From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Fri Dec 20 13:55:53 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin12.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id NAA05125; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:55:39 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id NAA04310; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:52:18 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:51:08 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id NAA04121 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:51:07 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:51:07 -0500
Message-Id: <199612201851.NAA04121@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #778
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest      Friday, December 20 1996      Volume 1996 : Number 778



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Major Alien Races
Re: Deckplan talk
Re: HG ship construction
Uncle Cleon, the taxman...
Re: Niven correction 
Re: Starship Construction
Contact List
Re: Jumpspace and Psionics
MUDSHARK Modified Free Trader
Re: Jumpspace and Psionics
Re: SSDS FSY Crescent-class C/SIS
Re: CORE: ADVANCED CHARACTER GENERATION - Tell Us All!
Jump Drive query
Re: Jump Drive query
Good Grief, Idaho
RE: starships, Lab ship error
Re: Deckplans for T4 supplement
Re: Deckplans for T4 supplement
Re: Hull Shapes...
Re: Gazelle class Close Escort

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:48:10 +0000
From: Andy Lilly <a.s.lilly@nortel.co.uk>
Subject: Major Alien Races

"Peter J. Miller" <PeterMiller@youngmerlin.com> said:
>Sounds like ALiens in better than Starships.  But, it doesn't have other
>major races' stats in it?  We can't play them yet?  I was under the
>impression that major races stats would be in it?

No. The major races will be (or are certainly intended to be) detailed one
at a time as they are (re)discovered over the Milieux. That was my
understanding from discussions with Imperium Games.

Andy :-)

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 07:59:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Lan Kelly <CyberWere@ConnectI.com>
Subject: Re: Deckplan talk

At 20:03 12/18/96 -0500, Eris wrote:


>
>ps.  What's the abbreviation for stere...st? <g>


Cu m :-)
LAN


Lan Kelly       CyberWere@ ConnectI.com      San Antonio, Texas
***********
"Good Times, Deeyenda" = verbigeration
 n. the constant or obsessive repetition of meaningless words or phrases, as
in mental illness. 

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:38:12 -0500
From: Michael Nutt <misha@crossrds.com>
Subject: Re: HG ship construction

Bruce Alan Macintosh writes:

>Michael Nutt writes

>>Where am I going with all this? Well, contrary to the canonical "Fighting
>>Ships"... I don't think the Imperium *ought* to build big DNs at all. At J3
>>a wonderfully capable CA can be built on 40 ktons, and at J4, an
>>equivalently capable ship can be built on about 70 ktons. Anything bigger
>>should be an auxiliary of some sort, a CVA or tanker or troop transport, for
>>instance. Bigger is *not* better, and is demonstrably worse, IMO. Packing
>>more stuff inside a bigger hull just gives you more stuff to be destroyed by
>>a meson gun hit, that's all. Your best defense is giving the enemy more
>>hulls to shoot at than he's got meson guns to shoot with.
>
>This is, of course, one of the classic High Guard design arguments (and one
of the
>major factors in favour of battleriders.) If you go too far with meson-gun-only
>ships, particularly if you underarmour your ships, you do make yourself 
>vulnerable to having your meson guns scrubbed off by missile-armed 
>destroyers, of course.

<grin> But that's where I got heretical... I hate battle riders. They're
such a pain to deal with, what with having to build tenders and all. I'm
arguing just for small battleships, instead of the 200-500 Kton monsters in
"Fighting Ships". If you under-armor your line of battle, then you deserve
whatever bad stuff happens to you, as far as I'm concerned. 

Also, when you're building a new squadron, that tender takes up a lot of
valuable yard space that could be better used for building *real*
combatants. In a situation like the one we were talking about before,
jump-capable vessels make a lot more sense and are a much more efficient use
of your shipyard space.

My problem with the "missile-scrubber DD" idea was that it's not sustainable
in the long run. While you're scrubbing away at the meson-gun battleship,
he's turning some of your DDs into space dust. He can go back to base and
repair that damage a lot quicker than you can build more DDs, not to mention
*cheaper*. I always hated the fact that High Guard never had any rules for
running out of missiles, too... got very annoying after a while.

>It's no longer true in FFS, and hence not in T4 - FFS allows multiple parallel
>spinal mounts, and the new scaling laws for armour allow big ships to carry a 
>*lot* more armour than small ships, and under some circumstances allow big
>ships to carry PA guns big enough to cripple cruisers, and PA guns have *much*
>longer effective range than meson guns (though these advantages do go away
>at higher TLs.)

<sigh> I really do wish I'd picked up a copy of FF&S while it was available,
but I didn't. Sounds like some *major* changes were made to the space combat
system... do they still do internal damage the same way?

Michael

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:39:03 -0500
From: Michael Nutt <misha@crossrds.com>
Subject: Uncle Cleon, the taxman...

Wes Payne said:

>Thus spake "Edward Swatschek" <edjs@mindlink.net>:
>
>[I don't have TCS -- waaaah!  How much of a navy does it say a planet can 
> build?]
> 
>> 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).
>
>So, basically, a world can commit 250 to 750 credits per head, per year 
>to its navy?

<snip>

>But that doesn't bug me as much as the budget figure named.  Unless the 
>citizens of the Imperium, as a majority, live in more opulent splendor 
>than I'd ever imagined, I don't see where they can afford such incredible 
>taxes.
>
>Consider the average Cr30,000 per year earning Imperial citizen.  
>Admittedly, I'm pulling that figure straight from my keister (only one or 
>two crewmembers on the ship the players run in my current campaign make 
>anything near this figure, and they work on the bridge).  If we make some 
>scientific wild-ass guesses about how much taxes he/she/it pays (based on 
>what's 'average' for a late twentieth-century Earthling in an 
>industrialized nation), we figure Uncle Cleon gets around Cr5000 to 
>Cr7500 a year.  Now, we can only guess as to which percentage of this 
>goes to the planetary military.  In the Yoo Ess, the military gets less 
>than 10 percent of total outlays, so applying such a figure to the above 
>gets us Cr500 to Cr750 paid to Uncle Cleon's military each year.  Now, 
>despite what the Department of the Navy might want to tell you, the Navy 
>isn't the entire military, and doesn't get the entire defense budget, but 
>the figures cited above (way, way above) are perilously near the 
>S.W.A.G.ged figures I just came up with.

<grin> Perhaps some of the European members of the list would care to
express the joy they would feel at having to pay only 17-25% of their income
in taxes....

Seriously, though, I think a higher  tax percentage would be reasonable,
plus that number also would include the taxes paid by corporations, plus
other various and sundry taxes/fees/levies. Remember that the "per head"
number is just an approximation, and isn't a quote from Uncle Cleon's
Department of Revenue. Also, if the military budget goes up percentagewise,
they've got more money to play with. A more optimistic version of the SWAG
numbers above might be done with a 30%tax rate, an assumption that
individual income taxes are only 2/3 of the government income, and that the
military gets 15% of the budget. That would give 2025 Cr per head,
significantly higher than the numbers listed in TCS.

Michael

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:19:14 -0500
From: Earl Wajenberg <earl@chrysalis.com>
Subject: Re: Niven correction 

>> Look for "All the myriad ways", if you can find the
>> bloody thing anyplace, for his apt discourse on matter transport's effect on
>> society. 

> "All the Myriad Ways" was about the effect of parallel-universe travel on
> society.

The short story "All the Myriad Ways" is about parallel universes, but 
there is also a Niven anthology with the same title.  Besides containing
that short story, it also contains two essays, based, I think, on 
lectures or discussions given at SF conventions -- "Theory and Practice 
of Teleportation" and "Theory and Practice of Time Travel."  Both are 
very entertaining reading.

Earl Wajenberg

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 09:39:01 -0500
From: Michael Nutt <misha@crossrds.com>
Subject: Re: Starship Construction

Thad Coons writes:

>        Likewise, I don't have any large military ship designs except MT
>Fighting Ships. What other sources are there? (TNE Battle Rider, for one,
>maybe?)

My all-time favorite would have to be the original Supplement 9, "Fighting
Ships", although some of the designs could stand some improvement. The only
way you're probably going to get hold of a copy is take it from the
bullet-riddled corpse of one of the grognards around here, though...  :)

>        Apparently TCS gives a figure for ship construction capacity in
>Tons per population. While this is a useful first approximation, it is only
>that, and apparently at least some of Traveller's designers recognized it.
>There are several benefits to measuring the shipbuilding capacity of a
>world in MCr per thousand people (or whatever) instead of Tons per thousand
>people. 

Wellllllllll.... I have a problem with this, actually. To me, the idea of
measuring shipbuilding capacity in terms of cost seems highly suspect.
High-cost ships/systems/whatever won't necessarily take longer to
build/install than their cheaper counterparts. Especially when you're
considering new construction, tonnage seems to me a much more accurate
(although, I will concede, imperfect) guide to time required.

>        First, the varying effects of government, budget, population size,
>tech level, etc, some of which TCS apparently uses, can still be accounted
>for. 
>        Second, a natural consequence is that large, heavily armed,
>armored, and powered ships are fewer in number (because they are more
>expensive) than figures based solely or even chiefly on tonnage would
>indicate. That agrees with my "arm waving" based on intuition and analogy
>with the pre-stellar Terran military, and it's my chief difference with
>Hans and company. I hope I'm not alone in feeling the way I do about it.

<grin> You're not, actually... TCS also gives rules for maintaining fleets,
and these requirements *are* based on cost. The *only* place tonnage comes
into it is in allocating yard space for construction, and time to completion
for a particular vessel. *Everything* else is based on the size of your
naval budget... initial construction, maintenance costs, you name it.
However... the assumptions from TCS give a naval budget generally sufficient
to, in times of serious emergency, (and presuming you're not already
maintaining a huge fleet), fill your shipyards with new construction. 

>        Third, it allows actual ship prices to be used in estimating a
>world's naval capacity. It matters not whether those prices are derived
>from CT, MT, TNE, or T4; from published sources or private design, or
>whether the ships are Imperial, Vargr, or United Federation of Planets :-).
>There is no need to assume an average cost.

<grin> Well, Hans' "average cost" numbers were extremely rough, meant to
allow some "back-of-an-envelope" calculations about shipbuilding capacity.
My High Guard ship designs are in storage, but the MT military craft I have
available seem to support his range of 0.75-1.0 MCr per ton, *very* roughly.
However, as I said above, TCS *does* give evaluations in financial terms.

>        Fourth, measuring shipbuilding capacity in MCr per capita fits
>better with such things as naval budgeting and economic models for those
>who would like their SF economies to be as well thought out as their
>starship designs. 

Hmmm.... well, in that you're talking about using a budget, I can agree with
that. However, I have a problem with a yard being able to build a
significantly higher amount of tonnage in a period of time just because they
aren't spending as much money on a ship.

>        Fifth, it's no harder to figure capacity in MCr than it is to
>figure it in Tons.

But, is it any more meaningful? For example, TL 15 laser turrets come in two
versions -- one with grav focusing, and one without. Yet the non-focused
ones use less power (10.69 MW versus 4.90 MW, for heavy lasers), mass less
(144 tons versus 76.89 tons, again for heavy lasers), *and* have less
hardware (no grav focus), but they cost more (2.2 MCr versus 3.00MCr)! Why
should they take longer to install, as they would by your reasoning? (Why do
they cost more? I dunno...)

I just don't think basing construction time on cost alone is a very good
idea. It seems much more reasonable to me to base it on displacement
tonnage, and use that as a guideline for what a shipyard can handle at one
time. One also has to remember that, even if the yard can *build* it, if the
Navy can't *pay* for it, it doesn't get made, unless the referee allows
deficit financing <g>.

Michael

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 08:47:41 -0600
From: Paul Walker <tiger@goldinc.com>
Subject: Contact List

Greetings

I have another request for you good folks.

I want to set up a contact list on my Web page for current (read T4)
company's and products.  The idea I have is to list the company name with
the address and phone number and email address and contact (basically all
the ordering information) and then under that info include a list of the
products maybe a synopsis and a price.  Consider it free advertising.

I know where to get the IG information.

I know that Andy Lily has the CORE info and I am getting that from him.

Phil McGregor I think has a Trav Product.  Phil, eMail me what you have and
I will include it.

Someone does a Traveller Magazine (? Traveller Chronicle ?).  Let me know if
you want to be included in the list.

If anyone else currently has a license with IG/FFE, and you have new
Traveller products available, let me know and I will include you too.

When I get the thing done, I will let everyone know and pass out the URL.

Thanks again.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:02:36 -0600
From: "David Blustein" <dtb@NASCRAG.ORG>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace and Psionics

> Has anyone given any thought to using Psionics for Intersteller
> travel? Or even using telepathy to communicate from star system to
> star system? 

Alfred Bester's short story "The Stars, My Destination" is required 
reading on this subject.

[CT:S1:P44;CT:S4:P43]

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:25:54 -0500
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: MUDSHARK Modified Free Trader

Well, I finally got off my butt and designed a ship with the SSDS. I'm
running the CT adventure CHAMAX PLAGUE tonight so I wanted to recreate the
PC's ship from that adventure, a free trader named MUDSHARK. This isn't a
unique or innovative design, but what the heck. I also discovered some minor
errata in the tables sections of SSDS as published in Starships; I'll share
those later.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------
Free Trader MUDSHARK (modified BEOWULF class)

Tons:200	Volume: 2800		Cost in Mcr: 57.06
Crew: 2-6	Passengers H/M: 6	Low Berths: 20
Cargo: 43.5 	Controls: Std. Civ	TL: 15

8 Size Rating				1 Jump Rating
6 Fire Control Rating			1 G-rating/Thrusters
					1.0 Power Plant Rating
L Battery #1: 1,1,1,1			40.7 Fuel Rating /S/R
M battery #1:	3 (10)			1 Sandcaster Rating
					1A, 2P, J0 Sensor Rating
					
					0 Armor, 6 Structure

NOTES: Wedge Streamlined configuration. Normal crew is 1 Pilot/Astrogator,
1 Engineer, 1 Electronics/Gunner and 1 Medic. Fuel purifier can process
8.3 tons of fuel per hour. Time to scoop fuel is 32 minutes. Carries air/raft
in internal hangar.

The laser weapon and missle launcher share a heavy turret on the top of the
ship.
They and the sandcaster use the same MFD, thus only one system can be used
at a time 
with the fire control bonus, although other systems can be fired with the
standard fire
control bonus of 1 using the Multiple Actions rule.

SHIP'S LOCKER

8 soft vac suits with 24 hours life support and integral comms
4 shotguns (50 shells each)
8 comms
2 9mm automatic pistols (100 shots each)
4 machetes (broadswords) with belt scabbards
1 Comm relay unit
				
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------------------
Like I said, nothing new, but it will suit the purpose!
                                                        Allen

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:12:15 +0100
From: Timothy.Collinson@solent.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Jumpspace and Psionics

          >> Has anyone given any thought to using Psionics for Intersteller
          >> travel? Or even using telepathy to communicate from star system to
          >> star system?

          >Alfred Bester's short story "The Stars, My Destination" is required
          >reading on this subject.

          Or indeed, Heinlein's 'Time for the Stars' where he has twins sent on
          seperate starships when it's discovered
          they can communicate in just this fashion.  (And triplets are used for
           'cross' communication)

          tc

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:14:00 -0500
From: TPeterAZ@aol.com
Subject: Re: SSDS FSY Crescent-class C/SIS

In a message dated 96-12-19 21:32:20 EST, Roderick Darroch Elliott wrote:

> FSY refused to
>  comment on the rumour that Baron Erghaan of Mu has bought and resold no
>  less than 15 Moonshines in the past year, stating only that "...freedom of
>  trade and property rights are one of the cornerstones of the Imperium and
>  Famille Spofulam Yards respects both to the utmost, not to mention our
>  clients' confidentiality and privacy".  They did, however, most
>  emphatically deny that the Imperial Investigations Bureau has recently
>  subpeonaed all their client files..."

GENIUS!!! 'Nuff said.

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

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:52:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: CORE: ADVANCED CHARACTER GENERATION - Tell Us All!

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Andy Lilly wrote:

[snip]
> If you can generate a 1-year system that isn't _too_ much more work to roll
> up, _plus_ gives you a better feeling for character background, and which
> gives _equal_ skills to those in the basic T4 book (much easier than with
> CT, since T4 has started off with 1 skill min per year), then I don't think
> you can go wrong.
[snip]
> 
> CORE is currently planning out a series of such books. The obvious question
> is, what would you like to have in such a book other than the 1-year system?
> More detail on the character _class_, or splitting major classes into
> subclasses, or just adding lots of new careers?

My Take; 

Strike a balance between number of careers and detail.  I'd love to see
both, of course, but even my traveller budget is limited.

In addition to the "normal" attributes of new careers (skill tables,
promotion etc. tables) I'd like to see the following;

If a naval or merchant character, what ship did they serve in (name and
class/size) and at what level/position.  This should determine skills or
skills should determine position in some way.  Examples;

John Fredricks enlists as a Navy Ensign (he did NROTC first), Serves
aboard the "Raclaw" a Gazelle Class Close Escort, as Chief Gunner,
patrolling the Lanth Subsectro (location decided by GM, but activity by
table).

Now, since we know he served as Chief Gunner, he must have gone to Gunnery
training class ; Turret Wpns 1 (at least) is mandatory.  Other skills are
those applicable to 1). a small vessel, and 2) Patrol Duty.  this leaves
things pretty wide open, but excludes things like Spinal Weapons, Prop
Aircraft, or Heavy Weapons (bad thing to practice on a ship), and should
make Computer, Vacc Suit, Pistol, Carousing (i.e. on leave at vars ports),
or Electronics, as well as additional turret weapons, more likely since
these are the skill most likely to be encountered.  Also, if a language or
a skill like Liason is selected or rolled it should be proper to the
context and position of the character; "Captain Bordo appoints you as
Aslan Liason and you start to pick up a little of their language."

Second Example;

George Ferrata is a Scientist in his fourth term.  This term (or year) he
takes a grant to do research on a close-solar physics research station as
the interim director (or just director if its 4 years).  He will
definitely get an Admin skill level, and a High-Energy Physics skill level
(or Astrophysics).  His other likely skills are Leadership, Computer, Vacc
suit, Persuasion, Sensors, and electronics.  All consistent withhis
position and activity.  Since he is in a very responsible position and is
quite busy, non-specialized skills like carousing or gun combat (which
would be a side activity to his occupation) are less likely in this
position.  If he were assistant director instead, or still at the (ground
based) University, he might have more time for this.  

A secondary activity could be performed by a character depending on the
assignment.  this could be practicing a martial art (unarmed melee or
armed melee), volunteering for a non-profit organization (liason,
admin/legal, persuasion) or generally getting into trouble (carousing,
forgery, streetwise).  An enlisted army soldier or a graduate student 
might be able to have 2 secondary activities, while the above named
Research Center Director might have none, and an "unemployed" person (or a
Noble?) would have nothing but secondaries.    

What this seems to be turning into is making every year/term like the
"special Assignments" in the CT book 5-7 (?) methods.  It makes the
generation more like a story than a raw accumulation of skills and
ranks.

When we did character generation this campaign I did this 'on the fly' and
although it worked out ok, I had wished there was a list in front of me of
various activity categories and rank/command equivalents.

You did ask for suggestions, didn't you?

Pete

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 16:53:59 +0000
From: "S.T.M.Newman" <S.T.Newman@sheffield.ac.uk>
Subject: Jump Drive query

Hi - here's another question on Jump Drive from a newbie to this 
list:
Back in '95 I was running a brief TNE campaign in which the PCs were 
crew on a Broadsword-class mercenary cruiser, capable of Jump 3. In 
an encounter with a bunch of Vampire ships, the Broadsword's Jump 
drive was damaged, leaving it capable of only Jump1, with the nearest 
system 2 parsecs away. 
Now, the players reckoned that as the ship had plenty of fuel, it 
could still make 2 Jump1 jumps and reach another star. I ruled against this 
on the basis that if the ship jumped into interstellar space they 
wouldn't be able to plot its coordinates accurately enough for its 
next jump to take it anywhere near the right planet - they'd probably 
arrive outside the orbit of that system's outermost planets and face a long, 
long trip. Ergo they had to land the ship and repair the J-drive, 
allowing me to run an adventure I had planned. 
Was I right? If jumps to and from interstellar space are possible, 
what's to stop any Jump1 ship doing this? Even if it couldn't carry 
enough fuel, presumably it could use an interstellar depot, and these 
would be standard between inhabited systems (though  in TNE they'd be 
mostly stripped bare).
Any advice most appreciated.
As an aside, I waited many years before finally buying Traveller - in 
retrospect it was unfortunate that the edition I got was TNE. I quite 
like the rules system, except for the vehicle & starship combat 
rules, which I still don't properly comprehend - I used some"High Guard" 
variant  damage rules from an old White Dwarf article, where damage 
was  in tonnes, which I liked. Are the T4 starship combat rules any 
simpler? If so, I may give it a try.
- -Simon.

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 10:21:01 -0700 (MST)
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pill.pharm.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Re: Jump Drive query

On Fri, 20 Dec 1996, S.T.M.Newman wrote:

> Hi - here's another question on Jump Drive from a newbie to this 
> list:
> Now, the players reckoned that as the ship had plenty of fuel, it 
> could still make 2 Jump1 jumps and reach another star. I ruled against this 
> on the basis that if the ship jumped into interstellar space they 
> wouldn't be able to plot its coordinates accurately enough for its 
> next jump to take it anywhere near the right planet - they'd probably 
> arrive outside the orbit of that system's outermost planets and face a long, 
> long trip. Ergo they had to land the ship and repair the J-drive, 
> allowing me to run an adventure I had planned. 

	Nope, the players are right...this is the commonest reason to put
oversize fuel capacity in low jump number ships.

> Was I right? If jumps to and from interstellar space are possible, 
> what's to stop any Jump1 ship doing this? Even if it couldn't carry 
> enough fuel, presumably it could use an interstellar depot, and these 
> would be standard between inhabited systems (though  in TNE they'd be 
> mostly stripped bare).

	Now we get to the heart of the matter, and one that's been done to
stomped flat death over and over again...over there...next to that other
two dimensional 0.1C rock that looks vaguely like a horse ;-)

	There is nothing to stop this, once you get past the little black
book concept of jump tapes. Once computers are powerful enough to
calculate jump coordinates on their own, you can pretty much jump anywhere
you want.  As I said, that is the biggest reason to sacrifice cargo space
for fuel capacity.

	Economically, however, fuel depots in deep space are really,
really expensive, and are likely used only by people for whom cost is no
matter, like the military or intelligence services (leading to my favorite
quote from Independence Day 4, when Judd Hirsch says to someone "How'd
they pay for this???!!! You don't REALLY think anyone ever spent $300 on a
HAMMER, do you?")

> Are the T4 starship combat rules any 
> simpler? If so, I may give it a try.

There's a Really Simple Ship Combat System out there; I remember it being
announced, and I have my nice all formatted copy at home, where I can't
see it to tell you who did it, other than I know Joe Walsh was involved
with it.

Bruce Johnson
University of Arizona
College of Pharmacy
Information Technology Group

Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs

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

Date: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 13:01:49 -0800
From: "Glenn M. Goffin, Esq." <sudet@well.com>
Subject: Good Grief, Idaho

>From: "Rich Ostorero" <stormhvn@inreach.com>

>I once went through a ville  called Good Grief, Idaho. Population,
>according to the sign, was "three people and two dogs."

I lived in Idaho for many years, but don't recall Good Grief.  Where is 
it?

- --Glenn

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

Date: Fri, 20 Dec 96 18:13 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: RE: starships, Lab ship error

In-Reply-To: <96Dec18.150347est.5392@postoffice.theiia.org>

<< 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 haven't actually checked them all, but about half the designs *look* 
broken (wrong structure, faster than compensators can cope with, etc).

    ---------=========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: Fri, 20 Dec 96 18:13 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Deckplans for T4 supplement

In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9612181504.A22465-0100000@netcom19>

<< I'm writing a T4 supplement for GoldRush Games.  The supplement is about 
a small confederation of worlds, and in it will be two deckplans for
small, locally-made ships. 

I'm checking opinions here to see if the following format would be 
acceptable:
>>

Sounds fine to me. External views of the ship would also be useful. See 
Starships for how *not* to do 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: Fri, 20 Dec 96 18:13 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Deckplans for T4 supplement

In-Reply-To: <199612190051.SAA34032@bronze.missouri.edu>

<< When you write up the USP, consider mentioning wether or not the ship 
is Streamlined, Airframe, etc. >>

The USP should be altered to include config and streamlining IMHO.

    ---------=========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: Thu, 19 Dec 1996 09:10:44 -0800
From: Glenn Hoppe <starcity@eagle.wbm.ca>
Subject: Re: Hull Shapes...

Edward Swatschek wrote:
> 
> > From:          Dane Johnson <danger@visi.com>
> > Date:          Wed, 18 Dec 1996 11:02:58 -0600 (CST)
> 
> > 3.  Needle -- A pointy wedge.  Star Destroyers from the Other Game...
> 
> I think of it more as a narrower/pointier cylinder.
> 
> --
> Edward Swatschek - edjs@mindlink.net

I see it as *any* type of cone, whether the base is circular (as Edward
suggests) or rectangular (Dane's "pointy wedge")
- -- 
===== 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: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 12:49:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Re: Gazelle class Close Escort

On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Doug Sinclair wrote:

> Here is my first attempt at a T4 SSDS starship.
[snip]
> There is now a crew of 11 instead of the original 12.  They are
> the captain, the medic, the pilot, the navigator, four engineers,
> four electronics technicians and two gunners.  The commander, 
> pilot, navigator and chief engineer are the officers and have
> staterooms on the lower deck.  The medic has a stateroom to herself
> on the upper deck, and the others share the remaining three.
> 

Note that the original design (Traders & Gunboats) had notes to the effect
that the design was laid out specifically to prevent the enlisted
personnel from being able to mutiny and hijack the ship.  To keep to this
traditional layout, I think you should bunk all Officers on the upper deck
and all enlisted on the lower deck.

Also, I seem to remember that the  Captain (a Lt. Cmdr?) doubled as the
pilot (or navigator, I suppose), which is consistent with the fact that
there are only two seats on the bridge. 

Nice design though.  Definitely combines the 'normal' armament of lasers
with the unexpected punch of the Particle Accellerator.  I think I'll try
to design a barbette mounter PA turret tonight though, just to try to get
it a bit closer to the original (although a Spinal Mount is probably
closer to the *spirit* of the original).

Pete

P.S. No, Douglas, You cannot have a spinal mount on the CE!
(damn, I'm gonna hate having a player subbed to this list...especially
*that* player; "Can we have a wave motion gun?", "No.", " can we have a
disintegrator rifle?", "No."...)

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #778
**********************************

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".
