From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Mon Dec 16 13:50:35 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin16.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA17529; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:50:16 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA18671; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:49:28 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:46:05 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id NAA18558 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:46:04 -0500
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:46:04 -0500
Message-Id: <199612161846.NAA18558@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #761
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest      Monday, December 16 1996      Volume 1996 : Number 761



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Modular Cutter
Re: Size of Domain fleet
SSDS and Battle Rider
Re: GA7 (long): The Rock
This whole "Starships Sucks" thread, and what's wrong with it
Re: TCS construction times
Re: Unwise order of publication!
Re: Modular Cutter
Re:LONG-- Imperium Games, Starships, future products
Re: [T96#748] Wierd Place Names
Re: I'm not anti-Foss...I'm pro-Choice :-)
Testing...
Re: Ship Design Formulas
RE: Is T4 Innovative? 
RE: Is T4 Innovative? 
Re: GA7 (long): The Rock
RCES LBD
RE: An idea for presentation/future books etc...

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 12:08:22 -0500
From: lewis@slipher.chara.gsu.edu.chara.gsu.edu (Lewis Roberts)
Subject: Modular Cutter

 Hi,
Here is  the design for a TL-11 Modular Cutter. It uses a Fission power
planet, becuase all available fusion plants are too large, and nothing
else would fit on board.  I came up with stats for the three standard modules.
Lewis Roberts
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
The modular cutter is designed to carry one of many modules available.  
Three are the ATV module, which can hold up to 14 displacement tons of 
vehicles; the fuel module, which serves as a fuel skimming vehicle and
storage tank; and the cargo module.  

Modular Cutter (w/ATV Module)
Tons:50		Volume:700  		Price:	22.3820
Crew 2		Passengers(H/M):0/5	Passengers(L):0
Cargo:103	Controls:Std		Tech Level: 11
07 Size Rating                  00 Jump Rating
00 Fire Control Rating          02 G Rating / Thruster
00 Battery                      1.8 Power Plant Rating  
00 Battery                      .1 Fuel Rating (Radioactives)
00 Battery                      00 Meson Screen Rating
00 Battery                      00 Sand Caster Rating
00 Battery                      00 Damper Rating
00 Battery                      A.1 P.1 J0 Sensors TL11 Civ Min
00 Battery
00 Battery                      10 Armor        3 Structure	

Notes: The ship is a Streamlined Needle. The Fission power
plant carries enough radioactives for 4 months of operation.
The ATV Module can carry up to 14 tons of vehicles in a minimal
hanger.  There is no grav compensation in the ATV module, so 
it is advised that passengers do not travel int he module
except in emergency circumstances.	
- - ----------------------------------------------------------------
Modular Cutter (w/Fuel Module)
Tons:50		Volume:700  		Price:22.3433	
Crew 2		Passengers(H/M):0/5	Passengers(L):0
Cargo:86	Controls:Std		Tech Level: 11
		Jump: 0
		G Rating/Maneuver: 2/Thrusters
		Power: 1.8
		Meson Screen
		Sandcasters
07 Size Rating                  00 Jump Rating
00 Fire Control Rating          01 G Rating / Thruster
00 Battery                      1.8 Power Plant Rating  
00 Battery                      .1 Fuel Rating (Radioactives)
                              19.5 Fuel Rating (Hydrogen) SR
00 Battery                      00 Meson Screen Rating
00 Battery                      00 Sand Caster Rating
00 Battery                      00 Damper Rating
00 Battery                      A.1 P.1 J0 Sensors TL11 Min
00 Battery
00 Battery                      10 Armor        3 Structure

Notes: The ship is a Streamlined Needle. The Fission power
plant carries enough radioactives for 4 months of operation.
The Fuel Module can scoop 19.5 tons of fuel in about 45 min, and
it takes 6 hours to purify this load.
- - -----------------------------------------------------------------
Modular Cutter (w/Cargo Module)

Tons:50		Volume:700  		Price:22.57918	
Crew 2		Passengers(H/M):0/5	Passengers(L):0
Cargo:491	Controls:Std		Tech Level: 11
		Jump: 0
		G Rating/Maneuver: 2/Thrusters
		Power: 1.8
		Meson Screen
		Sandcasters
07 Size Rating                  00 Jump Rating
00 Fire Control Rating          01 G Rating / Thruster
00 Battery                      1.8 Power Plant Rating  
00 Battery                      .1 Fuel Rating (Radioactives)
00 Battery                      00 Meson Screen Rating
00 Battery                      00 Sand Caster Rating
00 Battery                      00 Damper Rating
00 Battery                      A.1 P.1 J0 Sensors TL11 Min
00 Battery
00 Battery                      10 Armor        3 Structure

Notes: The ship is a Streamlined Needle. The Fission power
plant carries enough radioactives for 4 months of operation.

- - ----------------------------------------------------------------
Worksheet:
Item		Mass	Volume	Power	Price	
Hull  Internal	7.4	.74	-	.0066
Armor (20)       74	7.4	-	.05328
Airlocks (1)  	.2	3	.001	.005
Thrusters 2G  	50	25	25	6.25
Empty Socket	-	42	-	-
Controls	.028	.280	.02	.03
Min Sensors	11.2	24.6	16.29	13.16(Gives 3 comps, but small
craft only need 2)
		-1.4	-7	-.35	-2 ( Subtracted off the extra computer)
Life Support	.1	.1	.002	.006
Grav Comp	5.5	2.8	1	.14
Power Plant
45 MW Fission Plant (Actually 2 10MW plants and a 25MW plant)
		270	45	-	4.5
4 months of fuel	
		28.5	1.5	-	-
Workstations(2)	.4	14	-	.003
Cargo		86	86	-	0.012
5 Roomy Seats
		1	35	-	.0005
Totals:		511	280	+3	22.166

- - -----------------------------------------------------------------------
ATV Module
Hull Internal	8.8	.88	-	.00792
     Armor	88	8.8	-	.06336
Airlock	Uses the same airlock as the main body of the cutter.
Controls		.042	.42	.03	.045
Life Suport	.15	.15	.03	.009
Minimal Hanger for 14 displacement tons of vehicles
		78.4	392	-	.0784
Cargo		17	17	-	.012
Totals:		192.392	420	-.06	.21568 (Doesn't include ATV)
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cargo Module
Hull Internal	8.8	.88	-	.00792
       Armor	88	8.8	-	.06336
       Airlock	Uses the same airlock as the main body of the cutter.
Controls		.042	.42	.03	.045
Life Support	.15	.15	.03	.009
Grav Comp	8.4	4.2	2	.21
Cargo		405	405	-	.04
Totals:		510.392	420	-2.06	.4128	
- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuel Module
Hull Internal	8.8	.88	-	.00792
       Armor	88	8.8	-	.06336
       Airlock	Uses the same airlock as the main body of the cutter.
Controls		.042	.42	.03	.045
Life Support	.15	.15	.03	.009
Fuel  Scoops	-	-	-	.005265
Fuel Plant	245	122.85	1.911	.04641
(The fuel plant processes 273 m^3/6 hrs.)
( I had to make this one up, no plant in FFSL would fit)
Fuel		273	273	-	-
Totals:		614.992	407	-1.971	.176955
- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:11:06 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Size of Domain fleet

Edward Swatschek writes:
>TCS defines the yearly Naval budget of a world as Cr500 x Pop * 
>GovMult, with the GovMult ranging from 0.5 to 1.5.  10 times this 
>amount is how much you can spend on your initial fleet (based on 
>maintenence being 10% of the ship's cost per year).
> 
>I feel the numbers are more applicable to independant worlds, rather 
>than to the peacetime Imperium.  Member worlds leave the bulk of 
>navel defense to the Imperium, which doesn't spend nearly as much TCS 
>suggests.  

That is one possibility, of course. Note, however, that those Cr500 per
citizens works out at roughly 3% of the GPP (Gross Planetary Product)
as defined in _Striker_. And according to _Striker_ the maximum spending
in times of war is 15% of the GPP... 

>The Domain of Deneb has (very roughly) 3-5000 ships in it's 34 regular 
>fleets, perhaps a similar number in the reserve fleets.

I may be misremembering, but I think the figures I've seen somewhere (in
_Rebellion_ perhaps?) is that there are ~1000 fighting ships and ~1000
auxiliary vessels in a fleet. That would bring the number up to 34,000
fighting ships in the regular fleets and the same in the reserve fleets,
plus whatever strength there is in the four named fleets. And this says
about the size of those ships or about the strength of planetary defense
forces.
 

      Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
     rancke@diku.dk
- ------------
        "The referee should determine the nature of subsequent
         events based on the individual situation."
                                _76 Patrons_, p. 8

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:37:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@cs.umn.edu>
Subject: SSDS and Battle Rider

Jerry Alexandratos (That Computer Guy <darkstar@brahms.udel.edu>) wrote:

>I think that SSDS was pretty well proofread by all of us, and thus it
>should be okay.

The one thing I'd be careful around are the volume component figures.  
IMHO, the worst ship design problem that we've been dealing with from
MT and FF&S is that we have *two* volume units, the displacement ton
and the cubic meter (kiloliter).  We've already found one error in the
SSDS tables due to this -- hopefully the only one, but I'd check for
others.  One of the more annoying things about FF&S was how it would
change back and forth between displacement tons and cubic meters at 
the drop of a hat, from table to table. 


The second worst problem is probably the m-drive "displacement*10"
rule of thumb we've been using to determine ship acceleration.  It
only works if a ship has a density near 0.714 metric tons/m^3.  
Small ships with a lot of armor can mess this up badly.  This figure
tries to estimate final ship mass; the problem is that it is *hard*
to come up with an easy, user-friendly way to do this without 
designing the whole ship and tweaking the size of the maneuver 
drive afterward.  I don't know if there's a good way to make this
more "realistic" and keep it simple.  But this is a design issue,  
not a proofreading issue.

One neat thing is that SSDS can be used to quickly build starships
for _Battle Rider_.  Once ship design is complete, instead of making
a USD, you can use the rules in the back of _Battle Rider_ to make
_Battle Rider_ stats.  Am I the only person here who's noticed that
the USD Conversion Chart is the same as the one in _Battle Rider_,
but extended to *60*!?  Heck, this is cool just for BR fiends....

In fact, you can almost directly convert between a USD and stats
for _Battle Rider_.  The main stumbling block is converting the
weapons batteries correctly.  The USD figures give intensity in
the same figures as BR, with an assumed short range of 10 hexes.
However, in SSDS multiple weapons can be organized into permanent 
batteries that are considered *one weapon*, with a USD value which
is the something like the sum of the USD values of the components.  
In addition, the effect of overpowering gets added in somehow,
not considered separately as in TNE.  If armor works the same way
as TNE, this has obvious effects on combat; large ships and deep-
site meson guns may no longer be as invulnerable to laser turret
fire from permanent multiple-turret battery equipped ships.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:39:14 -0500
From: TPeterAZ@aol.com
Subject: Re: GA7 (long): The Rock

In a message dated 96-12-14 12:09:59 EST, Kenneth Bearden wrote:

> This made him a knight, and when he was killed in 1068,
>  the title passed on to his first born son

Kenneth,

I could be mistaken, but knight is almost never a hereditary title.  It must
be earned in every case of which I am aware.  I have always explained
characters who are "born" with a SOC of B as being children of nobles'
servants or liveried men.  The parent in service probably died, and the child
was brought up in the lords' household.  The rank of knight, and the title
sir, reflect the child's living primarily in the house of a noble, although
they are not truly of the noble class themselves.  BTW, I really like your
posts; just consider this a little constuctive criticism.


Tim Peter
<TPeterAZ@aol.com>
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, Ignorance."--- Socrates

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:39:19 -0500
From: TPeterAZ@aol.com
Subject: This whole "Starships Sucks" thread, and what's wrong with it

I cannot read another word of the Starships thread.  I don't have the book
yet, and frankly, my expectations have been lowered to the point where I am
likely to think it's not too bad, given what I'd read about it.  I have a far
more serious concern.  Namely, who gives a s***?

Why are we debating the quality of the Starships book, when there is little
to no campaign material in which to fly these designs?  Where is M:0?
 Shouldn't it have been a higher priority for the second release by IG than a
catalog of ship designs?  If IG wants to attract new customers, it needs to
be done with story.  Period.  Yeah, the Starships book, and CSC, will be
useful resources.  But consider what else is out there.  If I were a
20-year-old college student (*oh*, if I were a 20-year-old anything...) in
Tempe, going into my FLGS looking for a new SF RPG, I would probably (at
least) find copies of T4 and Fading Suns.  Let's see, T4 has this rulebook
without a whole lot of campaign material, and a book of ships and rules for
designing my own; Fading Suns has a rulebook with quite a lot of campaign
material, and a sourcebook called Byzantium Secundus, detailing an entire
world and the intrigues and adventures to be found there!  Hey, cool!  I'll
take Fading Suns.  I realize in the Good Ole Days, (or the Dark Ages,
depending on your POV) you put out three black books (or in T$R's experience,
a couple of Manuals) and people went out and created their own universe.  I
did.  You probably did.  But most kids today don't.  Not because "kids today"
are lazier, less intelligent, less motivated, less concerned.  (They aren't).
 They don't because they don't have to.  Look at how many BattleTech
supplements are on the shelf.  Or Star Wars.  Or SFB.  Or Shadowrun. Or (God
forbid) D&D.  Detailed, rich storylines that exist so the new player can get
rolling with a minimum of fuss.  I realize each of these systems has a longer
history than IG, so, naturally, they have had more time to fill those
shelves, but the same can't be said of Fading Suns.  And, it's not like
Traveller doesn't have a long, rich, detailed history of it's own.  Exploit
it as soon as possible to capture the hearts, minds, and imagination (not to
mention buying dollars) of young, new gamers, the ones who will keep the
company alive for us old farts.  The game will always live for us, but for
the sake of IG's success, forget Starships, and CSC, and QSDS, and RPSCS, et
al.  (No offense to those who created them.  I use RPSCS and SSDS
extensively.  They are wonderful rules additions that support my fifteen
years of campign materials).  Put out M:0, and M:1100, and M:TNE, and
M:Frontier Wars, and M:Rebellion, and all the rest, and put them out now.
 Draw on the talents of those who have gone before, and those who wouldn't be
designing games now if it weren't for Traveller, and return it to it's
rightful place as the premier SF RPG on the market.


Tim Peter
<TPeterAZ@aol.com>
"There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, Ignorance."--- Socrates

P.S. - Joe Walsh, I would appreciate it if you could forward this e-mail, in
whole or in part, to Courtney at IG.  Thanks.   

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:03:46 -0500
From: Michael Nutt <misha@crossrds.com>
Subject: Re: TCS construction times

Thad Coons wrote:
>Michael Nutt wrote:

>> Well, the TCS shipyard capacity numbers were directly proprtional to the
>> population of the manufacturing world. 

<snip>

>> So, in essence, you're proposing a rate proportional to population, as
well?  
>> I will concede that basing construction times
>> *solely* on displacement is probably an oversimplification... but it
>> seems a reasonable and workable approximation to me.

>My system would have industrial employees going up with the population
>(though not necessarily directly proportional), while TCS has shipyard
>tonnage directly proportional to the population. 

Hmmm... but how are you going to determine the number of "shipyard
production workers", to coin a phrase? Just by referee fiat?

>I think the biggest difference between what you are using and what I
>propose is that you are using a system based on the *tonnage* of a ship,
>while mine is based on the *cost*. Military vessels cost more than civilian
>vessels (weapons, armor), of the same tonnage and the cost goes up somewhat
>faster than the size. If the benefits go up faster than the cost, it's
>still economical, but it shouldn't be easy or cheap.

Well, I can see your point here, but the rate you mentioned earlier was
awfully darned slow, IMO ("1-2 MCr per hundred production workers per
month", as I recall). If it takes 100 guys 1 month to install one light
laser turret, then the shipyard must have hired them away from the Highway
Department, where eight guys stand around watching one guy swing a pick
every 60 seconds.  :)    I'd be much more inclined to cut a break for
civilian vessels on the time required.

However, I don't follow your last sentence quoted above... what "benefits"
are we talking about here?

>I guess it comes down to personal preferences, but I don't like the high
>construction rates that TCS can give you for heavy military craft. 

Whereas, to me, construction times of 3-5 years for military vessels seems
reasonable, with more expensive "crash programs" cutting that somewhat, and
the large numbers of ships that can be built just are a reflection of the
industrial might of the Third Imperium. YMMV.

Off this topic... I found a second copy of TCS up in my parents' attic this
weekend, so it the person who posted looking for it still wants one, email me.

Michael

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:47:05 -0100
From: rellio@po-box.mcgill.ca (Roderick Darroch Elliott)
Subject: Re: Unwise order of publication!

My fellow future jurist Volker A. Greimann wrote:

[snippage]
>
>I feel it would have been wiser to first publish the rules (as they
>did) and then directly the first Millieu /(which isn't even printed
>at this time) an RPG in this day and age needs a background and when
>the other information is still available on can wait reprinting them
>until the basics are out.
>
[more snippage]

        Hear hear...  It's kinda hard for a lot of people to do a decent,
flavourful campaign without a developed background to build on.  That was
the most glaring omission in the T4 rulebook, IMHO: little or no
background.

        I'm currently gearing up for a Milieu 0 campaign starting out of
Sylea... and will have to make most of Sylea up.  Not a problem, but it
just means I'll have to give out a more massive pregame handout than I
usually do.  Oh well.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:55:54 -0600
From: "David Blustein" <dtb@NASCRAG.ORG>
Subject: Re: Modular Cutter

Lewis Roberts wrote:

> Modular Cutter (w/ATV Module)
> Tons:  50     Volume:          700     Price:         22.3820
> Crew:  2      Passengers(H/M): 0/5     Passengers(L): 0
> Cargo: 103    Controls:        Std     Tech Level:    11


I took a look at the QSDS & SSDS again and finally figured out why 
the cargo numbers published in _T4_ & _Starships_ look really 
strange. They're in *cubic meters*!

T4 (page 96), and Starships (page 75) state that cargo capacity
should be given in displacement tons.


Someone needs to proof read the ships published in _T4_ & _Starships_ 
for similar small errors. (I would, but I'm kinda busy at the 
moment.)

Cheers,
     David
- -- 
David T. Blustein
http://www.nascrag.org./~dtb/
mailto:dtb@nascrag.org

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 18:05 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re:LONG-- Imperium Games, Starships, future products

In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.961213160446.949B-100000@localhost>

<< You all just should consider that books are sold to newcomers by 
first impressions.  Books without arts probably will sit like a duck in 
a shop and won't be moved.  Compare T4 to other current products (Feng 
Shui, Castle Falkenstein, even the older Underground and many others).  
They have a lot of color and they have a lot of art... and that's 
basically what you need on this stuffed market.  If nobody notices your 
product you are dead pretty soon. >>

I agree with this. Externally, T4 and Starships look very nice: black, 
with great, full colour pictures. A quick flip through shows clearly 
laid out text and more colour pix. Definitely a good-looking product.

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 18:05 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: [T96#748] Wierd Place Names

In-Reply-To: <199612150727.XAA16714@mail.inreach.com>

> > How about Two Egg, Florida? <g>
> 
> I once went through a ville  called Good Grief, Idaho. Population,
> according to the sign, was "three people and two dogs."

Love it! :-)

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 18:05 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: I'm not anti-Foss...I'm pro-Choice :-)

In-Reply-To: <32B3A6A6.6A6A@siscom.net>

<<    If I ran the circus....

   I would have went to Marvel Comics, or one of the smaller comics
houses, and recruited one of their younger artists to do some stuff for
me on a freelance basis.  Ideally, this person would be able to draw
stuff that at least comes close to the "Official Traveller Style" while
adding his or her own special flare to it.  When the 16-24 year old
crowd sees Traveller "featuring the art of Sam Smith" (or whatever) of
Malibu Comics, who has worked on X-Men, etc. and they recognize his
style, you've just made a sale, even if the kid buying it is only
vaguely interested in playing the game itself. >>

Hmm...might work. There's a lot of bad - or at best mediocre - art in 
comics, though. Sturgeon's Law applies. I suggested Jim Burns (IMHO 
*the* best SF artist) for the colour stuff, but either IG couldn't find 
him or Foss is cheaper :-)

Hey, look on the bright side - they could've got Giger!

    ---------=========oooooooooOOOOOOOOooooooooo=========---------
Andrew M J Boulton                  http://www.compulink.co.uk/~fubar/
 "Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste"

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:10:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Dane Johnson <danger@visi.com>
Subject: Testing...

Sorry for the test.  Stuff I send doesn't seem to be making
it to the list proper...

Dane

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 13:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Ship Design Formulas

Hi.

> From: Ernest N Rowland <erowland@ionet.net>

> I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I for one would prefer to
> see 2 pages of formulas rather than 18 pages of tables.  Maybe with some
> samples so I know that I am computing things correctly.

Have you ever seen CT Book 5, High Guard? It had a four page 5.5 by 8.5
inch pull out in the middle (equivalent to two pages of 8.5 by 11
inches) which pretty much let you design any ship between 10 and 1
million tons. (Well, you had to keep in your head a few small rules
about bridges and fuel purification plants.)

Someone said here last week that the old High Guard rules were broken.
Quite frankly, I don't see how they were in any way inferior to SSDS.
They certainly weren't any less "realistic" (whatever that means in this
context). They gave you fewer options in types of lasers (four types,
instead of the scads of laser types you get in SSDS), but gave you
more meson guns and particle accellerators. And I'm not sure that having
umpteen different lasers to choose from really adds that much to the game.

And using High Guard, I can crank out a ship design in 5 minutes.

Sure, the space combat system was too abstract for role-playing (it was
meant for fleet battles). But the design system was a whole lot easier
to use, and the ships that resulted were in no way inferior for
role-playning than what we've got now.

Well, that's the end of this quarterly pro-High-Guard rant.

	-Rob, the High Guard guy.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:21:38 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <kc@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: Is T4 Innovative? 

> I ask the question, "is T4 innovative?" because I'm trying to think
> of some aspect of the game that is not just a recycling of something
> else.  Could the truly hardcore fans of T4 among us list those things
> that T4 does that have never been done before, or are being done in a
> unique way?  I was discussing T4 with a friend, and came up empty.

Not really.But as the K'kree (and probably the Vilani) might say, 
innovation doesn't necessarily mean better. T4 is an attempt to take the 
original CT rules, and update and modernize them.

I have to say for all the flak IG has taken for their production values, 
I'm very excited about T4 because of these new rules. They've changed all 
of the things I had problems with in the original Traveller, and left alone 
all the things I loved about it.

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

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:30:03 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: RE: Is T4 Innovative? 

On 16 Dec 96 at 11:17, Rob Brennan wrote:


> 1. I think the task system is a good compromise between
> the (reputed) complexity of MT and the dated CT system.

I didn't think MT was complex at all.  In fact, I found it easy to 
master and with just the right amount of detail.

CT was like old D&D--looking at table after table for modifiers.  I'm 
glad they changed.

I do think T4 is the best task system yet for Traveller, but the 
original post was talking about innovative.  I haven't seen anything 
in T4 that just blew my socks off.  I mean, T4 has a good system, but 
it does not do anything that I haven't seen in another RPG.  Adding 
skill and attribute is an old system.  James Bond used a system like 
this.

> I know the difficulties are a bit off but this will suit a more
> heroic style of game and is easily fixed by those of us that
> prefer more grit under our fingernails

Then use one of the fixes.  I, of course, use the KBv.1.1 task system.


> 4. T4 seems to have succeeded in finding common ground amongst
> traveller players - a few months ago we couldn't even have a unified list.

True.  If you look through all the griping, you find dedicated people just 
wanting Traveller to be the best it can be.

> 5. I think the char gen succeeds in unifying the old advanced/basic
> systems so that there is no longer a 2-tier system of character types.

Me too!  My 4 year characters can now compete with my 1 year 
characters.

> 6. <Warning, I'm going to mention Chris Foss, please skip this point if 
> you're easilly offended>  The production value of the game is much higher
> than any previous version of trav.  There has never been so much good
> art in a trav product and the use of full-colour spread through the basic book
> is unequalled in any previous incarnation.


Even though I don't like much of the Foss art, I have to agree with 
you here.  Just compare your T4 book with any of the old books, and 
it looks a lot better.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:30:03 +0000
From: "Kenneth Bearden" <dreamer@brokersys.com>
Subject: Re: GA7 (long): The Rock

On 16 Dec 96 at 12:39, TPeterAZ@aol.com wrote:


> I could be mistaken, but knight is almost never a hereditary title.  It must
> be earned in every case of which I am aware. 

This is not true.  Usually, the title must be earned, but I ready 
every source that I had on Traveller nobles when I put this backstory 
together (because you are about to see some more of them in future 
posts).  What I got from it, reading between the lines, is that the 
Imperium is so big that anything goes.

It depends on the specific order, at least that's how I'm playing it. 
 Over 90% of the knight titiles cannot be transfered like this, but I 
put Frank into one of the few that could.

There is no where that specifically states this in the rules.  It is 
just the feeling I got throught the tone of the various noble 
articles I read.

Another thing that prompted me to do this was an aritcle in the JTAS 
(I think it was JTAS).  It said that, during character generation, if 
you roll an 11 or 12 for the first unmodified SOC role, then your 
character obtained the title either from birth or at an early age.  
This was true for the Frank character.

The article also said that if modifiers put the character in the 
noble bracket later in character generation, then that would 
approximate the time in his life that he received the title.

This article was one of the main reasons that I described Frank's 
title so.  Before I read it, I would have agreed 100% with your 
comment.

>  BTW, I really like your
> posts; just consider this a little constuctive criticism.

Thanks Tim.  I welcome your comments.

Kenneth.

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:28:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff Brawley <brawleyj@UWSTOUT.EDU>
Subject: RCES LBD

I was wondering what TL the Light Battle Dress was.  The stuff that has no
mobility and initiative penalities, with AV 6.  It doesn't say what TL it is
in the RCEG.  

I also wanted to know if any of you that play CT, or MT had any ideas on why
the laser rifles in those two games have penetration values, while in TNE
the penetration on laser rifles is nil.  I don't have any of the CT or MT
books so I can't say for sure that they do have pen values, but my GM does.
We've wondered why there is this disparity.

Also, to you jump guru's out there is there any rules laid down as to how a
micro-jump works??  I hear about or see them pop up on the list every once
in a while, but there are no rules for them in MT:TNE.  Please fill me in.

one last thing.  

The fuel used by all the starships is liquid hydrogen.  But to my
understanding it takes great pressure, or very cold temperatures to keep
hydrogen liquid.  How is this done.  It always says in the rule books that
it's just liquid hydrogen, but never details the container/tanks/or freezers
that it would have to be kept in.  Would it be in pressurized tanks, like
liquid nitrogen or liquid oxygen??

thanks in advance.

Jeff

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

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 12:29:25 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <kc@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: An idea for presentation/future books etc...

     >How about making future T4 books (including reprintings of T4 and
     >Starships books) ring-punched, and sell ring binders complete with
     >gorgeous looking colour plates to those that *want* expensive looking 
     >art. Those that don't, can use ordinary ring binders (this is market
     >segmentation or 2-part pricing for any economists out there).

The problem is, how many additional sales would IG realize from the cheap 
versions, and would these additional sales more than make up for the 
production costs of producing two different versions.

I really don't think there are very many people would would buy a $20 book, 
but not a $25 one (and lets get realistic about how much a few colour 
prints adds to the price of a book).

As well, much has been said about how Traveller needs to "look" good on the 
store shelf to attract new players. I wholeheartedly agree with this 
sentement, and I really can't see a game in a 3-ring binder as anything 
other than really, really cheap.

     >The advantage of this is that IG could periodically update a
     >consolidated index that refers throughout the entire body of work,
     >making T4 a new standard in gamer-friendliness and usefulness.
     >Cynically, this would also induce people to 'complete' their
     >collection, because the holes would be bleedingly obvious...but 
that's
     >just basic marketing.

	This idea sounds a heck of a lot like Star Fleet Battles - a model I 
really don't think should be followed.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #761
**********************************

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".
