money on that 
look like better purchases than what Imperium has produced so far.   

- --Chris W  [caw@intercon.com]   My opinions, not InterCon's.
_______________________________________________________________________
"In 20th-century Old Earth, a fast food chain took dead cow meat, 
fried it in grease, added carcinogens, wrapped it in petroleum-based 
foam, and sold nine hundred billion units.  Human beings.  Go figure."
      --Tyrena Wingreen-Feif (Hyperion, by Dan Simmons)

- --part_AED5FBDA001165AA00000008--

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:29:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Ethan Henry <ehenry@mag1.magmacom.com>
Subject: Re: Massice Attack of Gravity

> This of course messes with the conventional view of artificial gravity:
> wouldn't everyone start floating around outside the 1000d limit if
> T-plates and artificial gravity worked on similar principles? But why
> not? I don't think it's a major canon heresy to say that artificial
> gravity is greatly reduced or eliminated outside of the 1000d. limit. It
> discourages people from hiding out there, in the depths of space, and
> refuelling etc. It's rather uncomfortable to float around all the time.

OK, my take on all this - more analogies too. Imagine that gravity
is a polar force, like the electric or magnetic forces (I know they're
the same, but). If we could treat the Sun like a giant "North" or
"positive" pole, we'd be able to move freely in reference to it just 
by sticking a big "north" pole on the back of our ships. Alike poles
repel. Or a big "south" pole to move towards it. Maybe we could even move
along equipotential line (ie. at right angles to the attractive/
repulsive force) through... ok, through magic. I don't have all the answers.
Anyways, without a big-ass mass, like a sun, nothing to push/pull against.
There aren't any equpotential lines to "ride" either.

Now, shipboard AG works by setting up a closed field. Just like there's
a big electric field between the plates of a capacitator, you make
a gravitic field between the grav plates.  This doesn't require any mass
anywhere, but needs to have a floor and ceiling to work - ie. like on a 
starship.

> I even thought of a way of explaining why artificial gravity works in
> jumpspace <he says, smugly>. If the jump field contains a separate
> normal space-time environment, then the mass of the ship takes up a
> large percentage of the "mini-normalspace-universe" contained in the
> jump bubble, therefore the gravitometric potential is rather high. To
> put it another way, the particle density of the normal space in the jump
> bubble is really high, so there's lots of gravity potential. Artificial
> gravity works.

Eh, not necessary in my theory. Whatever. ;)
 
> Here's a question I have for physics experts. Is inertia a property of
> mass? (yes, I think) Do inertial dampeners basically reduce an objects
> apparent mass? (if yes, then artifial gravity doesn't really need to be
> as powerful as regular gravity, right?)

Well, inertia is a property of mass, but there's no guarantee that
inertial and gravitational mass are the same...

Inertia formula: a = F/m
Gravitational formula: a = GMm/(r^2)

Are the two m's the same? Apparently scientists have measured them
to be withing 4 decimal palces of one another, but hey, when it comes
to bending the rules, maybe you could cancel (or increase) inertial
mass without affecting gravitational mass, or vice-versa.
Refs feel free to completely snow-under any player with less
than a masters in physics. (hm, that includes me, oh well)

> So then, if inertia is a property of mass, and dampeners *don't* reduce
> the mass of an object, then what the heck do they do? How do you dampen
> inertia without affecting mass? I'm having trouble handwaving that one.

Ho - ho, now you do.

> IIRC, in TNE anti-grav was strict mass negation whilst in CT/MT
> anti-grav was related to artificial grav and provided propulsion.

Yes, it's that propulsion bit that I have trouble explaining.
Hm. 

> I think we, as traveller fans, need well thought out gravitational
> "laws" and assumptions. I'm quite hazy now about how these
> anti-grav/artificial grav/inertial dampener/thruster plates work. They
> appear to all operate due to gravitic principles but seem (in my mind)
> to follow divergent assumptions about how gravity works.

Indeed.

> Whatever happened to the Grand Unified Theory?

They were going to put it FF&S, but they felt that a grand unified
vehicle design scheme was more useful.

Ethan
ehenry@magmacom.com

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:51:01 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit

Joe Block wrote:

>
>Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:51:37 -0500
>From: jpb@miamisci.org (Joe Block)
>Subject: Re: That annoying 1000d T-plate limit.
>
>In article <v01510101aed579db6181@[198.168.189.27]>,
[snippage]
>
>One side effect of projecting the gravity well ahead of the path of the
>ship will come up in combat - if there are incoming missiles, what's to
>stop the pilot from manuevering his g-well into their path - that last
>minute 6g yank may be just enough to generate a miss.


        Depends on how far it projects; OTOH, if the ship is closing at a
high velocity, the brief amount of time the missile, possibly still under
high G thrust, will be affected by the grav field might not be significant,
especially if the missile is a nuke.  And even if it did, why not allow it?
If it's a logical extension of the tech concept, I say go with it...


>
>BTW, can someone let me know if this is getting to the list ok?  I recently
>started gatewaying the mailing list to news on my linux box and would like
>a confirmation that I haven't screwed it up.
>
>Joe Block <jpb@miamisci.org>

        You're getting through fine; I also recieved it twice personally
this AM.

*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| 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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:51:04 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Re: T-Plates and HEPlaR - The Need For Speed

Tim Peters wrote:

[snip]
>
>So why not gang inertial compensators?  Really.  Compensator one is engaged
>at all times, lowering acceleration effects by 3 Gs.  The second is designed
>to kick in when it detects acceleration over 1 G, AND while the first is
>engaged.  Boom.  Instant compensation.

        Hm... didn't know that you could do this.  I thought that the rules
state that you can't compensate more than a given number of G's at a given
TL...


[snippage]
>thrust).  Though when I'm waxing nostalgic (like today, since it's my
>birthday; and yes, I am fishing for birthday wishes) I break out my Black
>Books and pretend I'm a teenager again, and just play without regard for "how
>the Universe works," (a la Star Wars) which is a hell of a lot of fun.  And
>isn't that why we all started playing this game in the first place?

        a) Happy birthday!

        b) Exactly...


*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| 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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:17:27 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <kc@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: Bitter Starships Review

[Re: discussion of campaigns where characters are in the navy]

>But to me that takes the fun out of gaming.  In our campaigns, it
>wasn't about what the GM had setup for us.  It was about what we
>wanted to do.  He had several ideas and would throw adventure hooks at
>us, if we chose not to follow it then he'd just store it away for a
>later date.
>

Well, whatever works for you. Personally, I think my characters had fun for 
the one adventure we had where they ran characters in the Imperial Navy. 
Its a rather different tone, however.

As I said, I wouldn't want to do it forever.

I think it depends on what the characters/ players attitude to RPGs are. 
One extreme is where they decide well in advance of the actual game exact 
what their character's motivations are, exactly what they achieve. This can 
be quite difficult for the Ref, but lots of fun.

I've also seen (and unfortunately, this is most of my role-playing 
experience) where the characters just stroll into the nearest bar/tavern  
/starport, and wait for thr Ref to drop the next adventure into their lap. 
While perhaps not AS fun as the first extreme, a lot of fun can be had as 
well in this type of gaming environment.

>There again, Traveller is not supposed to be a militaristic game
>correct?  But by "owning" dreadnaught, you turn it into such.

I don't know if I agree with this. What about all those TCS 
adventures/campaigns that have gone on? What about all those mercenary 
groups? What about the entire MT Rebellion setting? I think Traveller has a 
definite militiristic element to it, its up to you wether you use it or 
not.

K.C. Komosky
kc@mb.sympatico.ca

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:13:13 -0500
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Re:Imperium Games, Starships, future products

        Joe: some things that I've been meaning to mention; with regard to
so-called "technical" illos, of things such as deckplans, ships, equipment,
and vehicles, I personally find (YMMV) that blueprint-style illustrations,
such as the side/front/top elevations in the Starship Operators Manual, do
a lot more to convey a feel for the subject of an illustration then does
the cool but artsy Fossish stuff.  Little details such as designers notes
in a font like Architect, dimensions, little arrows with explanatory text
pointed at the details, that sort of thing really help to convey a sense of
verisimilitude.  I find that a blueprint makes an object a lot easier to
visualize than a Foss illo, much as I like his stuff.  And the more detail
in a blueprint the better.

         If Traveller is a Hard-SF game, than more "technical"
illustrations are the way to go: it's better at conveying verisimilitude
(especially if the ship drawings actually correspond to the deckplans).
The Foss stuff is really good SF art, and might have a place on the covers,
but if it doesn't actually relate to the material, and only jacks up the
price, it's gotta go.  So, first piece of advice would be to seriously
rethink the graphic design approach.

        Secondly, quality control is obviously something that needs to be
looked at; my job involves churning out large documents in a context where
a typo or a citation error is the kiss of death.  Proper editing and
proofreading is a *must* for anything that is going to be distributed to
the public.  As well, you don't use a sans serif font for text!  As well, I
found that stringing chapters together in some sort of conceptual order
would have helped the first rulebook.

        But enough; I gotta study.

*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| 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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:12:50 -0600 (CST)
From: granthh@anubis.network.com (Harley Grantham)
Subject: Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

Joe Walsh did type:
>     C)  Art
>         1)  Use original art.  It doesn't have to conform to previous
>             editions of Traveller, but it should be original and 
>             recognizably "Travelleresque."

There will be some disagreement on the art, but I think we can all agree that
if they do insert sections of color art ala Starships, please put it at a 
chapter boundary, not in the middle of the Starship design tables.  In general
I think chapters, and especially table sections should be free of this kind 
of interruption.  A smaller picture among the tables on the other hand would
be fine.

I wasn't here for the previous discussion on Starships prior to it's publication
but I cannot see the reason for not wanting sidebars, I think that if properly
done they can break up the text and make a book more readable, especially if you
don't have enough art to fulfill this task.

I get the feeling art is expensive, or can be and that's why so many of the 
smaller game companies have trouble with it.   

You should also suggest anyone at IG who is unfamiliar with the competition 
try to get some familiarity with it.  This doesn't mean they have to play
Star Wars or GURPS, but they should at least take a look at the books and
see how the other guy is doing it.  Ignorance of the competition is never
a good idea.

Other than that Joe, you have a pretty good list here.

- -- 
Harley Grantham					granthh@anubis.network.com

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:35:53 -0800
From: "Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com>
Subject: Traveller PBeM help

Hi,

I'm thinking of starting my own Traveller PBeM (don't start sending
applications yet! - I'm *thinking*).  But, i was wondering if anyone who had
run one could be so kind as to give me some advice with regards to the
rules.  If they have a copy of the rules they sent out o players, I'd
apprecoiate getting a copy of it.  Any input from others is also appreocated.

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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:36:02 -0800
From: "Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com>
Subject: Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan

Ken,

It was me who pointed out that I "hope you don't get in trouble" and thisn
was due to my misunderstanding the way you left IG.  They was they have it
worded on their page, gave me the impression that you had left on bad terms.
Again, my fault.

However, I did want to ask, how long will the dog tags be available for?
I'd like to get my hands on a pair, but I won't be able to afford it at the
moment (Christmas and all).

_______________________________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: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:53:30 -0500 (EST)
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@UDel.Edu>
Subject: RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products 

In Reply to Your Message of Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18: 13:47 EST
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:53:29 -0500
From: That Computer Guy <darkstar@brahms.udel.edu>

: Jerry Alexandratos said:
: > Honestly though, I think a lot of the problems with Starships was that 
: > Don Perrin made the foolhardy mistake of giving us what we asked for. 
: > It may not have been exactly how we wanted it, but it did fit the 
: > original parameters (looking through digest I see things like "I want 
: > it to be like the little black books," "no sidebars if you can help 
: > it," etc...). 
: 
: We asked Don Perrin to not abandon FF&S in favor of a ship design system whic
: was broken 20 years ago, and to his credit, he did what was asked -- that was
: a very good sign.  I don't recall anybody, however, asking for a thin 
: expensive book with bad art, bad deckplans, few ship descriptions, or any of 
: the other things we got.  I bought T4 and _Starships_ DESPITE the art, which 
: is so bad that both products would have been better if it had been left out 
: altogether (even if the price didn't decrease as a result).

I also seem to recall that alot of what the format of the new Traveller
products should be was also bandied about.  People complained about
useless sidebars and story involved within the rules.  I went looking
through the archives and alot of what I found were descriptions of the
little black books.

Bad art aside, people got the boring book they asked for.  It's not too
complex, it still uses FF&S and pages aren't broken up with sidebars and
sidebar artwork.  Think what I'm saying is silly, go looking through the
mailing-list archives.

: I don't claim to represent the roleplaying (or even the Traveller) mainstream
: and I think that some Traveller players sometimes have a tendency to take 
: their game a little too seriously, sometimes forgetting in the process that 
: the writers are human beings with feelings and their own visions -- and 
: constraints concerning what they can and can't do.  I do know, though, that 
: there are a lot of other books and games available to spend my money on that 
: look like better purchases than what Imperium has produced so far.   

I think you're very right here.  I'm very impressed with Greg Porter who
has told us to "suck the pipe" (in a nice way of course) when it comes
to making certain changes to rules.  Talk about sticking to your guns
and banking on your integrity.  I think we'll see that CSC will be a
better book (it'll just be populated with horrid art) 8)

I think that IG could stand to use some quality control.  But I also
think that some of us are so old that we don't know what the RPG
industry is today.  Someone said that $20 was outrageous for Starships.
Looking around the shelves I noticed that most books of that size
clocked in around the same dollar amount.  And to think, I still
remember paying for my first Traveller product at a hefty $30
(MegaTraveller boxed set).

       --Jerry

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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:09:16 -0600
From: John Kovalic <muskrat@msn.fullfeed.com>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #746

>
>Anyway, here's my outline.  Feel free to add items to it.  I'll compile
>all the *reasonable* suggestions, and send it along to Courtney (again,
>with explanatory text).
>
>

>
>
>Thoughts?  Comments?  Flames?
>
>- -Joe

Joe,

VERY good list. Very succinct. And very good at geting to the heart of the
matter.

As far as art specifically goes:

I DON'T mind art in Traveller: I mind bad art (ala the late GDW
releases).Art used badly is next on the list.  In fact, the very last GDW
releases managed both bad art AND bad art used badly. I stopped buying
stuff at "Star Vikings." And Roger Sanger can tell you how complete my
collection was up to that point. :-)

John Kovalic



********************************************************
           "This must be Thursday. I never COULD get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                     - Arthur Dent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*                                 "Wild Life": a Web comic --
*
*              MUSKRAT CENTRAL: http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/muskrat/
*
********************************************************

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

Date: 13 Dec 96 12:07:15 +1100
From: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
Subject: Inertial compensation

     I think that inertial compensation is tied to the max available 
     thruster technology; ie if maneuver-3 is the highest available 
     thruster acceleration, 3g is the highest available compensation. Now 
     that doesn't stop some engineer wunderkind from squeezing a few more 
     Gs out of the plates, or augmenting thrust with HEPlaR, but whatever 
     extra they get is *uncompensated*.  

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #747
**********************************

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".
