From owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM  Thu Dec 26 15:32:49 1996
Return-Path: owner-traveller@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Received: from phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (Phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM [206.66.87.5]) by emin47.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id PAA14206; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:32:42 -0500
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id PAA29021; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:28:30 -0500
Received: by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (bulk_mailer v1.5); Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:27:47 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM (8.7.3/8.6.9) id PAA28884 for traveller-digest-outgoing; Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:27:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 15:27:46 -0500
Message-Id: <199612262027.PAA28884@phaser.Showcase.MPGN.COM>
From: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@Phaser.ShowCase.MPGN.COM
Subject: Traveller-digest V1996 #791
Reply-To: traveller@mpgn.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@mpgn.com


Traveller-digest     Thursday, December 26 1996     Volume 1996 : Number 791



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

The following topics are covered in this digest:

Re: "Everything Is Driven By Economics" - long
Re: Tech and Starports
Re: Jumpspace and Psionics
Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #788
This is a test only
FFS Ion Drive
Starliner Sourcebook?
Jumpspace/Refueling/Marines
Re: Jumpspace and Psionics
Marines and Gunnery
Re: Marines and Gunnery
Re: Why the Vilani Lost
Re: Starports and TLs
Re: Maintenance costs
Re: Starship construction budgets
SSDS Armor rating error
Request; new  Melee weapons

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 18:38:59 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: "Everything Is Driven By Economics" - long

In mail you write:

> . Few nations that would want anything as essential as power
> generation to be dominated by foreign interests. OR would want power
> generation to be dominated by a starport generator (a single, large
> one would be most efficient and therefore most profitable!)
  
Very good point. Nobody wants to be vulnerable to a "single point
failure". Though because the *starport* wouldn't want that to happen, I
expect that there would be multiple widely seperated power plants,
*and* a power grid tying them together so you can do maintenance on
yours without having to do without.

Regardless of the way most of the locals feel about it, I rather expect
that the "startown" that will grow up just outside the extrality line
*will* use starport generated power. 

> Nice idea, except for the two weeks we were in the city, we didn't
> have *any* hot water. The plant had been closed down for repairs. All
> I could think was, thank God it was summer.
  
Which is why *any* "centralized" system *must* have cross connects
*and* surplus capacity. 
    
> Finally, for those that might say "but electricity isn't hot water",
> I say: true. However, in a world of cheap fusion power plants, don't
> you think that each house might have its own fusion power supply, and
> electricity grids become a thing of the past?
  
I know a lot of folks who'd *love* to buy one of the radioisotope power
packs that have been built to power some isolated weather and defense
installations. They'll power a typical household (and have power left
over!) for about 40 years before the power output drops to 50% of the
original. And they are *zero* maintenance.

But I rather suspect that when some sort of "do-it-yourself" power
becomes common, we'll keep the power grid, simply because it lets you
sell excess power, and draw extra power if you need it. And also so
that if your unit breaks down, you aren't in the dark. The fancier
meter required isn't *that* much more expensive. Of course, part of
this depends on what happens to current laws that *require* power
companies to purchase excess power generated by customers if the
customers want to sell it.

Still, I think that it makes sense for small towns, and neighborhoods
to form a "power co-op" and pool their power. And they can even choose
to tie in to adjacent co-ops to average things out further. You pay
into the co-op if you use more power than you generate. You get paid if
you generate more than you use. Of course, this means that if the co-op
produces a net excess they have to find a market for it. If they can't,
there's no extra money. Likewise, if they have a net shortfall, they'll
need to be able to make it up by buying excess from somewhere.

I don't think long distance power distribution grids will be
economical. But local grids will be. And if the local grids  keep
running short *someone* will upgrade their generator, or else one of
the co-ops will pool money to buy an extra one. I suspect that the most
likely scenario will be folks getting a loan from the co-op to pay for
a generator upgrade. They'll pay it off in installments, minus any
credits they get for for the excess power.

There's no guarantee that this is the way it'll happen, but it is
definitely the most *sensible* way to do things. 

Oh yeah, the generators will likely include some sort of batteries for
load leveling and backup. Say a Gigajoule or so. 220 volts times 200
amps = 44 kW. Multiply by 86400 seconds in a day gives 3.8 GW-seconds
or 3.8 Gj. I figure that on average a house uses only 1/4 of the
maximum possible load (probably a *lot* less), so that gives us 1
gigajoule of "backup". And a max output of the generator of 10 kW or
so. The combo would keep the generator running at constant load, while
you draw power from the batteries. 

Excess goes to the co-op. If the generator dies, or you need excess
power for an extended period then you start drawing power from the
co-op to charge the batteries.

Anybody with the design rules want to design such a household power
system and post the results? I expect that the vehicle rules will give
us a ballpark figure, but I also expect it to be very much on the
*high* end, as the household plant can be bigger and heavier as it
isn't going to be moving.

What I'd be interested in is size, cost, and fuel consumption at
various tech levels.
- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 19:17:54 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Tech and Starports

In mail, sdollar@goodnet.com writes:

> 2)  Can the low tech world's infrastructure support the item?  (What 
> good would a cellular phone do you in Rwanda?)  

Better recheck the real world. Most of Africa, and a lot of Asia is
*skipping* "phone lines" and going straight to cellular phones with
satellite links between cities. It's *cheaper* to build that sort of
infrastructure, than to build the sort we have with hardwired lines all
over the place!

You have to but in cell sites, and link them with trunks or microwave
links. You'd have to do the same with phone exchanges and "line
concentrators" in a wireline setup. But in a wireline setup, you'd
*also* have to run wires to every subscriber, and add a lot of power
capability to support the load that their phones put on the network.
The copper *alone* is hideously expensive. To say nothing of the labor
in stringing the lines.

So the biggest cities have both hard-wired phones and cell phones. The
smaller cities are getting *just* cell phones. And the governments are
moving towards adding a satellite phone or a small cell site to every
village. That way they get the communications infrastructure at a
fraction of the cost of doing it the old way. And they can use the same
satellite link to bring in things like educational radio and TV to help
teach the villagers. 

I fully expect similar things to happen in Traveller. Any planet that
has regular contact with spacers will likely buy something like the
Motorola Iridium satellite phone system rather than deploy wire all
over the place. They'll reserve hardwired links for things like some
military needs.

"Low tech" planets that have been in contact with high tech planets for
a while are apt to be *very* strange by our standards. Picture the Wild
West with cell phones or satellite phones available. Or picture the
Middle Ages or earlier with commanders of armies (at least) being able
to communicate *real time* with both each other and with their
king/emperor/whatever. 

Remember, something like the Iridium system is dirt cheap at even M0
tech levels (It's expected to cost less than $100 million *now*). Cheap
enough that it'd probably be installed for the convenience of high tech
visitors if the place has a permanent port.  Selling phones and
batteries (or small solar panels) to natives is then a matter of "why
not"? It'll bring in some cash, and won't hurt the high tech folks.

This can be played to good advantage to surprise players. After
crashing in the wilderness of some planet, they could get found by
nomads and negotiate for transport to the port, only to later find out
that the "chief" of the tribe has a phone and could have called the
port to pick them up. He didn't mention it because he saw no reason to.
Or because he figured that if they were *that* ignorant, he'd just take
the profit and not "confuse" matters with such "irrelevant" details.

Picture the players being properly impressed with how well he can
predict the weather, and then as they are parting at the port asking
him about it, and being told "Oh, I just call up the weather forecast
from the port...." :-)

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 17:09:56 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Jumpspace and Psionics

In mail you write:

> Leonard Erickson wrote:
>> I decided that I wanted to read "The Demolished Man". And was *very*
>> unhappy to discover that it is not in stock at any of the bookstores I
>> checked. I haven't had a chance to see if it's still in print, but
>> given that I've seen ads for a (too expensive) "special edition" of
>> both it and "The Stars My Destination", I rather suspect that it *is*
>> out of print, at least as a normal paperback. <sigh>
>
>         Try the Science Fiction Book Club (www.sfbc.com); I just got _both_ of
> them.

I'm on a *very* limited budget. And I don't want to get into the usual
SF Boookclub mess where I forget to return a card or return one late
and wind up owing for books I don't want. Or is it now possible to just
order books from them without the monthly selections bit?

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Wed, 25 Dec 1996 20:28:03 PST
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1996 #788

In mail you write:

>>       On a further note I would not want to have the routine 
>> maintenance for_my_ship done at a type B starport.  What if they 
>> discoved that the Jump Drive was worn & needed replacing, a type B port 
>> could not make one (by definition) & you would then have to get an 
>> import at a higher cost & expense, probably prepaid.
>
> Why would a Type B not be able to make a Jump Drive? Starport type is
> independent of TL, pretty much.

I think he's going with the fact that Class B ports are specifically
described as *not* being able to build jump capable craft, while Class
A ports can.

- -- 
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 21:39:32 +0800
From: "Benjamin Barton" <aramis3d@iinet.net.au>
Subject: This is a test only

***************************************************************
E-Mail: aramis3d@iinet.net.au
URL   : http://www.iinet.net.au/~aramis3d
Fono  : (09) 361 3657    Australia
***************************************************************

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 22:14:31 +0800
From: "Benjamin Barton" <aramis3d@iinet.net.au>
Subject: FFS Ion Drive

Page 72 of FFS ...Does anybody know the formula for the surface area taken up
by a Ion Drive.

***************************************************************
E-Mail: aramis3d@iinet.net.au
URL   : http://www.iinet.net.au/~aramis3d
Fono  : (09) 361 3657    Australia
***************************************************************

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:43:18 -0500
From: GoldRushG@aol.com
Subject: Starliner Sourcebook?

  This is an idea I had for a Traveller sourcebook to be published by GRG.
I'm interested in your opinions.

STARLINERS (Working Title)

CONCEPT

  A 96 page sourcebook detailing passage on commercial starliners. The book
would cover a variety of topics, including booking flights, accomodations,
life aboard a deep space commercial vessel, security, starports, and so on.
It would aso include writeups/backgrounds of several commercial carrier
copanies and commercial starliner ship designs (including deck plans).

  The book could be used in any Era, but would be written to compliment IG's
line of books. We could also throw in more detail about the Traveller's Aid
Society, including members-only lounges at starports, etc.

  We would like to find an author for the project asap.

  Mark Arsenault
  Gold Rush Games

SUGGESTED OUTLINE

INTRODUCTION
	How to Use This Book
	Overview of Passenger Transport
COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION
TRAVEL THROUGH THE IMPERIUM
	Regulations
	Traditions
BOOKING PASSAGE
	Starports
	Travel Agencies
ACCOMODATIONS
	Life Aboard Ship
	Passage
		High Passage
		Mid Passage
		Low Passage
	Room Service
	Intership Commnications
	Meals
	Entertainment
THE CREW
	Command
		Captain
		First Officer
		Section Heads
	Support Crew
		Stewards
		Loadmasters
		Purser
		Yeoman
		Miscellaneous
CARGO
	Private Luggage
	Commercial Cargo
	Space-A Cargo
	Mail
SECURITY
	Starport Security
		Terminal Security
			Screening
			Gates
		Flightline Security
			Ship Inspections
			Berthing/Cargo Loading
	Onboard Security
		Counter-Terrorism
		Marshals
		Private Security
		Security Programs
		Weapons
	Escorts
		Anti-Piracy
EMERGENCIES
	Misjumps
	Crash Landings
	Escape Pods/Boats/Shuttles
COMMERCIAL CARRIERS
	Company A
	Company B
	Company C
TRANSPORT VESSELS
	Vessel A
	Vessel B
	Vessel C
	Deck Plan(s)
	Etc...
ADVENTURES
	Adventures (2)
	Adventure seeds

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:31:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Steven Bonneville <bonnevil@cs.umn.edu>
Subject: Jumpspace/Refueling/Marines

Brian Borich wrote:

>       As an aside. Several old JTAS articles are now currently available on
> my web site. And with some luck lots more should be appearing.

The Marc Miller article is the famous exposition on jumpspace, so those of
you who were asking all those questions about it in the last few weeks may
want to have a look.  

  http://members.aol.com/kagekiha/traveller/jumpspace.htm

"Phillip McGregor" <aspqrz@curie.dialix.com.au> wrote:

> Seems to me that in systems where there *are* mainworlds that there will be
> *huge* economic incentives for ships to fuel there. Only in systems that
> are otherwise uninhabited will there be any point in fuelling at a GG.

In the first editions of Traveller, using gas giants as fuel was referred
to as "wilderness refueling", so this makes sense.  The situation might be
different somewhere like Regina, where the mainworld is the moon of a gas
giant, but I haven't done the math.

Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net> wrote:

>    But, I'm curious: do you plan on changing the Navy 
> character generation to get rid of the Gunnery skills there, or will both 
> have that skill available?

Both should.  The Marines only manned *some* of the gunnery decks in the
old days -- most weapons should be manned by naval personnel from the 
Gunnery department.  It seems to me this made sense, especially since the
bay and turret weapons were similar to energy weapons that might be found
on Marine vehicles.  Of course, this could be a change that was instituted
years after the founding of the Imperium.

  Steve Bonneville
  <bonnevil@itlabs.umn.edu>

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 10:32:43 -0600
From: "David Blustein" <dtb@NASCRAG.ORG>
Subject: Re: Jumpspace and Psionics

Leonard Erickson wrote:
>
> I decided that I wanted to read "The Demolished Man". And was
> *very* unhappy to discover that it is not in stock at any of the
> bookstores I checked.
>
> I'm on a *very* limited budget. And I don't want to get into the
> usual SF Boookclub mess where I forget to return a card or return
> one late and wind up owing for books I don't want.


I bought a copy of _The Demolished Man_ here in Chicago a couple of
days ago for only US$5.00. (Okay, okay, US$5.44 including tax. :-) 
There were at least a dozen more copies on the shelves at the same 
price.

I found it at a terrific SF book store called, of all things, "The 
Stars *Our* Destination".

Their web address is

     http://www.sfbooks.com./

Their e-mail address is

     <stars@sfbooks.com.>


Might be worth it to you to drop 'em a note.

Oh yeah, it's a pretty good read. too. (I definately understand the 
Zhodani better than before. :-)

Jeepers, Creepers,
Where'd you get those Peepers? ...

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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 12:18:10 -0500
From: 34zbtxq@cmuvm.csv.cmich.edu (Susan M. Shock)
Subject: Marines and Gunnery

>
>Sounds like a good change, Allen (hey, I'm as much of a grognard as the 
>next guy[G]).  But, I'm curious: do you plan on changing the Navy 
>character generation to get rid of the Gunnery skills there, or will both 
>have that skill available?

Since the Navy characters had Gunnery in every other version of Traveller, I
think I'll let them continue to have it. Only the larger Naval ships have
Marine Gunners as I understand it, so someone has to be able to fire the
guns on the smaller ships!
        HOWEVER: after looking at the old Traveller Book and the Basic
Character Generation tables in MegaTraveller, I was surprised to find that
Marines didn't get Gunnery under those systems either! Marines got Gunnery
skill in Book 4: Mercenary and the Advanced character creation rules in MT.
So the fact that they didn't have it in T4 doesn't surprise me now, but I
still feel they should have it, so I'm still making the change.
        See? If you don't like something about the game, CHANGE IT! You can
do that; it's ok!
        However, I did make a mistake when I said where the change was
taking place. For the sake of clarity, it comes in entry 3 of the CAREER table.

>Perhaps put melee combat under Physical, and either Pilot or another 
>entry of Technical under Career?  Hmmm.

Marines do not have Melee Combat in their CAREER table; they have blade
combat, which represents their cutlass training. I don't think they should
have Pilot; that makes them a little TOO much like Naval characters at that
point.

                                                Allen
>

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 11:15:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Joseph E. Walsh" <ransom@connect.iconnect.net>
Subject: Re: Marines and Gunnery

On Thu, 26 Dec 1996, Susan M. Shock wrote:

> Since the Navy characters had Gunnery in every other version of Traveller, I
> think I'll let them continue to have it. Only the larger Naval ships have
> Marine Gunners as I understand it, so someone has to be able to fire the
> guns on the smaller ships!

Good point.

> Marines do not have Melee Combat in their CAREER table; they have blade
> combat, which represents their cutlass training. I don't think they should
> have Pilot; that makes them a little TOO much like Naval characters at that
> point.

Sorry, I was talking about making those changes to the Naval charts, to 
get rid of the gunnery skill (which, obviously, isn't something you want 
to do), not the Marine charts...


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

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 96 18:11 GMT0
From: aboulton@cix.compulink.co.uk (Andrew Boulton)
Subject: Re: Why the Vilani Lost

In-Reply-To: <199612250429.PAA20937@curie.dialix.com.au>

<< > One problem: if your theory is correct, once the Ziru Sirka reached a 
> certain size (and so a long travel time to/from the frontier), the first 
> race to seriously fight back would destroy it. I suppose the Terrans 
> could have been the first to do so, but it seems unlikely.

I don't see why size should be a factor in my argument - perhaps I'm just
dense :-{ >>

Flexibility and reaction times. Local commanders had to keep checking with 
their bosses, which could take months. Given time, the Vilani could have 
adapted to the Terran tactics, but by the time the leaders had got the 
orders to the front, the war was already over.

    ---------=========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, 26 Dec 1996 19:16:07 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Starports and TLs

Phillip McGregor writes:
>The societies in question are mechanised and industrialies - otherwise they
>wouldn't qualify as TL5+ (sorry, to qualify at this level you *have* to be
>mechanised and industrialised - that's what defines the TL in historical
>terms). 

I may be alone in this, but I really think that defining TLs in historical
terms is a major mistake. I think TLs should be defined in terms of the
items that can be produced. This can obviously be the same way that they
were produced in the one historical sample we have to look at, but this is
not IMO the _only_ way it can be done. As an example, I have a world with
a powerful social abhorrence of mass-production. They don't mind high-tech
items, but only as long as they are hand-made. Obviously this cuts down on
the number of computers and grav vehicles they have (And on imports, too).
This is not really an argument against your main point; said world doesn't
have a Class A or B starport either.

>[since] there has *never* been any caveat about having to be a Starport of a 
>TL equal to or higher than that of the ship desiring maintenance *and* there
>has *never* been any mention about it costing more, then we *must* assume
>that this is literally true (unless you want to redesign the game - in
>which case, feel free to take it up with Marc if you want it to be more
>than unofficial and non-canon).

No, wait a minute here. Even if your thesis is 100% right, we can only
conclude that the maintenance rule is incompatible with the fact that the
background has all these low- to medium-tech worlds with A or B starports.
I don't agree with your automatic assumption that changing the background
is preferable to changing the maintenance rule. 

>So. We have this high tech (using T4, say TL12) facility sitting in the
>middle of a (say) TL5 world. 

OK.

>The locals recognise the value of the tech - its part of their inherent 
>tech culture itself - and so will attempt to acquire it. 

First unproven assumption. You might just as well argue that since they
_don't_ have the high tech then they obviously _don't_ appreciate the
tech ("What was good enough for my grandpoppa is good enough for be, begad!")

>What is stopping them? There are no Imperial Laws against it - the Imperium 
>is set up to *facilitate* trade, not to restrict it! The cost of 
>interstellar Transport is no more than 1000 Cr a ton (which we all know
>is likely to be a complete crock - but it *is* "canon"). And best of all,
>there's all these ships passing through there!!!

Well, for one thing, their average income is about Cr4000/year (_Striker_ 
says Cr2000, but that wouldn't allow them to survive). For another, their 
money is worth only 56% of that when they buy imported stuff. That is really
the main problem. The _average_ citizen can't afford it. You're quite right
in you claim that the world leaders will be driving grav cars and their
bodyguards packing laser guns, but a TL is indicative of what the average
guy is using.

>This *will* mean that there will be a real reason for ships to carry
>cargoes to and from the world to *encourage* the use of high tech items by
>the locals in return for the raw materials (or services) that makes it
>worthwhile putting the starport there in the first place! 

I know that TCS implies that the capacity of a starport always is 
proportional to the population of the world it is on, but that must be
a simplification for the purposes of running TCS campaigns. It is quite
likely that a class B starport on TL 5 world is very small compared to
the total population of the world. 

>It *may* mean that the relatively low local individual salaries (compared 
>to the costs/salaries of a high tech world) will *limit* the spread of high 
>tech stuff, but it will be there 

Yes, it will be there, but it won't be there in quantity, because the world
can't afford to import it in quantity. If they could afford to import it in
quantity, it would be a TL 12 world!

>- and, inevitably, because of the nature of the society that produces a 
>sustainable TL of 5+, it will spread and spread rapidly! 

It will spread only if the people of the world can afford to buy it. And
since the world is TL 5, obviously they couldn't afford it. I don't see any
contradictions in that.

>OK, maybe they won't have a 100 brands of TL12 Computers - maybe they'll 
>have only one; maybe they'll only have TL11 Computers 

Maybe they will only have one computer.

>- but they *will* have computers, and these *will* replace TL5 mechanical 
>adding machines! Forex, a TL12 produced pocket calculator, produced down 
>to a price for the specific trade with a TL5 (or general low tech, but
>industrialised) world will be cheaper than said mechanical calculator *and*
>be much more functional than a mechanical calculator could ever be.

Ah, if you can demonstrate that, then I will have to consider revising my
ideas on the subject (Though I may want to try making the computer more
expensive rather than mess up the whole Traveller background). But can you?

And have you considered the possibility that the comparative price of a TL
12 computer and a TL 5 mechanical calculator is germane only if the average 
citizen can afford a mechanical calculator in the first place? Remember that
average food and average lodging alone costs Cr3600 per year.


      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: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 19:27:22 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Maintenance costs

Phillip McGregor writes:
>Again, yes, it makes perfect sense - except for the teeny little problem
>that *all* iterations of Traveller state that maintenance can be done at
>*any* A/B Starport, and make no mention of TL.

That's not quite true (though almost). _Striker_ impose a blanket doubling
of maintenance costs for all kinds of equipment if it is imported higher-
tech. And TCS impose double time and cost for jump-drive repairs at Class
B starports and forbids repairs of anything of higher than local TL.

>And, again, wishing the rules weren't what they are won't change the facts 
>that they *are* what they are!

No, but the fact that a rule contradicts something in the background
dosen't automatically mean that it's the background that should be changed.
To the contrary, my opinion is that if at all possible, the rules should
be amended to support the background (Though I have to admit that this is
not, alas, always possible).


      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: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 20:45:43 +0100 (MET)
From: Hans Rancke-Madsen <rancke@diku.dk>
Subject: Re: Starship construction budgets

Michael Nutt writes:
>K.C. wrote:
>>Not to mention I would bet that only a small percentage of military 
>>spending goes towards construction of new ships. Most would go towards 
>>maintenance of existing ships, and personnell costs.
> 
><grin> Quite true... but remember, the Navy *is* the principal service.
>Also, that TCS number just gives the budget... annual maintenance of 10%
>listed cost has to come out of that. You're not going to be able to spend it
>all on new construction unless you've just lost your entire fleet... 

It looks like you've lost track of the previous thread. My original point
was that the worlds of Corridor Sector had a big slice of their naval budget
freed in early 1117 when the whole Corridor Fleet went corewards. Suddenly
they are not supporting those ships any more. In effect, they HAVE just lost
their entire fleet (except for the rather sizable fraction of non-jump
capable ships). The estimates I came up with were on what they could build 
with all those suddenly-available resources and how fast they could do it.

BTW. TCS dosen't say anything about replacements. I guess that in a standard
TCS campaign the point is moot because ships tend to be shot up rather than
to wear out, but my opinion is that part of the 10% maintenance figure pays
for replacement ships. I'd say something like 2% per year.


      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: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:51:14 -0500
From: "Chris Cox" <chriscox@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: SSDS Armor rating error

I haven't seen any mention of this error since Starships came out. 
Unless I'm mistaken, Armor rating for ships created using the SSDS
need to be multiplied by 10 to make them compatable with ships
created with the QSDS.  Basically the paragraph for calculating a
ship's USP armor rating should read something like this:

Armor
Convert the armor value chosen using the USP Conversion chart below
and then multiply by 10.

Chris Cox
(chriscox@ix.netcom.com)
The Draconis Cluster Traveller pages
(http://users.aol.com/yanbeck/trav.htm)

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

Date: Thu, 26 Dec 1996 14:25:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Peter  H. Brenton" <pete@cummings.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Request; new  Melee weapons

On Tue, 24 Dec 1996 Neveron@aol.com wrote:

> Does anyone have any new melee weapon designs? We seem to get boarded fairly
> often and I'm getting tired of paying for new wallpaper.
>                                                                    shs
>                                                                   (dsf)

Also, pointers to relatively harmless weapons that convince players to
spend their hard earned credits on what are, basically, useless kitchen
appliances.

Player;
"I point our new defibrilator rifle at the alien horde as they approach
and pull the trigger."

GM
"The two antennae like objects at the business end of the weapon begin to
counter-rotate."

Player
"(oh boy, these guy are toast) Ok then what happens?"

GM
"Depends, you don't happen to have any whipping cream do you? {evil
laugh}"  

> 
> Pete-Can we have a blaster launcher?
> 

I learned a long time ago not to import weapons from any kind of video
game (with the BFG9000).

So; No.

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

End of Traveller-digest V1996 #791
**********************************

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".
