From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Wed Dec 18 18:11:56 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from mrin09.mail.aol.com (mrin09.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.101]) by emin40.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA23667; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:11:50 -0500
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by mrin09.mail.aol.com (8.7.6/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA20188; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:02:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id SAA24699; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:01:57 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:01:10 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id SAA24623 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:01:09 -0500
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 18:01:09 -0500
Message-Id: <199612182301.SAA24623@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #771
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest    Wednesday, December 18 1996    Volume 1996 : Number 771



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: Starship construction figures
Re: Hull Shapes...
Re: An opinion and a question...
Re: kEwL!!! a FlAmE wAr!!!!!!
T4 Better?/T4 Roots
Ken Whitman's "Advice"
RE: starships, Lab ship error
Re: T4 the Best?
Re: SSDS FSY Caligula-class 1000Td megayacht
Traveller: Tastes Good, Hard to Digest
Re: Ken Whitman's "Advice"
Re: Ken Whitman
Re: Starship construction
Re: Ken Whitman's "Advice"
RE: But It Doesn't Look The Way _I_ Want It...

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:21:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: Starship construction figures

Hi.

> From: Thad Coons <104765.503@compuserve.com>

> I just went through the TL-15 ships in MT Fighting Ships of the Imperium,
> and it appears that the average cost used in TCS is a truly gross
> oversimplification. Among TL-15 ships, Tankers cost around .1-.2 MCr/T;

TCS does not use nor give an average cost per ton. Such averages will vary
from campaign to campaign; but there will be /some/ average in every
campaign.

- -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:49:42 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Hull Shapes...

Dane Johnson wrote:
> 
> Something has been bugging me for awhile about the ship design sequences:
> I haven't been able to find where the hull configurations are actually
> described anywhere.  Either I'm not looking hard enough/in the right
> spots, or it's "obvious" and I'm just being dense.  At any rate, here's my
> stab at what I think they are supposed to be:
>
> (#1-6) descriptions deleted

correct, more or less

> 7.  Open Structure -- Any sort of weird splayed-out shape, like the
> Enterprise.

NO! The original Enterprise would be probably classified as a cylinder.
Just because it has warp nacelles tacked on, doesn't make it an open
structure, imho.

An Open Structure means an open *framework* with no enclosing outer hull
covering the entire thing. There may be enclosed parts, but an open
structure means the framework is on the *outside*. Like the proposed
space station Freedom, forex.

> I admit that these are guesses.  Am I even half right?  Does anybody have
> better examples for the shapes?  Or a pointer to where they are described?

More than half. They're described more fully in earlier Traveller
rulesystems. Remember that the hull shape is a description of the
structural design and shape, and isn't necessesarily immediately obvious
from the outside.

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========
     Examine what is said, not him who speaks. - Arab Proverb

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 12:53:46 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: An opinion and a question...

Dane Johnson wrote:
> 
> First, A Question:
> 
> I'm going to be working on some deckplans of my own.  I've settled on a
> 1.5m grid.  I'm trying to decide how "deep" these squares should be and
> I've pretty much decided on 4m, which gives me 2.5m height for hallways
> and rooms while leaving 1.5m for decking, conduits, and the like.  This
> means each square will be 9m^3.  Does this seem reasonable, or is there a
> different/better convention I can use?

The standard used in CT-MT deckplans (albeit inconsistantly...) is:

2 "squares" == 1 Displacement ton.
1.5 x 1.5 x 3 = 6.75 cubic m = 1/2 Displacement Ton

That is, a 1.5 sqare meter deckpan with 3m of height. The 3 m includes
decking, conduits, et. al. Remember, you're allowed +/- 20% leeway when
drawing plans for access corridors etc.

The equivalency to the displacement ton was useful back in the days when
everything was measured in tons, it's easier to mentally juggle those
numbers and count squares. I can't recall off the top of my head whether
13.5 cu. m is still 1 disp. ton, or if it's been rounded to 14 cu. m.
Regardless, when I make deckplans I use 2 "squares" = 1 ton.

<soapbox> stuff deleted.

Good summary. This flame stuff is getting waaaayy outta hand.

<Nicholson as prez> Can't we all just get along? </Nicholson>

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========
     Examine what is said, not him who speaks. - Arab Proverb

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 13:31:55 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: kEwL!!! a FlAmE wAr!!!!!!

Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:
> 
> ...ahem...
> 
<unspeakable anklebyterness deleted for bandwidth...>

ROFLMAO---------*

> I'm going to go disinfect and exorcise my keyboard now, and then go
> to sleep and pretend that Digest #767 never happened...

I read Ken W.'s post last night and thought, "hmmm... interesting
viewpoint." I didn't agree, but I had no idea so many would take it
personally... I was happy to see that KW really cared about Traveller,
for a sec. I thought he just "flitted in and moved on..."

And cut Kenneth B. some slack, eh? He just wanted to check in and see if
his idea of what looked and didn't look like a Traveller ship jibed with
other's view. His intent was not malicious.

<after staying firm for so long, Glenn bites the bullet and wades into
the art controversy vis-a-vis Foss>

Chris Foss draws well. He makes interesting use of perspective. He's
(relatively) popular and famous in mainstream sf. Trav's use of him was
probably a good thing, if IG wanted to attract new players.

Personally though, I don't like the way he draws _my_ Traveller ships.
Though I sometimes like the surface stuff, I've never liked the
retro-cliche'd high-school mag-wheeled roadster style when it comes to
vehicles and starships. And everything's too big. So what? That's just
me. I have tons of books with neet-o pix by other artists, who have been
mentioned a lot already, in MY minds-eye those are still traveller
vessels.

I'll admire Chris' work, and then ignore it.

Why get so worked up about it? If it sells Traveller, that's good. If it
doesn't, well, IG should find someone else.

But everyone has the right to say whether they like it or not.

My next post will be constructive criticism on why IG needs better art
direction. (To me it seems they haven't had any)

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========
     Examine what is said, not him who speaks. - Arab Proverb

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:37:48 -0900
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com>
Subject: T4 Better?/T4 Roots

>On 17 Dec 96 at 10:38, William F. Hostman wrote:
>
>> Once again, Kenneth and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum.
>
>Ahh, it can't be that bad, can it?

Ok, towards different ends of the spectrum. Hyperbole for illustration.

>I really liked MT, but I think T4 is a tincy wincy bit better.  Heck,
>it's going back to its roots!

I don't think so. IMO, traveller's roots have always been grand panoramic
empire as backdrop; a common thread amongst much early (and late) 70's Sci
Fi. TNE, T4: both have small, multiple, minor (but expanding) powers are
NOT the same.

The Shattered Imperium was still a group of large enough blocks that within
each block you had the classic backdrop; you could also easily use it for
the classic era. But that's still "semi-fluff".

T4 just has the worng systemic feel. it doen't feel like traveller. It
makes quite different assumptions about careers than MT/CT. MT was CT with
a Task system, the gap between basic and advanced c-gen narrowed, and
striker and high guard integrated. T4 is mechanically incompatable with
CT/MT. HG vessels could be used (although not built) in MT with NO
conversions (the USP values are identical). T4 is closer to CT than TNE,
but still is a revision of TNE in the hardware department, and CGen
department.

[snip]
>Probably.  DGP is by far the best producer of Traveller products that
>I've ever seen.
>
>And, to produce quality Traveller material, it should be more than a
>job.
>
>I'd love it if I did that for a living.

So would I. Hell, so would Rodger Sanger of DGP [in the traveller aspects].
But Marc and Sweat Pea have closed that door, or so it looks.

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 10:51:41 -0900
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@lunatic.asylumbbs.com>
Subject: Ken Whitman's "Advice"

>>
>>...If you can's say anything nice, dont say anything at all.
>
>   The day this list resorts to Politically Correct speech is the day I
>will unsubscribe myself from it, permanently.

As will I. And suggest same to anyone I know. And also, probably NEVER buy
another item with Mr. Whitman's name on it. As for that last, his advocacy
of censorship tempts me now.

>>How you react may deternine the future of this game, and if you dont care
>>about this game, then maybe you should find a game that means alot to you
>>and find that maining list.
>
>   Don't put the weight of Traveller's failure or success on our
>shoulder's Ken.  Because if Traveller can be killed by our little group
>of electronic know-it-alls, then it was going to die anyway.

It was dieing. Slowly, oh so slowly.  But will t4 resurect the traveller
that some of us loved, or the TNE that others loved?

*N*O*!*. It must build upon it's own foundations, as, like TNE, it's too
different from CT/MT to be played the same.

one last thjought: censorship, imposed or customary, self or external, is
the death of what we call freedom. I'm not talking about "naughty words";
censorship is about IDEAS. Mr Whitman has asked us to keep our thoughts to
ourselves; had we done that, would Marc Miller have even tried to do t4?

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:57:00 -0500
From: Bill Prankard <BPRANKARD@theiia.org>
Subject: RE: starships, Lab ship error

from TML #770 Bruce Allen McIntosh said...

>>First the curled fins gotta go. [on the lab ship]

>The lab ship (as designed) isn't even streamlined, for god's sake - why
>does it need *fins*?

>I suppose my entry for the explain-the-artwork contest would be to suggest
>that the "fins" are actually the folding passive sensor array, unfolded.

Yeah, the fins ao that thing ARE wierd, and maybe they are the folding 
sensors :)

Having being the first time i posted anything bout starships in the list, I 
wanted just to point out something not pertaining to "art" or 
"Travelleresqueness".

Many have been wondering about typos, well I found one for the LAb ship, the 
structure is 1! this would mean that this thing would fly appart at the 
slightest nudge, but it is in error(thankfully)

I looked up the USP conversion for a ship that size (400tons) at 1g 
acceleration.  Looking on the sheet 400+ has a rate of 9 (correct me if im 
wrong, i am at work right now and do not realt have the book in front of me! 
:)  )

Another thing I wondered about was the fighter style of sensor packages, I 
looked eveywhere for a package with 5A 2P 2J but all i found were military 
versions with 10A 5P 5J.

I aleviated this easily enough, I created the "Military-Small" sensor 
package, i basicaly halved all values of the stadard military sensor 
package, it's fudging i know, but it works for now.

If you want some cool designs made using QSDS/SSDS, designs they way the 
were MENT to be made, visit my site at www.magicnet.net/~opp-mag  (choose 
Planet X main option) .  Most are small fast military ships that will kill 
anything Cleon has to offer!
Honestly, I tested them myself! :)

well thats enough for my rants, raves, and of course my plug!

From the ISS Forutne and Glory
KEEP THE FLAME!

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:06:52 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Flammang <FLAMMANG@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Subject: Re: T4 the Best?

Is T4 the best? A tough question to answer now. Will it be the best?
It better! There's not much point to making a new game if its not better
than the old ones.

Lets compare the games on an equal footing; lets compare them with what
they had a few months after they first came out.

CT: The first three LBB's (Little Black Books) contained very little
compared to what we have today, but they did hold the nucleus of what
was to become Traveller: A radically different kind of character
creation system, a world creation system, and an idea of what science
fiction gaming should be all about. Every version of Trav since then has
held this same nucleus (except perhaps for TNE). There was practically
no background; the words "Imperium" or "empire" were not in these rules.
There was a vague inference of some kind of laissez-faire interstellar
government, or convention, mention of piracy, tramp freighters, and
marines who used swords alot more than we do today.

MT: The three BCB's (Big Colorful Books) contained everything that the
LBB's had (except for a SIMPLE starship construction system) and about
a million typos, bugs, and bad rules to boot. Nice task system tho.
The game was basically unplayable unless you already had the LBB's
or knew someone who did. Background info was GREAT, basically all of it
taken from late CT; the only new stuff was of limited interest
(rebellion, rebellion, rebellion and then some rebellion).

TNE: No comment, except that starships rules got even more complicated,
and they ejected the above-mentioned "nucleus" of Trav.

T4: The BGBB (Big Glossy Black Book) contained everything the LBB's did
(except, yet again, for a SIMPLE starship construction system), but with
updated and much improved (IMHO) combat systems. LOTS more background
than the LBB's, not nearly as much as MT, but most of it is new this
time. A new and easy to use experience system, no book-keeping
necessary! RELATIVELY few unexplained assumptions in the rules (a curse
of every Trav release so far). A fun and exciting starship combat
system, especially with the role-playing modifications found on
Wildstar's website. "Starships" was a disappointment tho, but not a
catastrophic one. I'm still glad I bought it (but then I can afford it).

So it's still hard to tell. Is T4 the best? It may yet be; it has
weaknesses, but then so did its "competitors".

- -Rob

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 14:10:36 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pill.pharm.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: SSDS FSY Caligula-class 1000Td megayacht

<Excellent ship design snipped>

THAT is what I meant by descriptive prose! Good ship design, Roderick!!
Now if we can get a few more of these in the list to quell the flames,
maybe this list'll be useful again! (yeah, yeah, yea...I know, get off yer
butt Johnson and do one yourself!)



Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:15:33 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Traveller: Tastes Good, Hard to Digest

Well I've been silent too long. I've avoided criticizing, because I
thought there was far too much on this list already. But I think I have
some useful thoughts and constructive criticism that hasn't been wholly
addressed, and if ImperiumGames languished and Traveller died because I
didn't speak up...

well, I just wouldn't forgive myself.

Onward!

Because of what I've been hearing on the TML, I likely won't buy
Starships. From the descriptions I've heard, I know I won't like it. If
IG goes bankrupt because *I* didn't buy starships, I'll be sad. But I
won't blame myself or this list. I made an informed choice.

Information is good. It works both ways. Next product IG makes will be
better, because so many disliked Starships.

What *I* look for in a good game product:

1. Useful information

Depending on the type of book, Useful Info means game mechanics
("rules")  and/or background. I personally believe that adventure plots
belong in adventure supplements and not rulebooks.

Starships I've heard, has very small useful info:page count ratio.

EXAMPLES: I thought those small "mini-supplements" put out by GDW were
great. Forex, the Diaspora one. Lots of information deatailing changes
in the sector, and little library data tidbits that stimulated the
imagination. I think IG should put out one of these for each sector in
its milieu. Start with Sylea: Milieu 0, then move on to Vland: Milieu 0,
Spinward Marches: Milieu 500, Solomani Rim: Milieu 1000, etc etc...

2. Accuracy and well thought out diagrams (and art too)

The point that kills my desire for Starships. From what I've heard, The
deckplan's *suck*. I don't want a book of pretty pictures, I want
useful, well thought out deckplans.

EXAMPLES: DGP's alien modules. Illustrations in the modules related to
the text, and gave the "flavour" of each race's setting. Stellar maps
gave loads of detail without looking cluttered.

3. Intelligently laid out and organized, with an eye to ergonomics

That is: *serf text* is for reading lots of copy, *Helvetica* is for
tables of numbers and labels. *Chunk* things more for goodness sakes, I
hate wading through uninteresting-looking mounds of body copy. DGP
products had great art direction and layout. Most T$R (shudder) products
are relatively good at "chunking" and organized, intelligent layout.

The T4 rulebook was seriously negligent in this respect. The best part
was the career tables! They had some organization and consistancy.

EXAMPLES: The much maligned little black books were excellent for
gaming. They could be laid out flat. They were small enough so that if
you're looking for a specific piece of data, you knew where to look,
quickly.

- ------------------
My Recommendation:

IG needs an Art Director. I don't think they had a *real* Art Director
working on T4. A good Art Director has some knowledge of typography and
layout. S/He knows what is easy to read and how to communicate
effectively. S/He knows the difference between effective and
constructive art, which *enhances* the text, helps illustrate a point,
or provides setting and background for the information presented, and
pure "fluff".

A good Art Director isn't _just_ an artist. In fact, an Art Director
doesn't even _have_ to be an artist! (just look at me :-) But an Art
Director knows the art must serve a purpose.

FACT: It has been *proven* that serif typefaces are easier to read for
long body copy. Why make a rulebook that's hard to read?

FACT: It has been *proven* that black type on a white background is
easiest to read. The Macintosh platform was designed to be black text on
white because the designers knew this! Microsquish figgured it out too. 

There's no point in trying to *simulate* a computer in print, or to
simulate outer space. It's a book, darnit! It won't work! Does NASA
print out orbital plots of the Space Shuttle white on black? (BTW I
*hated* the way weapons and equipment were presented in TNE rulebooks.
What a waste of ink and space, trying to simulate a "computer terminal".
Tacky. Corny. DGP did it WAY better with well laid out 1 page per
equipment sheets.)

I admit that it (white on black) may work if colour is used
intelligently, and/or for a specific purpose. The aforementioned
Diaspora map, was on black cardboard stock and was colour coded. In
DGP's Traveller Digest #3 there was a pull-out wall map, white on black,
of the Domain of Deneb. It looked cool.

Note in both those exceptions: The map was separate from the product!
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It is "jarring" to read a book and *wham* white on black. Epecially when
the world dots have tacky grayscale blends that add nothing to the
design.

I'm not slamming all of T4 by my points above. Some of the art in the
rulebook had a purpose, the b&w art wasn't too bad, as far as giving
setting and "feel" to the rules. Obviously, the Cris Foss stuff, being
recycled, wasn't specifically designed for Traveller, but if it attracts
people to the book, it's good. It could have been better placed, tho'.

The cumbersome grammar, poor organization and poor subdividing of info,
distracting colour plate interruptions, and goddawful typography, made
the rulebook a *chore* to read. In the past, I've read every Traveller
thing I bought cover-to-cover. I was literally unable (unwilling) to do
it in this case.

>From what I managed to read, the rules seemed pretty good. Some minor
quibbles, but the "vision" of Traveller has improved, IMHO. I like
Traveller's direction in terms of setting. I like the emphasis on
historical milieux, good roleplaying (as opposed to wargaming), Marc and
IG's attitude that *we* as Traveller fans, have something to contribute.
eg. the ship design systems and ships, relative lassiez-faire attitude
towards fan fiction and copyright compared to T$R...

To summarize:

I like Traveller.

It tastes good, but at this point it's hard to Digest.

(pun intended)

IG needs to worry about "glitz", yes. But they should worry *even more*
about content and usability.

- -- 
===== Glenn Hoppe =====\ /--- MailTo:jumpspace@geocities.com ----
\ . . Enter Jumpspace --X-> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8275 \
 ----------------------/ \========== Eschew Obfuscation ==========
     Examine what is said, not him who speaks. - Arab Proverb

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:38:14 -0500
From: whitman@pensys.com (Ken Whitman)
Subject: Re: Ken Whitman's "Advice"

Dear Traveller Fans,

WOW! What some of you think about my last post reminds me of the game where
you tell someone a sentance and 10 people latter it is a new different
sentance.

I do not know where any of you got the notion I was trying to take away
anyones fredom of speach.  My last post ask that we use TACT in out
cretiques so we do not loose newbies off this service.

The"if you cant say anything nice..." quote was simply meaning "Say it in a
more tactful way."

Sorry for the confusion,

Ken Whitman

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 15:38:10 -0500
From: whitman@pensys.com (Ken Whitman)
Subject: Re: Ken Whitman

I think everything you stated in your letter to me was correct.-)  I do not
expect people not to stop stating bad stuff, the last thing I want to see
is yes men (yuck).  I was just really worried about the new guys seeing on
going threads that say the same things over and over.

Thanx for your letter, I'm sure we all post things we regret latter, and
why do we do it?  Because we care about Traveller and want it to grow up
and be the best it can be (kindda like raising children).

I think your post (like mine) are sometimes emotional post.  I it great
however, to here a good though out logical cretique (like the post you just
sent me.

Hope to here from you more,

Ken Whitman

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 23:24:20 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Starship construction

Thad Coons writes:
>Hans replies
>>>Military vessels cost more than civilian vessels (weapons, armor), of
>>>the same tonnage and the cost goes up somewhat faster than the size. 
> 
>>Not in Classic Traveller (I never got comfortable with Megatraveller
>>designs and FF&S, so it's possible that things are different under
>>them). Small ships cost ~0.75 MCr per ton, big ships cost ~0.5 to 
>>0.75 MCr per ton. 
> 
>If you insist on using CT rules, you are perfectly free to do so: I was
>just trying to propose an alternative for those who don't. 

Hey, feel free. If you can come up with something that works better than
what we have at the moment then more power to you. The only thing I ask
is that you keep it consistent and at least semi-plausible. Not necessarily
realistic, but at least consistent. That means that if starship construction
works in one way for the Imperials then it should work the same way for
Vargr and Aslans.

>Maybe in CT,  military ships don't cost more than civilian types, but there 
>I think there's ample reason to believe they ought to.

Of course military ships are more expensive than civilian ships; that wasn't
what I commented on. It was the next sentence, the one just before my
comment. Large military ships tend to be slightly cheaper than smaller
military ships undet CT.

>>>I don't like the high construction rates that TCS can give you for
>>>heavy military craft. 
> 
>>However those are the ones we have to work with.
> 
> We??  Have to??  I'm not saying anybody has to use anything.

And neither did I, I said that those are the ones we have, at the moment.
The ones we have (pause) to work with. Those are the only official rules 
we have on the subject. You can use whatever rules you want, but those 
wouldn't be the Traveller rules, now would it?

Of course, if you can demonstrate that the Traveller rules don't make sense 
and provide some that do make sense, then I'll be delighted to use those in 
our arguments.

>>In one example that I worked out I had Mikesh building 2600 Sloan 
>>Class escorts in 72 weeks (and starting on ~2300 more), 1250 20,000 T
>>cruisers in 87 weeks (and starting on ~1100 more), and 220 200,000 T
>>Plankwell Class Dreadnaughts in 112 weeks. That is with construction
>>bonuses for class ships and overtime payments according to the rules.
> 
>That's exactly what I'm talking about. IMO, those rates are unrealistically
>high for a single world, and ought to be about a tenth that. 

The big problem I have with that statement is that you're talking about 'a 
world' as if all worlds are equal. They are undoubtely high for a medium 
population world, and they are also high for a normal high-population world, 
but Mikesh is a world with 60 billion inhabitants. That's actually the crux
of the argument.

Or are you saying that Mikesh should be able to build and support all those
ships, all right, but that they shouldn't be able to do it so fast? That it
should take 22 years to build a 200,000 T ship rather than 2.2 years? If
you are, are you basing that on anything more than a feeling? Does this
ten times factor also apply to 20,000 T ships and to 5,000 T ships? What
about 100 T ships? Should they take 200-400 weeks to build rather than the
20-40 weeks the rules says it takes? Do you have any real-world figures 
that support this?

>IMO, The heaviest battleships the imperium can build should be roughly
>comparable to WWII battleships or modern nuclear aircraft carriers.

The biggest battleship building nations on Earth during WWII had a
population level of 8. The Imperium has scores of worlds with a population
level of 10. You don't think that would make a difference?

>There are only a few of them, and once lost, they can't be replaced
>overnight. Maybe only one or two worlds in an entire sector can even build
>the biggest ones at all.

But the ones that would be defended way past the ability of any Vargr
corsair alliance to defeat are precisely the ones that will be able to build
the biggest ships. Besides, it dosen't really matter. If the Imperial planets
can't build big ships then the Vargr can't either. So Mikesh will just build 
that many more 20,000 T ships. I don't really care what rules you use, but I
do insist that you apply them equally to both sides.



      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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:15:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Bolie Williams IV <bolie@io.com>
Subject: Re: Ken Whitman's "Advice"

This list sure spends a lot of time talking about whether or not T4
sucks.  I like reading the ship designs and some of the history posts.
Mostly, I'm interested in the Traveller universe.  Secondly, I'm
interested in the tech.  I last played Classic Traveller and I liked
all the star maps and world descriptions.  If I could get one thing
from the new Traveller, it would be a richly detailed Imperium and
surroundings.  I don't care so much about the rules (I use GURPS) or
the ships, though it's nice to have some designs to go with...

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, William F. Hostman wrote:
> one last thjought: censorship, imposed or customary, self or external, is
> the death of what we call freedom. I'm not talking about "naughty words";
> censorship is about IDEAS. Mr Whitman has asked us to keep our thoughts to
> ourselves; had we done that, would Marc Miller have even tried to do t4?

While externally imposed censorship is a bad thing, self-imposed is a
good and necessary thing.  I certainly hope that everyone on this list
decides what to and not to say.  Self-censorship is nice because it allows
you to choose what to say and not say.  I think of a lot of things that
it would be a bad idea to say or which would be a waste of time to talk
about and I censor those things.

Bolie IV


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

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

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 1996 16:51:30 -0600
From: "K.C. Komosky" <kc@mb.sympatico.ca>
Subject: RE: But It Doesn't Look The Way _I_ Want It...

>> Okay, I was with you up to here Kenneth. If something would cost IG a 
lot
>> of money, that equals higher retail prices, which WILL effect wether 
there
>> is a market for it.

>Well, that is the type of cop-out crap that I'm talking about.  If
>there is a market for it, then it will be bought.  IG will have to
>make a decision whether they can make money on the idea.

	I do agree with the sentiments you're expressing here. I was more replying 
to your previous statement that you disregard any statement that says "such 
and such is too expensive".

	Obviously, cost is a factor, but certainly not the only factor. I think we 
can all agree on that.

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

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #771
**********************************

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".
