From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Thu Dec 12 22:44:50 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin26.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id WAA00517; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:44:45 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id WAA02763; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:45:12 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:44:30 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id WAA02664 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:44:29 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 22:44:29 -0500
Message-Id: <199612130344.WAA02664@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #748
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Thursday, December 12 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 748



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Wierd Place Names
Mech mobility kills
Re: Bitter Starships Review
Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: ThrustPlates and such
Re: T-Plates and HEPlaR - The Need For Speed
Re: ThrustPlates and such
I've changed my mind...
Re: Mech in Traveller
My complaints about Starships and T4...
T Plates
Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: I've changed my mind...
Refueling from Cometary bodies (OPINION)
WE NEED RUMORS
Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan
Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan
RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products 
[none]
RE: Imperial Democracy
Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 16:34:42 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Wierd Place Names

>> << At present (although I'm moving in 2 weeks thank god) I live in the
>> small mining community of Flin Flon >>
>>
>> Aw, c'mon...you're making these names up!
>
>Nope, he is for real, and so is Flin Flon, Manitoba (and for that matter,
>Come by Chance,
>Newfoundland and Dildo, Newfoundland)

As are Eek, Tok, North Pole, Igagik, Unalaska, and Clear, all in Alaska.
Tok's High School motto was (for many years) "Tok High, it's an
experience!" (Tok is pronounced Toke [long o, silent e]). THeir Fight chant
was "Tok High, It'll get ya!" but the state board of education has banned
both since the state recriminalized Marijuanna...

William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: 13 Dec 96 12:16:26 +1100
From: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
Subject: Mech mobility kills

     Take out the treads on an MBT, and it sits there looking sullen and 
     p*ssed off, taking shots at anyone within range. 
     
     Take out the legs on a Mech, and its body drops to the ground with a 
     *CRASH*, burying its weapons (and maybe pilot!) a couple of metres 
     underground. 
     
     Gimme the tank anyday! 

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:48:49 +0000
From: Mused <marz@hotstar.net>
Subject: Re: Bitter Starships Review

Douglas E. Berry wrote:
> >Displacement of your example vessel:  75,000 dtons
> >Displacement of scout:                   100 dtons
> >Size ratio:                           750:1
> >
> >Mass of M1A2:                          5,000 kg (IIRC)
> >Reduced by factor of 750:                  7 kg
> >
> >So the correct ratio between your battleship and a scout is that between
> >an M1A2 MBT and a medium-sized dog. :)

Misplaced decimal alert; an M1 weighs a little closer to 55 tons, not 5
Your comaprision should be between an average adult male human and an M1

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:39:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

Hi.

A lot of what you said does indeed seem to be a "consensus." But not
all...

> I)  T4 Main Rulebook
> 
>     B)  Task System
>         1)  Number of dice rolled at each level (esp. upper end)
>         2)  Figuring target numbers (overemphasis on attributes)

I love the new task system. Judging from the large variety of "fixes"
that have been introduced, I would hesitate to say that there is any
kind of consensus (except among a few dedicated math fiends) as to how
to change it.
   
>     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."

The new art is vastly superior to the old. It could be improved by
making it more directly related to content, of course, but don't go back
to the bad old days.

> II)  Starships
>      B)  Deck Plans
>          1)  Blank space - all interior hull space should be used
>          2)  Interior structures should be drawn according to the design
>              system's specifications
>          3)  Use grid lines

More interior details!  More interior details!  More interior details!  

>      E)  Background
>          1)  Include more on the operation of starships

No! Such detail is less than useless to me unless it's extremely well
thought out.

> V)   Future Products

I'd suggest that they look to Trav's past to see the standard of quality
exhibited there. The future releases have to be different, but different
and better, not different and worse.

- -Rob

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:41:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
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?

I'm not sure why that would be confusing, Glenn.  Basically, we're taking
what was long alleged to be a "reactionless" drive, and turning it into a
reaction drive -- thus eliminating a certain amount of handwaving around
violations of energy/momentum conservation.  If you want to move away from
a world, you shove it away from you a teeny bit.  If you want to move
toward a world, you pull it toward you a teeny bit.  Simple Newtonian
equal-and-opposite stuff.  What's the problem?

> Further, what's the big deal about fleets refueling in the Oort or Kuiper
> belts during an invasion? Surely it's a very long way to the Kuiper belt -
> and an awful lot farther to the Oort; won't the defenders have a lot of
> warning that a fleet is invading? They'll pick up the invader's signatures
> long before they arrive - especially since, for half that distance, the
> invaders will have to decellerate into the inner system. Even a T-plate
> drive is going to be obvious for quite a while. There'd be no chance of a
> suprise attack. Or am I mistaken?

You're right as far as you go, but the problem is that a lot of Traveller
canonical history hinges on Jovian worlds and Terrestrial oceans being the
*only* places to refuel in most systems -- in other words, deny the enemy
those, and he *can't* refuel.  Providing an alternate fuel source that
probably exists in 95% or more of systems, and can be used without
harrasment from the locals, completely changes the strategic nature of
interstellar warfare -- basically, fronts become a lot more "porous" than
they are in canonical Traveller. 

> We know that a ship generates an inertial damper field. Seems to me that
> reducing an object's inertia would make it easier to move. Obviously the
> field doesn't completely eliminate a ship's inertia, because any push would
> then cause it to whoosh away at light speed.
[snip]
> I like this theory mainly because it eliminates the need for reactionless
> drives, and it doesn't require us to invent things like gravity generators.
> I suppose I'm probably re-inventing the wheel, though. Has anyone suggested
> something like this before?

[Nostalgic sigh] E. E. "Doc" Smith, in his "Lensman" series (the best
full-tilt space opera ever written) during the 1930s, pioneered the
"inertialess drive" concept.  When a ship fired up its Bergenholm
generators and "went free," a whisper of thrust would send it shooting off
a multiples of c.  IIRC, FF&S contained a design system for this style of
drive.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:47:42 -0700 (MST)
From: Merrick Burkhardt <merrick@Rt66.com>
Subject: Re: T-Plates and HEPlaR - The Need For Speed

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

Yes.  If you have enough power to drive both.

> 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?  

None at all.  Grav comp will only go up as stated, so you'll pull
more and more gs inside.  You might be able to do 8gs on a ship with
4g g-comp for minutes, but it will get hard on the crew if you try
exposing them to the difference (4gs) for several hours or more.
 
> 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.  

Yes.  They suffer :-)  Actually, BL had rules for applying DMs to
tasks under different g loads.  All the combat system needs is a way
to express this.

- -Merrick

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:54:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such

> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:24:57 -0800
> From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
> 
> 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.

That's one of the Big Questions.  When you come right down to it, "mass"
is defined by two properties:

1) Resists acceleration ("inertial mass")
2) Creates gravity ("gravitational mass")

The cool/weird thing is, while the two correlate exactly in every known
experiment, nobody has produced a theoretical basis for their always being
the same.

In other words, if you decrease both the gravitation and the inertia of an
object, you've de facto reduced its mass.  If you reduce just one of the
above, you break the (current) definition of mass; we'd need new technical
vocabulary to talk about what had happened.

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   |   Craig Berry - cberry@cinenet.net
 --*--    Home Page: http://www.cinenet.net/users/cberry/home.html
   |      Member of The HTML Writers Guild: http://www.hwg.org/   
       "Every man and every woman is a star."

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

Date: 13 Dec 96 12:37:27 +1100
From: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
Subject: I've changed my mind...

     ...yet again. I think an 8-legged 'spider' walker could be an 
     effective war machine. Just rig 'em up so that they have loudspeakers 
     that cry "ULLA! ULLA! ULLA!", and a heat ray, then let them loose on 
     London. 
     
     Seriously though, an 8-legged walker would be *less* vulnerable to a 
     mobility hit than an MBT. Mind you, I don't think I'd trust anything 
     less than a TL9 or 10 robot brain with moving those legs. 
     
     So, as combat walkers are coming into usefulness, grav vehicles almost 
     immediately supplant them. They might be prevalent in races that have 
     achieved TL10+ but *not* anti-grav technology! 
     
     BTW, for a nice combat scene between walkers and MBTs, take a look at 
     the opening scenes in the _Patlabor_ movie! 

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:06:24 -0500
From: "Harold D. Hale" <hdhale@siscom.net>
Subject: Re: Mech in Traveller

Douglas writes:

> Before we go to far into this, let be be really clear.  I don't think that
> "mecha" ala Robojox, RoboTech or the like are very practical.  Attractive,
> and they give the audience something 'humanoid' to bond to, but not
> practical.  Walkers such as exhibited in 'Star Wars' and in William
> Dietz's novells MAY have a place.

   The original mechs in Robotech, et. al. were suppose to be futuristic
samurai controlled by a human from the inside.  In many ways the mech is
just an extension of the warrior's body.  I'm not a huge fan of
Robotech, but I have noted that over the years additional designs have
been introduced that were more on the practical side.  

   The giant AT-ATs of Star Wars are not all that practical either
(looking back, you sorta expect Luke in "The Empire Strikes Back" to
jump on the back of one of them cowboy-style and ride it like a bucking
bronco, yelling "yahoo!").  They are slow, high profile, lumbering
beasts that are too easily taken down.  While well armored against
energy weapons, apparently all that is necessary to destroy one is to
trip it.  They scream, "we are the Galactic Empire, go ahead and shoot
at us you idiot, we'll burn you and your whole family down."  For that
reason they look *very* impressive on the big screen, but that's about
it.  The scout walkers from Empire and "Return of the Jedi" were a much
more practical size, though they seemed rather underarmed for a military
vehicle (talk about a design that screams for rocket pods).  Perhaps
they were intended more for crowd control than scouting....

> There has been a lot of experimentation with alternate forms of
> transmission for vehicles, including 'legs' for rough country.  I see no
> problem with a multi-legged vehicles in a variety of environments.

   Nor do I.

> > I have seen M1A1s hiding behind 1.5m berms, with their guns so well cammoed
> > that it took a good look to tell what it was being aimed at.  MBTs can hide
> > in the woods, under tarps, even in haystacks!

   So could a well designed combat walker/mech.

> Instead of the 'star knight', let's consider the 'star spider'.

   Gee, sounds like somebody has been reading my posts to this thread
afterall.

   I'm figuring on a small head as well (similar to the type on very
large spiders) that would hold a rapid fire engery gun or a mass driver
gun of some sort.

   Imagine the first time infantry encounters these beasties....humans
have a natural fear of spiders as it is, imagine the fear factor one
large enough to hold a crew of two or three would cause.

Regards,

Harold

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

Date: 13 Dec 96 12:49:44 +1100
From: Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au
Subject: My complaints about Starships and T4...

     ...are really centred around one factor: *price*! By the time the 
     books make it to *my* FLGS, they are about 1.5 to 2.0 times the price 
     they are in the USA. Even the US price would be a bit steep for many 
     people I know. And I think that the colour artwork in T4 is the 
     culprit. 
     
     Don't get me wrong - I like Foss art, and I have no problem with it 
     being associated with T4. However, I think the place for spiffy colour 
     artwork of starships is on the *cover*, with B&W art of various kinds 
     inside. Heck, DGP did a bloody brilliant job with almost exclusively 
     B&W art! 
     
     A suggestion: get a superartist to do the covers of books (which have 
     to look *great* these days), put the rest of the art resources into 
     good quality deck/building plans, line drawings etc. a la DGP's 
     traveller licenced materials. Colour plates inside? Only if IG feel 
     they have too much money floating around...  ;]
     
     I have some limited (very limited) experience of publishing, and one 
     thing I know is that colour of any sort is very expensive. Mind, an 
     idea for making deckplans more visually appealing would be to do them 
     in something cheap like 2-colour (you know, maybe a 4-page spread in 
     the centre of the book with *blue* blueprints, like I remember from 
     DGP's Starship Operators' Manual).  

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:26:06 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: T Plates

>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?

Can't explain it. But, it does violate some very trivial references in some
of the traveller games (Imperium and Dark Nebula) about sub-light long term
thrust potential and crossing parsecs in a year or two... without jump
drives. [note to tech-heads: I DID mention this during the discussions last
spring, and was either ignored or dismissed... B-P ]

>Further, what's the big deal about fleets refueling in the Oort or Kuiper
>belts during an invasion? Surely it's a very long way to the Kuiper belt -
>and an awful lot farther to the Oort; won't the defenders have a lot of
>warning that a fleet is invading? They'll pick up the invader's signatures
>long before they arrive - especially since, for half that distance, the
>invaders will have to decellerate into the inner system. Even a T-plate
>drive is going to be obvious for quite a while. There'd be no chance of a
>suprise attack. Or am I mistaken?

Again, this was not weighed against the travel times; it is cheaper
(time-wise) to jump in from said belts using a micro-jump. Under TNE, the
previous version of traveller, we had heplar as cannon, but not T-plates,
and even Mars was frequently faster by microjump! The concerns, IIRC were
that "T-Plates wouldbe unballanceing" if not somehow limited (to make
HEPlaR more compareable). The arguments (on both sides) were spectacular.

So, in short, if you want to ignore that limit, it didn't exist prior to
T4, and can safely be ignored (unless you're paranoid about not being able
to intercept 0.1C asteroids... He, he, he...).


William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:34:32 -0500
From: fenris@solon.com (Derek Dees)
Subject: Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

>Constructive criticism on T4 products snipped from here.

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


Joe,

Nice constructive criticism. This, rather than lengthy debate, is what is
needed. The biggest recommendation I could make would be to keep prices for
similar industry products. Knowing the slams that White Wolf gets, I still
respect a number of the their products. They pack a large amount of useful
information and then fit poor to good artwork around the contents.

Although the content and "useful" information is different (different
systems and styles) the core concept of information first and then working
the art in and around the content is the most important core.

Actually, I like the Foss artwork. It causes me to think about what could
be, not what the rules or the descriptions say. What I resent about it is
that it takes up so much space. In the starships book, we had roughly 41
pages of pictures with large captions (most of the ship data took up 1/3 or
less of the page).

                107 page book
                 - 2 for the title page and publication info
                  -1 for the table of contents
                  -1 for the introduction
                  -1 for the calendar
                  -1 for the personalities
                  -1 for more personalities
                  -6 for the SSDS
                 - 1 for the worksheet,
                  -1 for the sample usp
                -18 for the tables
                  -1 for the advertisement in the back.

    totaling   73 pages of pictures.

Now, as I said, I like Foss' artwork, but not $20 for 73 pictures of
varying size and quality.

Food for thought, hmmmm.........



Derek

fenris@solon.com
http://www.solon.com/~fenris


And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.
                        M. Arnold "Dover Beach"

So come all you lovers of tyhe good life
          on your supermarket run
Set a sail of your own devising
          and be there when the Dutchman comes
                       Jethro Tull "Flying Dutchman"

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:33:27 -0600
From: bolie@io.com (Bolie Williams IV)
Subject: Re: I've changed my mind...

At 7:37 PM 12/12/96, Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au wrote:
>     Seriously though, an 8-legged walker would be *less* vulnerable to a
>     mobility hit than an MBT. Mind you, I don't think I'd trust anything
>     less than a TL9 or 10 robot brain with moving those legs.

Control and reliability are the two big issues with a combat walker.  The
legs must be controlled and controlled quickly.  You'd need multiply
redundant controllers and each leg would require a lot of motors to move
it around.  The legs would also have to be strong to move an armored
cabin around at any speed.  They really suffer from leverage problems.
All those motors become a reliability problem.  They all have to work
together or the thing won't move.  A single motor going out could quite
easily cripple a leg.  A tank has the advantage of having a very simple
motive system that is probably a whole lot more reliable.  I wouldn't
want to have to work on those leg motors...

Bolie IV

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bolie Williams IV
bolie@io.com
http://www.io.com/~bolie/

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 17:26:11 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Refueling from Cometary bodies (OPINION)

I have felt, and argued (ineffectively) that refueling from cometary bodies
is not really much of a strategic issue except in very long term interests.
Here's why I believe that the Kuiper and Oort belts are strategically of
minimal importance compared to Gas Giants:

1: Gas giants contain fluids (gasses and liquids) whic are easy to shove
through scoops. Cometary bodies in the outer system do not; they are solid.
Solids will require shovelling, or specially designed "Crusher Scoops"
which can chop up the cometary mass into small, meltable pieces.

2: They are beyond the jump vs thrust threshold; any refuelling that far
out is likely to use micro-jumps to get in. Unless the Ref is AR enough to
figure the 100 diameter limits of the star.

3: they are HUGE ammounts of volume (even if you assume a roughly 0.1AU
mean thickness, ~40 +-0.5 AU, you get 25 CUBIC AU! for the Kuiper belt.)
You couldn't STOP someone from using them if you wanted to... but would
they want to? (See #1, above)

4: They may or may not exist in the same relative location in other systems.

5: Gas Giants have many other exploitable resources besides fuel, and are
thus more vital assets than cometary belts

As stated in the Subject line, the above is my OPINION, put out for the
edification of those not yet able to avail themselves of it.

As for the 1000 diameter thrust limit on T-plates, it makes the Kuiper and
OOrt belts nigh on unpatrolable, as well as the outer gas giants, unless
one micro-jumps there, and/or uses a reaction thruster (HEPlaR or Ion come
immediately to mind). It does eliminate some of the concerns about 0.1C +
speed attacks upon worlds, but also makes the outer systems far more likely
(IMNSHO) to be pirate havens.


William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:46:09 -0500
From: whitman@pensys.com (Tony Lee)
Subject: WE NEED RUMORS

That's right we need rumors for an upcomming Traveller product.  You have
untill the 15th to get your name added to a published Imperium Games book
(Sorry no cash). Send your rumors (50 words or less) to Whitman@pensys.com.
Place the word RUMORS in your subject box.

Send us many!

Send them NOW!

Thank you,
Tony Lee

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 20:49:24 -0500
From: whitman@pensys.com (Ken Whitman)
Subject: Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan

Thanx for the concern Peter.  Its nice to know that there a few people who
care.-)
 The dog Tags should be available for about the next 30-45 days.

See ya -Ken

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 18:54:57 -0800
From: "Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com>
Subject: Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan

At 20:49 12/12/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Thanx for the concern Peter.  Its nice to know that there a few people who
>care.-)
> The dog Tags should be available for about the next 30-45 days.
>
>See ya -Ken

What could you tell us, I know I'm interested, about the process that went
into the creation of T4?  What types of alternative systems and stuff did
you create that didn't end up in the product.  Also, do you have the 'inside
track' on Traveller's 1997 schedule, at least, that you could divulge to the
general public?

I'd appreciate any answers, 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 20:56:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: RE: Imperium Games, Starships, future products 

On Thu, 12 Dec 1996, That Computer Guy wrote:

> 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).

Yup.  I remember that.  I also remember paying $3.98 for each 
Supplement.  

'course, that was a lot of money back then. [G]  (No, really,it was - I 
only earned $80 per month - I was a paper boy[G].)


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

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 21:08:12 -0600
From: "Talisman" <shimmer@utelco.tds.net>
Subject: [none]

	Does anyone have an address for Imperium games?  I would like to inquire
as to the current products list and the status of the fanzine that I am
supposed to be recieving.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 96 21:35:10 -0600
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: RE: Imperial Democracy

 K.C. Komosky wrote:
>Well in the real world, many countries have gotten around the problem you 
>raise by having 2 houses of government, one rep by pop, one rep by area 
>(e.g. the US Senate).
>
>Unfortunately, Canada is not among them :-(

Wooaoahhhh! Slow down there K.C. Your statement is not entirely true. In 
Canada we *do* have 2 houses of government: The House of Commons (Rep. by 
pop, 1 per about 50,000 IIRC) and the Senate (Rep. by area)

Our system is unlike the U.S. system in that our senators are appointed 
by the Prime Minister. What generally happens is the provinces recommend 
a list of senators to the PM, who then chooses a senator.

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

Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 19:42:38 -0800
From: "Douglas E. Berry" <dberry@hooked.net>
Subject: Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

At 12:41 PM 12/12/96 -0600, you wrote:

>I)  T4 Main Rulebook
>
>    A)  Editing
>        1) Grammar
>        2) Typographical errors
>        3) Errata - missing tables, incorrect values given, etc.

An absolute must.  All three of these items must be corrected if Traveller
is to keep attracting a new audience.  I've been playing Traveller since it
came out, and the general lack of quality in IG's products has really turned
me off.

>
>    B)  Task System
>        1)  Number of dice rolled at each level (esp. upper end)
>        2)  Figuring target numbers (overemphasis on attributes)

It's easy to pile on the dice when a PC tries to do something *really*
stupid.  The target number system does give high attributes to much pull,
some sort of fix is needed.  An addition of skill uses with other
characteristics would be nice.. using EDU with your Gunnery skill to figure
out how to diable the fire control of the Zhodani Crusier you're escaping
from, for example; or SOC with Ship Tactics to hobnob with the admiralty at
a cocktail party.
 
>    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."

IG, go forth and look athe works of William Keith and the artists of DGP.
*That* is "Traveller" art.  The slightly rounded look, the scale, all of it
makes for a good hard-SF feel.


>II)  Starships
>
>     A)  Editing
>         1)  Grammar and sentence structure
>         2)  Typos

Somehow, I got the feeling that this book wasn't edited.  Sorry guys, but I
found it difficult to get throught the introduction with out wincing.

>     B)  Deck Plans
>         1)  Blank space - all interior hull space should be used
>         2)  Interior structures should be drawn according to the design
>             system's specifications
>         3)  Use grid lines

Since the reason we want deckplans in the first place is so we can run
conflicts on board (I don't know anyone who pulls out a deckplan when the
pilot needs to use the fresher), gridlines should have been included.

I found little or no relation between the description of the ship and the
deckplans.

>     C)  Ship Designs
>         1)  Include a listing of the crew positions

Yes, it would help.

>     D)  Art
>         1)  Use original art
>         2)  Use less of it, or use smaller pictures

Use art that makes SENSE.  the beloved Beowulf Free Trader is a lifting
body; it is streamlined!  Some of the ships in Starships looked melted.. but
y'all know how I feel about Foss art..

>     E)  Background
>         1)  Include more on the operation of starships

How about a little more about the ships themselves?  Remember Traders and
Gunboats?  The Type S and it's faulty air recycling system?  Those little
details make a ship come alive.

>     F)  Personalities 
>         1)  Include a small sketch of each individual
>         2)  Write them at a higher level of education

I personnaly wondered why they were there in the first place.  A book of
NPCs like Star Vikings for TNE might be interesting, but This was Starships,
and I wanted info about that topic.


>V)   Future Products
>
>     A)  Just show a little fore-thought.
>         1)  Examine previous Traveller products that offer similar 
>             design elements as the product you're designing.
>         2)  Use original art.
>         3)  Keep the useful content (i.e., not the art) high, sacrificing
>             art if necessary.
>         4)  Make absolutely certain to find as many typos, grammatical 
>             errors, and rules errors as possible before printing the 
>             product.

Advice to IG:  Dig up the old Digest Group supplements.  Well thought out,
beautiful illos, packed with background and useful rules mods.  The Aliens
books, Starship Operator's, World Builder's Handbook, Traveller Digest/MT
Journal.. these all gave excellent value for the money.


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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #748
**********************************

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".
