From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Fri Dec 13 10:05:14 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin18.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id KAA10374; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:05:04 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id KAA18768; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:04:34 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:03:33 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id KAA18670 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:03:32 -0500
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:03:32 -0500
Message-Id: <199612131503.KAA18670@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #750
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest      Friday, December 13 1996      Volume 1996 : Number 750



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan
Re: My complaints about Starships and T4...
Re: Wierd UWP
Robots for T4
Power and fuel -- some suggestions
T4 Review In Pyramid Magazine
Re: Landing ships.
Roller Coasters in the 57th Century
Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: ThrustPlates and such
Not so Sub Light
Looking for a copy of GDW's Vampire Fleets
Fuel Shoveling
Joe's List
RE: Mech mobility kills
Cost of Starship Passage
Re: Mech mobility kills
The begining of T4; Part one
Re: Strength of Aslans and Domain (and now Wargr)

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:08:42 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: P.S. - A Traveller Fan

Ken whitman wrote:
> 
> Hello everyone,

Hi Ken! 

> From time to time I will make a post as a Traveller fan! I am not black
> balled from Traveller, I simply sold my shared of the company.  If there
> are any questions you guys would like me to answer, feel free to ask.

Looking forward to your postings, especially to the question 'bout 
bilocation psionics, which I asked some time ago [hint, hint] ;-) 

> Happy Holidays

Wishing you the same!

Buddy

(new declination:
I think, therefore I am...
I think, therefore I spam ...
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam ...) ;-)
- -- 
# Disclaimer: All opinions stated are only MY OWN.
# Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at 
# ADV - Anwendungsentwicklung
# Graphisch Technischer Bereich

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:13:23 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: My complaints about Starships and T4...

Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au wrote:
> 
>      ...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. 

Got my point here.
I just found ONE!!! gamestore, having ONE!!! example of T4 rulebook. 
Price was more than 40,- Dollars (around 450,- Austrian Schillings).
Phew!

CyA
Buddy
- -- 
# Disclaimer: All opinions stated are only MY OWN.
# Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at 
# ADV - Anwendungsentwicklung
# Graphisch Technischer Bereich

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:30:17 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Re: Wierd UWP

William F. Hostman wrote:
> 
> >     Port D/E/X, Tech 9+ = inhabitants capable of building a starbase, but
> >     poor or no base present; possibilities include: xenophobia, existing
> >     port recently damaged/destroyed, planet interdicted from interstellar
> >     contact, space technology lags behind other tech levels for some
> >     reason.
> >
> >     Does anybody else have any interesting explanations for weird UWPs?
> 

Religion for example ...

CyA
Buddy
- -- 
# Disclaimer: All opinions stated are only MY OWN.
# Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at 
# ADV - Anwendungsentwicklung
# Graphisch Technischer Bereich

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:31:27 +0100
From: Jerome DARMONT <darmont@libd1.univ-bpclermont.fr>
Subject: Robots for T4

 I recently designed a robot for T4, using the old Book 8: Robots. Everything
seems pretty compatible, except the hit points, that don't exist any more in
T4. Since physical dammage in T4 is translated into losses in characteristics,
I thought it would be nice to add an apparent endurance to the robots (that
already have a apparent strengh and dex). I used a simple formula to compute
it:

                Apparent Endurance = Chassis Volume / 10.

 How does this sound?

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome DARMONT, LIMOS, Universite Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand II
darmont@libd1|2.univ-bpclermont.fr, oodbprjd@mailhost.ecn.uoknor.edu
http://lmiindy7.univ-bpclermont.fr/~darmont/

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:42:48 -0800
From: Harald Budschedl <Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at>
Subject: Power and fuel -- some suggestions

Hi lads!

I have thought about "alternative" refuling and powering up systems.

** To gain electric power, you could use the magnetic force field of a 
planet by sticking out a divice, which allows magnetig induction of 
electricity. NASA has aleady experimented with this...

** There could be some devices with quite a high TL, which utilize the 
gravity-forcefields of planets, suns and black holes for generating 
power.

** I would consider the ancients to have used more and more organical 
components in their techs and mechs. There could be i.e. an 
organic-crystalline component which produces either hydrogen or 
electricity as a product of its metabolism (like our urine or sweat or 
so). It may feed on the energy of gravity or magnetic fields or something 
other strange things. (I know it sounds weard, but it's ancient tech, you 
know?)

Whadda ya think?

CyA
Buddy
- -- 
# Disclaimer: All opinions stated are only MY OWN.
# Harald.Budschedl@mag.linz.at 
# ADV - Anwendungsentwicklung
# Graphisch Technischer Bereich

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:47:40 -0800
From: "Rich Ostorero" <stormhvn@inreach.com>
Subject: T4 Review In Pyramid Magazine

Ish 22 of Pyramid magazine (SJ Games) has selected T4 as a "Pyramid Pick"
- -- that is, the mag reviews the game. Given that Pyramid does but a few
reviews, this is quite an honor for Our Favorite game.

The review was pretty much dead-on. He liked the Foss art and thought the
system was okay. . . but he gave the book a big down-check on editing, etc.
This reviewer is a Trav Fan(tm) from The Three Black Books Era, so I got
the impression that this is as about as friendly a review as T4 is going to
get.

- --Rich
stormhvn@inreach.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:28:18 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Re: Landing ships.

>From: Douglas <douglas@teleport.com>

>> If it's a covert landing, why land at all?  Surely you can hover on contragravity
>> close enough to the ground that the team to be inserted can get down by jumping,
> 
>Depends on the mission parameters and the environment.  If you are dealing
>with a fair tech level (7 or even 6), sophisticated orbital surveillance
>is possible.  To reduce the chance of detection, 1 trip down and 1 trip up
>maybe more favorable. 
One trip may indeed be better.  Nevertheless, you don't have to land the ship on your
one trip.  Can't it hover at one meter above the (presumably spongy or above major
animal warrens) ground, and let the team jump out?

>All things being equal, I prefer soft landings (ie. fluid) to hard when I

Landing in water has some other benefits, too, like fuel and probably better 
concealment.

- --Glenn

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 00:34:30 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin" <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Roller Coasters in the 57th Century

>From: Craig Berry <cberry@cinenet.net>

>First off, in John Varley's _Steel Beach_ (a must read, btw), he describes
>a roller coaster on the surface of the Moon (at the site of the Apollo 11

>this puppy featured a ballistic section -- track ends, car
>flies free in a long arc to other track section which grabs it
>magnetically, ride continues.  This would require slightly better
>fail-safe technology than we have now, but not by much...and, of course,

My first job as a lawyer was at a big firm, one of whose clients was a company that made 
roller-coasters.  We did both the corporate work and the defense of the lawsuits that 
arose when there was an accident.  The lawyers will definitely do well when the 
ballistic roller coaster is built.  I know that it will (1) be done well before the 
fail-safe technology is adequate and (2) be so popular that it will be replicated on 
Earth and Mars, despite the known danger.  Am I a cynic or a realist?

- --Glenn

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:31:28 +0000
From: Pete Blake <peteb@digicon-egr.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Imperium Games, Starships, future products

Hi all,

I'm new to the TML, well, returning after a few months away actually,
but I thought I'd add a comment on this topic.

I take it that the standard T4 rulebooks are softback (I have a hardback
copy of the main rulebook), and that Starships is also softback.

I say, make the books hardback!

This may increase the cost, but I think the longevity provided by the
hardback is worth it.

I think it gives the books a somehow "confident" and "permanent" feel,
as if to say "This product is here to stay".

Just my 0.00000002 MCr worth,

Cheers,

Pete.

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 05:37:27 -0500 (EST)
From: pawn@CAM.ORG (Glenn Grant)
Subject: Re: ThrustPlates and such

Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca> writes in reply to me,

>Well, I don't look at T-plates as "pushing". (See my previous posts) But
>to answer your question, it's the gravitational potential lying around
>that is important, not its direcitonal vector. If you buy the fact that
>gravity is a property of space and is transmitted by gravitational
>particles "Gravitons", then if there aren't many lying about, the
>t-plates don't have anything to work with.

So the explanation that ThrustPlates "push against" a gravity well might be
translated to mean that they "convert gravitons to antigravitons," say, or
"redirect the interchange of gravitons between the ship and the star"( or
some such sci-babble), but the effect requires a certain density of
graviton exchange. Neh?

>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.

Personally, I like the CT idea that there is no such thing as gravity
generation, only "mass repulsion". Thus, onboard a ship the pseudogravity
is actually caused by repulsors in the ceiling. This clears up a number of
nagging questions, such as asked in my post on the subject a while back. It
also sidesteps your suggestion that artificial gravity on ships doesn't
work outside a 1000d limit.

I might also point out that, since most ships are under thrust most of the
time anyway, zero G isn't much of a problem (assuming your decks are
arranged perpendicular to thrust - whups not that thread again!) And
perhaps its just the anarchist in me, but I rather like the idea of hermits
and scoundrels lurking out in the cometaries, avoiding the Long Tentacle of
the Law...

>I even thought of a way of explaining why artificial gravity works in
>jumpspace <he says, smugly>.
[sound of G.Hoppe patting himself on the back and spraining his arm deleted]

Again, this is unnecessary if the shipboard 'gravity' is actually repulsion.

>I agree. The K-belt is ~40 AU away. It takes a looong time to get to the
>inner system. But the problem isn't surprise attacks, it's retconning
>the strategy of protecting gas giants, and the importants of said GG's
>for refueling. If T-plates worked in the K-belt, then everyone would
>refuel there and not bother getting closer.

I take it that "retcon" is gamedesignerspeak for "retain consistency with"?
Okay, I can see that the IG folks have to jump through hoops to retcon game
history. Fortunately, I've jettisoned the game history, so I don't have to
worry about this.

But I *can* suggest less strenuous explanations for the bar on cometary
belt refueling: 

1) Would it not take many times longer to refuel from a comet than from a
gas giant? You can easily slurp the hydrogen out of a gas giant's
atmosphere, run it through the purification plant, and liquify it. Simple
and quick. But you'd have to melt the comet, using up lots of energy, then
separate it, then re-liquify it. And much worse:

2) I'm certain a comet contain far more impurities than the atmosphere of a
GG? Heavy stuff will be pulled down out of GG's atmosphere. Heavy stuff in
the cometaries just sits there in the ice, dirtying it. Why not say that
comet refuelling will cause your purification plant to choke on inedible
chunks of carbonaceous chondrite? Which brings up the question:

3) Wouldn't melting and purifying comet ice involve expensive specialized
machinery? Which would probably weigh even more than the (already
incredibly huge) standard purification plants? Would you rather fill your
ship with cargo, or ice mining equipment? Fighters, or a heavy-duty
comet-ice purification plant?

>Also there's the little problem of relativistic objects...
>
>"Sir, we have a problem... there's a lifeboat that's been accelerating
>for 3 years approaching Terra..."

Not a very well designed lifeboat. :)  What good is a lifeboat that gets
you home, but then destroys you and your home in the process? Or are we
assuming malicious intent? If it's intentional planet-splashing you're
trying to avoid, the 1000d limit doesn't do anything to eliminate the
danger. You can get the same velocities with a wimpy ion engine, given
enough distance. (Uhoh, not that thread either!)

>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?)

Hence my contention that an inertial damper field only affects the inertia
of objects *relative to everything outside the field*. Another nice side
effect of this is that, if your dampers conk out, you are not immediately
splattered against the aft bulkhead by your drive's thrust. Instead, we can
say that the drive rating depends on the inertial dampening effect; when
the dampers are cut, the ship's inertia returns to normal relative to
everything else, so the drives suddenly drop to a fraction of their usual
thrust rating.

>But whatabout rules for acceleration and fuel usage with HEPlaR drives?
>They don't seem to take neglected or reduced mass into account...

Hmmm... good point. Something to think about. But isn't there a lot of
fudging  the numbers involved in Traveller fusion drives? I mean, could
"real" fusion drives actually deliver that much thrust for so long on that
much fuel? Not being a gearhead engineer, I can't say, but from what I've
read (in books such as _The Science in Science Fiction_), there's a lot
more 'magic' in Traveller space drives than real physics. (Do correct me if
I'm wrong.)

>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.

Following this logic (just to see where it leads), I'd say that inertial
dampers *do* reduce the mass of the ship - *relative to everything outside
the  field*. Again, physics inside the field functions normally. But
relative to a ship standing still, the inertially damped ship will seem to
have reduced its mass. This would have strange effects on orbital
calculations.

>> We might suggest that the inertial damper field is a low-energy effect
>> related to the jump field and governed by closely-related physical laws...

>I don't buy this. But I have my own jumpspace assumptions as you well
>know ;-) Non-starships without Jump Drives have inertial dampeners. I
>think dampeners are more closely related to anti-grav devices which
>partially negate mass. Also, you indicate that jump drives generate a
>dampening field. This doesn't make sense, I've always assumed jump
>drives only operate when they are ready to enter jumpspace.

Yeah. I was just thinking out loud, trying to tie together jump tech,
T-Plates, and contragrav. I assume they're all implied by the same
far-future Grand Unified Theory, as you go on to suggest...

>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.
>Whatever happened to the Grand Unified Theory?
[snip]
>I've never seen a *need* for reactionless drives. One of the things I
>liked about TNE is that it got rid of the pesky things. But since
>they're back, I'd sure like a plausible explanation, pseudo-scientific
>as it may be, of how they work.

I agree completely.

Glenn G.

- -----------------------Glenn Grant-----------------------  
                      <pawn@cam.org>
Web: <http://helios.physics.utoronto.ca:8080/ggrant.html>
    "That which does not kill us makes us stranger."
                  -- Trevor Goodchild

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:35:19 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Not so Sub Light

>Now I don't have these products, but these references are just impossible.
>One parsec is 3.26 light years. So in order to transverse this distance in
>only 1 or two years using sub-light drives just doesn't compute.
>
>There are some reference to sub-light interplanetary travel, but I always
>gathered that it took a lot longer than 1 or 2 years to travel even one
>parsec.

I KNow the math doesn't work... but the referents are THERE.
    From Imperium's map and rules
        Sol<->Alpha Centauri A/B        3 hexes
        Sol<->Proxima Centauri          3 Hexes
        AC a/b<->Prox. C                     1 Hex
        1 hex per movement phase
        0.5 PC per hex
        2 years per turn (two player turns per turn)
        3 movement phases per turn (two during own player turn, one during
                opponent's player-turn)
I know it's broke, but it can be considered to be canon...

I don't agree with the speeds, but obviously, the intent is 0.9+C; only
possible with T-plates and lots of stored fuel for the PP...

<Begging>Would MW Miller like to comment??? Please? </Begging>


William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 02:49:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "John R. Snead" <jsnead@netcom.com>
Subject: Looking for a copy of GDW's Vampire Fleets

So, anyone out there have a copy of the TNE supplement Vampire Fleets
they'd like to sell? 

Thanks-


- -John R. Snead jsnead@netcom.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:35:23 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Fuel Shoveling

>>5: Gas Giants have many other exploitable resources besides fuel, and are
>>thus more vital assets than cometary belts
>
>All I can think of is that they have all kinds of gasses in their atmosphere.
>Of course, that's the problem... they're all mixed up.  I wonder if you
>could even scoop anything since hull friction may be igniting all the
>gasses around the ship...
>
Moons with rocky bodies, rings with some rocky material, Sulfur, wildly
variable magnetic fields (which can generate power...) possibly some
life-bearing moons (Chemosynthetics come to mind, also the possible
magnetosynthesys?)

As for hull friction "Igniting" the gasses... Fire needs OXYGEN.. Something
notably lacking as a free element in what little we know of GG's. Magnetic
scooping into physical ramscoops should work.

Also, I normally describe "Normal" scooping as flying rather slow (if not
just wafting down) into the methan and amonia layers, opening the scoops,
and slowly flying through the clouds, and letting the pumps compress the
materials into the tanks.

Cometary bodies need to be bronken into chunks, put where they can be
melted into a liquid state, and fed to the fuel scooping system, or at
least the purifiers. Have fun with pick, shovel, and micro-gravity.

As for vaping and the scooping, we turn to leonard, and ask

"Hey, Leonard, how fast will vaporized hydrogen compouds escape to minimal
concentrations (below trace atmosphere pressures), and likewise, how fast
will liquids turn to vapor, both assuming prior pressur <=0.01 Atm???"


William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 01:35:27 -0900
From: aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com (William F. Hostman)
Subject: Joe's List

The only thing I want to add follows

>Define "Travelleresque" to someone who is _not_ a fanatic (admittedly, the
>TML is the home of the fanatics). To me, the cover is _Travelleresque_, but
>a lot of the Foss interior illos aren't. The Elmore b&w illos _are_
>Travellersque; I only wish that more effort was made to tell a coherent
>story with the Elmore illos.

I am a fanatic <No kiddin, eh Joe?>, but I agree with the above quote 100%.

I wish I could define "travelleresque" well, but here goes anyway:

        Having a sense of hard SciFi, without preventing the epics storyline
        and being above all, believable, distant but reconizeable, and
        humanocentric, but not to the point of xenophobia. Gadgets and Ships
        form a backdrop, and people are at the heart; but forethought and good
        tech will win out over just forethought or just tech.
        People trying to make a buck, a difficult climb to attain any
        worthwile goals. SLOW growth of characters, but steady growth.
        Aliens are people too, *different* people, but people none the less.
        Exploration of both the universe and the soul!

And that's Traveller to me!

William F. Hostman
Aramis@asylumbbs.com

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 08:09:23 -0500
From: Clint Fishback <C-Fishback@mail.dec.com>
Subject: RE: Mech mobility kills

Not necessarly true.  Your typical humaniod two legged mech most 
likely.  But if you consider the "spider" type mech that has been 
described, it won't just drop.  Of course if it gets to the point that 
enuff legs were shot out for it to drop, the mech is probably not in 
good shape anyway & would probably "die" soon anyway.

- ----------
From: 
	Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au[SMTP:Michael.Barry@FIN  
ANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au]
Sent: 	Thursday, December 12, 1996 8:16 PM
To: 	traveller@MPGN.COM
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: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 00:36:20 +1100 (EST)
From: David Jaques-Watson <davidjw@pcug.org.au>
Subject: Cost of Starship Passage

Dear Folks -

'Way back in late October, Leonard Erickson <shadow@krypton.rain.com> said:
>You *don't* cut corners on life support. But you *can* save money by
>"turning off" empty staterooms. No life-support costs for those rooms.

I don't think this is true. The internal stateroom walls are not bulkheads,
and therefore not airtight. The SOM even suggested that you could unbolt and
move the walls around (justification for the same class of ship having
different floorplans!). There would be a minimum air
circulation/conditioning cost for each room.

However, this is probably just a nitpick and doesn't address the main issue.

I think that the real reason for the high travel cost is for the service.
Think in terms of bus/train/car. The cost of a bus vs a car is 1 order of
magnitude (100,000's vs 10,000's). A average person can own their own car if
they don't like taking the bus all the time. Now look at starships. The
average citizen cannot own their own ship; it is several orders of magntiude
more expensive (10,000,000's, and the rest!). They have no alternative means
of transport. Now, the starship owner has (generally) a huge debt he must
pay off. I think that *this* is what you can use to justify the price -
starship travel is a luxury service that is being provided to the traveller.
Take out the life-support/food/salaries/etc running costs, and the rest goes
to the bank to pay off the debt.

As for low passage, my opinion is that the Imperium imposes this rate in
order that travel not be totally restricted. Yes I know their charter is to
"not interere", but it is also "not to restrict free trade". I say that the
Imperium uses a minimum of enforcement to allow free trade/cheap travel
between the stars - even the poor can travel (albiet under restrictive
conditions) if they can scrape up ImpCr1000 (yes, exchange rates make this
higher in local currency ;-).

BTW, *you* are the DM! You say what goes. If you don't like something,
change it! For example, with passage costs:
1.	Use the exchange rates to change the price.
2.	Roll on the brokerage tables (or some local version specifically for
passages) to increase/decrease the price. The PC's get DM's for Broker, or
Liaison, or Carousing (whatever seems appropriate at the time!)
3.	Heck, make up your own rules, such as have different ratings for starships:

"Gee, Fred, should we take passage on the _Luxury Star_ or the _Kzurakg_?"

"Well, my holo-crystal of the 'Starship Ratings Guide' says that the _Star_
really is just a one-star ship. That means shared staterooms, canned food,
poor quality of air, and the minimum in safety equipment. But the _Kzu_..,
_Kuzur_.., oh heck, [points] that other ship over there is four-star."

"Meaning?"

"Expensive. But...[consults hand computer] it does have single-occupancy
staterooms, full stateroom service, a dining room with a *dance floor*, food
fit for four major races..."

[Interrupts] "Ok, Fred I think we've just found our ride. Come on, I want to
try out my new piezo-crystal flashing disco jacket I just bought from that
Vargr trader."
________________________________________________________________________
Hyphen (David Jaques-Watson)                         davidjw@pcug.org.au
http://www.pcug.org.au/~davidjw
"I file things in historical order, with a hashing algorithm of gravity"

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:38:35 -0800
From: Neil Simpson <catwalk@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Mech mobility kills

Clint Fishback wrote:
> 
> Not necessarly true.  Your typical humaniod two legged mech most
> likely.  But if you consider the "spider" type mech that has been
> described, it won't just drop.  Of course if it gets to the point that
> enuff legs were shot out for it to drop, the mech is probably not in
> good shape anyway & would probably "die" soon anyway.
> 
> ----------
> From:
>         Michael.Barry@FINANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au[SMTP:Michael.Barry@FIN
> ANCE.ausgovfinance.telememo.au]
> Sent:   Thursday, December 12, 1996 8:16 PM
> To:     traveller@MPGN.COM
> 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!Speaking as a BattleTech player(BTW does anyone know of a B`Tech mailing 
list?)take out a leg on a `mech and the pilot ejects rather than be caught in 
an immobile target,just like tank crews when you score a mobility kill 
against them.                                                                
                Neil

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 08:38:35 -0500
From: whitman@pensys.com (Ken Whitman)
Subject: The begining of T4; Part one

When we first stared, we always knew we were going to base the game on CT.
However, when we talked about the system for T4 there were 3 schools of
thought;
1) just reprint the old CT;
2) completely revamp Traveller with a new system (1-100) that kinda thing);
3) Change only what needed to be changed in light of 20 years of role-playing.

Originally, I proposed that we start an alternate time line that would take
place after the Virus Era.  We were going to write a summary book to T:NE
and start from there. However, because Marc and I were working with
Hollywood, they wanted every possible timeline plotted out.  Marc wrote
over 16 timelines.  Miliieu 0, Milieu 200: Aslan Borderwars, etc.  Then we
decided to go retro and bring the universe up to the Virus Era in 3 to 5
years.  I hope that is still the plan.

Other things I plan to talk about
1) Alternate D6 systems that were proposed
2) Why Chris Foss
3) The new T4 look
4) Concepts on T4 direction

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

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:01:55 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Strength of Aslans and Domain (and now Wargr)

Wes Payne writes:
> Subject: Re: Strength of Aslans and Domain of Deneb
> 
>Thus spake Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>:
> 
>[snip]
><nitpick>
>  
>>OH, and just how great a chance do you think he has of convincing Duchess
>>Delphine and the other dukes (his peers) to back him? Anything less than 
>>total cooperation of all the Domain and the Corridor fleet could propably 
>>settle his hash on its own (unless the Zhodani bails him out). After all, 
>>the Corridor Fleet really isn't necessary to guard against the Vargr; the 
>>reserve forces should be more than enough to hold Corridor against them.
> 
>But they weren't, hence Corridor Sector's new, Vargr name:  The Devoured 
>Sector.
></nitpick>

Wes, my point is that going by the rules and the background information the
reserve forces of Corridor is more than enough to hold it against the Vargr,
any historical information to the contrary notwithstanding. I know that we
are told that the Vargr overran Corridor, but they shouldn't have been able
to. Even with ALL jump capable ships removed in 1117 (plausible, given what
we've been told about Lucan) and even if Deneb and Vland didn't move in a
few fleets to take up the slack (implausible, given the number of ships 
that ought to be enough to protect against the Vargr), there are a half
dozen high-population worlds that have so massive planetary defense forces
that the Vargr have no chance whatsoever of capturing them (Mikesh has the
equivalent of _200_ trillion credit squadrons (_after_ we've deducted 20%
for jump-papable planetary navy ships sent off with the regular and reserve
forces)). And those worlds would be able to build an effective force of jump-
capable ships in less than three years. Even with no help from outside,
Corridor should be more or less cleaned up by 1122.

Pointing out that the background history says otherwise is redundant. I know
what the official story is. Trouble is, it dosen't make sense. Tell me, would 
you have defended a story about the Vargr developing superpowers instead? 
That actually makes roughly as much sense as the official story. Hey, if it 
was psionic superpowers it would make _more_ sense! Yeah, that's it, Corridor 
was overrun by a pack of psionic supervargr!!



      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "A  subsector  official  pompously states that the
        subsector  armed  forces  have  four Kinunir class
        ships in service,  each with enough troop strength
        to put down any military operations that threathen
        the peace of the Imperium."

                        ---Adventure 1, The Kinunir


"Facts are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
                - Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #750
**********************************

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".
